[reasonisfaith]

You’re wasting time, and missing the point. It’s silly to count how many flaws you can find in someone I voted for int he past.

Focus on what principles need to be advanced, and vote for the candidate who has the greatest loyalty to those principles. This counts Ron Paul out, for me. By a long shot.

No reasonable conservative would argue against the principles of common sense, constitutional conservatism.

Ron Paul is not a reasonable conservative. At best, he’s a politician who thinks he’s a constitutionalist while in reality he uses his own principles against himself.

[conimbricenses]

So in other words, you will not answer a simple question about who you voted for in the 2008 primary because you know that person is guilty of the same things you accuse Paul of being a "fraud" over, and probably far more so.

Thank you for proving though that you argue not from a rational position, but from a bizarre and inconsistently applied personal fixation on Paul.