Though its rare to find a pol who doesn't stretch the truth, there are times when you can see that a politician is a charlatan because of the lies he tells about a position, and you can safely surmise that the rest of his positions in that area are pure male bovine fecal matter.
Ron Paul's position on Iraq is what does that for me.
You see, Paul told anyone who would listen that the authorization to go into Iraq was unconstitutional because it wasn't a formal declaration of war, it allowed the President to decide when (or even if!) hostilities would commence, etc. Yet in 2001, the brave, brave Sir Ronald voted for a military authorization that was more open ended, wasn't a declaration of war and didn't even mention what country we would be fighting...and he admitted as much on the House floor before he voted for it.
Paul's foreign policy positions are garbage in, garbage out at best, and dishonest to boot.
See my Post #30.
In addition, your extensive use of insulting and degrading terms for Paul would be unnecessary if you could find enough specifics to hold against him. Instead, you resort to pandering and name-calling to sway emotional opinion where you can't fill in the gaps with discussion. It's tedious and sophmoric. Paul is not perfect, and does not believe "pure" capitalistic free trade can be implemented, so he tries to apply it as best he can within the constraints of omnibus-type bills that constantly force compromise. But he is stalwart in pushing the power of free trade to force the international environment away from war through bankrupting non-competitive, socialist countries.
That he cotinuously receives such venom for this fairly obvious application of economic realpolitics only serves to sabotage acceptance of fundamental conservative principles - something which would definitely be a goal of RINOs, btw.