Apparently, I am uncharacteristically verbose today.
I tried to add this comment to a Kippy post, but it bounced back at me with an automated bitch that I used too many damn words. :) So I'm posting it here instead.
I have for the most part been spared any meaningful bombardment by the Paulbearers, despite my several unflattering blogposts about their icon.
Part of the reason for that might be that your posts confuse us. Your arguments against Ron Paul seem to be directed at a face-to-face matchup in the general election of Ron Paul versus the Libertarian winner.
In short, you're fighting a fight that it's not time to fight yet.
Dr. Paul and the Libertarian nominee (whoever that might be) are still in the primaries and are not competing against each other yet. And yet your arguments go along the lines of "You shouldn't vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because he's not as consistently Libertarian as the Libertarian candidate . . ."
Those arguments would have some OOMPH in the general election, but Dr. Paul has to win the primaries first for those arguments to be relevant.
What does voting in the Libertarian primary get us? Another Libertarian, any of whom many of us will vote for in the fall should Dr. Paul lose the Republican primary.
So the question becomes, why not vote for Dr. Paul in the primary?