I hope your serious about this because this is something like the conclusion I've come to. I now think of Truthers as Brownshirts, as in the Nazi paramilitary force they used to disrupt German society. Or at least they want to be Brownshirts. For now, most of them are losers unable to live up to the education they've received or their legacy as White men in America. They're just waiting around for someone credible to put a gun in their hand and point them in some direction.
This has nothing to do with Ron Paul. He's just a figurehead right now. My point is the kind of people that Truthers are. Truthers aren't just another random sort of weird subculture. They constitute a dangerous element in society. Or is it that you don't believe there are dangerous elements in society? Or that they're only law breakers and skinheads, and all the other White boys are OK because they're only stupid?
Well, I'd say that's wrong. Truthers are a very particular kind of stupid White boy. They say there is a system now that has abandoned citizens. They say the government murders people and that there are murders who make up the government even now. Truthers have organizations and leaders, and large numbers of them communicate with each other regularly. The organized ones are pathetic losers on a dimension that's hard to imagine. They are really angry at something that doesn't exist.
I don't know if you know, but I talk with Truthers a lot. They don't know who I am because I pretend I'm one of them. I've been doing this on and off for several years now. Talking with them reminds me of something I read back in around 2002. It was a discussion of British Muslims and their reactions to 9/11. Some young Muslims teens were talking about what 9/11 had done for them as blossoming men in contemporary Britain. Before 9/11, they were scrawny also feminine figures of disdain. Now, the white boys are scared of them.
And that's what the young White Truthers are looking for. They're pathetic young White men in America. No one cares what they have to say. No one cares who they are. No one is watching them to see what they do with their lives. They're men who think think they're just as smart as any of those other White boys who have real jobs, but they're never going to get a decent job again. They are completely ignored.
Do you think I'm wrong?
And so why do you think these pathetic examples of human life are looking for less leadership out of their stupid pathetic lives than Blacks in the 60s?
I fully understand that they are a POTENTIALLY dangerous element. However, my point was and is that Ron Paul is not their Messiah simply because American voters would NEVER EVER vote in significant enough numbers to either select him for the Party nomination or elect him if he runs as an independent.
While you may think you understand the typical twoofer mindset, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand how American voters think.
Now, if you're thinking that Ron Paul or Joe Shmoe could become another MLK with enough influence to make significant change, that is perhaps a debatable issue, but Ron Paul or anyone else too far outside the mainstream thought stands NO CHANCE of ever being elected POTUS.
ETA: I don't even think twoofers will ever gain enough numbers or influence anything enough to even begin to be a significant movement to effect national level politics. They simply make noise, but are ineffective and will always be ineffective in accomplishing anything significant.
I fully understand that they are a POTENTIALLY dangerous element. However, my point was and is that Ron Paul is not their Messiah simply because American voters would NEVER EVER vote in significant enough numbers to either select him for the Party nomination or elect him if he runs as an independent.
While you may think you understand the typical twoofer mindset, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand how American voters think.
Now, if you're thinking that Ron Paul or Joe Shmoe could become another MLK with enough influence to make significant change, that is perhaps a debatable issue, but Ron Paul or anyone else too far outside the mainstream thought stands NO CHANCE of ever being elected POTUS.
ETA: I don't even think twoofers will ever gain enough numbers or influence anything enough to even begin to be a significant movement to effect national level politics. They simply make noise, but are ineffective and will always be ineffective in accomplishing anything significant.
I'm really confused about whether you've read my posts or not. Can you give me some quotes from my posts, so I know what you're reading. I'm having trouble responding to your points because they seem to have nothing to do with anything I'm trying to say. Honestly, I'm the worst one for skimming through a post and then posting some off the cuff remark based on the few words I remember, so don't take this the wrong way. But I really am having trouble understanding what you think is happening on this tread.
He's actually wooing the Libertarian Vote, not the CT vote as there is some crossover between the two. Also, the Tea Party vote too. Rand Paul is Tea Party.
He's being vague enough (like most politicians) in order not to alienate any of the above groups.
If he overtly supported 9/11 CT, he would be annihilated in the polls and in votes. He's simply being vague in order not to alienate any of the above groups, that's all..
It's hard to say how large a segment of the population it is or whether they're distributed in such a way as win locally. Some portion of this group would have voted for Republican or even Democrat candidates or perhaps even not at all. They will be much more unified now.
Ron Paul himself is an elected member of the US congress. And as Reheat points out, there are major politicians in the US who have been elected who are just as bad as Grandpa Ron at wherever this thing he is going. In particular, his son Rand Paul is the Senator for Kentucky.
Rand also has a few strange ideas about how the world is organized. Rand too often appeals to conspiracy theory in his campaigns. He opposes the NAFTA superhighway http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... _video.php
The Amero one world currency http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/ran ... conspiracy
and therefore obviously opposes the North American Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMIoiPRz-4
The problem is that no major politicians in the world have ever heard of these things. In fact, the Amero doesn't exist except in the mind of Simon Fraser University professor Herb Grubel. Herb made it up, and now all the conspiracy theorists in the world just eat it for lunch...that is, all the conspiracy theorists and your honey Dr. RAND PAUL.
He's actually wooing the Libertarian Vote, not the CT vote as there is some crossover between the two. Also, the Tea Party vote too. Rand Paul is Tea Party.
He's being vague enough (like most politicians) in order not to alienate any of the above groups.
If he overtly supported 9/11 CT, he would be annihilated in the polls and in votes. He's simply being vague in order not to alienate any of the above groups, that's all..
I agree with you. He's fundamentally after the libertarian vote. It is hard to separate this from the conspiracy vote. The Libertarian Party of the USA, which Dr. Paul used to support, is completely dominated by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. My interpretation of this is different from calling this overlap. I would say that largely, there's not much difference between them, at least in the USA.
Whether Paul is simply courting the conspiracy vote is not clear to me. I have recently found out that an acquaintance of mine, a right-wing Christian, who used to support Sarah Palin, is now a big fan of Dr. Paul. And he's the furthest thing from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
He is a chaotic good elf who accidentally and much to his own surprise found himself part of lawful evil power structure, and has been trying to reform it from within -- up until now without much success.
No, I do not actually believe that, but this seems to be a mindset you are asking about.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.
Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.
I think he is (or was) on the fence over this but will say what he thinks a particular audience wants to hear. Like more mainstream politicians he will sacrifice principles to get elected
Thanks for the info. While I am a naturally-born Canadian, I hope you can excuse me for not knowing a lot about what's going on with the Socreds these days. Looking through their Wiki, this does remind me a lot of how the Ron Paul/conspiracy freaks talk about their politics.
You know as much of what's going on with the socreds these days as I do. My involvement with them ended in the late 90's. There are details I described in one of my posts that aren't mentioned in the wiki that you liked to. The wiki article depicts the partys fracturing in the late 90's as a mormon vs. non-mormon thing. That's not really true. There were two members of the Socred board of directors who were in the conspiracists camp who were mormons (myself and one other) and the others had no issue with our religion as long as we supported their kookiness. The issues that split the party really were the mainstream reformers vs. the nuts and flakes.
As for Ron Paul and 9/11, we know that conspiracy theories are like a bag of Frito Lays chips. "You can never eat just one" (and then there are some people who will eat all the chips, lick out the crumbs and then eat the bag). I believed in the UN/NWO, that the bankers killed JFK, the Clinton Administration massacred the Branch Davidians and then blew up the Murrah building in OKC to provoke a confrontation with the Patriot/Militia movement. I did not believe in faked moon landings, Holocaust denial, USS Liberty or any blatantly anti-semitic crap.
I don't know that Ron Paul is into magic thermite, space beams, micro nukes or just some form of LIHOP. I strongly feel that Ron Paul believes more than he is saying. And yes, I know my gut feelings are not evidence, it's just my opinion.
"Paul has even rejected 9/11 conspiracy theories in a presidential debate, early in the 2008 election. But in this case, as often happens, when offered an opportunity to speak directly to his supporters and urge them not to continue to promote delusional ideas which hurt his candidacy dy association, his natural inclination to support free thought and free speech lead him into the error of appearing tolerant of their beliefs. Despite having every reason to whack them on the knuckles and send them to bed without dinner, he’s too tolerant and too nice a guy to be firm with them, even if it may well cost him the presidency again in 2012 as it did in 2008."
Also, Lenbrazil, Eric Dondero is a joke, so I wouldn't take rightwingnews.com's word for anything.
I had to peek at this one and now I know why I have you on IGNORE. Here's what happened. Madfoot turns on the computer and heads to the JREF. There he/she/it sees a thread called "Ron Paul and the 9/11 Truth". Rather than read it, he/she/it assumes that he/she/it knows what's being said and posts some half-baked answer that was addressed way, way, way back at the beginning. And that's the positive interpretation. The negative one uses terms like 'reading problem', 'dyslexia', and 'illiteracy'.
Just read the thread again - or get someone who can read to tell you what it says. Then you can join in the conversation with the people whose reading skills are up to it.
I hope you are right, but people have underestimated racist nationalists before and as the tea party have shown it doesn't take a very large minority to be able to take control of the Agenda.
Rand is a nut, but a clever one..........and they are the most dangerous of all.
"Paul has even rejected 9/11 conspiracy theories in a presidential debate, early in the 2008 election. But in this case, as often happens, when offered an opportunity to speak directly to his supporters and urge them not to continue to promote delusional ideas which hurt his candidacy dy association, his natural inclination to support free thought and free speech lead him into the error of appearing tolerant of their beliefs. Despite having every reason to whack them on the knuckles and send them to bed without dinner, he’s too tolerant and too nice a guy to be firm with them, even if it may well cost him the presidency again in 2012 as it did in 2008."
Dondero defends Paul against at least three accusations; racism, antisemitism and homophobia. And then he says "Oh, but he's nutty on 9/11". A disgruntled ex-employee out to damage his employer would probably go all negative.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It's quite possible he courts the CT vote.
