tagged w/ Suck Ron Paul
-
PHOENIX – Supporters of Ron Paul booed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's son off the stage Saturday at the Arizona Republican Party convention, as he sought to solidify support for his father's nomination.
Hundreds of state GOP members were gathered at Grand Canyon University to elect delegates for the national convention in July in Tampa, Fla., which is expected to select Mitt Romney as the official Republican nominee to challenge President Obama.
"We cannot afford four more years of President Obama," said Josh Romney, the third of Mitt Romney's five sons. "We need someone to step in there and turn things around."
But Josh Romney had to stop repeatedly as people booed and yelled for Paul, who has continued campaigning in the Republican primary. All other challengers, including Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, have dropped out of the race, and Romney has a commanding lead over Paul in the estimated delegate count.
But Paul supporters have begun flooding state conventions, recently winning control of delegate majorities in Nevada and Maine.
Josh Romney tried to appease the crowd, taking a minute to recognize his father's former challengers.
"I recognize how hard it is to run for president, the sacrifice those men and women made running for president," he said. "It's a great contribution they've made to the party."
He recapped Mitt Romney's background of turning around failing companies, rehabilitating the Salt Lake City Olympics organization and balancing the budget as governor of Massachusetts. Josh Romney said his dad stepped up to the added challenges of taking care of the family after wife Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
But as Josh Romney wrapped up, with an admonition to choose the preferred slate of Mitt Romney delegates, the crowd exploded with competing boos and cheers, cutting him short.
Some attendees said they heard Paul supporters chanting outside that Mitt Romney is "the white Obama."
State party chairman Tom Morrissey begged for everyone to stay respectful.
"Maybe it's going to take getting behind somebody we weren't so excited about. … What I want is to save this country, and we've gotta do it together. None of us gets everything we want," Morrissey said, adding, "Keep your eye on the prize: defeating Barack Obama."
Arizona is a winner-take-all state, meaning that all of the state's available 29 national delegates will go to one candidate. Arizona originally had 58 delegates, but the Republican National Committee took away half as punishment for the state's decision to break party rules and hold its primary before March 6.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-12/ron-paul-boo-romney-son/54923316/1PHOENIX – Supporters of Ron Paul booed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's... more
-
-
-
If Ron Paul wins 5 states he automatically is invited to the National Convention, and his name is in the RUNNING for the nomination!
http://youtu.be/5kf1WLyn2IkIf Ron Paul wins 5 states he automatically is invited to the National Convention,... more
-
-
While the mainstream media touts mitt as the "inevitable nominee" for the GOP Ron Paul has just secured victory in 3 caucuss states as GOP constituincies struggle to find a candidate who's name does not rhyme with shmitt shomney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQWhile the mainstream media touts mitt as the "inevitable nominee" for the... more
-
-
Posted on March 11, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz
Up until yesterday, I really hadn’t taken the Ron Paul campaign very seriously. Most non-Paul voters probably felt like I did, and laughed him off as that “kooky Uncle” who didn’t have a chance in hell to win the Republican nomination for President.
Well, I’ve changed my mind. Big time.
Yesterday I attended the Republican organizational convention for my Senate district here in Minnesota, and what I witnessed was an organized take-over of our nomination process by Ron Paul cultists. They came to this convention with the sole intent to take over as many of the delegate seats as they could, and sadly, they succeeded.
When I arrived at the convention and took my place with my fellow precinct delegates, I quickly noticed that something was awry. As soon as the man leading the convention(the Convention Chair) began to ask if there were any motions to bring to the floor, several Paulbots lept to their feet to make motions asking to “suspend” the rules so that people who were in attendance could add their names to the delegate nominations. Before the convention, delegates had been contacted to see if we were interested in running for the State Delegate positions, and we were given plenty of time to put our names in the hat to run for these positions.
The Paulbots, who did NOT submit their names prior to the convention, were now demanding that they should added to the list of nominees that very day. This is normally outside of the rules, but the Paulbots(there were at least 50 of them spread throughout the auditorium) through a suspension of the rules, demanded that they be added to the list of nominees. It was difficult to override their votes, as they had descended en masse to this event, and the unsuspecting non-Paul delegates were confused as to what was going on!
After some manipulative moves on the floor, and by using Roberts Rules of order AGAINST the Convention Chair, they were able to add all of their names to the delegate nominations.
I’ve never seen such unmitigated rudeness at a convention before. The Paulbots would leap to their feet screaming “Point of order!” every time they thought that the chair was being dismissive of them.
The entire process was chaotic and psychotic, and the non-Paul delegates were stunned. They didn’t understand what was happening, and I tried to explain to an elderly woman from my precinct that this entire coup was PLANNED, and that the Paulbots had every intention of flooding the State delegates with Paul supporters.
In an effort to combat this craziness, I threw my own name into the ring for State Delegate, using the same rules that the Paulbots had gotten “suspended”. The way I figured it, if I could get on the State delegate list, I would take away at least ONE Paulbot.
I don’t think our convention was an isolated incident. If you read this article from the The Daily Caller you’ll see that this is happening Nationwide.
Luap Nor has got a plan, folks. If the Republican nomination goes to a brokered convention, the Ron Paul cultists plan to flood the nominating floor with Paul delegates. This is their only way to win the Presidential nomination, and they are dead serious in their intent to steal the Presidency, whether you like it or not.
I even asked one of the Paul supporters( a neighbor of mine that I happen to like a lot) who he would vote for (as a delegate) if the nomination went to someone like Romney. He told me straight up that he would NOT vote for the nominee, no matter who it was. He also told me that if they(the Paulbots) didn’t win enough delegates to win, then Ron Paul would run as third party.
So the next time you hear Ron Paul tell the media that he has no intention of running third party, you need to be aware that he is lying.
This convention dragged on for 8 hours yesterday, because the Paulbots slowed down the procedure with motions, amendments and screams of “point of order!” They have every intention of voting as many Ron Paul supporters into delegate positions as they can, and I’m guessing that they are doing this across the country. These people are very well organized, and we should no longer ignore them as the crazy cultists they appear to be, because the fact is, they mean business.
Luap Nor will do anything to win the Presidency, even if it means strong-arming conventions to do so. He’s not some “kooky Uncle” that I once joked about.
In my opinion, he’s dangerous.
Have you witnessed this kind of behavior at your convention?
What do you think we can do to combat these strong arm tactics?
But I guess it’s okay to steal delegates, eh, Ron?
Here’s the video from Denver. Very similar to my experience yesterday in Minnesota.
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/ron-pauls-devious-plan-to-steal-the-presidency-63749Posted on March 11, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz
Up until yesterday, I really... more
-
-
Ron Paul's supporters love him. He's the guy voters turn to get the government out of their lives and pocketbooks. And he’s consistently not afraid to stand up to rowdy Republican debate audiences with his defiant anti-war stance. He wants to legalize drugs. He seems like the ultimate libertarian — until you hear his position on sex and reproductive rights.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell exposed Ron Paul as a "fake" libertarian because of his position on sex and birth control.
In this week's GOP debate, Ron Paul talked about his unyielding opposition to a woman's right to choose, saying the government should prevent all abortions — the standard Republican Party line.
A real libertarian wouldn't want the government to make any sort of law on sex among consenting adults.
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10489785-rewriting-ron-pauls-fake-libertarianismRon Paul's supporters love him. He's the guy voters turn to get the... more
-
-
Anonymous Message To American Citizens Concerning Ron Paul
Against New World Order Slavery http://www.new-world-order-plan.orgAnonymous Message To American Citizens Concerning Ron Paul
Against New World Order... more
-
-
There's always been a kind of awful element of fun to listening to rabid Paul defense, given that much of it was reality-optional. But, hey, at least his fans believed in something. And no true believer deserves this week. In the last seven days, some of Paul's former staffers admitted to deliberately courting racists, with his blessing. Then, adding insult to injury, Paul's current ties to American white supremacist groups surfaced courtesy of Anonymous.
As outlined before, there were only a limited number of explanations for Paul's racist, conspiracy-oriented newsletters, and none of them were good. Either he believed the things he printed, merely capitalized on the things he printed, or was unaware of the things he printed. It was a spectrum ranging from monstrous to cynical to incompetent.
Apparently, it's the second option, at least according to the Washington Post:
"[People] close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the [racist] newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
"It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
"... A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.
“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
The story matches one broken by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel in 2008, in the libertarian magazine Reason. Not only was it an "open secret" in libertarian circles that Lew Rockwell ghost-wrote many of Paul's newsletters, but the racial and paranoid tone was part of his and Murray Rothbard's attempt to create a "paleo-libertarian" movement, which is basically libertarianism without all that fun stuff about legalizing drugs and prostitution. Rockwell was trying to court southern conservatives who thought the Civil Rights Act, the Great Society, and the Democratic Party were all enemy combatants in a Civil War that had just transitioned from active shooting to economics and "politically correct" social engineering.
All of this just confirms what strenuous opponents of the newsletters have been saying since their publication. And as much as it sucks for Ron Paul fans to confront staffers and aides confirming critics' arguments, it's tough not to say, "We told you so," because, well, practically everybody did.
http://www.vice.com/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorryThere's always been a kind of awful element of fun to listening to rabid Paul... more
-
-
Oliver Stone: "There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree. In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate – I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama – is Ron Paul. Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.....
How do we go on being who we are? We have an identity crisis here. But as long as we keep running this fantasy through our minds that we can dominate history, it’s not a wild card, it’s a given!
RCM: What do you think of Francis Fukuyama’s notion of “the end of history”
OS: That was an extremely hubristic statement. The kind of madness that manifested itself in this country in the late ’90s, when Time was putting [Larry] Summers and [Robert] Rubin on the cover*, proclaiming in metaphor that this was the American triumph. This was the kind of madness that setup the disastrous 2000s.
* Time Magazine; February 15, 1999. Rubin, Summers, Greenspan: “The Committee to Save the World.”
And now, too – Obama… in welcoming home the troops was saying how we had achieved “stability, freedom and democracy” in Iraq. It was the same language that Bush used – and Obama was the guy who called Iraq a “dumb war.”
So you tell me, what have we learned? Or who’s faking, or who’s kidding who? Why is it necessary for every candidate – except for Ron Paul – to pay obeisance to this hypocrisy that the U.S. is a good force in the world, and that it is the dominant force, and can be the policeman of the world? Since when? What gave us that right? The right of empire, the right of force?
RCM: Unexamined assumptions…
OS: They’re based on this idea, this myth, Woodrow Wilson passed on when we entered World War I that we’re exporting democracy and freedom.
RCM: On History uses the word “counterfactual.” Do you mean that in the sense that JFK was meant to be a “counter myth” or “counter narrative”?
OS: “Counter myth.” Tariq said “counterfactual.” He means, “what if?” this had happened.
Tariq’s a Marxist; but he’s a pure Marxist in the sense that he’s an intellectual Marxist. He does believe in those theories and that has not prevented us from becoming friends and admirers, in different ways of thought.
I’m still rooting for some element of capitalism to come through and be fair…!
RCM: Anything else you’d like to mention about On History?
OS: I’m very proud of it. It’s a nice, slim volume, it’s unpretentious – it just comes at you. Easy to read on a subway, or in a cab or plane. And you learn a hell of a lot.
RCM: How about organizations you’re involved in. Any pet causes?
OS: The World Resources Institute, they’re out to save the climate… I think that’s crucial. To try – less pollution of the world, energy, future thought.
RCM: So how’s On History doing on the bestseller lists?
OS: Well, without advertising, it’s a small publishing house and they don’t normally get reviewed, I suppose, especially leftist publications. We got number seven in Los Angeles on the nonfictional paperback. The New York Times is a hard list to break, apparently…!
(more @ link)
http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2012/01/12/director-oliver-stone-on-history-and-america-jim-morrison-ron-paul/Oliver Stone: "There’s no way that we can continue this spending spree. In... more
-
-
It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?
Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don't worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for -- the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.
#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That's a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn't promote recreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S...
#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers
Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.
Ron Paul understands that liberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks to get Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.
#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies
Under Bush and Obama, the FDA's continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do -- especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it's no surprise he hasn't taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.
But Ron Paul has pushed the Health Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_H...), tirelessly working to legalize nutrition in America and restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:
"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease."
#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!
It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year's Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed "legal" right to "indefinitely detain" U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them with no due process. All this can now take place without a person even being charged with a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_N...)
Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year's Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way -- to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it's because national traitors don't want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.
In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you're rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example. Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really matters because tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.
#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.
Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn't it?
Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to "defend our shores," he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations, especially in the Middle East.
He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throw other people's sons and daughters onto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops by bringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say "support our troops" are really screaming, "Let our troops get killed overseas!" And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-pau...
(+5 more @ link)
http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.htmlIt's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals... more
-
-
The Iowa cucuses came and went, and the message from a certain astute conservative columnist offered months ago has been proven correct. New Hampshire will only delay the inevitable cold slap of reality that normal Earthlings in South Carolina will eagerly convey to the Paulbots.
So with resounding glee, let the message be said again to every Ron Paul supporter who shouted down other speakers, astroturfed message boards, and yelled at dissenters, either in person, or in all capital letters on the information highway.
Listen closely Paulbots.
You don't matter.
Complete story at:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/jan/6/iowa-caucus-epilogue-paulbots-15-minutes-are/
Although I hate quoting conservatards, I'm afraid this one is so spot on right that I will have to bow to his wisdom. I guess they can't be wrong all the time.The Iowa cucuses came and went, and the message from a certain astute conservative... more
-
-
