I regret that I skimmed this post rather hastily the first time, and now after reading it through more carefully I noticed a couple of glaring mistakes:
In your answer to #2 you linked our troop commitments abroad to the implied unavailability of F-16s to intercept the hijacked aircraft. I don’t buy the link or the implication that there weren’t any F-16s on hand. Shaky ground there.
In #8, you said that al-Qaeda has existed for 50 yrs. and that their rebellion began in response to our 14 bases in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wasn’t formed until 1988 - even if you’re thinking of bin Laden himself, he only started organizing fighters in 1979. And US troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia until 1990. Additionally, I think the 14 bases you’re thinking of are the ones we’re planning to build in Iraq - I don’t know how many were in Saudi Arabia.
I also think you’re straying dangerously close to providing moral justification for al-Qaeda’s attacks in the first paragraph of your answer to #3. It’s one thing to talk about what fed into the terrorists’ motivations, but I’d be careful about making comparisons.
I agree with the spirit of what you’ve posted, but please take care to do the necessary fact-checking and choose your words cautiously. Your ability to persuade people depends on it. You can also do an inordinate amount of damage to the cause if you’re not careful. Rep. Paul isn’t here to give his own answers, many of which I’ve heard him elaborate differently.
One wonders why you would "agree with the spirit of" a poster who is so factually inaccurate and on many issues doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.
I'm actually entertaining the idea that the original post is a spoof meant to draw out diehard Ron Paul supporters into defending obviously idiocy because they "agree with the spirit of" it.... After all, if it were such a spoof, the post wouldn't be much different.