This, and Rand Paul’s childish and deliberately misleading rant about Newt this week have taken the Paul family down several notches in my book (and I’ve always liked Rand and grudgingly respected Ron).
They have proven themselves just as cynical and just as willing to mislead and obfuscate and play to the lesser instincts of some voters as any other damned politician in Washington. Very disappointing, because there is a lot of good in what their main message is.
Ron Paul would have us paying the jizyah to Tehran.
Channeling his inner Larouche?
He’s not the nice, old patriotic grandfather many think he is.
Ron Paul! Get LOST! We don’t need or want you; YOU JERK!
The crazy uncle in the attic is going to start objecting to being compared to Ron Paul.
Why isn’t he asking why the US Taxpayers had to pay out billion$ to the 3000 families involved in 9/11. If your neighbor dies tomorrow will you pay his house off? Didn’t think so, but we did for those people and a lot more. WHY?
How any sane person could consider Paul presidential material is way beyond me.
F U R P!
Did the small cabal of neocons in the Bush adminstration cynically and opportunistically (in the tradition of Rahm “no crisis is worth wasting” Emanuel use 9-11 to attack the secular Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11? Of course, they did! Of course, it is also a slimny smear to argue that pointing out that simple fact makes RP a truther e.g. an advocate of the view that the U.S. government intentionally murdered thousands of Americans on 9-11. If that is your claim, then prove it!
OK, he's not just a "nutty uncle in the attic" to me now. That is so patently offensive I feel like punching his nose through the back of his skull.
The Tea Party doesn’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy.
What a 21st century schizoid man. Good on economic issues, but really demented on foreign policy. 9/11 was an inside job, wow.
Naaah. To me it just means that he’s getting ready to run as a third party candidate when he gets shellacked after super Tuesday. Get the name recognition by coming on strong in Iowa, take the beating on Super Tuesday, and leave Newt and mittens to fight for the gop nomination.
As a third party candidate he’ll pull about 15-20% in the general I reckon. Maybe more. People are ticked off enough at the dem-gop uniparty. Plenty of votes to throw the election one way or the other.
Interestingly, most candidates run for the center. Looks like RP is trying to run with a coalition that tries to unify the outliers. Who knows? It might even work. Strange times to be sure.
Someone who avidly keeps up with this please help me. My understanding is that a ‘truther’ maintains that elements within the US Gov. performed, assisted, or willingly allowed the 911 attacks.
While Paul’s statement that there was ‘glee’ within some US Gov circles over the attacks is odious, there is still a world of difference between asserting gleeful opportunism in the wake of such attacks, and asserting actual culpability in such attacks. Again, my understanding is that the ‘truthers’ assert US complicity or even execution of the attacks.
How does that make him a truther?
To qualify as a truther, one needs to assert that GWB was in on 9/11, not simply that 9/11 improved the political climate for war aims he might have had.
It's one thing to point out that FDR was having trouble getting support for making war on Germany before Pearl Harbor (and Germany's subsequent declaration of war against the US). It's quite another thing to assert FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and deliberately failed to prevent it in order to get the US into the war.
The author of this apparently has no idea what a truther is.
The truthers do not believe that the US used the WTC hit as an excuse to start a war; they believe that the whole event was fraudulently represented as having been done by Arab terrorists, when all the while it was staged by US operatives.
Truther is the wrong word here.
This is a dishonest post.
A truther believes that the government was involved in the plot to murder thousands of Americans.
The comment in the article does not indicate that Ron Paul believes that. He might believe that, but the comment doesn’t prove that.
His isolationist foreign policy positions are certainly open to criticism, but this post is not honest criticism.
“Walter” you’re not funny anymore!
Maybe not glee, but definitely a sense of not letting a good crisis go to waste. And there were definitely people who wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 and viewed this as their big chance. So Paul is basically right. And saying this doesn't make him a "truther".