[ketsu]

You would rather play games with semantics than address the real issue, which is that Ron Paul is unfit to be president because he is blind to the danger that radical Islam poses to the West. Whether or not the jihadists who want to impose Islamic law on the entire world are actually fascists is really besides the point. Paul is hopelessly naive if he believes that the jihadists will leave us alone if we pull out of the Middle East and hide behind our borders. This alone disqualifies him to be president.

Arguing about "semantics" is very important. Ron Paul is interesting because he exposes inconsistencies in modern conservative doctrine.

Right now American conservatism is undergoing a civil war, economic conservatives(move all manufacturing to China, to hell with borders let's absorb Mexico etc...) are fighting with hegemonic conservatives(preserve America's cultural and military supremacy at all costs, this includes the neo-cons) for the soul of the party.

You can see it in the current split between the pro/anti Bush factions on FR.

Ron Paul is a kook but he puts the split in high relief. He's the embodiment of a certain type of old school conservatism that emphasizes consistency over expediency. If conservatives actually listened to what he had to say rather than just rejecting it outright the party would have a much greater understanding of itself. You don't have to accept his beliefs, they're anachronistic, just understand them.

[steadfastconservative]

Just because Paul is consistent about his views does not mean that he is right. History shows that Islam is an expansionist, violent religion that has been spread by force and which has caused great misery wherever it prevails. Paul is evidently ignorant of this, choosing instead to make excuses for radical Muslims who commit acts of war and violence in the name of their religion. I think Paul’s isolationism is dangerous and that he contributes nothing to any intelligent debate on foreign policy.