Go Ron ...

ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member


« Don't push her! Clinton's campaign chair warns fellow Democrats | Main | Candid campaign confessions from 'Saturday Night Live's' Hillary Clinton »
Ron Paul's forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt against McCain

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in St. Paul at the beginning of September.
Paul's presidential candidacy has been correctly dismissed all along in terms of winning the nomination. He was even excluded as irrelevant by Fox News from a nationally-televised GOP debate in New Hampshire.
But what's been largely overlooked is Paul's candidacy as a reflection of a powerful lingering dissatisfaction with the Arizona senator among the party's most conservative conservatives. As anticipated a month ago in The Ticket, that situation could be exacerbated by today's expected announcement from former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia for the Libertarian Party's presidential nod, a slot held by Paul in 1988.
Nevermind Ralph Nader, Republican and Democratic parties both face....

...potentially damaging internal splits that could cripple their chances for victory in a narrow vote on Nov. 4.
Just take a look at recent Republican primary results, largely overlooked because McCain locked up the necessary 1,191 delegates long ago. In Indiana, McCain got 77% of the recent Republican primary vote, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, who've each long ago quit and endorsed McCain, still got 10% and 5% respectively, while Paul took 8%.
On the same May 6 in North Carolina, McCain received less than three-quarters of Republican votes (74%), while Huckabee got 12%, Paul 7% and Alan Keyes and No Preference took a total of 7%.
Pennsylvania was even slightly worse for the GOP's presumptive nominee, who got only 73% to a combined 27% for Paul (16%) and Huckabee (11%).
As Politico.com's Jonathan Martin noted recently, at least some of these results are temporary protest votes in meaningless primaries built on lingering affection for Huckabee and suspicion of McCain.
Given the long-since settled GOP race, thousands of other Republicans in these states, who might have put up with a McCain vote, crossed over to vote in the more exciting Democratic primaries, on their own for Sen. Barack Obama or at the urging of talk-show host Rush Limbaugh who sought to support Hillary Clinton and prolong Democratic bloodletting.
According to a recent Boston Globe tally, Paul has a grand total of 19 Republican delegates to Romney's 260, Huckabee's 286 and McCain's 1,413.
The last three months Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upwards of one million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.
Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.
They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a longterm revolution for control of the Republican Party.
So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.
While Paul has consistently refused a third-party bid, he has vowed not to endorse McCain, a refusal mirrored by hundreds of his supporters who've left comments on The Ticket in recent weeks. And, no doubt, they'll flock back here today to spread the gospel below.
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo Credits: AP and RonPaul.com
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
If everyone learned about RON PAUL and talked about RON PAUL than undoubtedly most people would love RON PAUL and he would be the next president!!

Call it beating a dead horse if you will, but I'm advocating a cause that, i strongly believe, would reshape America and the world for the best!

RON PAUL, LEARN ABOUT HIM AND SPREAD THE WORD!!
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
pro-life . wants to abolish the department of education, end all gun control, leave the UN, and deconstruct the FDA. brilliant!
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
pro-life . wants to abolish the department of education, end all gun control, leave the UN, and deconstruct the FDA. brilliant!
Click to expand...
RON PAUL wants to end all gun control? Why would he want to abolish the department of education?

I have not heard about those two things...
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
from his site ... Ron Paul 2008 › Issues

ok, so i guess 'ending all gun control' is a minor extrapolation of wanting to repeal the brady bill, allow ownership of assault weapons, allowing the carrying of guns in national parks, and disallow the banning of gun sales to dangerous folks experiencing PTSD. it's a logical extension in my opinion, but that's just me ...
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
We TaRdED said:
RON PAUL wants to end all gun control? Why would he want to abolish the department of education?

I have not heard about those two things...
Click to expand...
oh, and he believes that the Dept. of Education is doing such a poor job that we should leave it to the states and home-schooling. it's just a piece of a puzzle that dismantles the american federal government. have you ever seen "the Postman" ? That's the libertarian view of what america should be like ... or maybe more like waterworld .. or mad max. whatever it is, i don't like it.
 
W

Wordz

Well-Known Member
Hell yeah we should get rid of the dept of education. Have you ever seen a high school history book? It's 95% lies. All I got out of school was that drugs are bad and you'll get the aids if you have sex.
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
from his site ... Ron Paul 2008 › Issues

ok, so i guess 'ending all gun control' is a minor extrapolation of wanting to repeal the brady bill, allow ownership of assault weapons, allowing the carrying of guns in national parks, and disallow the banning of gun sales to dangerous folks experiencing PTSD. it's a logical extension in my opinion, but that's just me ...
Click to expand...

Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › The Second Amendment

right to keep and bear arms. ”
I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.
I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:
  • H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
  • H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
  • H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
  • H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.
I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.


I believe people should have the right to bear arms as long as they are law abiding citizens. When i turned 18 i bought some guys after taking hunter education. I have never misused my guns, you have to respect guns and never attempt to use a gun when not in the right state of mind.


Now I never even think about my guns unless i want to go hunting or target practicing.




The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
I have also introduced legislation to help families cope with the out-of-control costs of higher education. H.R. 193, the Make College Affordable Act, creates a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.


Whats wrong with that? Seems to me like its a good thing....
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
oh, and he believes that the Dept. of Education is doing such a poor job that we should leave it to the states and home-schooling.

Yeah, whats wrong with that? I think the states would do a better job because the citizens would have a better chance of ratifying what their childrens agendas are.

The people will have an easier chance of voicing their opinions of where their money should go... I do not see anything bad with that....

it's just a piece of a puzzle that dismantles the american federal government. have you ever seen "the Postman" ? That's the libertarian view of what america should be like ... or maybe more like waterworld .. or mad max. whatever it is, i don't like it.
Click to expand...
Why do you think we need such a big federal gov't? I say let the states have more power than the fed gov't.. What do you personally have more control over, the fed gov't or your state? If you had enough people against something in your state than you could change the laws easier...

The gov't is supposed to work for the people, you have a better chance of getting the state work for you than the fed gov't. JMHO

:peace:
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
We TaRdED said:
Why do you think we need such a big federal gov't? I say let the states have more power than the fed gov't.. What do you personally have more control over, the fed gov't or your state? If you had enough people against something in your state than you could change the laws easier...

The gov't is supposed to work for the people, you have a better chance of getting the state work for you than the fed gov't. JMHO

:peace:
Click to expand...
well, without getting into the details of why i don't think it's a good idea, this train of logic has us fragmenting into fifty states as separate as nations. If you want a democracy that's closer to direct rather than representative, then that is certainly the route you should pursue. I don't hold that opinion, and realize that with the size of our country comes the sacrifice of direct representation. While that representation is only as good as the representatives, I don't think smaller is necessarily better.

As for the gun ownership, I happen to live in a relatively metropolitan area, where the need for guns for the protection from animals that prey on me, my children, or my animals is not justified. In the absence of that, I do not think that guns should exist. Period. The argument that we as citizens should be able to usurp our seats of power should they abuse it is completely moot, given the size and technology of US armaments in the form of national guard and other armed forces. In my opinion, the combination of readily available guns and urban areas is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
well, without getting into the details of why i don't think it's a good idea, this train of logic has us fragmenting into fifty states as separate as nations. If you want a democracy that's closer to direct rather than representative, then that is certainly the route you should pursue. I don't hold that opinion, and realize that with the size of our country comes the sacrifice of direct representation. While that representation is only as good as the representatives, I don't think smaller is necessarily better.

As for the gun ownership, I happen to live in a relatively metropolitan area, where the need for guns for the protection from animals that prey on me, my children, or my animals is not justified. In the absence of that, I do not think that guns should exist. Period. The argument that we as citizens should be able to usurp our seats of power should they abuse it is completely moot, given the size and technology of US armaments in the form of national guard and other armed forces. In my opinion, the combination of readily available guns and urban areas is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
I don't think smaller is necessarily better.

So why have states anyways? Why not have us be USA one state?
So you would rather have the fed gov't be in charge of everything? lol, what if they say everyone should accept the Vchip? What if they say we are going to join Canada and Mexico into the North American Union?

What about the national ID card? The fed gov't was telling all the states to implement the national ID card which an RFID(radio frequency identification) chip will be in it.. Since when is a drivers license not good enough?

My point being is that there are some crazy power hungry lunatics that want to control every aspect of our lives that work in the Fed.
In my opinion, the combination of readily available guns and urban areas is nothing but a recipe for disaster

Most of the gangsters have illegal guns. Why shouldn't a citizen be able to protect their self from the "animals" JIC? Anyone with a criminal record would most likely not be able to own a legal gun.

:peace:
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
We TaRdED said:
I don't think smaller is necessarily better.

So why have states anyways? Why not have us be USA one state?
So you would rather have the fed gov't be in charge of everything? lol, what if they say everyone should accept the Vchip? What if they say we are going to join Canada and Mexico into the North American Union?

What about the national ID card? The fed gov't was telling all the states to implement the national ID card which an RFID(radio frequency identification) chip will be in it.. Since when is a drivers license not good enough?

My point being is that there are some crazy power hungry lunatics that want to control every aspect of our lives that work in the Fed.
In my opinion, the combination of readily available guns and urban areas is nothing but a recipe for disaster

Most of the gangsters have illegal guns. Why shouldn't a citizen be able to protect their self from the "animals" JIC? Anyone with a criminal record would most likely not be able to own a legal gun.

:peace:
Click to expand...
There are obviously things that should remain part of the federal domain and those that should be decided by the states. I don't get the impression that Ron Paul thinks just that the states will do a better job. I think he just wants to dismantle publicly funded education. Notice how strongly he advocates home-schooling?

I'm not saying that everything should be controlled by the federal government. What I am saying, however, is that I don't believe all government programs not specifically delineated in the constitution should be abolished. That is in essence the Libertarian platform: the government that governs least governs best - protect our borders, our citizens, and we'll call it good. This means the elimination of all taxpayer-funded public assistance programs. Yes, it means the elimination of drug prohibition too, but that is a truckload of garbage to bring along with that benefit.

The other major problem I have with him is that he does not adhere to the libertarian belief that the government should not interfere with citizens' rights to abortions or sexual preference. He is a bigot by association, and has taken money from at least one white supremacist leader.

It's interesting that you should mention the US joining with another country. History shows that when our states' rights were the strongest was when we had talk of secession. . . i mean, washington, oregon and idaho wanted to secede as an all-white state at one point. WTF, right? I think the size of the country compared to the state tends to buffer those to the left and right of center .. or we would be prolife in the center and even greener on the edges.

As long as guns are legal to purchase at every sporting goods store or walmart, it will be nearly trivial for anyone to get one. While it is non-trivial to plug all the holes in the illegal import of guns, the first step is making it (MUCH) more difficult to get them legally in the first place. Not allowing anyone with a criminal record to own a gun would be a good first step, but even that is surely not a goal of Ron Paul. He apparently wants to go the opposite direction ... however part of the problem - as the tragedies of VT, NIU, and other prove - is that when it is easy for people to get guns legally, bad shit can and will happen. While obviously the long-term solution is teaching people how to properly deal with their anger, there will always be those that reach for a gun .. and if it's there, the innocent have their problems to deal with.
 
CanadianCoyote

CanadianCoyote

Well-Known Member
Pro-life people piss me off sometimes. They like to use the term "pro-abortionists" to describe people like me.

... We're not running around screaming "Get pregnant and suck that fucker out of you with a hose!" ...

I just don't think the government has any business telling people what to do with their reproductive systems.

ceestyle said:
pro-life . wants to abolish the department of education, end all gun control, leave the UN, and deconstruct the FDA. brilliant!
Click to expand...
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
ceestyle said:
He is a bigot by association, and has taken money from at least one white supremacist leader.
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO! Too funny! Did you know that the Black Panther Party has donated to and endorses Obama? What's that make him? Doesn't EVERYONE in the US have the right to donate to a campaign? What if a registered sex offender donated to Hillary or McCain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top