I do blame Reiten for pulling down the post. If you cave before a lot of whining Paulistas, what happens when Dorgan or Conrad unleash their lawyers on you.

Why? Because Ron Paul’s nutty online brownshirters issued forth a dictum in one of the forums to “educate” me.

That didn’t tell me why, actually. I’d like to know why it was REALLY taken down before I could agree with you and call them nuts.

I’ve had a little more respect for Ron Paul lately, but realize I am still only learning bits and pieces of him. But I don’t have the confidence yet of running around calling Paul’s followers nuts.

I’m not saying I disagree with you, I just don’t think I have the full story.

The big question is why Ron Paul is running as a Republican while he really is a Libertarian.

docdave: Pragmatism. As low as the ratings are for televised Dem. & Rep. debates, those ratings would soar like Everest above ratings for a debate amongst Libertarian candidates!

complained so much that it was removed.

I’m just asking about examples of the complaints? 65 complaints and frantic calls and none of them valid? I know, I know, it wouldn’t be the first time someone rallied against something ridiculous, but I’d sure be interested in at least knowing why. Are they challenging the validity of any parts of your story?

Ron Paul, despite his denials

Well there maybe other evidence, I’m not motivated enough to start researching honestly, but I’m not going to whack a guy right off the bat for something he denies.

As for your other charges, what’s the harm in believing a conspiracy theory. The only thing I’d be concerned about is will his anti-war policies imply that he’d be weak on national defense spending? That would be a deal breaker for me.

TURN OFF YOUR TEEVEE!!11!!

whao… dude, put down the red bull.

When you’re concerned about Pro-Life issues as I am, and 1/2 the popular candidates of your party are sketchy on the issue, you’ll give a guy who’s not afraid to be 100% pro-life the time of day to tell his whole story.

No, I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but I haven’t heard that in the speaches and talking points from Ron himself.

Apparently, someone associated with this blog does not want visitors to know of Thompson’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations as my previous comments were taken down…

Would that be the post you made

Leland Thomas Faegre on July 22, 2007 at 07:36 am

on a different thread?????????
Apparently someone associated with this post:
A) Is so full of himself he associates conspiracies hanging on his every word. Or
B) Is inept at navigating simple blogs.
Say Anything Note: Your comment is on page two, so try not to get lost!
Oh, and you might want to apologize to our host. Just a thought!

I apologize if you were one of the mouthbreathers who complained

I am not a mouthbreather, (I would assert that you are due to your need to call people names who don’t agree with you)and I did not complain about the article.

Nor do you apparently understand the word “if”! Perhaps “hyperbole” is beyond you as well. Maybe “satire”. Or “tongue in cheek”.

The cartoon flap was a very different issue.

…which makes the same point. If a newsman or broadcaster is threatened with a loss of income, or livelihood, or life, in other words, if there is a mob in the street, who is a fault for an individual not being able to pass? The individual who was not brave enough to face the mob or the mob. I know! It’s a different issue!But, the same principle!

“Ron Paul, despite his denials, is a 9/11 truther. You simply cannot still be calling for investigations into the “truth” of 9/11 and not get lumped in with those wackos”

For the record, RP wants to know this about 9/11 (as do I):

How come most or all of the people in charge of our national security did not get fired for that screwup?

It was *incompetence that was “covered up” — *not conspiracy. Dr. Paul has said this many times.

If you insist he’s lying, and you alone know what he actually thinks, all I can do is ask for the source of your knowledge.

Is this really the level of Fred supporters?

FTR: I don’t know how far back in the blog you’ve checked, but there hasn’t been any real strong pro-FDT blogs on here lately. A lot of the Ronettes have tried to smear Fred as they’ve done their drive-by Ron Rah! There have been some mild and brief responses to that, but no full court press for Thompson.
Come back after Labor Day and you might see one. Or whenever he declares…

One last time.
this sentence:
“Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq”
is false.

That makes it a lie or an error. Which is it.

Now, compare/contrast this to all the 9/11 Truth sites, most of which are Paul supporters, who operate freely. Amazingly bushCo has yet to come in and silence them. They can take down the twin towers in the most daunting conspiracy ever but can’t manage to silence the “truthers” and Paul Supporters telling the ‘truth’ about them.

Chances are that Paul supporters know how to use these websites called “google” and “technorati”. They use these websites to search for the terms “Ron Paul”, and read the articles that come up. You’re just another article that came up in the pile, another article to join the “smear Ron Paul because he is not a bought and paid for Establishment goon” campaign that has officially started.

And nobody is trying to silence anyone, unless calling you out on lies you write or hersay you attempt to spin as fact and real positions on policy are considered “silence”. If I remember correctly, things that are incorrect or misleading are retracted all the time.

The three points you brought up to “debunk” have been debunked multiple times, but keep bringing them up like they weren’t addressed immediately and act like Paul hasn’t made recent public statements regarding them.

The Iran False Flag comment was taken out of context by an author on Politico, who took it from an interview with the insane zioclown Alex Jones, and was even debunked on World Net Daily of all places, using the sound clip provided in politico’s own piece, so that smear is dead in the water.

As far as the Federal Reserve, I guess being a long standing member of the the House Financial Services committee and constantly drilling Greenspan and now Bernacke about real questions regarding the continually weakening dollar (instead of sycophants tossing softballs) means he is nothing but a “conspiracy” theorist when it comes to economics? Why don’t you try reading some of Paul’s exchanges with the Fed Chairman over the years, or ask some friends outside of the US what a joke our weakened pertro-dollar has become. God forbid we can have a non-CFR BFF candidate who will discuss real issues like our sinking currency and how it relates to world economics (think Euro then think Amero).

Of course, continually repeating lies and false smears seem to be the preferred tactic among smear and hatemongers such as yourself. Later you can issue a little retraction that nobody will read or care about, but it doesn’t matter because getting attention through hits, comments, and trackbacks regarding your articles by propagating smears is all that matters to you and your ilk of establishment sycophants.

You probably took the post down on your own because of the educating you received from people that actually know what their talking about. Its ok, I understand your position though. Nobody likes to seem ignorant to their audience.
When you post outright lies about a presidential candidate that is more aware of the threats presented in Orwell’s 1984 than perhaps any other congressman, you are bound to get angry replies from those that appreciate honest journalism.
Instead of debating facts, you stoop to the level of name calling. I am sorry you have a bruised ego, but your piece on Ron Paul and this pathetic response to it are absolutely unprofessional.
As far as censoring goes, some of Ron Paul’s supporters might like to see you silenced, and I can hardly blame them, but Ron Paul would fight for your journalistic rights more diligently than any other candidate. Not because he like bloogers, but because he understands the importance of individual rights and free press.
Ron Paul supporters are not wacko’s and his support base is growing faster than all other candidates. In case you are not convinced this, you will have plenty of time to gaze upon his ever increasing troop of supporters outside of the upcoming republican debates.

Rob: If you get more info on the actual content of the complaints, let us know.

If everyone across the country (except the 9/11 truthers) were to see that video, RP would be RIP

What’s the harm in double checking the government once in awhile?

Its ok man, I understand. Ego’s can be very sensitive and it hurts when 65 people prove you are ignorant. You don’t have to get all worked up. Just reflect on your stubbornness and maybe you will realize that you can’t always be right. I know the truth hurts, but I am here to help you. We can get though this difficult time together. You are not alone. If you need some physical company, just let me know and I will be right over.

I think it’s funny that Ron Paul supporters are called “nutty.”
The more I read about Ron Paul and his sporters, the more inclined I am to support him. They seemed reasoned and knowledgeable, whereas Ron Paul haters seem to be nothing but lock-step with whatever official line their party is dishing.
Just reading these posts shows this to be the case; one crazy RP supporter and the rest of them perfectly rational vs. the angry guy who got his article down because of the “brownshirts.”
Pure rhetoric.
As stated before, I would like to see exactly what these letters presented that would compel the editors- who are presumably concerned with the truth – to pull your article.

“Bush lied, people died?” Is that the best you can come up with?

Please, you pundits trapped in your left/right paradigm are pretty sad. So hard to look in the mirror or look outside of the shark tank. So which “Dem” or “leftist” do you blame for all of our woes? Let me guess, Clinton?

At this point blame for the coming war with Iran lay largely on our failed “independent” media (again) and the Democrats who “promised change”, especially AIPAC Girl Nancy Pelosi.

Everything is so black and white, right? Obviously, because the only issue is the war and you are either for it or against it. There is no other issue in this election, and the liberal social positions of Giuliani and Romney regarding abortion should be a pretty clear indicator that this is the case (or Romney on health care in general). If you are against the war you are automatically labeled something like liberal/leftist/Democrat/etc. and if you support it you are a neocon/righty/Republican, etc. And the Republican base keeps on shrinking.

I guess Bush and the gang aren’t warmongers, because… ?

Oh wait, they are, and so are most of the elites taht control our policy. Perhaps it would be better to call them Cherry Picking Warmongers, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are THE leading supporters and armers of Al Qaeda, but the former has nukes and the ladder plays ball, so both are our “allies” and have free reign to implement their brutal forms of “democracy”, especially life under the House of Saud. If you don’t see the proxy war in Iran going on between Iran/Shiites vs. Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/Sunnis (al Qaeda) then you aren’t paying enough attention.

JefMon: I hate cowardly, hit-and-run liberals saying something stupid and not having the guts to hang around and take the fire.

Let me guess, Liberal = Antiwar? Preemptive war is such a “conservative” position and really reflects America’s “traditional, Judeo-Christian Values”.

Jesus told me that nuking Iran is an option that should not be taken off the table, and that preemptive war is the good, moral, Christian thing to do. Everyone knows that Jesus was a hawk who understood our “National Interests”. Party of life* all the way!

*life being the lives of unborn, NOT the lives of the Vets living with rats in underfunded VA Hospitals, the lives of foreigners who don’t even deserve Habeas Corpus, and the lives of our soldiers which the Administration is ready to throw away in Iran.

Speaking of soldiers, guess which candidate got 50% of the GOP donations from Military Personnel (including Vets)?

If there is anything worse than a “hit and run liberal”, it is a “moral cherry picking conservative”. You know, like the ones who speak in nationally televised debates about the sanctity and preciousness of life out of one side of their mouth while talking about nuking Iran out of the other.

That’s right, leftist = antiwar, and “leftist” has nothing to do with the size of the Federal Government. Cutting support and aid to the entire region, what a leftist position.

Leftist = antiwar/antichristian/atheist.
Righty = neocon/prowar/christian

blah blah.

That Taft and the rest of the Old Right, what a bunch of leftists. The irony is that neocons started off as Leftist Trotsky lovers who got the boot from their own party and infiltrated the GOP. I guess their words and actions are nothing but “noble lies”.

And psst, yeah, just in case you wondering, I’m Catholic, so the “Christ bashing leftist” nonsense doesn’t work on me.

And sure, YOU, a PERSON, might not agree with the policy regarding the VA, but again, it just shows the disconnect between public opinion and policy, because guess what, nothing will change if any of the current “frontrunners” get in, including the Great White Hype that is the superlobbyist Fred Thompson.

You Paulites are no different than the “mainstream” Republicans and Democrats you abhor. The only difference is that you exist on the political margins because not many people agree with you.

If you don’t see the disconnect between US public opinion and US foreign policy then you are blind.

The 60%+ of Americans who want us out of Iraq are a fringe minority? I guess the Republicans didn’t lose the house and senate over foreign policy, “the fringe” must have voted them out. Funny, I thought “many people” meant more than 50%? Or do you mean people among the Establishment who disagree with me, or people in the shrinking Republican (and now Democratic) base? Like it or not, Paul is the ONLY antiwar Republican, and the people’s souring towards the war will be the name of the game in 08.

I abhor them because the coming war with Iran is also opposed by a majority of Americans, but is still right on track with bipartisan support if you look at recent votes on bills regarding Iran.

Sure, the middle east is a “threat”, but are they really a threat to us more then they are a threat to each other? A hurricane and an earthquake are also threats and are 1000x more powerful than a stray, first generation nuke from a “failed” state, yet we send our National Guard to Iraq. We might not be able to control the weather, but we obviously can’t control the storm in Iraq either.

The talk of a Caliphate is garbage. Iranian Shiites are being threatened by Sunni’s in Iraq (al Qaeda, with Saudi funding), and Iran is fighting a proxy war against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Sunni states. I am supposed to believe that these guys will drop it all and come together in unity once we leave? Yeah right, that is like Mormon’s, Catholics, and Branch Davidians dropping their differences and getting together to take over the world. They are too divided. It ain’t going to happen.

Have you read any of the books that Paul recommended to Giuliani? I doubt it, but you should read Imperial Hubris by Michael Shurer, former head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA and lifelong Republican.

Shurer is a real expert on middle east policy, and I agree with him (as does Ron Paul), that we need to get out of the entire region and cut aid (which is definitely not a “liberal” or “leftist” position in any way). By doing so we would force them to focus on themselves and their own issues. They are adults, after all. By focusing on each other they won’t be focusing on us. If you don’t think they will focus on each other, just take a look at the regional public opinion towards the Saudi Royal family.

And if the US leaves and a large scale civil war breaks out across the region? Genocide? Murder? MDK?

Who cares? They would be killing and focusing on each other which means that they wouldn’t be killing and focusing on us. Let them experience their own blowback instead of us.

But what about our BFF Israel? It has 200+ nukes, that is quite a deterrent (just ask Iran who doesn’t even have one). Israel isn’t going anywhere as long as it has water.

If we pull out or if we don’t, Iraq is getting split up. Turkey is set up to invade northern Iraq. Iran and the Iraqi Shiite Militias (Al Sadr) against Sunni Al Qaeda. It will then spill over into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. The domino effect, but not the way the Bush Administration intended. That will give the Islamofascists plenty of opportunities to turn their vitriol upon each other, hate each other, and kill each other instead of us. How or why does this need to involve the US? The Oil and resources? Securing water?

By the way stop pretending that you give a shit about the brutalized population over there. You salivate over the thought of a glass parking lot tinted crimson red with the blood of muslims.

Scott: Are you projecting again, or just off your meds? I just love all the mind readers who show up and tell us the intentions of every man’s heart. The only “heart” you can infallibly read is your own, you sick bastard! Stop ascribing your pathology to everyone else!

Chris S: I don’t know why you Leftists use every occasion to mock Christ and Christians and say something hostile about people of faith; and then you wonder why you are labelled the anti-Christian party.

Jesus would not endorse war, nor is He a Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. Jesus is above the things of this world and yet because He gave us freewill, He is aware of and deeply saddened to see what we do to each other, often in His name. However, I think that Jesus would understand that if somene breaks into my home and threatens the lives of my loved ones that to save their lives I might have to take the life of that intruder, not with joy, but reluctantly and only in favor of preserving life. Likewise, if people like terrorists break into my national home or when members of my national family are living abroad and their lives are threatened by evil men, I might have to take the lives of those evil people to save the lives of my innocent loved ones.

While you are free to disagree, terrorists attacked my national home and killed many on the members of my national family and so my country went to Afghanistan to kill those evil men, Saddam had attacked members of my national family and close friends (Israel) and by all reports had the means, the motive and the opportunity to attack and kill more of them. So, we went into Iraq and desposed and killed that evil man and his murderous sons to defend my national family at home and abroad. Yes, in both cases it required we stay there that evil might not reestablish itself and present the same threat again in the near future, but even in a justified war or an act of self-defense there are often uinintended consequences which we must silently bear.

Your side has killed over 50 million innocent, living human beings in the womb and are behind euthanasia and assisted suicide that you might kill more innocent human beings, all here at home; and while I blame the terrorists for every death they cause, directly or indirectly, by your side giving aid and comfort to the Islamic enemy, your side are accessories before, during and after the fact to the deaths of many of our soldiers and innoocent Iraqi’s, which makes you as dangerous as the terrorists as far as I am concerned.

I am not happy with how we treat our soldiers in VA hospitals, my brother has had many stays in them in the past few years, so to suggest those on the Right approve of that situation is ridiculous. Lastly, I guess you are ready to condemn Lincoln for suspending Habeas Corpus and your god FDR for incarcerating Japanese Americans? Well, war requires extraordinary measures, it ain’t softball and yet if we are so bad, why do so many people from every country on earth want to come here and many even break our laws by coming in here illegally?

Not that I expect a single one of your morons to understand, but Ron Paul is NOT anti-war. He wants us out of Iraq and instead hunting down the actual terrorists that attacked us and threaten us. Last I heard, Iraqi insurgents and civilians were not posting video threats to America. Last I heard, Iran was not posting threats to us, unless you want to count their responses to OUR threats against them.

They have tried to open dialog with us, and Bush refused. But, of course, YOUR talking heads say that’s not true (of course you could just read the letters yourself.)

‘Iran’ the country is not a threat to us; terrorists are. Terrorists are an extremist element not tied to any state. I would liken them to anarchists in the U.S.

It’s amazing the short term memory we have as Americans. After 9/11, Iran was becoming one our biggest partners in the middle east to route out terrorists. Al-Qaida HATES Iran, and the feeling is reciprocated. We were closer than ever to opening a friendly relationship with Iran, until someone decided to put them on the Axis-of-Evil list. Guess what happened after THAT? They elected a hard-liner who would talk tough against us and espouse safety to the citizens of Iran that thought it just might be a likely scenario that we were about to do to them what we just did to their neighbor, Iraq.

I’m sure you were also told that it isn’t true that we are funding al-qaeda in Iran to stir up trouble there. Wasn’t al-qaeda the group that slammed two planes into the WTC on 9/11? Would you call this sane foreign policy? Anyone actually thinking about how the money we are sending to them is getting channeled to the al-qaeda in Iraq killing our young men and women. But, go ahead, call this all a conspiracy theory. I won’t provide you with links because you won’t read them anyway. You can ‘google’ it one day when you develop some common sense.

But, again, the fact that you don’t already know the above proves you cannot be reasoned with, my only hope is that you and your kind truly ARE a minority in this country and saner, more intelligent people will prevail. My main point in writing this is to stop Ron Paul supporters from calling Ron Paul ‘anti-war.’ He is NOT anti-war. Just anti-wrong or counter-productive war that seeks to endanger us more, cause us to go broke, and in the end, we get NOTHING out of it. A Ron Paul war would be swift and effective action. Destroy Saddam, make sure he didn’t have WMDs and get the hell out of there and let the people fight for their own democracy. How can you call what we are doing now as anything but a conquest?

You have the apparently great foresight to know Ron Paul will never be president, but the striking shortsight to understand that ‘we’ will NEVER establish a democratic, freedom and peace loving region in the middle east without committing complete genocide of the ethnic people there. I understand this doesn’t really seem like a bad idea to you folks, but, personally I don’t want to go to hell for ‘voluntarily’ funding the destruction of one of God’s races. I thought we were supposed to be better than our enemies? Isn’t that what makes us the ‘good guys’?

By the way stop pretending that you give a shit about the brutalized population over there. You salivate over the thought of a glass parking lot tinted crimson red with the blood of muslims. When pushed (and thought to be in sympathetic company), you all admit it, every time.

And psst, yeah, just in case you wondering, I’m Catholic, so the “Christ bashing leftist” nonsense doesn’t work on me.

Why did you bring it up in the first place? You act as if Christians can’t fight back against enemies.

Also, forgot to metion that Ron Paul would only go to a ‘foreign’ war with the people’s consent through the proper, legal, declaration of war by the people’s representatives in congress and senate.

Invasion, insurrection, and attacks on our homeland are a separate thing, altogether. And that is what protecting our country is supposed to be about. The commander in chief has the absolute authority to respond immediately in those cases.

I predict someone will bring up Hezbolah from Iran and the threat they pose to Israel. Last time I checked, Israel was its own country and not part of the 50 states. Terrorism in Israel is Israels problem, not ours. I have nothing against Israel, its people, or its right to exist, but I am unwilling to send Americans to die or billions of my money for that right. If the majority of people disagree with me on this, let’s add this right in to our supreme law of the land and do it right.

Somehow, I just can’t see Israel sending its army over to the U.S. to help us fight off an invasion. And that is the way it should be.

Chris S – All that is supposed to matter is the war and terrorism, everything else is nothing but a wedge issue, divide and conquer politics, problem-reaction-solution, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, Dialectic Process, etc. It is all a show to keep us from talking about real issues like the disconnect between public opinion and policy…

No, the “war and terrorism” is not “all a show”. It is the most important issue facing our political body today. We have a deadly serious enemy with a LONG hundreds of years grudge who are now coming into contact with some very dangerous bombs.

Can I make it any more clearer? Are you getting the gravity of the situation? The average Muslim in many of these countries may not hate us, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not a variable in play. What does matter is that almost every single Muslim country in this world is headed up by some pretty radical Islamic people who make no bones about the fact that they don’t like us. And now we are watching those radical Muslims come into possession of some pretty fucking dangerous weapons. Wherever there are a majority of Muslims, those “peaceful” Muslims are almost always governed by vicious and brutal thugs. This Islamic brutality is expanding with bloody borders all over the world.

Have you not seen this? Have you missed this somehow?

You Ron Paul supporters don’t even recognize the enemy and that is the main problem that most people have you.

I’M WITH RON PAUL!

If your article that was pulled contained lies and/or misinformation, then shame on you. If it did not contain lies and/or misinformation, and was pulled by Reiten Broadcasting because some readers simply did not like it, then shame on Reiten Broadcasting.

Your issue is either with yourself, or Reiten Broadcasting, not Ron Paul supporters.

Apparently, someone associated with this blog does not want visitors to know of Thompson’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations as my previous comments were taken down…

Queue up the twilight zone music…..

First time reader: You are making a serious mistake in judgment or perhaps you are at least to some degree illiterate. There is no degree of blind support here for Fred Thompson, he appears to have much to offer as compared to the other candidates, but there is certainly no blind loyalty nor is this by any stretch of the imagination an Elect Fred Blog.

Jeff S:

All us supporters of Ron Paul simply want to encourage Americans who have not heard him speak much to sit down and listen to what the man has to say. Either Google Video or YouTube search “Ron Paul” or better yet, just watch this:

That’s fine, but when others politely suggest Paul has to be able to sell himself and his own ideas, that he is ultimately responsible for his own success or failure; or, should we dare say we disagree with some of his beliefs, some of the Paulites here go absolutely ballistic that we are not willing to support Ron Paul because you think he is so great.

Great ideas and beliefs will fail to take root unless the person advocating them has the ability to inspire others to follow them. Ron Paul must possess the necessities to prove to others he is worth following, or those views and beliefs need a better messenger. If you Paulites cannot see that and get your candidate to change something in his style or approach to inspire others, you are all in for a huge disappointment come election time – that requires facing reality.

So, in the flap over the cartoons of Mohammed, who is more at fault, in your opinion: The newspapers, magazines and TV stations that won’t publish them, or the people who threaten to murder them if they do.

I apologize if you were one of the mouthbreathers who complained. BTW, Dale Carnegie was a wuss. You can get more with a kind word and a loaded gun than you can get with a kind word alone!

I am not a mouthbreather, (I would assert that you are due to your need to call people names who don’t agree with you)and I did not complain about the article.

The cartoon flap was a very different issue.

In the case of this article, we saw the free market at work. The writer produced a product (the blog). Reiten acquired it to re-blog. Their consumers did not like it and complained to them about it. Wanting to please there consumers in the hopes that they will patronize their advertisers, Reiten decided against this product. So there are many opportunities: The writer can change his product to suit what Reiten wants to please their customers. Reiten can look elsewhere for product to re-blog , and the writer can continue to produce the same product, and find other customers to re-blog them. I mean stuff happens; things change. Be a big boys and roll with it. Sitting there having a “pity party”, calling people names, and dishing out other insults, just serves to affirm that the writer is the clod that the people who complained thought him to be in the first place.

Again, Reiten’s consumers have all the right in the world to contact them with complaints. What Reiten and the writer do with each other is between them.

Like the old saying goes, you know you’re over the target when you start taking fire. It’s not like you said anything untrue, either, but the truth about Ron Paul is the last thing his worshippers want getting out. And how dare you not bow before their god, infidel!

From now on, I’m just going to call him Ron Paulcinich, because he’s just as nutty and irrelevant as Mr. “Department of Peace”. And the more people hear of his “message” and the more they see of his wacked-out cultists, the worse off he’ll be. He’ll be lucky to make it out of the margin of error on any non-Internet poll.

Most of you here don’t care about the truth… you’d just rather 1-up each other.

That being the case, please excuse my going back to the original question. Matt C is challenging this phrase from Rob’s post. Does anyone have proof to support/deny the claim at hand?

One last time.
this sentence:
“Ron Paul thinks 9/11 was a plot to create an excuse for war in Afghanistan/Iraq”
is false.

That makes it a lie or an error. Which is it.

Rob’s video ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c5_1179338348 ) leaves the door open on Ron Paul’s positions, but it certainly doesn’t convict him.

As of now, I’m of the opinion that it’s Rob’s educated opinion, but there’s a lack of proof so I wouldn’t consider it a hard fact. This is where the line between blogging meets the world of hard news reporting.

As for Ron Paul and his supporters being nuts

That seems to be confirmed by the Ron Paul supporters posting comments here.

The reason that you got so much feedback is because everyone who gets a google news alert about Ron Paul was directed to your posting. Thats the only reason I had read it, although I didn’t comment on that one, I did think it was misrepresentative of Ron Paul. Just because he said that he agrees with some of what the John Birch Society does does not mean that he is a conspiracy theorist or whatever. If I say I agree with Hillary Clinton on some things, does that mean I support her or endorce everything she stands for? Uh… no.

The truth is that the Paul message resonates with lots of different people for lots of different reasons. Disallusioned members of both parties, indepenents, and yes, the fringe wackos. Personal liberty is a pretty broad message with pretty broad support.

Personally, I can’t stand 9/11 truthers, conspiracy nuts etc… but I do believe in their right to think whatever they want, so long as they don’t interfere with my right to think that they are nuts. That is the appeal, its really the message that does it for me, not Ron Paul the man, although I do hold him in high regard for standing up for what he believes in, and being rational even right after 9/11 when most of us were rash and emotional.

And for those of you who don’t read the Google ads:

Sort of like Ron Paul? Want to end the war now? Support a Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, in 2008

What does that tell you?

If you want to respond again, don’t waste your time. I am finished reading the lies of this shallow writer.

Doesn’t that sound like a prissy, foot stamp would go with that? Who knows, Rob? Maybe you even made him cry!

First time reader: Why are people like you such cowards and want to run away? Get in the debate, throw some punches and have fun, I promise you will like the give and take. This blog IS NOT a Fred Thompson Campaign Headquarters, yet.

If it did not contain lies and/or misinformation, and was pulled by Reiten Broadcasting because some readers simply did not like it, then shame on Reiten Broadcasting.

So, if it was a factual article that got pulled because of complaints from a bunch of mouthbreathers, the mouthbreathers are in no way at fault? They take no responsibilty for their own actions? Nice try! Shame on them for giving us what we demanded!

You probably took the post down on your own because of the educating you received from people that actually know what their talking about.

Right, numb nuts. I have control over the posts at the KXMC website, so I took the post down myself and then called attention to it with a post on my own front page linking to the original version of the post.

You’ve nailed me.

Now why don’t you tell us about what really happened on 9/11 (cue creep music).

Dang it, I still can’t get video posting to work. here’s the link.

Warmonger. Oh man that’s a good one.

“Bush lied, people died” right Chris?

Please, keep commenting. This is getting better and better.

Right, Proof. Ron Paul’s internet goon squads bear no responsibility.

I talked with the guy at Reiten. Mostly he took it down because it wasn’t worth fighting with these idiots. The version of the post that appeared on this blog is, of course, still linked from the Reiten page. And it contains no lies.

Why it was taken down is because the Paulites emailed and complained so much that it was removed. The post that removed is the exact same one as that which was linked in the post.

As for Ron Paul and his supporters being nuts:

a) They believe the federal reserve is some sort of government banking conspiracy.

b) Ron Paul, despite his denials, is a 9/11 truther. You simply cannot still be calling for investigations into the “truth” of 9/11 and not get lumped in with those wackos.

c) Paul expects another staged terrorist attack any day now to justify war with Iran.

Start with those things.

Unplug your TV!!!!!!!!!!!

What’s funny is that I rarely watch TV. I don’t even have cable, which leaves me with like 3 broadcast stations.

As for your other charges, what’s the harm in believing a conspiracy theory.

Well, I guess I see a great deal of harm in believing nonsense.

By the way, this is pretty interesting:

<embed src=”http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf” width=”450″ height=”370″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” pluginspage=”http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer” flashvars=”autostart=false&token=2c5_1179338348″ scale=”showall” name=”index”></embed>