[bnelson44]

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Let’s see:

1. He supports Dennis Kucinich’s desire for a fresh, Truther-friendly investigation into the “cover up” of 9/11.

2. He goes on Truther radio shows.

3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it’s actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran’s taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)

He’s a Truther

[bnelson44]

Here is some video of him:

“Powerful banking interests” behind the creation of the American central banking system...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Face%2Emu%2Enu%2Farchives%2F225943%2Ephp

Congressman Ron Paul warns of a contrived incident to provoke war with Iran, a “Gulf of Tonkin” type incident, January 11, 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Face%2Emu%2Enu%2Farchives%2F225943%2Ephp

This guy is not a serious candidate for President of the US

[The Pack Knight]

He’s a Truther

Sad to say, but I concur. I've long respected him as a man of principle, and am sympathetic to a great many of his positions. However, his opposition to the war in Iraq has seemed to progress beyond his non-interventionist principles and into moonbat anti-American conspiracy theory.

By allowing himself to become an ideological fellow traveler to this country's enemies, he's lost much of the respect I had for him previously.

While I respect the principles of Dr. Paul's supporters, my own principles dictate that I work vigorously to keep him out of the White House should it become apparent that he has a chance of winning.

[Ditter]

He is a squirrel, always has been, always will be.

[streetpreacher]

He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it’s actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran’s taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)

Hate to give creedence to Rosie and the Truthers, but history is on their side. Our government has done that on at least two occasions. And lest we forget, Clinton was not shy about wagging the dog.

That said, there's a difference in simulating an attack (Gulf of Tonkin), shameful as it is and deliberately killing thousands of Americans. And then to build your case on "fire doesn't melt steel" is well... kind of kooky.