No. I expect assertions to be backed up by evidence other than hearsay in a public forum. You asserted that Ron Paul is backed by "fascists" and that you would refuse to support him for this single reason. Not only have you failed to deliver or operate with a sound definition of fascist, you've failed to present sound evidence that Ron Paul is receiving support from fascists; people who by definition would be opposed to Ron Paul's ideas regarding individual freedom and accountability.
My expectations may not be particularly high, as I would think backing one's views, and sound definitions, to be part of a discussion regarding these matters. But my expectations are obviously higher than yours, since you expect only "silliness." If it's only silliness you expect, then you might look to other threads and forums.
I haven't failed anything. I never tried. You've been around here longer than I. Being engaged in Ron Paul threads as you have you're aware of those charges and the evidence provided. I see no reason to reeducate you.
Nor do I have any reason to feed your obfuscation and spin. And, as far as my expectation of silliness, it only comes into play when confronted with PaulPot sheeple.