That first link doesn't have any actual evidence of Paul being a truther. Paul clearly believes that the attacks were made by pissed off Muslims, not Mossad or Halliburton. And the second one quotes statements that are milder than what I say on a pretty regular basis.

"He constantly blames US foreign policy for 9-11, putting him in the same league as Ward Churchill and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, possibly even to the left of Dennis Kucinich."

It also puts him in the same league as any rational person. Al Qaeda publicly stated their motivations, and they had everything to do with US foreign policy. Maybe they're lying, but I don't see why they would. Their religion shapes their perception of American foreign policy, but that doesn't excuse the US for poking our dicks into other countries and not expecting any response.

NB: I'm cool with American imperialism, so long as it's rational. It's one thing to invade Alberta, liberate them from British imperialism, and secure their precious oil. It's another thing to pretend that the Canadians only fight back because hockey and poutine distort their worldview.

You're clearly misrepresenting his comments. He wanted the Nazis and Soviets to slaughter each other, while the UK and US stayed out of it. That's seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, his comments about the ADL are simply repeating another news story about arrests in San Francisco.

No, the short term solution is pouring resources into defense. The only rational long term stance is to reduce defense spending, and the easiest way to do that is to stop meddling in foreign countries. If you want to go on foreign adventures so badly, spend Australian dollars on it.

At peak levels, Australia had 2,000 troops in Iraq, and 1,500 in Afghanistan. The United States, which is about 15 times the population of Australia, had 150,000 troops in Iraq, and 90,000 in Afghanistan. To match that proportion, Australia would have had to increase its commitment by 400% in Iraq and 300% in Afghanistan. Australia spends 1.8% of GDP on defense to America's 4.9%. Australia is mooching, and I'm sick of it.

800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

Including interest on defense related loans, and other hidden costs, Americans spend almost $4000 per person on defense. WHY? Our Indian tribes have all been vanquished, every able bodied Mexican is already mowing lawns here, and the Canadians are Canadians. We have no immediate threats, we have no reason to go into debt spending billions on bullshit. America has no nearby enemies, the most powerful navy, alliances with most of the other great powers, and a huge and well armed citizenry. We have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Most people know that the most powerful air force is the US Air Force. But many people forget that the second most powerful air force is the US Navy. It's cool, but totally outside of our budget.

If Australia is afraid of China, then Australia should spend more than 1.8% of GDP on defense. America shouldn't be expected to pay for your protection. When Australians are kicking in as much as Americans, we can discuss raising American spending levels. Until then, shut up you free-loading jackass.

Ron Paul's strict non-interventionism is nonsense, as is his belief in the gold standard. He's loony, even if he has a few good ideas.

Is there anything else you can sell him with? It's like calling Moe the smartest stooge.

That doesn't mean they should cease entirely.

I don't think that would help Romney. Romney doesn't need to be the one making the attacks, he has plenty of pundits and lower-level politicians to do the mudslinging for him.

I think Newt's appeal is that he is about as far from Obama as you can be. People are tired of struggling. It is debatable why they are struggling 3 years into an Obama administration, but it is not unusual that the current administration is getting the blame. People wanted change with Obama....meaning that they wanted an improvement in their situation. For many people, things have gotten worse.

Newt brings a view of better, simpler times....invokes the greatness of the American spirit....talks continuously about how good things used to be. It is no suprise to me that he is the front runner.

Obama will need to be careful when he starts the negative campaign that everyone seems to be predicting. Americans are tired of doom and gloom...they have been living it for half a decade now. That type of campaign could backfire when confronted with a vision of "glory days" and a return to them. Style over substance...

Newt didn't poll well against the other repubs 90 days ago eithier. Your point is well founded however. If you will read what I said again, then you will see that I said that Obama will need to be carefull when his campaign begins. It is a percieved reaction to future events that I am cautioning against and saying that Americans may be swayable to the rhetoric of the good ole days...

Newt got shoved overboard by his own party during the good ole days due to his rhetoric and arrogance.

The survey I saw today had Newt at just over 50% on the hate meter. That was overall, I can just imagine how high it was for indies.

Felch http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif , and I'd love to see Ron Paul vs Obama... just for the commentary that would ensue. He has the best shot of beating Obama in any case.

That's the biggest selling point of all the republican candidates.

A technicality.

"Adult newts have lizard-like bodies..."

"The etymology for this term has gone through a complex twist of old Middle English variations. The oldest form of the name is eft, which is still used for newly metamorphosed specimens, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary it changed for unknown reasons first to euft and then to ewt. For some time it remained as an ewt, but the "n" from the indefinite article an shifted to form a newt. The sexually mature stage was also called an ewte, with similar etymology roots linking an ewte, newt, "euft", and eft: "small lizard-like animal,"

He's a lizard. Don't be fooled.