Casually throwing in the word Libertarian to make Paul seem like a kook doesn't bolster your argument. It simply means you don't have one to begin with.
Paul's foreign policy views are based on traditional non-interventionalism, you know, the foreign policy we had up until the 1960s.
You Paulties better stop drinking the Kool Aid and try reading some history. The Spanish American War, the Philippines Insurrection, World War I, the Bananna Wars, World War 2, the Korean War and a whole bunch of other armed interventions prove your contention completely without any intellectual merit.
“Casually throwing in the word Libertarian to make Paul seem like a kook...”
So words like “capitalist” or “socialist” or “intellectual” are somehow making those described seem like a “kook”?
Dude, if you’re gonna get into a flame war, then Paul isn’t worth my time. If you’re gonna discuss Paul’s beliefs in terms that are commonly accepted as accurate, then we’ll have a discussion.
Either way you cut it, Paulies flooding forums with rah rah articles, and flaming people who question what they’ve heard, is not gonna get one vote for Paul.