[George W. Bush]

When you or Ron Paul, or anyone, associates with anyone who harbors the idea that the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the War on Terror whatever, is misguided if only because of a failure by Congress to declare war you are aligning yourselves with this:

Not at all. Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban who shielded Osama and who protected his training camps. RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does, partly to avoid these never-to-win police-action wars of the post-WW II era. He also introduced Marque & Reprisal legislation which would have been used to authorize some of the outfits like Blackwater to go after Bin Laden directly and reward them for taking him out.

The war on Iraq is a separate matter from Afghanistan/Waziristan.

[bcsco]

Not at all. Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban who shielded Osama and who protected his training camps. RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does, partly to avoid these never-to-win police-action wars of the post-WW II era.

Ron Paul supported and voted for the war in Afghanistan...why? If he insists on a formal declaration of war, why?

RP did want a formal declaration of war there as he always does...

See above. Why? If he voted for the conflict in Afghanistan without a formal declaration, then why does he have to have the formal declaration elsewhere? And why do you Paul supporters (and he, BTW) have to make it a cornerstone of his candidacy?And if the formal declaration is so important, then why wasn't it important enough for his vote on Afghanistan?

You're telling me he voted for the Afghan war without a formal declaration, yet holds out for a formal declaration elsewhere. This makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that he'd vote for earmarks because he knows the committee will ultimately pass them, then vote against them on the final vote, all because he's against earmarks. None of this makes sense, unless, that is, one understands that Ron Paul is a manipulative fraud.

You stated to me, up front, that you are a conservative who believes Ron Paul is the best candidate. If you are a true conservative, and believe the BEST man should be the bearer of the GOP banner, then kindly explain how Ron Paul fits that description; in terms that aren't disingenuous or lamentable.