Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
MO GOP targeting 300 Pro-Ron Paul delegates
thelibertypost.com — According to an email from some Missouri supporters of Ron Paul, sent late Sunday night, the state Republican Party has scheduled a special “credentials meeting” . At the meeting, according to the email, about 300 of the 1,900 elected delegates to the state GOP convention May 30-June 1 must ...
DavyRockett- 934 diggs
- digg it
- debunkthelies, on 05/06/2008, -12/+160Why does Ron Paul scare them so badly?
- flogistan, on 05/06/2008, -8/+142Because he's outed neoconservatism. He's defined it and targeted it. They're trying to shove the genie back into the bottle and act like it never happened.
- Tomchei, on 05/06/2008, -14/+14The other vampire that needs to be dragged into the sun is the Jewish influence on foreign policy. I imagine Obama could be that 'Van Helsing' if the media targets him negatively - targets him far worse then they have in the recent past.
- flogistan, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10I believe that's the same vampire. Too late. Not that obama would do it. My god he refused to read the mearsheimer and walt book.
- Tomchei, on 05/06/2008, -14/+14The other vampire that needs to be dragged into the sun is the Jewish influence on foreign policy. I imagine Obama could be that 'Van Helsing' if the media targets him negatively - targets him far worse then they have in the recent past.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -68/+19Because the GOP knew if they nominated him that the Dem's would have a landslide victory in November.
- quesi, on 05/06/2008, -15/+50so run a liberal McWorse against them? How about a REAL Republican like Dr. Paul instead.... Onetime was obviously not enough - go back and try again. Give us a reason. Freedom scare you? Or like McWar, you do not have the countries best interests in mind? We can plainly see that your loyalties are worn on your sleeve - or your avatar at least.
- toolbox, on 05/06/2008, -21/+12I'm surprised no one has yet called you on your anti-Semitic remark
- XxtraLarGe, on 05/06/2008, -8/+29Being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-Semitic.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -29/+13Ah yes, because I don't support PAUL (PBUH), I MUST support mcCain and have a secret allegiance to israel, right?
More paultard bigotry. Disgusting how your post was dugg up- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -17/+6dont forget that some supporters of paul are members of hate groups.
- bphicke, on 05/06/2008, -5/+16Some supporters of Clinton, McCain, and Obama(not all hate groups are against blacks) are probably members of hate groups too. What is your point?
- Corrosionx, on 05/06/2008, -5/+12Your avatar pretty much gives it away.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2bphicke- you say that some supporters are probably members of hate groups.
so you dont know. you are right though that there could be members of hate groups (people say things about Obama i think) but there has been proof about white supremacists supporting paul with money among other things.
So my point is it is proven that small minded racists support paul and more then likely come digg and sprew hatred. - bphicke, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5@catfish I still don't understand how an unaffiliated bigot effects Ron Paul's policies and/or views. I can join a hate group today and wave an Obama sign tomorrow. Does that somehow make Obama a racist? The same would be true for McCain or Clinton.
- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3There are hate groups that actively campaigned for paul and gave him money. Paul never sent back any money and had no problems with them saying they are supporting him. He has had racist views in the past. Despite the "i didnt do it" response to the racist writings in his newsletter or the fact that he voted against giving a medal to a civil rights leader.
Of course he had a different response as to why but he has always danced around racists groups.
SO once again a hate group has given money to paul and has actively campaigned for him. He has done nothing to stop it and has welcomed it.
That is why. a candidate is judge many ways and one of them is by that persons supporters. - bphicke, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2@catfish, He stated that it would be counter productive to give money back to the racist(not plural hate groups) because it would just enable the donor to more easily spread his racist message. When the vote for Rosa Parks' medal was taken, he voted no, on the principle that they did not have the right to give away other peoples money to pay for the gold medal. He did however ask that the house pitch in out of their own pockets to give her that same medal. I guess it is a lot easier to be generous with other peoples money instead of your own.
By the way, you stated that he received money, didn't pay it back, didn't do anything to stop it(he was on the news denouncing it), and that somehow proved that you can accurately judge a candidate by his supporters.
Something is missing in that logic. - catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2I disagree on not sending it back.Or if that was true that it would allow them to have a platform then send it to a civil rights cause or something.
I feel paul has never done anything to stop hate groups from supporting him.
The thing with the medal we are going to have to agree to disagree. He voted no and said that he didnt want to spend other peoples money on the medal. That was a lie. He had no problem getting (I think) 3 million (I know it was at least a million) for a wildlife shrimp farm in his district. There was no benefit to anyone outside of his district for this. He certainly had no trouble spending other people's money then.
Now i do ask that you give me proof that he was on the news denouncing it.
The logic is sound that you can judge a candidate by that person's supporters.
I did not say that was the only way but that is one of the ways people look at a candidate. - bphicke, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2@catfish, he added the earmark for the shrimp subsidies out of responsibility to his district, and then voted no on the bill which gave the subsidies on principle.
His platform, being a libertarian platform, is a civil rights cause.
I can get you a video on him denouncing the hate groups, specifically the one that gave him money. I will need some time to filter through the masses of RP videos though. Expect it tonight or tomorrow if you don't mind checking back later. - catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Not a problem. Look forward to it.
- bphicke, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-273745873 ...
Here is one, I know I have seen others before too. - bphicke, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-273745873 ...
here is another - bphicke, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2messed up that last link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLSLGXypMY - catfish182, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2First thanks for presenting that. Neither video was bad but i like that he did one on a major news channel. It sucks it was fox news but o well. What was the date of that? It would have quelled many arguments about him if this was presented a while back. I also understand his thought process. I do think however that something should be done with a equal amount of the donation. Give it to some charity or some group that fights all forms of racism. That is me though.
Thanks for letting me see that. Still not a fan of his but at least i can say he answered a huge question and closed the door on it so there really isnt much else to say on that.
Thanks again bphicke. - bphicke, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2No problem.
- tracywood, on 05/06/2008, -7/+15Oh yes, because choosing the Star of David says NOTHING of your allegiances. Oh puhleese...
- quesi, on 05/06/2008, -10/+3if the yamaha fits.
- bradleyland, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14Oh for christ's sake, it's yamika.
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15I have to say that quesi's stupidity here was pretty ***** funny.
- RobotCitizen, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Joke's on you, quesi. Jews don't ride motorcycles!
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -18/+10Whatever bigots. I suppose anyone who is Muslim *Must* be a palestinian as well, right?
You people are so ignorant, it's almost scary to think that your candidate is running for president, but then calming when you realize he still is stuck with less than 3% of the current delegates.- BrapAllgood, on 05/06/2008, -4/+14"big-ot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Congratulations...you are as bigoted as anyone you can point a finger at. - bradleyland, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5No, but you could bet on the fact that a person who is muslim is more likely to support Palestinian sovereignty, as you could a person who is Jewish being more likely to support Israel's interests.
Isn't this world politics 101? I mean, it's not like anyone is keeping it secret.
- BrapAllgood, on 05/06/2008, -4/+14"big-ot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
- stealthc, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8Even that doesn't bother me. If Americans chose Obama or Clinton over Ron Paul, at least America would be sailing to her doom with eyes wide open.
- fyngyrz, on 05/06/2008, -3/+11Yeah, but they're taking me with them. That's the part I've got some issues with.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -10/+4paul is not even a option.
Who cares if the small group of supporters vote for this guy. - MarkDTS, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Who cares? You should care most definitely. What happens if the next time a candidate you support, from any party, isn't allowed the opportunity to share their message with the voting public as evenly as other candidates. What happens if you don't think they've been treated honestly,or equally, on their platform and wish to stand up for them at a local, state, or national level only to have your attempts squashed by insider party politics in the form of Superdelegates, or simply just shutting down conventions and walking away.
These party tantrums are a sickening view at how the voting process has been compromised. To say it simply, you should find examine your parties process. Don't believe the smoke and mirrors routine that these folks are attempting to pull and NEVER be afraid to stand up for whomever, or whatever, you believe in. If you don't you, or you children, may not have an option to later in life.
Everyone is accountable for something.- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2you misunderstand what i am saying. Who cares if a small group of people want to vote for paul. means i do not care of people want to vote for him.
Do i care that paul didn't get his fair shake? No not really. I never felt he had any thing to offer personally.
He did not cater to main stream media so they were not going to give him the time of day.
The party does not give a ***** about him but they know he will stay with the party so they do not view him as anything.
if you like him thats great and yes everyone is accountable but all he does is show how ***** up the republican party is. - MarkDTS, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3I'll give it to you here, the fact that the Republican party is messed up is almost a no brainer, but I would prefer to look at Ron Paul as a divining rod lost at a sea of problems. As far as your indifference to his treatment on the campaign trail I would only state that everyone running for office, and I do mean everyone, should have their fair time to debate their believes and objectives they wish to bring to the desired office. I've always thought that the media, and other forms of reporting, should relay what they see and hear without weighing their opinion on the story first, but increasingly candidates do have to pander to the media outlets. In some instances they've made themselves a spectacle to stay in the "story worth covering" slot. I truly believe that this is a grave injustice to the American people and it only leads me to believe that the same lobbyists that pressure candidates in Washington pressure the top news agencies also. Not a new theory, but one that fits here nicely.
I'm ready to burn down the way we do things now and search for real change in this government. A kind of change that I'm not seeing in any other candidate other that Ron Paul. Does that make me some "fanboy" of the congressman? Maybe, but then again I don't think a candidate that's never truly had a bad utterance spoken about him,or his voting record by any of his challengers is something to be a "fanboy" of.
I don't want the machine to control my actions, I want to control the machines!
Good luck everyone.
- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2you misunderstand what i am saying. Who cares if a small group of people want to vote for paul. means i do not care of people want to vote for him.
- tracywood, on 05/06/2008, -7/+17Ahh... ok, if you were part of a Ron Paul meetup, you'd know that Democrats LOVE Ron Paul. If Ron Paul won the nomination (highly unlikely, but not impossible), he'd win the Presidency.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -21/+9Nope. Nice logical fallacy, though.
All his opponents would have to do is point out to the country his positions on Scientific research funding, the FDA, evolution, abortion (read his "sanctity of life" act) College grants + loans, and the fact that he voted against every civil rights legislation to pass through the house. This country is not comprised of libertarians, and the majority would find his positions extremest. Not to mention he'd have to explain the newsletters with something more substantial than "I didn't write them"
He would be buried.- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10i think we all know based on your posts and the enthusiasm in which they are received that you certainly know a lot about being buried.
(p.s. i buried you) - InnerRayg, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6He was buried.
- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10i think we all know based on your posts and the enthusiasm in which they are received that you certainly know a lot about being buried.
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13Scientific research funding at the point of a gun. How about people who want to fund research do so out of their pockets? I'm all for donations.
The FDA = politically motivated gatekeepers of what people are allowed to take. This role can be non in a non-political way by consumer and trade association groups like what exists for hospitals.
Evolution = does it matter for a presidential candidate? I don't hear him trumpeting this. What is George W. Bush's position? I believe in evolution but I really do not have an issue with a candidate like Paul having questions about it.
Abortion = anyone militantly pro abortion is scary.
College grants and loans at the point of a gun? Why can't the market take care of this without plundering taxpayers?
The Civil Rights Act, although it was potentially well intended and has noble goals of eliminating race-based stupidity, is actually a huge door-opener to government control of what any and all property owners can do in all regards. Of course Paul would be against the act as written. A just Civil Rights Act would only outlaw discriminatory laws, not activities by free people.
I find your pro-big-government, pro-plunder positions extremist.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -21/+9Nope. Nice logical fallacy, though.
- 30somethinDad, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8The most hated man on the internet. Onetimer.
Burn in hell.- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6Why do you hate him so much?
- Gratefuldead, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2jesus you could host a poll
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6Why do you hate him so much?
- quesi, on 05/06/2008, -15/+50so run a liberal McWorse against them? How about a REAL Republican like Dr. Paul instead.... Onetime was obviously not enough - go back and try again. Give us a reason. Freedom scare you? Or like McWar, you do not have the countries best interests in mind? We can plainly see that your loyalties are worn on your sleeve - or your avatar at least.
- fuzzmeister, on 05/06/2008, -30/+15I doubt he really scares anyone anymore, considering he has a whopping 21 delegates to McCain's 1,331.
- bphicke, on 05/06/2008, -8/+29That doesn't mean he can't still have a strong impact on the GOP.
- JohnReb, on 05/06/2008, -17/+11Yeah, it pretty much does mean that.
- tracywood, on 05/06/2008, -6/+17ah, did you think of what this post was about before commenting? If he had no impact on the GOP, this page would not exist and you wouldn't be here.
- JohnReb, on 05/06/2008, -15/+9If he had any impact on the GOP, he would have more than 21 delegates.
This page exists because his supporters fail to realize they are in an echo chamber and that he is irrelevant to the outside world.
I'm here because I enjoy laughing at his supporters. It's a moral failing, I confess. - tracywood, on 05/07/2008, -1/+121 hu. Prepared to bet real money on it sucker?
- JohnReb, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You're right. i checked. He only has 16 pledged delegates, not 21. He does have 16 other delegates who aren't pledged. Those numbers are as of May 7th.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml
So out of 2516 Republican delegates he has 32, at best. That's 1.27%
As I said, he has neither had a strong impact on the Republican party, nor has he any chance to in the future.
- JohnReb, on 05/06/2008, -15/+9If he had any impact on the GOP, he would have more than 21 delegates.
- bphicke, on 05/06/2008, -8/+29That doesn't mean he can't still have a strong impact on the GOP.
- sentime, on 05/06/2008, -4/+41NeoCONS' fear the light of truth.
- SchmuckofNI, on 05/06/2008, -7/+49Simple: He plans to abolish the Federal Reserve. Enough said.
- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -1/+15although i think this is the main reason, there are plenty of other reasons they don't want him running things. he'd also destroy the industrial/military complex, slow down if not put a halt to globalism enveloping our national soverignty, and end lobbyists' presence in washington... all things that would weaken the very rich people's influence on how the world operates.
- dfsjdkflasjk, on 05/06/2008, -27/+11No one is scared of Ron Paul, he won't get any of the vote (as the primaries proved perfectly). What people should be scared of are the psychotic sheep that Paul has created.
- jrskblx125, on 05/06/2008, -7/+13you sir, are a moron.
- arcticsoft, on 05/06/2008, -6/+8Interestingly he got 16% of the vote in PA and McCain allready has the nomination. Between hukabee and paul was 27% that did not vote for McCain. I think if I was mccain i would be worried that a possible 25%+ of repubs dont support him and that could very easily hand the presidency to democrats. So yeah i think he should be a little scared.
Plus can we stop getting McCains ugly old mug off the ad space? its getting old.- KMye, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5No consideration of the people who would have come out to vote for McCain if they thought he needed it?
- Corrosionx, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6McCain and Clinton sheeps for the win!
- dfsjdkflasjk, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Sheep with an actual chance at winning FTW
- Corrosionx, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Because winning is all that matters!!! Yay fascism!
- dfsjdkflasjk, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Sheep with an actual chance at winning FTW
- unclejimbo88, on 05/06/2008, -8/+14RON PAUL!!
- roboticrickshaw, on 05/06/2008, -19/+7Because hes a white supremacist
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15Moron
- roboticrickshaw, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Its true ive seen the evidence on the tinternet http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Ron_Paul#Ron_ ...
- AustinMandi, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1@ roboticrickshaw
Yeah, because everything on the "tinternet" must be true...
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15Moron
- kolinkoolface2, on 05/06/2008, -3/+30they fear him because he's legit. There are new ron paul like republicans winning congressional spots all over the country. They are scared because he actually does have a message that people have been waiting for a candidate to speak up on. My dad has been a libertarian since the 70's but no one ever actually was legit on that front. Ron Paul actually makes mainstream news every once in a while.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -14/+4he is legit as any other member of congress. Only due to the internet does he have any "following" and that is suspect also
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -16/+8It's not that they fear Ron Paul, you idiot, it's that they don't like the notion of Ron Paul's supporters stealing the nomination from McCain.
- Corrosionx, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15Yeah, most Republicans are SO enthusiastic about voting for a big government democracy-sabotaging gun-confiscating closet-liberal weenie like McCain. /sarcasm
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4You appear to have responded to the wrong comment. What you said has nothing to do what I said.
- Corrosionx, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15Yeah, most Republicans are SO enthusiastic about voting for a big government democracy-sabotaging gun-confiscating closet-liberal weenie like McCain. /sarcasm
- dzhastin, on 05/06/2008, -10/+0It's not fear. There aren't enough Ron Paul supporters to steal a dozen Volkswagens, let alone a nomination. It's more like profound annoyance at the fact that these armchair libertarians still haven't gotten back to their WoW.
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6You mean the >1,000,000 voters who have cast ballots for Ron Paul in the primaries in spite of an intense media quite time of his candidacy during the key period of the election? Or the ones who voted that way in spite of everyone saying he can't win?
- rocke86, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Direct link
http://ronpaulforum.info/index.php?topic=208 - NSResponder, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7I''m not sure that "scare" is quite the right word. Ron Paul is the conscience of the Republican party, and many Republican party apparatchiks have quite a bit to feel guilty about these days.
-jcr- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -10/+5Ron Paul is no the conscience of the Republican Party. The man is a liar. The man is a racist. This man is so immoral that he has fooled millions of fools (such as yourself) that he was actually serious about trying to become the Republican nominee for President so that he could try to find a way to use YOUR money to help to fund his retirement.
-jcm- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8Ron Paul is no more a liar or racist than any of the other candidates out there who support existing racist policies, or the policies of war and anti-terror which have been founded upon lies. So far, his actions suggest a man who supports individual rights and not group rights.
- NSResponder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4He is neither a liar nor a racist, and you are a liar.
-jcr- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2there is proof that he has racist views.
Can you prove that he doesn't? - NSResponder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2"there is proof that he has racist views."
No, there is not.
"Can you prove that he doesn't?"
Read and learn:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
-jcr
- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2there is proof that he has racist views.
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -10/+5Ron Paul is no the conscience of the Republican Party. The man is a liar. The man is a racist. This man is so immoral that he has fooled millions of fools (such as yourself) that he was actually serious about trying to become the Republican nominee for President so that he could try to find a way to use YOUR money to help to fund his retirement.
- BladeOfAnduril, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2"Truth is treason in the nation of lies."
- willowwolf, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0who said that quote?
- flogistan, on 05/06/2008, -8/+142Because he's outed neoconservatism. He's defined it and targeted it. They're trying to shove the genie back into the bottle and act like it never happened.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -7/+71You know these McCain supporters wouldn't stand for the idea if THEY were told they had to go to an allegiance conference to pledge their support of Paul if he were to win. In fact, that's simply impractical considering the vast majority of 'outsider' party members are the ones seeking fairness from the party.
I don't suppose this meeting coincides with any other important meetings... nah, they'll probably just do their witch hunt and claim non-compliance or outrage is justification to ignore them.- yaddayaddayoda, on 05/06/2008, -5/+32It's downright amazing. This would be intolerable for them if the shoe was on the other foot.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36If anything, I would advocate that people involved in the MO GOP who find this offensive should LEAVE THE PARTY, NOW.
If they're not going to give Paul a fair shake, threaten to destroy party stability. This is a viable strategy. You can still write in Paul if you want anyways.- aukxsona, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Doing that.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36If anything, I would advocate that people involved in the MO GOP who find this offensive should LEAVE THE PARTY, NOW.
- rblancarte, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5You are right. This would be the case. But that is a big if. As pointed out, 1331 to 21.
- NightVortez, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5I'm a McCain supporter, and yet I've always stood behind Ron Paul, digg me down for supporting a candidate which you do not but don't generalize.
- bohemianowl, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6schizo much?
- PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5If people are not voting for Ron Paul, then they're choosing to not vote (in which case they're probably not involved in the caucus), or they're voting for McCain, so when I say McCain supporters I assume this also means de facto support from party line "popular" candidate voters. It was difficult to phrase it otherwise considering the lack of disgust voiced by non-RP supporters yet concerning this issue. There might yet be hope for humanity.
- mtekk, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12McCain supporter that's stood behind Paul? Is that even possible? They are ideologically on different sides of the spectrum (and I'll hint at McCain being the one who is off base with traditional conservatives).
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1maybe nightvortez wants to support all republicans?
- NightVortez, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Alright, I deserve that much, but I support McCain out of the current candidates, I'm sure the question you were really asking here was why. Well, he seems to be the only candidate who is honoring my second amendment right, doesn't want government intervention in healthcare, and to secure our boarder.
All things, as you may have noticed, that he holds in common with sir Ronald Paul, which for myself, is the ideal candidate, but after really looking through options McCain doesn't seem too horrible, not at home at least. - Izult, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You really still haven't explained why you support McCain over Paul. You simply gloss over what they have in common and say that to you McCain doesn't seem so horrible as a result. All glam no substance.... Much like your candidate.
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -8/+9I was a Romney supporter. Most Republicans would've chosen someone OTHER than McCain. McCain just got the highest number of votes with Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and the rest of the also-rans splitting the vote. Honestly, Romney probably would've won if Huckabee dropped out before Super Tuesday.
If Ron Paul won the election fair and square, the Republican party's members would've acted like adults. I doubt that anyone would've tried to steal the nomination from Ron Paul if he won. - KMye, on 05/07/2008, -8/+5Has every Paul supporter just completely forgotten the open, organized campaign to spam the state conventions with unrepresentative Paul-supporting delegates that began as soon reality started to creep in after Paul lost the first few primaries so spectacularly? A political party is not as easily manipulated as an online poll. Don't act like you're being persecuted when your shady, undemocratic tactics are being called out.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4The parties support democracy to the extent that the people support their agenda.
- KMye, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4I'm no fan and no part of either major political party...but what does your comment have to do with mine? Any Paul supporters cheering on his campaign's attempt to secure far more delegates than they won proportional to the popular vote have no place accusing others of being undemocratic, or democratic when it suits their needs.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4You're touting the democratic process. I'm just reminding you that smoke filled backrooms are the norm, and still are, despite the illusion of choice created through primary voting. If it were not in the interests of the parties to do so, they wouldn't do it. Turns out each party has a number of people with seniority and administrative power which has the potential of usurping any semblance of democratic process. People like having control over their lives, but there is a false dichotomy of choice at play when we look deeper into the election process.
In Ron Paul's situation, his supporters are trying to play by party rules and acquire delegates. It is the GOP establishment, particularly those who support McCain in this case, which have tried to sidestep and violate party and procedural rules.
If you have a problem with what's going on, that's fine. In a larger context, I'm not thrilled myself. But there's no sense complaining about a sub-system of the election cycle that people have voluntarily chosen to participate in, which is by nature not very democratic in relation to national popular vote.
Will you cry foul also when the electoral college determines the president rather than the people and the popular vote?
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4You're touting the democratic process. I'm just reminding you that smoke filled backrooms are the norm, and still are, despite the illusion of choice created through primary voting. If it were not in the interests of the parties to do so, they wouldn't do it. Turns out each party has a number of people with seniority and administrative power which has the potential of usurping any semblance of democratic process. People like having control over their lives, but there is a false dichotomy of choice at play when we look deeper into the election process.
- KMye, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4I'm no fan and no part of either major political party...but what does your comment have to do with mine? Any Paul supporters cheering on his campaign's attempt to secure far more delegates than they won proportional to the popular vote have no place accusing others of being undemocratic, or democratic when it suits their needs.
- AustinMandi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4How are they using "shady, underhanded tactics" when they are fully complying with party rules? It's called double-speak. You cannot bitch and complain that Ron Paul supporters are trying to steal JMC's nomination when they are working within the perimeters given to them.
At this point, we are not trying to put him in the White House as much as prove we are here to stay inside the Republican Party and we intend to change the national Republican platform to reflect the ideals of true conservatism.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4The parties support democracy to the extent that the people support their agenda.
- yaddayaddayoda, on 05/06/2008, -5/+32It's downright amazing. This would be intolerable for them if the shoe was on the other foot.
- avengingturnip, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36More info. http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Delegates_at
- ruug, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11what a sad day for our republic. hopefully, sometime probably thirty or forty years from now when these people are dead, we can just count votes and report the results.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -58/+19Does this mean the delegates might have to support McCain, the man who won the majority of votes in that state, versus paul, who only garnered 4%? How um-democratic!
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36Huckabee nearly got as many votes as McCain and isn't in the race. Therefore McCain should only get a little more than 50% of the delegates using your Democracy argument.
Just saying....- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -25/+14Isn't MO a winner-takes-all state though? I agree with your premise though.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -6/+36Yes, but the rules can be changed at the convention. The state delegates select party officers, vote on the platform, and propose rules.
Winner take all really sucks no matter who you support. (OK...if your guy benefits this time around, it will more than likely bite you in the ass in the future.)
McCain didn't get any momentum until he got a couple of winner take all states. Before he was languishing in 3rd or 4th place with few funds.
If you go by proportional support, Ron should have around 100 delegates, so the efforts at these conventions aren't all that bad. Ron tied with McCain in Maine but only got one delegate. (go figure). In Nevada Ron got MORE votes than McCain.
RP supporters can't be generalized by motives. Though many of the "stealth delegates" will be bound legally to McCain, they will have a say in internal party politics. Conventions deal with a lot more than nominations. - onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -25/+13I agree with you that "winner-take-all" states do seem very undemocratic. But since the GOP is a private organization, what is there that can be done?
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -5/+24Exactly. The organization's rules are determined at its convention by its delegates, and that is where something can be done. That is the point of the delegate battles that are going on at the state level.
Instant runoff voting would be a good idea for the GOP. - onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -20/+13Hmmm well this is an interesting issue. While I *personally* believe they should seat delegates in proportion to the vote each candidate received by the people during the the primaries, I also accept the fact that they are a private organization that can do as they please.
IMO, if they are going to bother to have primaries at all, they just just mandate it so that the delegates are committed to support the candidate the primary voters chose (in proportion, of course). This would prevent any of these back-room/guerilla tactics that both sides seem to be engaging in.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -6/+36Yes, but the rules can be changed at the convention. The state delegates select party officers, vote on the platform, and propose rules.
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -8/+9Hmm, interesting. So, by your logic, since MCCain, Romney and Huckabee won 95% of the vote, they should split 95% of the delegates, right?
Ron Paul would get his 4%, and Rudy his 1%. I think that works out to one delegate for Ron Paul.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -25/+14Isn't MO a winner-takes-all state though? I agree with your premise though.
- Xihix, on 05/06/2008, -5/+12Nobody is breaking the GOP's own rules but themselves.
- yongke, on 05/06/2008, -15/+11See how hard you got buried? Next time, take your truth somewhere else. No one on Digg want to know that Ron Paul only got 4% of votes or McCain got more than 50% which is majority. On this site, it's Ron Paul for LIFE.
- bohemianowl, on 05/06/2008, -11/+8*****, onetimer is a zionist bury brigade troll, thats why it gets buried.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -14/+13"blah blah blah libel blah blah blah"
You people are so unoriginal. I could seriously swap out your username for many other countless bigots, and I wouldn't notice a difference. - jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -12/+7Owl's a white nationalist. What do you expect from him?
- skiltonian, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8I don't think that Pablo would be a "White Nationalist", unless he is from Spain. Last time I checked there were people of all races criticizing Zionism.
There are plenty of people here in Latin America that do. - bohemianowl, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5jcm267 you are still spreading that ***** lie about me. you are truly a piece of *****. *****. effing prove it mofo or STFU. you can't prove it because you are a f#cking liar.
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -6/+6He dugg and defended a David Duke submission that argued that blacks were better during segregation. He then said that "yes I am white and yes I am a nationalist".
- skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4jcm267,
The only thing that can be certain about what bohemianowl said was that he is White and patriotic. - jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Deconstructing_T ...
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Deconstructing_T ...
The first link is missing some context at the submission I had referred to and several posters accounts who left racist comments that I responded to have been deleted. But the proof is in there.
He even admits to being white! - jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4I was trying to edit and didn't finish in time. Instead of retyping what I was writing, I'll fix the links.
Link 1:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Prepare_To_Panic ...
Link 2:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Deconstructing_T ... - bohemianowl, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6jcm you are a real idiot. I already explained myself. You however defend liars, murderers, cowards, neocons, zionists, traitors, banksters and every form of stinking corruption you can find, habitually and consistently. you are a troll from the bury brigade and a bootlicking snot nosed punk who wipes the bottom of your fellow bury brigade assholes. anyone who would be a part of that stinking cesspool has no moral ground to stand on.
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4More:
http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Supporters_Hijac ... - bohemianowl, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6again *****, your links prove NOTHING! get a clue, douchebag.
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4Anyone who reads through those threads and clicks on all the links can easily tell that you are, in fact, a white nationalist. Now stop being disingenuous.
- bohemianowl, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5'No, I am white and I am a nationalist. I am not a "White Nationalist"
Seems like you have a serious comprehension problem, must have been that public skool edumacation! now go crawl under your bridge, troll. - jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4Ron Paul denies that he wrote the newsletters, owl....
Anyways, here is a copy of an article that bohemianowl dugg. It has since been removed by digg's admins so all I have is this.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-racial-murder ...
Discuss. - bohemianowl, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5Don't order me around you arrogant little troll.
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4You're funny, owl.
- skiltonian, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8I don't think that Pablo would be a "White Nationalist", unless he is from Spain. Last time I checked there were people of all races criticizing Zionism.
- skiltonian, on 05/06/2008, -5/+8Onetimer has the Israeli version of the Star of David. He must be a Zionist (Jewish Nationalist). He is a disgrace to my people
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -14/+13"blah blah blah libel blah blah blah"
- avengingturnip, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8In the interest of accuracy, McCain only received 34% of the vote in the Missouri primary, not more than 50%.
- bohemianowl, on 05/06/2008, -11/+8*****, onetimer is a zionist bury brigade troll, thats why it gets buried.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -5/+36Huckabee nearly got as many votes as McCain and isn't in the race. Therefore McCain should only get a little more than 50% of the delegates using your Democracy argument.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -34/+11I appreciate and support the efforts of Ron Paul supporters to make platform changes and elect new officers to the GOP, but we should begin looking at a good third party candidate to support and bolster for November. After all, there is no way in hell any of us are going to support the Democratic or Republican nominees. This can be done without abandoning the efforts within the Republican Party.
Mary Ruwart 2008!
http://votemary2008.com/- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -13/+19The same Mary Ruwart who said:
"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally." ?
She has even less of a chance than RP. All her opponent(s) would have to do is run a commercial acknowledging the existence of that quote, and she'd be done.- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -10/+7Source please.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -12/+13http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/04/ruwart- ...
Just search it on google. This stance turned off *ALOT* of supporters he might have had. Between her and the corrupt Bob Barr, it doesn't look like this is going to be a good year for the LP...- PeppermintPig, on 05/06/2008, -3/+8He?
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Christine Smith, Mike Jingozian, George Phillies, Wayne Root, and Mike Gravel are the other contenders.
Do you have anything on Christine Smith? lol
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -12/+13http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/04/ruwart- ...
- jeffiek, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5How about including the rest?
"Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors."
Most everyone has said something that can be taken out of context.- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -9/+8What are you talking about? That line doesn't make the one I posted mean anything different. She supports CP.
- fyngyrz, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1You're an idiot. I'm digging you down. Go read this to see why:
http://votemary2008.com/node/56 - onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -6/+7Congratulations, retard, the very page you posted has another exampling showing where she supports the legalization of CP:
"We can limit abuse of children in the child pornography trade by ending its prohibition." - fyngyrz, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Look, you said she supports child porn. She doesn't.
She supports legalization of it as a means to gain CONTROL of it because she does NOT support child porn, she has simply figured out that making it illegal is making it WORSE. Just as making alcohol illegal (prohibition) made it worse; just as making drugs illegal (another form of prohibition) has made the problems that come from drugs worse. Just as making prostitution illegal has made the effects of it worse. This is a repeating pattern: if you apply a few gray cells to this, you can (probably) see the argument she's making. Unless you're even stupider than the posts you've been dropping would indicate.
Now, you may disagree with her conclusion, but when you say she "supports child porn" you're simply spouting *****. In this latest post, you now say "supports legalization" which is true, but also a very different statement from what you originally said.
- fyngyrz, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1You're an idiot. I'm digging you down. Go read this to see why:
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Okay, then take THIS "out of context":
"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -9/+8What are you talking about? That line doesn't make the one I posted mean anything different. She supports CP.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -9/+9Digg me down all you want simply because you don't like me, but it doesn't make anything i've posted less factual.
- bohemianowl, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6you have no credibility, troll
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -3/+5Why do you say that, owl?
- fyngyrz, on 05/06/2008, -6/+7I don't dislike you; I've simply determined from your posts that you can't think your way out of a paper bag.
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7Yes, a candidate promoting legalization of CP is going to go over SO well with the public. Who lacks critical thinking skills?
- bohemianowl, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6you have no credibility, troll
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -10/+7Source please.
- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -9/+15http://votemary2008.com/node/56
"Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as any rape victim," Dr. Ruwart said in response to a question on child pornography during the afternoon session. "We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors.
"But bans on child pornography are like bans on drugs and prostitution. They don’t work. They only make a bad situation worse. We’ve driven the child pornography market underground, where profits soar and criminals abound. That’s why thousands of children are kidnapped each year and forced into sexual slavery.
"In states where prostitution has been banned, prostitutes have no recourse if they are exploited or abused. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, exploitation and abuse are limited.
"We can limit abuse of children in the child pornography trade by ending its prohibition. We can’t end child pornography any more than we can end prostitution, gambling, or drug use. Utopia is not an option, but liberty does make a bad situation a bit better.”- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -12/+15Yeah, it's not the same thing as "drug prohibition". She's trying to argue that a child as young as seven can *honestly* make a rational decision to participate in these kinds of sick movies. Prosecution? What's going to happen if the *parents* of the child are the ones at fault? I'm sorry, but children that young are SO easily manipulated by adults, that you'll never be able to justify CP.
It's a terrible position (that even other libertarians argue as such) and would never be accepted by the american public.- cicconefortin, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10She is referring to the actual product. The production would still be punished.
- jeffiek, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5"you'll never be able to justify CP. "
How can you justify something that can't even be defined? Two teenagers can legally have sex, but get prosecuted for having naked photos of themselves. That's CP???????
Normal family photos have caused legal headaches. Those are CP???????
I look out my living room window and can see naked children playing in a fountain. They're out there in plain view for the whole city. But if I take a photo I would wind up in jail. That's CP?????
Define CP first. Then we'll talk about whether or not it can be justified. - onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -7/+8"She is referring to the actual product. The production would still be punished."
No, that's not true. She said: "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well" That is a clear endorsement of the "right" for them to be in CP. - rficwizard, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7For this one time, I agree with onetimer. Children cannot make informed decisions. Pretending they can do so would lead to exploitation. Saying that child pornography should not be prohibited is repugnant (and, incidentally, not politically viable).
- skiltonian, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Two 15 year olds should be able to consent to having sex with eachother under the law.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Apparently the majority thinks its okay to rule over other people by legislating morality through the law.
Actions without consent are the true crimes.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Apparently the majority thinks its okay to rule over other people by legislating morality through the law.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -12/+15Yeah, it's not the same thing as "drug prohibition". She's trying to argue that a child as young as seven can *honestly* make a rational decision to participate in these kinds of sick movies. Prosecution? What's going to happen if the *parents* of the child are the ones at fault? I'm sorry, but children that young are SO easily manipulated by adults, that you'll never be able to justify CP.
- EmporerTitus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2what a great th-th-th-threadjack!
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -13/+19The same Mary Ruwart who said:
- fsjenkins2000, on 05/06/2008, -12/+82a picture of the 300 Ron Paul supporters http://www.dynamicforces.com/images/TN300SpartansA ...
- ivandir, on 05/06/2008, -7/+20ROFL only a true Ron Paul fan would post something like this. Funny and at the same time true.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -25/+18Replace the shields and spears with computers and mountain dew, and then you'll have something accurate.
- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10That's an assumption right? because I hate mountain dew... and assumptions are not always accurate.
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -14/+8So, you have sampled many soda's, deciding you don't like Mountain Dew. What a great argument!
- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3huh? what?.. at least you understood mine.
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Sigh. Some things never change with Ron Paul "supporters". Let me spell it out for you:
You didn't deny sitting in front of your computer, drinking soda. You just denied it was Mountain Dew. What you did was agree, just denying a specific.
I am not surprised that went over your head. Now, go ahead an post a follow up rant. I am going to be busy cooking a real dinner... - jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4So what kind of soda do you sit around drinking? Pepsi? Coke? Mellow Yellow? Orange? Grape?
Honestly, if it wasn't so high in sugar I'd drink Moutain Dew Code Red all day!
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -14/+8So, you have sampled many soda's, deciding you don't like Mountain Dew. What a great argument!
- blast_flame, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Maybe so but we can wave these bottles around pretty hard...
- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10That's an assumption right? because I hate mountain dew... and assumptions are not always accurate.
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12Hrm, I've never detected the thinly veiled homoerotic overtones, but I guess you're the expert...
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -4/+11He has the highest percentage of male donors of any candidate. There must be something there!
- jeanine22, on 05/06/2008, -15/+39Ron Paul president?
Yes!
bomb Iran McCain is one scandal away from oblivion- fuzzmeister, on 05/06/2008, -6/+15Isn't any candidate one scandal away from oblivion?
- toxicityj, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7only the ones that have something to hide.
- fuzzmeister, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8That's completely untrue, any candidate can mess up (slip of the tongue, etc) and ruin their campaign. It doesn't have to be a dirty-laundry scandal.
- masterm1nd, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5/one scandal past oblivions
- toxicityj, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7only the ones that have something to hide.
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Don't confuse Democrat Wet Dreams with reality.
- fuzzmeister, on 05/06/2008, -6/+15Isn't any candidate one scandal away from oblivion?
- rapcrap187, on 05/06/2008, -25/+14I hate this ***** country
- Chassit, on 05/06/2008, -10/+7You ***** suck.
- JJCDAD, on 05/06/2008, -4/+26I hate this ***** country's political system.
- Spottswood, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3There's nothing wrong with the system, it's the people who are controlling it that are the problem. The system is one of separation of powers and checks and balances under the constitution. Theres nothing wrong with that. The american people allowed the system to succumb to corruption in their cowardly self-censorship after 9/11. They failed in their constitutional responsibilities to demand legitimate governance. The whole country is to blame for the abuses of power that have happened since that time. The republicans are cowards, the democrats are cowards. Now is the time for you lot to show some ***** leadership and pick the right ***** president this time, you bunch of tards.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I strongly support your sentiments. "Mr Jefferson", I appreciate your idealism, but even the republicans have become the federalists, and the checks and balances have never been equal and are only further off balance today. If parties are a necessary evil, then we can say that the two big government parties have failed the Jeffersonian philosophy but the solution isn't simply to seek a new party and to pick the best leaders. The question of revolution is just out of earshot given the self-medication to network news full of propaganda and spin.
People must do what they can, whether its political or non-political activism.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I strongly support your sentiments. "Mr Jefferson", I appreciate your idealism, but even the republicans have become the federalists, and the checks and balances have never been equal and are only further off balance today. If parties are a necessary evil, then we can say that the two big government parties have failed the Jeffersonian philosophy but the solution isn't simply to seek a new party and to pick the best leaders. The question of revolution is just out of earshot given the self-medication to network news full of propaganda and spin.
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I love it. I just wish that the parties were better.
- Spottswood, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3There's nothing wrong with the system, it's the people who are controlling it that are the problem. The system is one of separation of powers and checks and balances under the constitution. Theres nothing wrong with that. The american people allowed the system to succumb to corruption in their cowardly self-censorship after 9/11. They failed in their constitutional responsibilities to demand legitimate governance. The whole country is to blame for the abuses of power that have happened since that time. The republicans are cowards, the democrats are cowards. Now is the time for you lot to show some ***** leadership and pick the right ***** president this time, you bunch of tards.
- sentime, on 05/06/2008, -11/+1your mom
- trogdor282, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8Wherever freedom exists, there also exists self-serving assholes trying to get rid of it. There's no use crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
- hydroplane, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4Swim to Cuba.
- Hoogs, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3Well then I guess I hate you.
- NightVortez, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I don't hate the land, the land is neutral, but I seem to be at a disagreement with some of it's people.
- Spottswood, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Civil war or gtfo
/s
- Spottswood, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Civil war or gtfo
- jeffwmartin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I love this country. I love the people in this country (even the ones I disagree with politically). What I hate is the government that has gotten too big for its britches and become the antithesis of what this country's government is supposed to be. I don't blame a single politician or political party for this. It's really the sum of a lot of small compromises. Basically, our government is a huge rock in a stream that has had water hitting against it for a couple hundred years and it has been worn away to a small pebble (which floats like a witch).
- LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Don't let the door hit your fat ass on your way out.
Buh-bye
- Jovensdesciple, on 05/06/2008, -36/+4Ron Paul sucks a big one. Not as big as the one clinton and obama are sharing, but a big one all the same.
- mangosinslo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14well thank you for your scintillating views on politicians.
stfu
- mangosinslo, on 05/06/2008, -2/+14well thank you for your scintillating views on politicians.
- vinnyvenus, on 05/06/2008, -39/+18Note to RP fans : Maccain is the republican nominee.Get over it.Your candidate was completely pwnd by republican voters. He only got five percent vote in his homestate of Texas. That, my friend, amounts to a complete failure.
- ruforealz, on 05/06/2008, -11/+16um... eat a dick?
- homah, on 05/06/2008, -3/+18Ron Paul enjoys chocolate chip cookies and gardening.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -6/+3Look if Paul supporters want to vote for him let them. 5% of texas voted for him. 10% voted for bozo the clown i bet.
Who cares about paul? he means nothing any more. Any further posts about paul is paulites trying to hide their sour grapes that their candidate was routed out of the nomination. The fact that he still has a campaign is funny and sick at the same time. People scream that Hillary should quit but why hasnt anyone said paul should call it a day and quit?- NorthMass, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5(1.) Paul supporters are doing nothing ILLEGAL by going to these conventions and electing Paul delegates. They are playing by the Republican Party's own rules!
(2.)You think Ron Paul getting .2 percent of media coverage during the week of Super Tuesday compared to at least 18% for every main candidate at that point in time didn't have a SLIGHT effect on why he got single digits in most states. I for one, would say that is AMAZING that someone solely getting votes from the grassroots did that astoundingly well.
(3.) Ron Paul stands up for you and is an ordinary man who takes no money from lobbyists and stands up for what he believes in and gets freaking mocked for it. Exactly what do you find sick about that?- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+21. did i say anything about them doing anything illegal? NO
2. So its main stream media to give equal coverage? They go for ratings and thats about it so dont blame them.
3. He does take money from hate groups though. He does get mocked mostly due to he feels his way is the only way and he does not want to compromise.
So you made up number 1.
number 2 is like any other small candidate.
every candidate say they are for the ordinary person but he isnt. Hell i dont really think non of the candidates are really for the ordinary person. Their vote yes but for them no.
- catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+21. did i say anything about them doing anything illegal? NO
- NorthMass, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5(1.) Paul supporters are doing nothing ILLEGAL by going to these conventions and electing Paul delegates. They are playing by the Republican Party's own rules!
- normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1anyone who uses the term "pwnd" is obviously still struggling with remedial english classes in high school. "eat a dick" seems an appropriate response to your current level of development.
- homah, on 05/06/2008, -7/+61Who knew that being a good Republican means blindly supporting the nominee? Forget principles, just join the party!
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6Um, well its not like it is the party of principles anyways...
- AustinMandi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Not anymore at least.
- jcm267, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4Who said anything about blindly supporting the nominee? All that we are saying is that McCain won it fair and square. If you listen to talk radio (a huge chunk of the party's base) they are LIVID about McCain being the nominee and the way that he is acting as the nominee.
- plr4ever, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I knew
....oh, sarcasm - LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Who knew you had to be illiterate to be a brain-dead Democrat parrot like yourself
- normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1b-a-a-a-a-a-a
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6Um, well its not like it is the party of principles anyways...
- madfrogurt, on 05/06/2008, -32/+14Keep on trucking Paulastinians. It always warms my heart to know somewhere there are thousands of fanatics trying to jam their leader through the political machinery to bypass the will of the people. And while you may spend your time and effort reading every bylaw and statute to find some way to get your guy in on a technicality, in the end all you'll have is a bunch of exasperated local government officials.
Your guy didn't get enough votes. Now he's not a candidate. Start doing something better with your lives.- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -21/+6Is it ironic that the best thing they could do with their lives is end them?
- blankblix, on 05/06/2008, -6/+6Yeah the democratic process is stupid.
GFY- a3r0, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7The democratic process has shown that 95% of people don't want him to be president
- madfrogurt, on 05/06/2008, -2/+4We all know that the true expression of democracy is using bylaws and semantics to ignore votes and shove your own guy in right?
- tracywood, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4My gosh, read some fricken history retard.
- madfrogurt, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Lincoln wasn't going up against a single other candidate with the clear majority of support. Keep reaching.
- TheWriteGuy, on 05/06/2008, -5/+24This is MADNESS!
- moocow1452, on 05/06/2008, -5/+15Madness? This, Is, ROONNN PAAUULLLL!
- RedPhalanx, on 05/06/2008, -3/+23This credentials committee sounds like the Spanish Inquisition, except some of us where expecting it.
- fucknuggets, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8i see what you did there
- atezun, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1This just in: ***** ain't blind!
- fucknuggets, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8i see what you did there
- dynamojoe, on 05/06/2008, -4/+7The republican party is terrified of going through what the democratic party is going through right now. They want to make sure their delegates aren't likely to support "fringe" candidates. Better to weed 'em out now than worry how they'll vote in 2012...
- logicet, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Except it will be much worse for the Republican party. The Democratic party isn't split in two, it's just a horse race between Obama and Clinton since their platforms are nearly identical.
The problem in the Republican party is a battle between the true conservatives of the Taft/Goldwater wing, and the neo-conservatives that have infested the party in the last 20 years. Ron Paul calls out the neo-conservatives by name in this 11 part speech to The Congress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk and that's why they are afraid.
At the root of it, it is a battle between Individualism and Collectivism. Here is a teaser on the difference by G. Edward Griffin - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-Dhv59JYpA - LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1So brain-dead Democrats are also math illiterate - ok, I get it.
- logicet, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Except it will be much worse for the Republican party. The Democratic party isn't split in two, it's just a horse race between Obama and Clinton since their platforms are nearly identical.
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -4/+23If Ron Paul's party rejects him, so thoroughly and so frequently, why does he stick by them?
- redcard, on 05/06/2008, -29/+10Because like the newsletters, he doesn't really believe in what is being done or said, but he sure is getting rich off it. Of course he loves the republican party, he's just like them. There's a graph of political "closeness" that people have, be it conservative or liberal, and it's generated from comparing the voting records of all the congresscritters with each other, and then plotted on a line. Paul's right there in the middle of the republican line. Just where you WOULDN'T expect him to be if he were so fringe.
But still, just where he is.
But hey, he's richer now than he was before , so this has been quite successful.- homah, on 05/06/2008, -3/+10link
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -3/+7This link refutes the newsletter smear:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltwa ...
Please read before continuing to spout off. Thanks.- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5No, no it doesn't. If an article appears in YOUR newsletter, under YOUR name. You own it. Even by the simple act of not vetting your contributors or editors appropriately. If you delegate people to speak on your behalf, you own their comments. You don't get to use them as convenient scapegoats years down the line when people learn of your ***** crazy ramblings.
- KMye, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2That article's refutation amounts to this:
"These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read."
Grounds the author bases this assumption on: "It isn’t Paul’s style or voice." Very convincing!
Then the rest of the article is spent on arguing the statements are all taken out of context and not actually offensive or bigoted at all, which anyone who's read the scans of the newsletter (who's not a bigot) knows is untrue.
So his two arguments are weak, and contradictory to each other; usually the mark of a defender grasping at straws who cares less about the truth than supporting his side.
Funny enough, the articles progression actually mirrors Paul's exact public defenses, in reverse chronological order.
- NorthMass, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2If he is so concerned about getting rich, then how come is net worth is 1.6 million dollars? No doubt that is a good amount of money, but it is not rich. He takes no money from lobbyists and wont get bought out, but you can continue to believe that he is in it for the money.
- chrisbosh123, on 05/06/2008, -2/+43The republican part (to my understanding) has been torn to the point of being synonymous with evil. I believe that Ron Paul is trying to actually bring back the REAL values of the republican party and that's why he seems so outspoken from his peers.
- d03boy, on 05/06/2008, -2/+27Because before the republican party was a social point of view, it was a political point of view. Pretty sure he's trying to bring that aspect back.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -9/+5or make some money with a failed campaign that will not quit
- rolf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+18Goldwater complained in his later years that the neocons/religious right considered him a liberal of the party because he didn't want to interfere with people's private lives. Our party was stolen from under us. RP is helping us take it back.
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4RP ain't doing *****, but squandering his senior years with irrelevancy.
- homah, on 05/07/2008, -3/+9No doubt. He should play shuffleboard instead of motivating millions to take an interest in how they are governed.
- normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1if ron paul "ain't doing *****", why does the far right fear him so much? his message is reaching millions, despite the republican's best efforts to silence him. people are abandoning the party in large numbers. 3x as many democrats as republicans voted in the primaries nation wide. this is happening because at least the dems are talking about change. those of us who refuse to leave the party want change also. ron paul is the only one in the republican party not offering more of the same old *****. mccain is clueless. he will get the vote of the die hard right wingers (20%), the rest will go to the dems. even diebold will have a hard time stealing that many votes.
- PHiZ187, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4RP ain't doing *****, but squandering his senior years with irrelevancy.
- oconnor11, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Paul has been voted in as a Republican many terms in his Texas district. He's a "Taft" Republican, or more in the lines of Reagan. Today's neo-cons are way off.
- AustinMandi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Reagan? Not hardly. He has criticized most of what Reagan did during his presidency. More like Goldwater.
- redcard, on 05/06/2008, -29/+10Because like the newsletters, he doesn't really believe in what is being done or said, but he sure is getting rich off it. Of course he loves the republican party, he's just like them. There's a graph of political "closeness" that people have, be it conservative or liberal, and it's generated from comparing the voting records of all the congresscritters with each other, and then plotted on a line. Paul's right there in the middle of the republican line. Just where you WOULDN'T expect him to be if he were so fringe.
- Xihix, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13Let's hope for the best and that they will pull through.
- tracywood, on 05/06/2008, -15/+9Come on, it's just a few spammers on the Internet... Enough already...
:D- normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1i thought it was just spam-bots? have we been elevated to the level of actual human spammers now? maybe that spam-bot theory couldn't hold water, because most spam-bots don't buy enough books to elevate ron paul's book sales to the best seller list.
- DCGaymer, on 05/06/2008, -4/+12A corrupt party acts corruptly and people are surprised? D'uh!
- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -9/+42People like onetimer give me the creeps. He posts more in Ron Paul stories than a real supporter, and then they use their Paultard "insult"... Obamatard, McCaintard, Hillarytard, to me it sounds just as stupid any way you use it.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -37/+11Some of us are immune to the digg groupthink. Paul supporters give ME the creeps. Already in the last week, i've had 3 of them threaten my life over the internet. Luckily digg banned them all after I reported them, but alot of them are very unstable.
I also noticed how instead of replying to the argument my post, you simply called me a "creep" and moved on. And then you got dugg up, of course. Digg is just another hivemind.- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -5/+19I'll just use your famous phrase.... "Digg me down, I don't care"
- NorthMass, on 05/06/2008, -4/+15If Digg bothers you so much, why do you choose to stay?
- almayng, on 05/06/2008, -2/+13Thank you!
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -5/+5the same reason why you stay.
that is why.
should a person leave and not speak his mind because it differs from you?- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2did northmass ask onetimer to leave because his opinion differed from his own, or because onetimer himself was complaining about digg's "groupthink" and "hivemind"?
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4whats wrong with complaining about it?
Thats almost like saying that you should not fight against the majority thought process BUT its the same fight that the paul supporters do every day!
paulites complain about him but he is a another person that sees something he does not agree with any chooses to point it out.
Similar to how paul supporters point out problems with the USA
- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -3/+18p.s. the digg groupthink/hivemind is focused firmly on obama at this point. have you looked at the front page recently? it's amazing to me that you accuse RP supporters of having this type of brainwashed mentality, when it's clear that the vast majority of people who support ron paul actually chose to think for themselves, and resist the MSM brainwashing process- very few people in the MSM gave RP a fair shot, for the most part he was ridiculed and mocked every step of the way for no good reason, and unfortunately his candidacy became their self-fulfilled prohpecy. it is truly ridiculous that you would accuse us of any candidates' supporters to be brainwashed. the true people who are brainwashed are the ones who believe the terrorists attacked us because we're "rich and free". it was a joy, as always, to digg you down.
- kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6Nice post.
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2the hive mind was focused on paul a few months ago
myself i do not think paul supporters are brainwashed. I think many do not get details like they should or they subscribe to the mob mentality that Digg can have and go from there.
I do have a complaint about most paul supporters. They seem to think they are all smarter then most of us. None of them have proved it but they seem more then happy to explain to everyone else that they are idiots for not following paul and they are free thinkers and smart.
Funny enough they are seem to complain about the same things though but you could say they same about the anti paul people.- metapop, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2"They seem to think they are all smarter then (sic) most of us."
do you suppose there's a reason for that? i know of at least one anti-paul guy who chooses not to use the "check spelling" button...
seriously though, (and it seems like you've sort of answered your own question here, calling us "free-thinkers and smart") as i said in a similar post, RP supporters think for themselves- they refuse to accept what the MSM spoon-feeds everyone, and people who do those things are generally smarter. generally speaking, research = smart. - catfish182, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4metapop- yes there is a reason why some paul supporters think they are smarter. its arrogance.
research does not make you smart. Informed yes but not smart.
so if i research something then i am smart? If thats the case then i am. I have seen articles that speak to the narrow mindness of ron paul and how he is only out for his own interests which have nothing to do with common America.
research only will give strength to what you already feel. For every pro paul article there is a anti paul one.
What makes a smart person is the ability to see the other side of topics and respect the person that feels that way. - KMye, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Metapop, you are so my target market.
- metapop, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2"They seem to think they are all smarter then (sic) most of us."
- BushidoHacks, on 05/06/2008, -12/+1How about HILLROIDS, since HillRod sucks as a wrestling gimmick.
If you want to get rid of Hillroids, show Old Man McCain your Obama face. "Oh! Oh! Oh!" :-O- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2are you from jersey or something?
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -37/+11Some of us are immune to the digg groupthink. Paul supporters give ME the creeps. Already in the last week, i've had 3 of them threaten my life over the internet. Luckily digg banned them all after I reported them, but alot of them are very unstable.
- danno1982, on 05/06/2008, -3/+25This is a wake up call. The GOP needs to embrace this movement or be faced with defeat with an evergrowing Federal Government.
- Idiggapony, on 05/06/2008, -15/+5Awesome! Say what you want, everyone, but I'm giving this story a big digg I've missed the Ron Paul supporters. We haven't heard much from y'all since your boycott brought Fox News to its knees a few months ago.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9brought to their knees? Hilarious.
That boycott did about as ***** as paul's presidential run.- Idiggapony, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Shows how carefully you have followed the relevant Ron Paul literature. Actually, Fox News has paid dearly for disrespecting Dr. Paul, as shown by this article:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article844.html
The stock of Fox News parent company NewsCorp has plummeted. Advertising revenues shrank to nearly zero. The Zionist empire, it would appear, is crumbling. Do not doubt the power of Ron Paul!
In conclusion,
Ron Paul!- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3not like there is a recession going on?
Or that foxnews sucked before paul ran his mouth.
the ego of the paul supporter surprises me all the time
- catfish182, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3not like there is a recession going on?
- Idiggapony, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Shows how carefully you have followed the relevant Ron Paul literature. Actually, Fox News has paid dearly for disrespecting Dr. Paul, as shown by this article:
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9brought to their knees? Hilarious.
- Leadman584, on 05/06/2008, -3/+41Dropped Out? Darn, and I just voted for him this afternoon. Oh, there was that Rally yesterday at IPFW. News said there was only 1500 of us, gee, seemed like more. Truly a pleasure to be in the company of so many educated folks from 18 to 88. We are not going away. The revolution has just begun. The party cronies can resist, but their "Chicken hawk" days are numbered.
As with any construction project, we must tear down the crumbling buildings first.- intangible, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10I'm 89 you insensitive clod!
- Leadman584, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1My apologies. Probably much older folks in the crowd. Loved it.
- ZeroIce, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'm 17 you insensitive clod!
- Leadman584, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1My apologies. Probably much younger in the crowd. Still loved it. Kinda fun having a young republican sitting in front of me with a pink mohawk. It's a really big tent. May we carry the battle forward to victory some day. Maybe even one of the young people I got to talk to that day. I'm 46, and well, not a great speaker.
- intangible, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10I'm 89 you insensitive clod!
- crushtheenemy, on 05/06/2008, -3/+53stoked to see ron paul back on the front page.
- mizike, on 05/06/2008, -27/+7"MO GOP targeting 300 idiots"
there, fixed up the headline for you all...- homah, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4Ron Paul enjoys bicycling.
- NorthMass, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Idiots who believe in this idiotic concept called the constitution?
- MichaelEgan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Yes, those idiots.
- NorthMass, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Then I suggest you give away the rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution if you find it so idiotic, you know those rights like free speech.
- MichaelEgan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Yes, those idiots.
- BushidoHacks, on 05/06/2008, -11/+0Gosh, this would be SO IMPORTANT if Ron Paul was the lead Republican. This stupid fear that lesser known candidates are a threat is why Jay Nixon is going to be the next governor of Missouri.
- Brasky, on 05/06/2008, -6/+37I think Ron Paul is staying in the running on the off chance that McCain has a heart attack and dies.
Damn that would be interesting....- metapop, on 05/06/2008, -1/+14or that the alien living inside of john mccain's cheek decides to hatch from its shell
- jcm267, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2What makes you think that the party would give Ron the nomination in that case? It would probably go to Romney.
- colincornaby, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13Remember the time that Hillary was a complete douche for creating problems in an election that she had no chance of winning anyway? Whatever happened to all those people criticizing her for doing that?
- EmporerTitus, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Ron Paul has 100,000+ MeetUp members. Nobody likes Hilleroid Clinton.
- laserblazer, on 05/06/2008, -7/+3Paul seems to have a tasty message, but he needs the GOP brand to sell it. It should give one pause that the GOP refuses to apologize for Bush yet Paul won't distance himself from the smirking chimp with even token contrition.
- oconnor11, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5If you've heard any of Paul's discussions, you'd know he is totally not for what Bush represents.
- laserblazer, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1He should be calling for Bush's arrest, trial and punishment. Instead, he's in the same political party. He can't be that bright.
- oconnor11, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5If you've heard any of Paul's discussions, you'd know he is totally not for what Bush represents.
- dzhastin, on 05/06/2008, -19/+3Aww...this is so cute. There are still people who give a rat's ass about Ron Paul...this year's Mr. Irrelevant!
- MichaelEgan, on 05/06/2008, -12/+3Who is this Ron Paul guy anyway? I've never heard of him.
*sigh* - awolcfh5150, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8This is just another wonderful display of our country's great democratic system (sarcasm turned off). Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes since!
- ZeroIce, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1since when?
- skiltonian, on 05/06/2008, -5/+9Onetimer parades around with the Israeli version of the Star of David implying that he represents all Jews and calling anybody who criticizes Israel "bigots".
Thank God that not all (nor a majority) of my Jewish brethren are like him.
Onetimer,
Who do you support for President? Of course you won't say, you sniveling Zionist Supremacist. - kemp34, on 05/06/2008, -2/+23Ron Paul is a consistent defender of liberty and enemy of tyranny. Right now, the major political parties don't care too much for liberty. Therefore he is shunned.
- akula89, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4why would they? they are among "the elite"
- richIsBored, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11Why are people so bothered by Ron Paul support? If McCain has things locked up so well then what difference do a few delegates make? If anything, holding this special meeting is nothing more than an opportunity to spit in their face for standing up for their principals.
I hear people ranting and raving about how this scenario equates to being disenfranchised. Will of the people this. Will of the people that. They're talking like it's over and they have no choice which is actually kinda funny since even if through some miracle Ron Paul got the nomination, the general election is yet to come.
I think the only reason these people are bitching is because they've always voted in support of their party in the general election and having RP as the nominee would put them in a compromising position. Choosing party loyalty means supporting a candidate they don't like and supporting a Democrat is no better since they dislike them by default.
That good guy vs. bad guy mentality doesn't play out with Ron Paul as your nominee does it? Nobody can tell you who to vote for anymore. Suddenly electing a president is a hard choice worthy of careful consideration.
Good, you subordinate pieces of *****. Think for yourselves. - serif69, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5One candidate talks about what the opposition proposes, then finishes with his/her own hopeful positions based on models of other countries. The second candidate simply attacks what the opposition proposes, and spends little time on his/her own positions that are based on failed proposals from a 15 years ago. A third candidate briefly attacks the other candidates' positions, talks honestly about his/her own positions based on his/her understanding of situations at the time, and will admit that he/she doesn't know too much about certain things. The fourth candidate talks only about his/her own positions based on hundreds of years of domestic history and does not criticize the oppositions' positions.
Without knowing the candidates' positions, who do you pick? - Super6, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4The same thing is happening in Orlando except when the GOP leader heard that a bunch of Ron Paul people were coming because of some libelous statements he made of the meet-up leader, he canceled the original meeting plans and replaced them with an hour-long discussion from the property appraiser about what "millage" is.
- anillop, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2I thought we were done with all this Ron Paul crap and moved on to Obama crap. RP is so 2007
- EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Neocons sure do like to "target" stuff. Iraq, Ron Paul supporters, and now, even the Wikipedia is not safe:
http://digg.com/politics/Israeli_battles_rage_on_W ... - BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1How to identify a Paultard:
-Likes to brag about helping to raise millions of dollars for Ron Paul not realizing he would never be elected and after impossible race was over he would just use it for hookers and blow.
-Is on the internet 25 hours a day (ZOMG PARADOX).
-Is obese.
-Is a virgin who couldn't get laid in Bangkok.
-Has achieved an operating thetan level of 4 or higher.
-Can't vote due to inmate status, lack of citizenship, or being sixteen years old. Would gladly give their frail body up to Dr. Ron's cum-shooter.
-Is still in high school, thinks he knows more about politics and economics than every other expert on Earth.
-Brags about how he knew nothing about politics and economics until Ron Paul came along, as though that's supposed to get you to take them more seriously.
-Thinks that YouTube is an academic source.
-Lives in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, New Hampshire, or outside of the USA, where they can be found in the basement of their parent's house.
-Always bitching about the property taxes he doesn't pay on the house he doesn't own, even while attending public schools and riding on public streets.
-Has at least 100 sockpuppet accounts on Youtube. Posts "9/11 was an inside job! VOTE RON PAUL!!11" on random YouTube videos that have nothing to do with politics.
-Ruined Digg.
-Believes that Digg is part of an anti-Paul conspiracy.
-Cant get through reviewing the toaster he bought on amazon.com without mentioning VOTE RON PAUL 2008 over 9000 times.
-Spends hours creating "Ron Paul Revolution" with the "evol" reversed and emphasized to spell out "Evolution" but fails to remember the senile coot doesn't even believe in it.
-Steals credit cards to contribute the monies to the campaign. Mistakenly assumes that you care about how much money Ron Paul has raised.
-Brings at least 3 or 4 firearms to his ***** Tech Support job while going on about civil disobedience.
-Owns more firearms than the entire country of Portugal.
-Will always refer to Ron Paul as "Dr. Ron Paul" (as if holding a medical degree somehow qualifies you to be the leader of the free world).
-Hates Democrats.
-Hates Republicans.
-Hates You.
-Enjoys slapping Ron Paul bumperstickers all over random vertical surfaces.
-Lives in Europe, having no voting rights in the United States whatsoever, and only supports Ron Paul because they want the USA to gtfo of the rest of the world.
-Claims to have read the constitution but actually hasn't.
-Becomes emotionally distressed when someone says something remotely bad about "Dr. Paul", resulting in incoherent shrieking about Neocons, liberals, the NWO, and the Federal Reserve.
-Spouts conspiracy theories about just about everything. Accuses the mainstream media of fixing polls because they're "afraid of a Ron Paul presidency".
-Will accuse any detractor of hating the Constitution and hating liberty. This isn't at all similar to how neocons label detractors as freedom-haters who hate America.
-Believes that Ron Paul has a direct line that connects to the founding fathers, allowing him to understand the constitution better than the Supreme Court.
-Listens to the Hal Turner Show. Their best reason to vote for him: He hates *****.
-Has been routinely caught getting raped in the ass by Rudy Giuliani (in drag).
-Is actually a Ukranian spambot.
-Has a massive persecution complex and thus is a major attention whore.
-Insults anyone who thinks Ron Paul isn't Jesus.
-Constantly mentions that Ron Paul has delivered over 9000 babies, as if pulling babies out of some lady's vagina earns you the right to be president.
-Is an automatic expert on every issue because of their support for "Dr. Paul".
-How do you know you're in a room with a Paultard? He'll tell you. Repeatedly.
-Thinks they are the most l33t of all victims in America, since poor kids who get shot, raped, are dying of cancer because America's healthcare sucks ***** have no one to help them have no one to blame but their ***** parents, and thus themselves, and thereby deserve to die.
-Fail to realize that out in Realworldistan, no one gives a rat's ass about their messiah.
-Thinks that by spending every free second of their day-to-day routine trolling Yahoo! Answers, Ron Paul's fanbase will go from 3% of the populace to the 49% necessary to steal an election by November.
-Refuses to acknowledge that much like how Ron Paul believes that 95% of ***** are "criminals," 95% of America does not know or care about who he is. ZOMG
-Is easily trolled by talk-radio hosts and reduced to ***** crazy screaming like this loon:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel ...- wishninja, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Hope that was a cut and paste. I would hate to think someone is out there devoting so much time to hating me and judging me based on one single vote in a primary. I loved the link, it is nice to hear someone as passionate about Dr. Paul as I am.
- BabyWookie, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Err... that wasn't passionate, that was mental. "THAT PIECE OF TRASH LINCOLN!!!.... POVERTY!!! WELFARE!!! SOCIALISM!!! COMMUNISM!!!! KARL MARX!!!!" LOL.
- wishninja, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Hope that was a cut and paste. I would hate to think someone is out there devoting so much time to hating me and judging me based on one single vote in a primary. I loved the link, it is nice to hear someone as passionate about Dr. Paul as I am.
- CSimonds, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2It's highly ironic that our government claims to be oh-so concerned about "free and fair" elections in countries we invade but our elections are a complete farce. We should start calling it what it REALLY is -- a presidential SELECTION because WE the people elect NO ONE. We only get who the global/corporate elite CHOOSE for us. Someone who is good for THE PEOPLE will NEVER EVER be selected -- that is a 100% GUARANTEE. Right now McCain, Obama and Hillary have all three been selected to give us a good "show." In reality it doesn't matter which of those three "win" because the result will be the same. More support of illegal immigration (McCain is speaking at a LaRaza rally soon), more job loss due to "free trade", further weaking of our economy, more global integration, further erosion of constitutional rights, more pandering to the UN, etc etc.
- normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1our entire election process is a joke. i just don't agree that it needs to be any more difficult than 1 person- 1 vote. screw the delegates, the super delegates, the electoral college and the smoke filled back rooms in each party. eliminate them all. give us a credible, transparent election system based on the vote of the people. that would be a TRUE democratic process.
- paigeinphilly, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Looks like you guys (moderate repubs) need to get ur neocons under control...they seem like weeds.
A Dem on the sidelines watchin the show.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
