Honestly, I think a lot of people here believe certain aspects of the various conspiracy theories discussed on various threads on this forum. I would say most do not subscribe to most, or every, detail described in those threrads.

Maybe not so much the 9/11 theory, except I think there is a pretty general agreement among most here that 9/11 was used to the advantage of the Bush/Neo-Con leadership, especially to lead us into war in Iraq. And that maybe they had foreknowledge that something was going to happen, without knowing exactly what that was.

Regarding Ron Paul, I think there is plenty of room for disagreement on whether he would make a good candidate, or good president for that matter. Some of those reasonable things to disagree about can even be found in this thread, underneath the heaps of abuse here.

By the way, I've always hated Supertramp.

trib wrote:Ron Paul's

FAVORITE BOOKS: "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics" by Ludwig von Mises and "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek

FAVORITE TV SHOW: Financial news

FAVORITE MOVIE: "Dr. Zhivago"

FAVORITE HYMN: "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"

TELL US A JOKE: He doesn't joke.

I don't know I was laughing pretty hard at his choice of "The Road To Serfdom"

Rick Reuben wrote:This forum hates Ron Paul and honest money and 9/11 Truth, and it hates them lazily: from a stubborn refusal to do the research. This forum looks at the audience that Ron Paul or 9/11 Truth attracts, and they don't like the looks of that audience- too scraggly and too inclusive for their high brow tastes. To join with Paul or 9/11 Truth would be aesthetically distasteful for many on the forum.

I have pointed out many times why I dislike Ron Paul. I dislike him because he is a retrograde "don't tax me" libertarian and an uncharitable, selfish, isolationist, moralizing, xenophobic racist. I happen not to care that he thinks pot and hookers should be legal. He is about as far away from me as any other right-winger on issues other than the war, pot and hookers.

I don't agree with the 9/11 Truth crowd because their theories are more ridiculous than the official ones, and their evidence is minuscule, speculative, dubious, and vouched-for by people in whom I have no confidence. I say this despite having some reservations about details of the official accounts. I don't understand how the brave, defiant passengers of Flight 93 could tear a plane apart in mid-air over Pennsylvania, for example, and why this wouldn't be a method exploitable by terrorists. I think it is much more likely that flight 93 was shot down, an awkward fact that the administration cannot acknowledge.

I don't care about "honest money" because the unit of currency doesn't matter so long as other people will accept it. I am comfortable with its value changing over time, and I can convert money to another asset any time I like. I don't have it in a mattress.

This forum's full of the kind of people who were listening to Supertramp in 1977 and were calling the Ramones garbage.

Fuck off.

Conspiracy theories, honest money, and Ron Paul are the new punk rock- and the old punk rockers don't want to go near it.

If you mean they are insubstantial and appeal to people who are attracted by an appealing superficial presentation of contrarian or reactionary signifiers, well I couldn't agree more.

Rick Reuben wrote:This forum hates Ron Paul and honest money and 9/11 Truth, and it hates them lazily: from a stubborn refusal to do the research.

On one side you have those who view people as belonging to groups (the present day left and right) and the other side that sees people as individuals. You can't make individuals equal other than treating them the same under the law. There is a chance you can make groups equal though, even to the detriment of everybody else. It's nearly impossible to get people out of the group mindset if that is where their head is when dealing with economic and social policies. Collectivism is well intentioned.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:I don't agree with the 9/11 Truth crowd.

I don't think you've done research.

Not to bring this up again, but: http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... t=pentagon

I actually did the research, and you never responded to any of my substantive claims. I spent two entire days exhaustively combing over the evidence and that wasn't enough for you.

So please don't blame anyone else on this board for not meeting you on the high ground and taking your claims seriously.

Feel free to copy and paste any of that initial post into the new 9/11 thread if you want to.

I'm not chasing you around, I'm trying to engage you in debate. You're the one putting out the opinions. I assumed that you wanted people to discuss them with you. I guess I will stop now, though, since apparently you don't want to be challenged. You just want to be heard.

The offer is still open: defend any of those claims I made in that post.

NerblyBear wrote:I assumed that you wanted people to discuss them with you. I guess I will stop now, though, since apparently you don't want to be challenged. You just want to be heard.

Jesus. Take your marbles and go home already.

ubercat wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:I assumed that you wanted people to discuss them with you. I guess I will stop now, though, since apparently you don't want to be challenged. You just want to be heard.

Jesus. Take your marbles and go home already.

Rick Reuben wrote:Go deface the 9/11 thread with your crap. I'm returning this thread to Ron Paul if possible, if my stalkers can stand it.

This forum hates Ron Paul and honest money and 9/11 Truth, and it hates them lazily: from a stubborn refusal to do the research. This forum looks at the audience that Ron Paul or 9/11 Truth attracts, and they don't like the looks of that audience- too scraggly and too inclusive for their high brow tastes. To join with Paul or 9/11 Truth would be aesthetically distasteful for many on the forum.

Rick, it looks to me that you're the one who 9/11'ed this thread. As you can see in the portion of your post that I copied in, you mentioned 9/11 Truth 3 times. So you shouldn't be surprised when someone else brings it up in a response to your post.

I have no problem with you supporting Ron Paul. I have a big problem with myself supporting Ron Paul. It isn't going to happen, even if there are one or two areas where Ron Paul and myself agree.

OK, it looks like Nerbly 9/11'ed the thread on page 50, in a quite easily forgotten post. But nothing more until your post, Rick.

I'm not sure why you consider Ron Paul "inclusive".