3..2..1....
In before the Paulbots...
Notice how the mainstream liberal media ignores all the facts that expose Paul as a raving crackpot while they dredge up everything possible on the conservative candidates. They know that the longer they let this nutcase pollute the GOP field, the better for their buddy Obama and liberal RINO Romney.
One clear prospective result for those voting for Ron Paul is it is likely to effectively assure the reelection of Obama...and here’s how.
Since Ron Paul has not forsworn running as an Independent if he does not win the GOP primary...which he stands almost no chance of winning, it clear he harbors serious plans of running an Independent.
So, it seems to e the question is; if Paul gets a strong even if unsuccessful showing in the GOP primary, does it make him more or less likely to run as an Independent? I say it makes it far more likely to run as an Independent and siphoning off more than enough votes in the general to throw the election to Obama. IMHO
A Paul voter is an Obama voter
Alex Jones is a flake and Ron Paul is wrong if he believes Jones. Nevertheless, Paul is certainly better than Obama, and I will vote for him without hesitation should he be the nominee.
I voted for Bush for governor of Texas and twice for President. He mishandled the “War on Terror” which should have been a “War on Islamic Radicals”. He is responsible for the current and future mess in Iraq. The end of 2011 was Bush’s withdrawal date. We should have been out of Afghanistan and Iraq after eliminating Saddam and using the two nations as bases to neutralize Iran. Iran is going nuclear because Bush failed.
Given the choices I had in 2000 and 2004, I’d vote for Bush again. He is a genuinely good and honest person but he is at heart a big government advocate.
Paul sounds crazy because the situation we find ourselves in as a nation is completely insane. Paul is telling the truth about our financial condition which is a far bigger threat than Islam at the moment.
I believe there was a fifth aircraft on the grassy knoll.
Irregardless of Ron Paul’s assertions, the U.S. government could have done a better job of refuting claims that their cases on Kennedy, Golf Of Tonkin, USS Liberty, and 9-11 are under-supported. You would think the officials could provide proof and explain why Bldg 7 collapsed directly into it’s footprint as if charges were set, - and it takes many days to set that up.
In these videos he comes across as someone who is very skeptical of government and government investigations in general. The skepticism stated in these videos regarding the official 9/11 story is all about potential coverup of bureaucratic incompetence having to do with the government response and handling of 9/11. This is government after all. There's no evidence or statements at all in these videos to backup a claim that Paul is on board with any of the standard "truther" nut job views, like it was an "inside job" or something like that. Just skepticism of government & government "investigations" in general.
Again, just trying to be fair and objective based upon the "evidence" posted in this blog, which doesn't support the claims in the title. If there is better, alternative evidence I'd love to see it, so I can make up my own mind whether Paul is a truther or not, rather than take the word of some blogger.
my last post about Ron Paul, claiming that the video wherein Paul stated that there was “glee” in the White House after 9/11
__________________________________________________
Now for some truth.
Paul’s point was Bush had intentions of going into Iraq prior to 911.
There is no disputing this.
Other provided credible links which totally support and back that up.
The links are here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818292/posts
Some of the spin being generated by this is speeding up the rotation of the planet.