Ron Paul’s 9/11 assertion
Suppose you suggest to your daughter, wife or girlfriend that it’s not safe to walk alone through certain parts of a city late at night. Does this mean you’re excusing the actions of would-be rapists and robbers? Likewise, is it wrong for the police to look for motives for a murder, because doing so implies that the dead person deserved to die? Of course not!
This letter has not been edited.
Good for you, John,
You broke it down into terms so simple, even the bush cultists could comprehend.
Watch it or Mr. Paul may have his tenure revoked...oops wrong person, wrong issue, out.
Posted by J on May 29, 2007 02:02 PMYou mean Ron Paul is telling us that chickens are coming home to roost? No way!
During the debate, Ron Paul stated "They attacked us because we've been over there" But none of the candiates actually says who "They" are.
Not one of them will challenge the governments Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory that is presented to the public in the fake investigation referred to as The 9/11 Commission Report.
The best candidate to lead us will be one who undestands and admits that the offical conspiracy theory is a lie and calls for an independent investigation of this crime. A good place to start is with David Ray Griffins book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
Posted by Patriot Herb on May 29, 2007 03:10 PMThen sack him for plagarism
Posted by on May 29, 2007 03:19 PMThe first law of successful political campaigns is LIE LIE LIE. Voters are not interested in a candidate that tell the truth.
Posted by Holy Reality on May 29, 2007 03:35 PMEnough already! Lets listen to Rosie, she knows the truth about 9-11 and she's ready to talk (after a jelly donut, a ham sandwich and a plate of deviled eggs and maybe a bit of carpet to munch on)
Posted by Harry on May 29, 2007 04:04 PMAdvising your daughter not to put herself in peril does not excuse the rapist. It's just giving good advice.
Investigating a death does not imply that the victim deserved to die. In fact it asserts that the victim should still be alive.
The problem with your letter is that first you tell us that the 9/11 attack was unjustified and then you follow immediately with a justification for the 9/11 attack.
The illogic is pretty tough to miss.
Posted by James Jones on May 29, 2007 06:57 PMJJ,
Your shrill partisan blindness has shown itself again in your lies.
John did not say that our foreign policy justified 9/11, he said that without certain of our government's actions it wouldn't have happened.
Please show me where in his letter he said it was justified.
Posted by Repugnants are Liars on May 29, 2007 07:19 PMSomeone once described Rudy Giuliani as "a greasy used car salesman" and that seems like a good one after this video of him telling a fib. Mr Giuliani is lying about his involvement on 9/11. He tells the late ABC newzman, Peter Jennings, that the WTC were are going to collapse before it did and then he lies about it. Why does he lie about what happened?
Here are several video clips that Rudy to be the liar aqbout 9/11, that he is. Watch for free and decide.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/290507giulianiconfronted.htm
Posted by Patriot Herb on May 29, 2007 07:28 PMRepugnants are Liars
The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
jus·ti·fy (jŭs'tə-fī') Pronunciation Key
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: anger that is justified by the circumstances.
Or in John's case:
were it not for some of our government’s policies, the attacks would likely not have happened.
How's that - pretty close?
Posted by James Jones on May 29, 2007 08:44 PMNot at all JJ
Action produces effect is not the same as action justifies effect.
Were it not for the cliquesishness and bullying at Columbine Klebold and Harris would not have committed their atrocities. That doesn't justify what they did.
They overreacted.
Many Muslims overreact.
That explains their actions but doesn't justify them.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 29, 2007 09:01 PMRepugnants are liars
Since they had no just, right, moral, excusable or good reason, then their act is irrational. If their act is irrational then it is they, not we, who are responsible for their violence.
You are wrong even when you reinvent plain language.
Rudy had it right when he said that he had heard many abusrd reasons for 9/11 but Paul set a new standard.
No one (myself or the letter writer) said we were resonsible. It was you who said we did. That makes you a liar.
We were talking about cause and effect.
A causes B.
A does not justify B.
A is not responsible for B.
Plain language.
OBL himself said Al Qaeda struck us because of bases in their holy land, and unblinking support for Israel.
Do you not believe him?
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 29, 2007 11:21 PMRepugnants are liars,
I see what you mean. Osama might have slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans without warning or mercy but, he would never stoop to lying. He might be a degenerate religious fanatic but he would never degrade himself to the point of being a Republican.
When you offer up a reason for an act that has no logic (reason) then you seek to justify the unjustifiable. You might qualify the motivation with adjectives like "false" or "untrue" but that hasn't happened. Instead we get
"were it not for some of our government’s policies, the attacks would likely not have happened."
"chickens are coming home to roost"
Osama thought that Americans are remarkably gullible. He thought that if he attacked us, we would blame, not him, but our own leaders for his wanton violence.
Osama misunderstood the majority of Americans, but he does understand you and your cohorts.
Incidentally, since you are incapable of disagreement unaccompanied by the accusation of "liar" (witness the name you choose), you should not describe anyone as being shrill.
What does it matter? Even if Ron Paul was a popular candidate he committed political suicide at the debate. Paul was done before he even started!
Posted by A on May 30, 2007 07:56 AMJohn Jones: "jus·ti·fy (jŭs'tə-fī') Pronunciation Key
v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies
To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: anger that is justified by the circumstances.
Or in John's case:
were it not for some of our government’s policies, the attacks would likely not have happened.
How's that - pretty close?"
Hopefully, John Jones view of logic is not being taught anywhere because it makes no sense. Although it would take a mind reader to know what Jones was so inartfully trying to say, he appears to be claiming that John justifies the 9/11 attacks because without the government's policies they may not have taken place. A patently ridiculous conclusion by Jones. John doesn't come anywhere close to saying that 9/11 was justified and surely if Jones has a brain he knows that. But he prefers to engage in a scurrilous attack.
Posted by Truth on May 30, 2007 08:07 AMJohn Schola said "were it not for some of our government’s policies, the attacks would likely not have happened".
How anyone who is honest could claim that Schola is saying that 9/11 was therefore justified defies rational thinking.
For example, bin Laden is quoted as saying that the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was his main complaint. If that is true, and it may not be, then if we had not had American troops in Saudi Arabia there might not have been a 9/11. That makes perfect sense, whether or not having troops there was justified or appropriate.
To accuse John Schola of saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified is scurrilous and dishonest in the extreme. It indicates a mind that is totally incapable of thinking logically, and a mind that is willing to forgo honesty and truth to try to make a point.
Posted by Truth on May 30, 2007 08:17 AMTruth,
You want honesty, truth, and logic here? You dreamer you!
Still, this isn't quite up to the one about human fetuses and chipmunks, with the Moonlight Sonata thrown in for extras, that was used back on one of the anti-abortion diatribes. But then again, the current crop of Primary Candidates is really more of a sidebar anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 30, 2007 09:37 AMOld Grouch...."Hit the nail on the head" The current "crop" of Primary Candidates haven't the intelligence of a green bean.
Posted by A on May 30, 2007 10:33 AMAre you suggesting they're all peas in a pod?
Posted by anderson on May 30, 2007 10:49 AMYo John: Jerry Falwell makes it clear and Pat Robertson concurs: 9/11 was caused by Falwell's domestic enemies thus obtruding God's punishment on America.
See y'all June 2 at the People's Fair noon to three and I'll park your bike.
Posted by Richard Grimes: Deicide: Risen Ape managing a cemetary called Mythology r22037@yahoo.com on May 30, 2007 10:54 AMThanks Truth
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 30, 2007 12:18 PMI imagine we've lost JJ to his abortion letter, but I wonder if he saw this:
Man arrested for bomb at Texas abortion clinic
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2719258620070428
Were it not for this clinic doing abortions, the nail bomb terrorist attack would likely not have happened. Logically undeniable, no?
Acording to Jim Jones logic, I've justifed the bombing.
You're not just a liar, you're a moron.
Repugnants are liars
The bomber had no moral right to bomb the clinic. The terrorists had no moral right to bomb NY.
Your attempt to justify these evil acts is an exercise in stupidity and you're just the man for the job.
You should never assume I won't see your post.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 04:31 PMJames Jones is empty of moral integrity. He is well aware that Repugnant does not consider that the 9/11 terrorists were justified but he persists in his scurrilous accusations.
Posted by Truth on May 30, 2007 09:04 PMJJ
What are you the omnipresent and omnipotent almighty?
You work a straw man better than Vince Carroll. I never said I assumed you woudn't see my post. I also never made any attempt to justify anything.
To review: the original writer and my later attempts at clarification postulated "If not for action A, subsequent action B would not have happened." Nowhere in that construction is there any discussion of moral rights or justification. You invented it out of whole cloth.
For the sake of discussion let's try again:
Your neighbor is a nasty drunk.
Every saturday night after he's had a sixpack on his porch he get's angry and abusive at anyone who talks to his wife while she's walking their dog.
Saturday night after he's had his libations you wish his wife a pleasant good evening as she's perambulating the family pooch.
He charges off his porch, points his finger in your face, and spittle flying, calls you every name in the book.
Clearly this is undeserved for you were merely being neighborly, he has no moral right to talk to you this way, and there is no justification for his rudeness, yet the fact remains:
WERE IT NOT FOR YOU TALKING TO HIS WIFE, THE NASTY HARANGUE WOULD LIKELY NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
My only exercise in stupidity is attempting to get through to you.
Lying about facts is bad enough but putting words in people's mouths that they never said is particularly offensive. Please stop.
Posted by Repugnants are liars on May 30, 2007 09:11 PMRepugnants are liars
You continued attempts to jusify the unjustifiable do not demonstrate that you are not trying to justify the justifiable.
We haved a $5 fine for whining on this page. Please send your fine to Tancredo for President headquarters.
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 07:10 AMAccording to the poster that calls thim or herself, 'A', "The current "crop" of primary candidates haven't the intelligence of a green bean"
If 'A' believes this to be true, then perhaps 'A' should examine evidence that makes this comment completely untrue. So, 'A', let's look at Ron Paul and see if he appears to qualify as being an intelligence presidential candidate that is smater than a green bean.
Ron Paul graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S Airforce during the 1960s. In 1968 he began working as a medical specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, inTexas and has delivered more than 4,000 babies. As a congressman in the 1970s Paul served on the House Banking committee where he was a strong advocate for solid monitary policy and a strong critic of the the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures.. He as rconsistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation. and used his House seat to promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels.
Ron Paul has:
Never voted to raise taxes.
Never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Never voted to raise congressional pay.
Never taken a government-paid junket.
Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Iraq War.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressinal pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Ron Paul is clearly the only Republican candidate that strictly follows the laws of the U.S. Constitution and he is highly qualified and would be a great leader as president of the United States, 'A'.
This guy has it right, as opposed to boy President Bush, who has been quoted as saying that "The Constitution is just a goddamned Piece of Paper", which it is not.
This last post of 9:14 was from me.
Posted by Patriot Herb on May 31, 2007 09:16 AMGiuliani is the absurd one. Here is a story from wnbc.com, that demonstates how Giuliani continues to LIE about his foreknowledge that the World Trade Towers were going to collapse. WNBC obtained the transcript of Giuliani telling Peter Jennings this, and now Giuliani is lying about it and claiming he never said it. Mr Giuliani is a LIAR. Is this the type of person that would be good for America as president? I don;t think so.
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/13404578/detail.html?dl=mainclick
Posted by Patriot Herb on May 31, 2007 09:30 AMRepugnants, etc.,
You are dealing with Jonesy, who has never in his life met a logical syllogism - or explantion of a progression of events - he could understand; much less deal with without becoming personally vituperative when that fact is pointed out to him.