Via Breitbart
"You know, if you look at the history, Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel.”
-Ron Paul
Ok, I'd like to see EVIDENCE to prove what he claims. He threw out the claim. Will he and/or his campers provide PROOF??
After all... it's, as far as I know, a BIZARRE CONSPIRACY THEORY... unless conclusively proven.
If any politician makes claims like this, so bizarre and unbelievable, without evidence, then such a politician will tend to derive support only from fringe elements who'll believe whatever he says.
Ok... got evidence?
Why shouldn't I use the following graphic? If anyone can prove to my satisfaction that Israel created Hamas, I'll remove it from this post.
15 comments:
CS, I think that there are a number of knee-jerk reactions which you are following, dedicated to the undermining of Ron Paul.
Here is a link which you may find interesting: http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_hamas6.html
I have no way of following this up, as I am off to work but this should help you spend some time learning a few things about the most feared politician in America today!!! Yes, More feared than even Barak Obama!!
We must remember that a man like Ron Paul chooses his words and speaks from a knowledge base from closed door meetings on a regular basis, as he is a United States Senator. He is privy to information which will never see the light of day, for national security reasons for example.
Cheers, and have some fun!!
A link to Prison Planet? Alex Jones and his moonbattery?? Really??
Yeah, Da Jooooooosss are SO evil, they birthed Hamas AND Sammy Davis Jr...
PS -- Ron Paul is NOT a U.S. Senator, he is a Congressman, a very misguided and goofy one...
Ah... Arafat made the accusation... so that's what Ron Paul goes by?
I see the sourcing of the claims made, and am not impressed.
No evidence... just unreliable hearsay from unreliable or unknown folks...
www.globalresearch.ca
Smells like disinformation propaganda to me...
Sourcing MATTERS.
And be it known, Glacierman, no one is more open-minded, fair and evidence-and-logic-and-reason oriented than I.
I favored the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance, which weren't seen as "mainstream", either, but which are now the majority governing party in this country. I could tell that they were realistic, rational, logical, because the things they said, I could tell were reality-based and not merely claim-and-belief-based, unlike a lot of what Ron Paul et al say.
So rest assured I'm being fair and balanced in my treatment of Ron Paul. I do agree with lots of the stuff he says, but other stuff is so curious and unsubstantiated with evidence, logic, reason... I just can't bring myself to think of him as any kind of safe, sane choice for President.
"Sourcing MATTERS."
Oh, good. So we won't be seeing acres of cut and paste from WND anymore? :)
WND IS a source, silly.
If the NYT, CBS, CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, etc. are sources, then so is WND. And WND is better, in fact. I know you prefer to deny that, but, hey, you got the right to choose to pretend stuff all you want... ;)
Of course, they're a source, dear boy. Just a very, very bad source.
"WND is better, in fact."
Sentinel, you're going to have to figure out that "better" means more than "agrees with Sentinel", just "troll" means more than "disagrees with Sentinel". You like them because they support your world view, and because they help you sustain the strange, demon-haunted world shaped by visions and conspiracies that you seem to inhabit.
As far as I can tell, WND exists to sell product. They keep the Birfer nonsense alive because their editorial staff like to sell books about it. They preach catastrophism because they sell survival gear. Their standards of accuracy, fact checking, editorial control, corrections when mistaken, and balance are astonishingly low. Their separation of news from editorial function and from sales is non-existent.
If your an American and dont vote for Dr Paul you deserve the time you will spend in your local friendly neighborhood FEMA camp, ENJOY.
"do agree with lots of the stuff he says, but other stuff is so curious and unsubstantiated with evidence, logic, reason... I just can't bring myself to think of him as any kind of safe, sane choice for President."
Might I remind you that the good Doctor has also delivered over 3000 babies, man.
Do you think that you would trust the man with your wife and newborn but not with the government? The man runs on past experiences, he is not some 40 something who has little real life experience and is currently running the country.
When the tipping point gets bad enough and the Americans jump from the pan into the fire, Ron Paul will be the one to run the country.
You will have to face your fears about the man and get over your prejudices folks.
Ron Paul is a good man and has the skill and integrity to lead the nation. More-so, than any other candidate on either side of the aisle!
"Might I remind you that the good Doctor has also delivered over 3000 babies, man.Do you think that you would trust the man with your wife and newborn but not with the government?"
That's a weird argument. How on earth are you equating competence in obstetrics with political capacity??
"You will have to face your fears about the man and get over your prejudices folks."
Naw. He's not electable, and he won't get the nomination. That's what we on the science side call a "falsifiable hypothesis".
Kind of like Globull Warming dude? BWAAAHHAAA!
You do believe in that don't you????
Balb, you have said a number of time that RP is not electable.
What specifically do you believe those issues are. You have said without qualifying, just referred to our dear host, but we have not heard your talking points.
You are beginning to sound like the CBC and CTV shills!
"Kind of like Globull Warming dude? BWAAAHHAAA! You do believe in that don't you????"
Sorry, I "do believe" in what?
"Balb, you have said a number of time that RP is not electable. What specifically do you believe those issues are?"
I'll explain.
In order to get elected, he has to secure the Republican nomination; the Party has to be assured that his candidacy represents their best hope at defeating Obama. The constituencies they're going to be targeting are:
- the extreme Conservative fringe of the Republican party, particularly the Tea Party and Libertarian wings;
- the more centrist Republicans;
- disaffected Democrats, who will split both left (angry at Obama for failure to tax corporations, etc.) and right (more support for Israel, etc.)
There are two broad tactical considerations, one positive, one negative.
- To what extent can any given candidate articulate a message that's at least partially attractive to voters in those multiple camps - or at least not a complete, door-slamming turnoff: and,
- How much mud will the Democrats be able to fling?
In my opinion, Ron Paul does not too badly on the first criterion, bu he appears to be alienating the very influential (or at least loud) Tea Party wing. They're not going to get a candidate in there (Bachmann seems to be the favoured candidate, and she simply cannot be taken seriously); but they have shown a great willingness to go to almost insane lengths to vilify candidates they deem insufficiently ideologically "pure".
On the negative side, Paul has NOT been able to distance himself from his newsletters, the John Birch Society and from the whiff of the Truthers. That's more optics than substance, but it's a political reality, and a serious consideration in the selection of a candidate.
Post a Comment