Ron Paul Flip Flops on iran NUKES

Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:08 pm » by **Abdul14**

first clip he says why wouldnt iran want nukes, they are surrounded by nukes its only natural they would want tham too

second clip he completely deny they even want or working to get nukes

and you gotta love how he didnt hear nothing didnt see nothing about the newsletters that was published with his signeture all over tham for years
all of a sudden the dude became an ostrich

Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:29 pm » by **Phaeton**

Get a fucking job, you laughable zionist shill wannabe. :flop:

Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:40 pm » by **Theauthority**

phaeton wrote:Get a fucking job, you laughable zionist shill wannabe.

very well said! :shooting:

what a complete joke, so out of context. their desperate to stop him, but America, and the worlds victory is inevitable.

Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:48 pm » by **Rydher**

What's even more humorous is how the truthers here say Ron Paul is on board with their theory that 9/11 was an inside job, that we planted explosives inside the towers and I guess shot a missile at the pentagon, then shot down the 3rd plane for no apparent reason. Since the government was behind it anyway.

But he constantly uses US intelligence agencies and UN reports as a source for his information about Iran. It never ceases to amaze me the level of cherry picking of information from sources that the majority here claim are totally corrupt. Yet their intel is as good as gold when the information coming from them supports their own agendas and fantasies. :lol:

Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:54 pm » by **Rydher**

theauthority wrote:what a complete joke, so out of context.

Could you put it into context for us then? So we can all better understand it.

Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:17 pm » by **Theauthority**

rydher wrote:What's even more humorous is how the truthers here say Ron Paul is on board with their theory that 9/11 was an inside job, that we planted explosives inside the towers and I guess shot a missile at the pentagon, then shot down the 3rd plane for no apparent reason. Since the government was behind it anyway.

But he constantly uses US intelligence agencies and UN reports as a source for his information about Iran. It never ceases to amaze me the level of cherry picking of information from sources that the majority here claim are totally corrupt. Yet their intel is as good as gold when the information coming from them supports their own agendas and fantasies.

No but he said "he doesn't trust anything the governments does with investigations." and would be onboard with another investigation. I mean that's all the people really want isnt it? And a legit investigations team. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=d91a13Yr3oQ#t=34s)

Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:28 pm » by **Rydher**

Like any outcome other than the government blew up the towers would be accepted as the truth. I'm more interested to hear your in context explanation though.

Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:36 pm » by **Constabul**

There have been complacency by the government before. In acts that allowed for the government to take a stance beyond non interference.
Mainly I can think of Pearl Harbor.
While I am not in agreement that the government carried it out. I do think there are evidences that it was known about, and likely another setup to drawl us into a conflict in the middle east.

Another example would be the USS liberty.

But this is not really the subject of the post.

Just adding my 2 cents worth :think:

Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:42 pm » by **Rydher**

constabul wrote:While I am not in agreement that the government carried it out. I do think there are evidences that it was known about, and likely another setup to drawl us into a conflict in the middle east.

That is my stance on it as well, 100%. So, he's on board with another government investigation on the subject but "doesn't trust anything the government does with investigations." :headscratch:

That just illustrates my point of the prevailing mindset of the vast majority of posters here. Don't trust anything unless it produces information that supports what you think. Constabul is right, let's get back on track.

I'll await your explanation of Ron Pauls statements, in context.

Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:51 pm » by **Mediasorcerer**

you dont want an explanation ryder, you wouldnt listen anyway, just as you state that people here only listen to what they want to hear, your a shining example of that yourself,
and thats why you made that statement,

because its a reflection of your subconscious mind, its your guilt,

of course you dont like ron paul, hes not a hater like you.
hes consistent and honest, two traits you dont have.