The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: The proof is in the pudding...
The proof is in the pudding...
Look how the video is being used - to attack one of our own... to attack a man that worked closely to Dr. Paul. So - seeing how these guys operate - why should Jack give them the time of day? The only reason they released the video is as an attack on Jack Hunter - one of our own. Why? Because he believes the conspiracy theories hurt the Liberty Movement.
Seriously - look at how many of you are reacting. You'd think Jack just came out of a secret Bilderberg meeting. Jack should be free to not answer questions. Yes - 'We Are Change' is free to publish their video - but this is an attack, plain and simple... it serves absolutely no other purpose.
And not only do they attack Jack Hunter - but John Tate. And you guys are buying it! Sorry - I won't stand for these attacks.
When I first talk to someone about Ron Paul, the first thing I have to clear up with them is "Ron Paul? Doesn't he think 9/11 was an inside job?" Geez... Thanks guys. Yes - thanks to you, 9/11 conspiracy theories are tied to Ron Paul's neck. Here is some truth: You Hurt the Movement!
Oh, and for the Truthers that think Ron Paul believes your 9/11 theory... he doesn't. If he did, he shouldn't have voted to give authority to go into Afghanistan. He wouldn't cite 9/11 as an example of blowback.
Replies to this comment: