As for truthers, Ron Paul has gone on record and said there is “no evidence to support” the notion that 9/11 was an inside job.

Left by John Jarzemsky on October 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Actually, Ron Paul is arguably the most pro-security candidate present. He wants to bring the military home, so it can actually defend our country instead of trying to defend others. Then he wants to secure our borders more thoroughly, preventing illegal movements. This will almost certainly hinder cross-border operations and smuggling as an added benefit. When it comes to preventing all forms of organized crime (including terrorists) from being able to operate effectively, keeping them from crossing the border is as effective as you can get.

Furthermore, should we face serious threats, recollecting our brave men and women from the 130+ nations they’re currently spread out in and restoring the strength of our armed forces will ensure we are capable of effective response to future threats.

Finally, he wants as general principle to spend our resources at home, instead of in Iraq. Given how few and far between terrorist attacks are, and by contrast how real a threat crime is in many areas, even without the far more effective border control proposed by Ron Paul we would generate more gains in security by focusing on domestic matters. The wider variety of things at home, and the fact that not all of them require equivalent expenses to combat, mean we would face a much higher dollar for dollar efficiency if we widened our desires for security to target non-terrorist crime as well.

Left by N. Pannbacker on October 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

John — and in the very next breath he told them he would “look into” and “investigate” the collapse of WTC #7.

That’s not repudiation — that’s pandering.

Left by Robbie on October 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Robbie:

Saying 9/11 should be investigated does not equate to saying the government flew planes into the WTC. A call for investigation means just that: investigation. It’s what rationally minded people do when they want to prove something: you investigate facts and draw conclusions.

Just because Paul thinks there were significant shortcomings in the government’s investigations of 9/11 doesn’t mean he thinks they murdered their own citizens.

Left by John Jarzemsky on October 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Well, I have to say anybody who questions if 9/11 was an inside job is a nutcase. The other night I heard someone ask that question or make some comment to that effect to President Clinton and he looked at whoever it was and said, “How Dare You, How Dare You!” He wasn’t doing it for the press either. He had blood in his eye. That was the mark of a real President. I was impressed to say the least.

Ron Paul needs to drop out of the race, soon.

Left by Dianne on October 29th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Dianne:

Like I said, Paul doesn’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job. He has gone on record stating that he believes the exact opposite. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel there were significant shortcomings in the investigation, which he feels should be re-opened due to matters of negligence.

It amazes me how much some people refuse to see past two extremes in any given situation. Ron Paul must either blindly accept every single piece of information concerning 9/11 that the government purports to be true or he must be an idiotic, conspiracy-mongering nutjob. Ron Paul must either say that the Iraq War was a great idea and support it 100% or he’s in favor of laying down arms and sending Bin Laden a rose-scented invitation to take over the oval office.

Conservatism in its present state seems stubbornly addicted to the notion that no shades of grey exist, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Left by John Jarzemsky on October 29th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I’m glad someone actually listens to or reads what Paul has to say or think.
His nuttiness is apparent in his eyes, and mannerisms, when he has appeared on the photo-op feaux debates.

Left by no2liberals on October 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

As a black man, I find the whole tone of this more than a little disturbing. I certainly don’t like racism any more than anyone else. But we don’t combat racism by dehumanizing the racist; we combat racism by demonstrating our own humanity. I have lots of rights, but being universally loved by all of my neighbors isn’t among those rights. Whether I like it or not (and I don’t), people do have the right to think evil of me, or even to wish evil on me; they just don’t have the right to DO evil TO me.

Did I mention that I’m also an enthusiastic Paul supporter? Should I be disturbed that some people who don’t think much of me and people who look like me have chosen to also support my candidate? Well, as much as I’d love to believe that everyone who supports my candidate is as enlightened as I am, I want my candidate to WIN, which (unfortunately) involves persuading millions of idiots to vote for him. Afterall, no candidate EVER wins the Presidency whithout convincing MILLIONS of idiots to vote for him. Only losers demand ideological purity among their supporters, which is probably why Dr. Paul is ignoring your bait: the doc ain’t no fool.

Left by Don McCombs on October 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am

Don, well said, if all you said is true.
I know there are no perfect candidates, and never will be.
In the case of Ron Paul, though, he has pegged my BS Detector, each and every time he has gone on one of his rants.
He’s not my kind of guy, as his behavior is repellant, irrespective of his policy ideas.
I don’t think Paul is a fool, I think he is a loon.

Left by no2liberals on October 30th, 2007 at 6:09 am

I really wanted to like Ron Paul. I sent him fifty bucks when he announced his run.

But he has snuggled up too close to the 9/11 nutters to be considered. The ‘truthers’ make physically ill with their lies and hysterical rants.

Left by Jim Howard on October 30th, 2007 at 10:35 am

Thanks for the H/T.

Left by Patrick Joubert Conlon on November 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Michael Medved is one of those whiny limousine liberals who complains about even the most benign thing — even a television show. I used to watch him on various news networks complaining about the ‘hidden meaning’ in some show’s plot or some portrayal he didn’t like.

So some white suppremacist groups donated to his campaign. Big hairy deal. Ron Paul can’t stop anyone from donating to his campaign. And why should he? The fact is a Ron Paul/libertarian-type government would allow everyone to thrive and associate with whomever they wish — so long as they’re willing to do so honestly and peacefully. There wouldn’t be any need to fear the klan if everyone was allowed their right to self-defense. Most of the time, it wouldn’t even have to go that far. Groups that are polar opposites basically know well enough to leave each other alone. It’s the hard-headed do-gooders who sometimes cause more trouble by using government to force their vision of a ‘utopian’ society. In the meantime, the limousine liberals are very protective of their exclusive clubs, restaurants and shops. They are so eager to build shelters and other social services operations so long as they’re not built by their nice homes out in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons.
As John Stossel would say: ‘Give me a break!’

As an afro-American woman, I’m sick and tired of white liberal hypocrisy. The fact is law enforcement or government agents have killed more blacks and other minorities over the past 30 years than the klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups. The difference is when the state (government) breaks the laws or causes harm to people, it’s not liable for any damages. They all have some level of immunity.

Perhaps some day other black Americans will wake up and smell the coffee. As for now, they are still under the spell of faulty liberal ‘group think’, failed pro-socialist Democrat policy, and the illusion that big government is their friend and protector.

Ron Paul would make sure that the state has to follow the law just like the rest of us ordinary mortals. He would make sure that cops are not the only ones allowed to own guns or use deadly force in self-defense.
Let’s put an end to certain Constitutional rights being limited according to whether you belong to some favored class of workers, ethnic group and so forth. Constitutional rights for ALL CITIZENS or nobody at all!

Left by Estelle Edwards on December 19th, 2007 at 9:53 am

The fact is law enforcement or government agents have killed more blacks and other minorities over the past 30 years than the klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups.

Do you know who’s killed more blacks than any other group in the United States?

Other blacks.

That’s just a fact. A sad, sad fact.

Left by Robbie on December 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

> Do you know who’s killed more blacks than any other group in the United States? Other blacks.

Yes, that too. However, I trying to point out the number of black Americans not involved in criminal activity but somehow became victims of excessive force by law enforcement. Notably, through the ‘war on drugs’ and the no-knock raids carried out on the wrong addresses given by some informant. Or, you have police over-reacting in situations like the Sean Bell case.

Left by Estelle Edwards on December 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am