Comments: Was Ron Paul making a legitimate point?

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I looked into this. There is nothing there. Ron Paul's ideas should be judged on their merits and trying to make Truther associations just gets in the way.

Posted by Dar at May 19, 2007 05:15 PM

Care to elucidate there, Dar?

Posted by Hube at May 19, 2007 10:25 PM

I agree with Dar. Ron Paul's point is that we have no business interjecting ourselves militarily into the affairs of other nations, including Korea in 1950, Vietnam in the 60's, ..., and now Iraq. It is our business to participate in diplomacy, while maintaining a robust homeland defense and retaliatory capability, he has said over and over. I have agreed with him for years. Don't you think this is "classical liberal" (libertarian), Hube?

Posted by Perry Hood at May 21, 2007 09:43 AM

Ron Paul had (has) a point to a degree -- right up till he says or even implies that the attacks of 9/11 are due to our foreign policy. If you examine bin Laden's list of "grievances," how many of them are actually legit? And face it -- even if we did ALL of what bin Laden wanted, it wouldn't have mattered. That's what terrorists are all about.

I agree with Paul on one main point: That Bush violated his own doctrine (and conservative doctrine in general) when he attempted to "nation-build" in Iraq.

Posted by Hube at May 21, 2007 03:02 PM

Ron Paul articulates a point many people in this country agree with. Most of those people are knee jerk "Liberals" who cannot think of the President without foaming at the mouth.

While I agree that we could not satisfy bin Laden, there is something to us stirring him up by our policies.

The question for Mr. Paul is so what? Where do we go from here? Does he think pulling out of our foreign entanglements will solve the problems we now face regarding terrorism? I think not.

Posted by Alan Coffey at May 24, 2007 09:54 PM

Paul is definitely a moonbat, but he's not the same kind of moonbat as the Truthers, at least when it comes to 9/11. If 9/11 were the Holocaust, Truthers are the David Irvings of the world who deny there ever was one, while Paul is more like the traditional Nazi who eagerly admits that it did happen, and insists that the Joos had it coming.

Posted by Xrlq at May 28, 2007 07:06 PM

I would be hesitatnt to reject Ron Paul as a straight out of the way as a moonbat for ideas that sound non-conventional to a whole generation brought up on neo-conservative dogma. Remember folks, his position on almost every issue is the traditional conservative issue.

Oppose this with the radical idea of nation building, waging a war on terror with no sight in end, forgetting about Bin Laden, subsidizing multinational corporations, developing an ideological core that excludes debate about any variety of issues deemed politically "off-limit" is conservative. Perhaps we no longer beleive open debate is a good thing? Either way I hope you go vote in the primaries, and think for yourselves instead of allowing Michelle Malkin to think for you.

Posted by silence dogood at November 17, 2007 10:16 PM

silence: Check out my subsequent posts on Paul at this blog. Just use the search function. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by Hube at November 18, 2007 07:52 AM