Ron Paul CPAC Speech

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Feb 8, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Yesterday the Washington Times had a story on what were called "Black Hats" at the republican convention whose job it was to police the convention floor for troublemakers. A couple of examples were "Code Pink" protestors who gained access to the convention floor via false press passes and I concur with their removal. However, the main job as it turns out was to actually police the 200 plus Ron Paul delegates who by electoral process were voted by their states to be at the convention.

    What I found interesting about the story was that it seems to have now been pulled. Here's the deal.

    I had the link which showed website not available and displayed a 404 code which among it's several reasons means the webpage has been pulled.

    It may be absolutely nothing at all (maybe a maintenance issue)but I just find it rather curious after all the crap the Paul delegates had to go through at the convention. And if the webpage was pulled, why was it pulled or who authorized it's pulling and for what reason? Should we even be concerned at all that our free press is not as free as we think it is? I have no problem with the removal of the Code Pink people or others who are there to disrupt the convention itself. However, if a Paul delegate is there and acting according to decorum and is no more advancing their candidate than any McCain supporter, I've got a real problem with this process. No argument McCain was the winner going away but the simple fact is an electoral process was held state to state and in some states there was another voice choosen to be sent to the convention to act upon their beliefs and ideals. There is mounting evidence of a concerted effort to suppress at the convention within the delgates themselves and I have a real problem with that.

    Some comments in regards to this whole process.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022689.html

    and

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022691.html

    and

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022692.html
     
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

  6. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    I saw that. My favorite line was have you released your delegates. No they are still captured.:happy2: I still think the other was better for Diesel with his eagerness to give up liberty for security.
     
  8. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    All true conservatives should abandon the GOP (Neo-con/evangelical party) and rally around a 3rd party.
    Or at least strip the title "republican" from those who support the last 8 years and feel the need to prolong it. Political evolution right before our eyes.
     
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Well there have been two ways to change a major political party in the past. Your way is one and it would force one of the major parties to adopt their ideas to gain voters. The other way is to have the "grassroots" movement from the inside. Both ways have been successful with both parties in the past and likely both will be successful in the future. I do find it interesting that you think a third party is a better choice for a conservative. I feel that change from the inside would be a better option for conservatives. They have greater access to ballots, better ability to fund raising, etc.
     
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Not sure why you're making the gop/ neo-con reference when we just put up the liberal john mccain for president:happy-very:
     
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  12. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    John McCain warned about it in 2002 in a bill that the Dems. shot down.....he knew too.
     
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    thats interesting. what third party did you have in mind?
     
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Are you sure it wasn't 2006'? Glenn Beck had a McCain offical on his radio show yesterday talking about this and I thought he said it was 2 years ago in 2006'.

    Either way, it's obvious no one listened to either John or Ron on this.
     
  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    We have heard how bad those years have been and we have heard how Bush is such an idiot and yet your side could not unseat him 4 years ago. The man must have been doing something right the first four years in order to get reelected. Yet your side continues to try to rewrite that part of history.
     
  16. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    I think the american people have been duped so many times by the GOP in this country that they are used to it and considered the norm. I would have like to seen some serious prosecutions in the Ohio debacle, ballots not available for americans living abroad and electronic voting machines with no papertrail in 2004. You do remember exit polling had Kerry winning hands down, don't you? World leaders went to bed thinking there's a new sherriff in town, John Kerry. When they woke up, yippee-kie-yeah Texas George was declared the winner. Yep, now we have that fine outstanding liar, but he has morals. He may war monger, manipulate those in the White House staff who resigns from time to time, but, here's the kicker, he professes to believe in God and keeps his pants zipped :thumbup1: so that makes him a good guy.
     
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    And your side doesn't write it's own version of history? Oh PLEASE!

    As for the folks running for President over the last several elections, if we'd pull various national leaders from our past on all sides of the political isle, what we've had the last several election cycles wouldn't get elected dogcatcher. I mean in 96' the repubs' threw Dole out as dogmeat for Clinton to chew on and Bush got the nod in 2000' mainly because his record in Texas of non-partisanship and moderate governance resonated with the voter over continuing with Clintonianism under Gore and yes I know the election was close but what helped Bush was the belief his style in Texas was coming to Washington. Had they known they were really electing Cheney and Co. for foreign policy King, I think Gore win would have been by a very wide margin not only popular but electoral votes as well.

    Go back and read the debates themselves and what Bush was saying and then how he governed and don't hand me that 9/11 changed everything because it didn't.

    Kerry in 2004' palyed the role of Dole in 96' as like the repubs in 96' the dems conceeded the 04' election although they won't publically admit it. Kerry was a demographic study of the 08' election but the electorate didn't follow the designed model and annoint Hillary. I think Obama's been thrown under the bus and Hillary's regrouping for 12' and McCain as a one termer because of age. The repub's saw the handwriting and are monkeying with their plans via Sarah Palin which for now appears to be a stroke of pure genius. The party core base of conservative who believe in limited gov't/reduced spending and other ideas opposite to the neo-con party leaders have been roped in thinking they got one of their own but then then failed to pay close attention to their FUX News (I love that) programming back in June when Mr, Neo-Con himself, Bill Kristol told the Sunday morning news group that McCain's VP would be Sarah Palin and extolled her as the great choice and annointed of the neo's.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSy8...XNyoA?p=youtube>fox+news>bill+kristol>sarah+p

    The bottomline is nobody is really voting for something as they are voting against. You think if I walk in the booth in 7 weeks I'm voting for a 3rd party? Guess again, even I'm voting against as I'm just voting against the current 2 party system that is IMO destructive to ideas and public conversations on how we should really be governing ourselves. I'm even thinking of getting a ballot and then not voting on it and putting it in the box with the idea that this is my way of saying "None of the Above!"

    There are no real fresh, creative ideas out there in the democrat or republican ranks and as long as we flock to them every election cycle as if that is the last 2 loaves of bread in the store, why should they ever change a thing. They believe in the old truism, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    I believe if enough Americans for just one election cycle would choose to "break it" we might find ourselves come the next election finally back to voting for something rather than against or in other words, voting for the lesser of 2 evils or in your case accepting a broken leg over a coffin. I'm saying why should we have to accept either one as our only choice. As I said, it's time to not board the airplane and instead drive the car to where we want to go and we get to choose the route we want to go and not the one they give us.

    The mark of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!
     
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    At least I took a side my friend rather then stand on the sidelines and declare myself superior to both.
     
  19. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Tieguy has a puppy avatar........I thought puppies wagged side to side....I'm not reading that with this particular puppy. Am I seeing things or what ??!!:happy-very:
     
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Why take a side when they both are the same and they both are wrong!