Like a politician never did an about-face to try to save his ass? I'm not stating that I know for sure that he's a truther, but he sure has been giving a lot of signs. Just because he issued a denial doesn't put the issue to bed once and for all, as you claimed.
Kinda like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
I may be a “shouter” but I provided a fact-based response e.g. a clear and specific denial by Paul. The burden is now on you to do the same.
True, you gave a fact. But there's the concept of what speaks louder, a person's words or actions? He says he doesn't believe in it, but he does all kinds of things which indicate that he may support it after all. I've been providing facts all over this thread, which have largely been ignored or dismissed. This line of reasoning is similar to who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?
Exactly! Hence, Paul voted to authorize the attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In addition, he has repeatedly called for Letters of Marque to go after Bin Laden. That's pretty strange behavior from someone who you(apparently????) believe thinks Al Qaeda is an innocent bystander.
So what do we have here. Paul has issued a blanket and crystal clear statement that the Truther view is wrong plus he has repeatedly called for action to attack Al Qaeda (who the Truthers think was innocent) in retaliation for 9-11. What more do you need?