Gosh. Golly. Gee whiz. I didn't realize that Congressman Paul is a pacifist. I wouldn't mind him taking this position as an individual, but as President of the U.S.? Turning the other cheek when other nations attack us? I don't think so. I am going to have to rethink my previous support for Dr. Paul.
How do I know that this is true? Why, the newspaper of record says so. Read this article and you will see the following, and I quote: "If there is one area where Mr. Paul, a pacifist, is weakest in this heavily military state, it is national defense." As is well known, the New York Times is the gold standard of newspapers. They never lie. They give us all the news that's fit to print.
I wonder why soldiers donate to the Ron Paul campaign more than they give to the other contenders, all put together? When the members of the military learn that this Texas Congressman is really a pacifist, I'm sure they will send their money elsewhere.
Could it be that the New York Times is lying though its teeth? Nah. Couldn't be. Imagine that. Ron Paul a pacifist. Who would have thunk. I suppose he has changed his views on this matter since his own military service. (In case I've been too subtle here, I meant to be sarcastic all throughout).