9-11 is political suicide - stop the bickering or step up to the plate and run as the 9-11 truth candidate!
I get really annoyed when I see people trying to state the case for candidates that they need to state 9-11 was an inside job by George Bush and Dick Cheney etc... The problem with this is you have no proof, you only have theory and speculation, no facts! People like Richard Gage present their case very well WITH FACT! They are getting attention because they present only FACT!
This is political suicide and if you don't believe that then step up to the plate and run for office on 9-11 was an inside job and let's see how far you get. If you win your seat to congress or governor then I will shut up and never open my mouth again.
If you inside job people really want a new investigation then get some honest people elected that will do what their voters want and start probing for that new investigation.
Stop throwing the baby out with the bath water and understand how this game is played. If you don't understand how a game is played you will never win the game EVER!
We have lots of liberty candidates left and lots of work to do, now stay focused and let's get the right people in office.
It does not matter how many
It does not matter how many congressman or senators or gubernational seats liberty movement win... 1...2...3...or even 10.
Those "dark forces" inside government responsible for 911 will find way to neutralize them. If they were able to pull out 911 they are perfectly capable to convince a few people to commit suicide or die in heart attack.
Exposing truth about 911 is not political suicide it is the only way to achieve liberty in this country. You are either mediocre old school double talk politician or you work for those you pretend to fight.
Please explain why this post
Please explain why this post is divisive and also point to where my response to comments are combative and abusive.
LOL!
LOL!
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
I haven't seen anyone say that
All I have seen is let everyone believe what they can figure out and allow people to question each other as well as the government. But don't kill a candidate politically if he/she says to question the government all you want. Neocons think we should not question the government. That is a no go and every candidate should be brave enough to say it and stand by it.
Medina said, 'I am not a truther. But I think people should be allowed to ask questions.' Beck said, 'Let me get my french kiss from Perry that he promised me, I got a yes out of her.'
Yes! We need a Truther Candidate
That's exactly right! We need someone who the American people respect. What a way to blow this 9-11 issue wide open.
Take the fight to the 9-11 doubters!!!
Oh, I see...
Ron Paul ran from the truth issue in 2008, and we all know how well that turned out.
Yes, AS I POINTED OUT, Ventura was already out of office before 911. Nonetheless, besides McKinney's defeat (and she did better in the primary than your liberty candidates), you have not one shred of evidence the 911 issue is political suicide.
Hey, you want a replay of 2008, be my guess. Just realize, 2012 is the LAST opportunity for a peaceful solution to this.
Bob, let's keep this in
Bob, let's keep this in perspective.
My post is very clear that 9-11 was an inside job by Bush and Cheney is political suicide. All Mckinney suggested was Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time.
Ron Paul was running for President against 10 other better known candidates. He did win his seat for congress in 2008 with over 70% of the vote!
McKinney was defeated by Denise Majette in the 2002 Democratic primary, in part due to Republican crossover voting in Georgia's open primary election, which permits anyone from any party to vote in any party primary, this "usually rewards moderate candidates and penalizes those outside the mainstream" And in part due to her "controversial profile, which included a suggestion that president George W. Bush knew in advance of the September 11 attacks.
There were also only 2 people in the primary and Mckinney was a 5 term Democrat incumbent and by no means an unknown liberty candidate of today. Of course she is going to receive many more votes than an unknown liberty candidate.
So let's see, Mckinney loses her seat she held for 10 years campaigning on 9-11. Ron Paul runs from the truth as you state and wins his seat with over 70% of the vote.
What more proof do you need?
i doubt we have until 2012
but believe what you want. i support a new investigation, but no inside job slogan, no chants. as far as i know truthers hate rand over the gitmo issue and many dropped out. there's been no truther slogan around rand's campaign, ever. yet look at how well he's doing.
Bravery is very
Charismatic to me.
Let the candidates state whatever they wan´t and the voters decide.
The people will get what they elect.
Everyone has a right to their opinion.
Personally I am not a one issue man.
All candidates have flaws.
Only person I agree with 100 % is myself.
/Mike
Front Fell Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg
But Mike, Don't you sometimes wonder if you agree with
yourself??!
Well, let's take a count so far.
Joe Kennedy in MA parroted the official story and got 1% of the vote. Debra Medina not only parroted the official story, she implied those who believe 911 was an inside job are "despicable". She got 19% of the vote.
Cynthia McKinney was the only member of Congress who ever suggested 911 was an inside job, and was beaten by the party machine, though with a higher percentage than your two "liberty candidates". Jesse Ventura is the highest former elected official who believes 911 was an inside job, but could probably still be re-elected as Minnesota Governor.
Who needs whom, here?
if i'm not mistaken
ventura was out of office before 911 became an issue? and he has not held an office since then? and if you want to make a serious case about real statistics, there's gotta be more research than what you can sum up in one paragraph, if this were any serious attempt in doing so. if this were not, perhaps don't pose as one.
"I get really annoyed when I
"I get really annoyed when I see people trying to state the case for candidates that they need to state 9-11 was an inside job by George Bush and Dick Cheney etc..."
Nice strawman. It isn't gonna work. No one is saying that except you. For myself, Candidates don't have to agree with me about 911, they only have to do me the courtesy of allowing me to question the official story without insulting me for it.
I really wonder if it is even possible to work within this completely corrupted system now. I just don't think there is much of a chance anymore.
I certainly don't think we should just shut up, play along and compromise everything that we believe just to have the honor of being cheated and butchered in the corrupt process regardless.
We are doomed if we don't start rocking the boat and demanding justice on the whole host of wrongs committed against us. If candidates are too timid to take a stand then we have no use for them.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
well
you focus on raising awareness for the fact that 911 still has some questions, and the majority of us will move on to do our best to get libertarian candidates elected. don't really have a care with what you do with an individual's free time and effort, just don't get in other people's way, if the constitutional morale is at all left in you.
Seems you are putting up the
Seems you are putting up the straw man.
What liberty candidate stated you don't have the right to question the official story?
As I stated, step up to the plate and run on the 9-11 was an inside job platform and see how far you get. Accusations without fact once again.
BTW I am part of AE911 and Richard Gage and Bob Tuskin are friends of mine.
Medina, when she sold out on the Marc Davis show.
Nuff said.
"What liberty candidate
"What liberty candidate stated you don't have the right to question the official story? "
Where did I say that? Again, strawman.
So, You say you are part of AE911. That makes me sad.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
Your quote : "Nice strawman.
Your quote : "Nice strawman. It isn't gonna work. No one is saying that except you. For myself, Candidates don't have to agree with me about 911, they only have to do me the courtesy of allowing me to question the official story without insulting me for it."
I ask again : "What liberty candidate stated you don't have the right to question the official story?"
You sure like to use the word strawman considering this is a very simple question to put in context your own quote.
Is reading comprehension not
Is reading comprehension not your strong suit? Break down the sentence:
"Candidates don't have to agree with me about 911"
-- I thing that's pretty easy to understand, but correct me if i'm wrong.
"they only have to do me the courtesy of allowing me to question the official story..."
-- Wait for it!
..."without INSULTING ME for it".
-- You see? I don't say anyone said that I don't have the right to question 911. I said I should be allowed to question it without being insulted. The "without being insulted" is the qualifier.
Perhaps you hadn't been paying attention, but perhaps a couple of recent events involving Schiff and Medina might help explain my comment.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
I read and comprehend very
I read and comprehend very well, it seems you have the difficulty in this area. You posed the statement not me. You implied that at least 1 liberty candidate has stated that you don't have the right to question 9-11 and they insulted you. Then when I pose a simple question you throw the nice strawman at me, it is unwarranted. The problem with people like yourself is that you cry strawman when you are the one tossing around strawman tactics.
You are attempting verisimilitude in an impudent manner to attempt discountenance of my inexorable integrity in a very unmagnamious fashion. It seems you are implacable in your predilection again attempting to extirpate the context of the original post as well as the questions posed to you and then in an exasperated impudent manner.
Where in my post did I ever state what you assert as to censor anyones right to question anything including 9-11.
So instead of admitting you
So instead of admitting you mistook my meaning, you are going to continue pretending I said something else. Fine, be an ass. See if I care.
Anyone with a grain of wit can understand what I wrote was not how you've interpreted it.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
So I go from strawman to an
So I go from strawman to an ass, wow I guess I am improving! Again, you posed the statement, The context of my post is crystal clear, your comments pertaining to my post were crystal clear.
Please address my concerns in paragraph # 2.
Thank you.
I've tried to explain myself.
I've tried to explain myself. You don't seem to care. I'll try again.
I'll begin by stating that I never meant to say anyone was preventing me from expressing my views. Is that clear enough?
No candidate has ever said I don't have the right to question 911. How's that?
Now, I meant to express my concern that some candidates, feel the need to insult those of us that do question the events surrounding 9/11. Is that clear? I don't like it. It smacks of cowardice.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
you are wrong antifed...
you are wrong antifed...
“Defiance of God’s Law will eventually bring havoc to a society.” - Dr. Ron Paul
How so? Nevermind, I don't
How so? Nevermind, I don't care. You are probably the same nitwit on a different account.
Instead of asking for clarification (you obviously need someone to hold your hand), you'd rather just be an asshole. Fine.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
Strawman again? Insulting
Strawman again?
Insulting and attacking another member here is a violation of the forum guidelines. You have done it twice in this thread to three different people, one being myself. Grow up.
I agree, and I am sorry to say...
that running on a one issue type of campaign will NOT get you in office. You must think big picture, the thing is to find a candidate that will uphold the Constitution when he votes. It will take some investigating, and looking into the candidate before that decision can be reached, unfortunately most of America does not have the intellect or time to do so. We must chose Liberty/Freedom minded people to represent us, and our nation, once again, most Americans are happy letting the gubment take care of them, and will just do the mindless things that need to be done to survive. In California the only two candidates I would even consider running against Barber (the bonehead) Boxer would be Tom Campbell, and Chuck Devore. If you live in California, and want a real Liberty minded candidate, look at Chuck Devore, he is a good guy, with an honorable background, and he will stand his ground for the working, and small business people.
You will be banned
You will be banned
http://www.rxforliberty.com/10/
Cedar Park, Texas
5 Aug 2007
LOL!
LOL!
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan
LOL!!! wipe the druel from
LOL!!! wipe the druel from the corner of your face..
http://www.rxforliberty.com/10/
Cedar Park, Texas
5 Aug 2007