PoliGazette

This is not a hijacking.  The GOP was hijacked from the true conservatives years ago by neocons.  We are merely taking back what is ours.  Thanks for the positive article.

Thanks for the positive article Caludia. The ending could have been a little better.

"Just what in the world are they afraid of? It’s not like Ron Paul is going to unseat John McCain at the national convention. And if there are a few active pro-Ron Paul supporters at the national convention so what? It will change exactly nothing."

We shall see Claudia. There is an old saying: Don’t Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch.

McInsane does NOT have the needed Bound delegates.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172
[admin]: massive copy-pasting is severely frowned upon here. You are free to quote some text or make a comment in your own words. Full articles no, anyone who wishes to read the article is free to go to the link above, which I have left standing.

Tully  "Hmm, lessee, McCain needs 1191 delegates to clinch and has 1260, "

Hmmm, where are you getting that information from? The MSM no doubt. Well, according to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml McInsane only has 823 bound delegates.

Unless you can give me an alternative link that shows me McInsane has the amount of bound delegates that you claim, I will stick with the Green Papers stats.

I don’t think you understand the difference between soft and hard and pledged and unpledged delegates, Darren. But please, do keep hoping against hope that the delegatte fairy is gonna turn all those into McCain delegates!

Oh, and you might try CNN, which has updated since I checked it the other day, making it look even grimmer for Mr. Paul. McCain is up to 1246 pledged delegates. No, don’t tell me,  CNN’s part of The Conspiracy and can’t be trusted….they’re part of the MSM!

And you wonder why people have trouble taking the Paulites seriously.

Tully, that’s a typical response from the snooty country club republicans I know. You fit right in.

Since the GOP has decided, will they force the nominee to abide by the party platform, or do we get another "decider"? Don’t you understand that the nominee accepts or declines the nomination for the party at the convention? I want to know who will call the shots: the party which represents the people, or John McCain. You need or someone needs to hold his feet to the fire.

Organization is what this party is all about. If republicans are so giddy with McCain, then where in the hell were they in Nevada? Why do I not see ONE McCain sign or bumper sticker? Everyone hates this nominee, so get out of the way if you just want to dig in and defend toe-the-party-line politics. we are mad and not going to take it anymore.

Uhhhh Antonius,
Obviously you don’t understand how this process works. Ron Paul supporters are ALLOWED to participate in the process. They are ALLOWED to follow Robert’s Rules of Order. They are ALLOWED to make new rules. It’s about who shows up.

Not enough people showed up for McCain. Why? Because he’s a liar and is totally corrupt. He was going to run with John Kerry as VP. Jeez. Vietnam Vets follow the guy around for railroading legislation pertaining to MIA’s.  He can’t even keep his own lies together in the same speech much less from month to month or  year to year. Just go look at Confederate Flag Stance videos of him or Gay Marriage Stance videos. Look at the Iraq War and how safe it is videos on youtube…..with his 100+ member entourage of troops as he sports the bulletproof vest. He is pretty consistently boo’ed wherever he goes.

It’s just ridiculous. The military hate the guy. Ron Paul got more donations from our troops than ALL the other candidates COMBINED together.  He doesn’t have Oprah, or Chuck Norris or Nancy Reagan endorsing him but unless Oprah is going to use her billions to pay for the Iraq War, or unless Chuck Norris is going to go take out the evil, vile IslamoFascist terrorists with a few placed round house kicks, or unless Nancy Reagan raises her husband from the dead so that he can endorse Ron Paul YET AGAIN……then it really doesn’t MATTER what they think.

Michael Schuerer, the formed head CIA guy of the Bin Laden Unit, ya, the xpert we paid a bunch of money to know EVERYTHING about Islamic Terrorism,  he said Ron Paul is the only one that knows how to handle the terrorists. 3 Retired generals………they are all saying the SAME thing Ron Paul is saying about getting out of Iraq asap.  David Walker, the former  Comptroller General of the US, basically the Federal Govt’s head accountant………he agreed with Glenn Beck when he said Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate even talking about the socialism TRAINWRECK that is headed our way VERY soon. Just do some basic math man. Social Security/Medicare are going to consume ALL of the budget as the baby boomers retire. There won’t be enough money for this MASSIVE nanny state benefit.

So, to end my diatribe, there are lots of things the US is going to have to learn about and learn about quickly. If not, man, the ship is going to sink. A good start is Ron Paul’s new book, "The Revolution:A Manifesto".

Yay!  All we have to do is pretend like we live in 1870 and everything will be great!

I’m SO happy that we have the Paulistas to educate us!

As I posted here, for someone who has the nomination “sown up” to have 27% of the Pennsylvania Republicans voting for someone else, and now the failure of the Nevada Republican to just assume McCain is the nominee.  This apparent decrease in support for McCain is not just random localized happenstance.  To me, this shows there is no leadership in the Republican party, and there is no clear message they are able to sell.

Correct, 27% of those who turned out to vote.  It’s a little tough to count the ones that didn’t vote.   Also, My emphasis in my post is that there is clear divisiveness and that there is no real leadership in the Republican party. Did I even mention Paul’s name in my post above?  Please don’t put words in my mouth, or assume my intent.

Ron Paul is still my write in candidate.  That being said, The RNC is in the fall, that is when we choose who represents us, as Republicans.  Ron Paul people have been going to meeting and studying the rules, talking to the uniformed, and 1 on 1 have been changing the mind of American’s.  What happened in Nevada and in Texas, will be happening all the way to the RNC.  There is a reason why they call McCain the "presumptive candidate", he hasn’t been elected by the party.
FknJonas

1 on 1 have been changing the mind of American’s

Yes, that’s true. The behavior of the Paulbots moved me from an initial position of vague interest to a later position of virulent opposition. Congrats.

P.S. "American’s" would be a possessive rather than what you meant "Americans" as a plural noun. Clearly, politics and economics are not the only academic talents lacking in Paulbots.

The problem, Jay, is that with you Paulistas, no "dredging" is required because the spammers and talking point spewers tend to radically outnumber the rational people on every Paul-related thread.

If you guys ever want to be more than a fringe group, you’re going to need to have more than just playing "gotcha". You are going to have to do something about the wackos that currently completely dominate your "movement". There are some legitimate arguments to be found in the Paulist movement (e.g. fiscal profligacy, monetary instability, foreign policy overreaching), but few people are willing to dig them out for serious discussion when the inevitable result of any such attempt is a flood of weirdos, conspiracy theorists, racists, and spammers. It is the return of Lyndon LaRouche and few people wanted to deal with him either.

I mean, look what Claudia got here. Sure, she got some thanks for not giving Paulistas another richly-deserved drubbing, but the thanks are accompanied by yet more cut-and-paste regurgitations of tired old Paulist talking points and infantile name-calling like “John McInsane” and “John McLiberal”. Why should anyone who actually cares about serious issues bother arguing those serious issues with such demonstrably unserious people?

And why do you refuse to take a stand against them when you ask Republicans to stand with you against McCain’s deviations? You seem little more than a hypocrite whenever the issue relates to Paul. And since you are dead silent on all other issues, people may be legitimately excused for believing you are posting in support of Paul even when you manage to avoid mentioning his name for a short time.

Another exhibit of the kind of repeating of vague and insubstantially insulting talking points in #28, Jay.  This is the brush with which you volunteer to be painted.

Why do you make such statements without the supporting facts?
"And since you are dead silent on all other issues"
Just the other day I commented (and supported you, mind you) on your "Gas tax farce" write-up which had nothing to do with Paul. How about our banter back and forth last month regarding "supporting the troops but against the war" (again, not Paul related) Comments like the quoted one above are the sorts of fact less statements that are not becoming to a writer of your ability.    You are better than that Jason.

I meant, of course, to begin that last comment "Claudia." Wasn’t trying to be overly-familiar, I promise.

Claudia,

First, very funny…

Second, I agree with your broader point but not as it relates, necessarily, to this specific incident. Yes, the GOP should not be paranoid about Paul, and I thought he should have been allowed in more debates than he was, sunshine being the best way to prevent the spread of extremism. But that doesn’t mean that the Paulites weren’t a threat to this particular meeting. The agendas of party meetings like that are usually pretty malleable, and if some particular faction of the party happens to be present in very large (and disproportionate) numbers, then they have the potential to change not just the outcome of the particular issues being voted on at the time, but also the very rules of the state party itself. This could potentially have a very long-term delitirious impact on the state party as a whole.

You know what i mean. The constitution is not perfect. Luckily, there is a constitutional way to change things to make the document better and advance freedom. Freedom is perfect. I just have a problem with any part of government ursurping power. You should too. All this bickering is silly. RP people are passionate about small government, and it is not funny that I have to argue with members of my own party over that. What is the big deal? Some republicans just want to attach themselves to the winner without any debate, and resort to making fun or insult. You wonder why we get so angry back. as far as we silly females….I knew people would realize our superior intelligence sooner or later.

We don’t think it’s funny to have to argue with you about this either, duff. I’m very much for smaller government, but that doesn’t mean I’m for NO government.

"Freedom is perfect"? What exactly do you mean by that? Government exists, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, to help mankind secure our unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What we have discovered, over the years, is that it is hard for a steel worker, forced by economic necessity into working 18 hours shifts 6 days a week in unbearable working conditions, to enjoy much in the way of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We discovered that it is hard for a young child to ever enjoy much liberty or happiness if he is prevented from obtaining an education by being forced to work in dirty, dangerous factories. We have discovered that we can all be more prosperous if we occasionally provide incentives for people to do smart things, like buy houses. We discovered that unregulated capitalism could, in the worst extremes, lead to major disasters like the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression.

We, the people, therefore, decided to enact laws to help end some of these things which were causing harm to many of our forefathers. Government exists to ensure that the rule of law survives and that the strong cannot use their power to bully and dominate the weak. 

Looking at it objectively, our material well-being, as a nation, is higher than it ever was prior to the enactment of public schools, the New Deal, the War on Poverty, Social Security, Medicare, and going off the gold standard. We still have problems, and I think with smaller government in some or many areas we could do even better, but as a CONSERVATIVE, I don’t support making massive changes in government without doing some very serious, long-term analysis of what the consequences of those changes might be.

You want debate? Fine. Stop whining about how Paul is treated and tell us why you want to return to the gold standard, and what you think the impact of that will be on our economy.  Tell us why you think we’ll be better off if we open our borders to all other countries, imposing no tariffs, while they remain free to impose tariffs on our goods for as long as they please. Tell us why you think we’d be better off withdrawing from the world, fighting our physical battles only on our own shores, rather than elsewhere. Tell us why you think that factories should be free to pollute the environment, or treat their workers virtually like slaves. Tell us just how small a government you actually want. I’d be happy to debate that all you want.

You have to admit, this is the absolute first time a presidential campaign has focused on following the law of the land, (dare I say "constitution") AND brought up monetery policy. We are actually discussing the root cause of problems. That is a good thing. Maybe someone who hates Ron Paul or his followers will actually go look up something about the constitution or the fiat money system. Maybe they already know. Maybe they still think we are dead wrong. That’s OK. It’s all good. Whether anyone agrees with us or not, or even thinks we are kooky, we are starting a much needed debate. Don’t even get me started on the need to reevalute foreign policy. good day.
PS. Libertarians are prochoice and for open borders, but I am not.

Maybe someone who hates Ron Paul or his followers will actually go look up something about the constitution or the fiat money system.

ROFLMAO. Yeah, we’re just a bunch of ignorant boobs.

When you start debates, it behooves you to understand that the purpose of policy debates is to persuade. You do not persuade anyone to your position by calling them names or insulting them. You do not win them to your side by shouting them down when they ask for details of your policy. Quite the opposite.

Hey tully, my next line was "maybe you already know all about [it] " you big boob.  I knew absolutely nothing about the fiat money system or inflation until I started to follow Ron Paul. Maybe I was the stupid one, but I think RP makes a lot of sense. He seems to be proven correct time and again.

I’m glad to know you’re in favor of child labor laws, duff. Wish I could be as certain that your candidate is in favor of them. All I ever hear him talk about is big generalities like "small government," without telling us which programs, laws, and limitations on "freedoms" he wants to get rid of and which he wants to keep.

Now, as Tully asks, kindly tell us WHY you are for the gold standard, and why you think that will help us economically, rather than cause us to regress economically by about a century.

1> It’ s a term of endearment.

I’m no expert on the following, but here is how I understand it:

2>That’s the problem, nobody knows how much gold there is. There is so little oversight allowed by congress. The Fed, as you know, is actually a bunch of banks. There is no transparency or accountability to the taxpayer. When they inflate the currency, they are devaluing my dollar and artificially raising prices, which is like a tax. there is probably no gold left. The dollar is backed by nothing. It gets it’s value from what people are willing to trade for it. It’s value is also based on supply and demand. Obviously if the fed keeps pumping more dollars out into the supply, the dollar is worth less and less. It’s not that prices are going up, it’s more that the value of the dollar is going down.

As I think I understand it, Ron Paul wants a competing currency of gold and silver as an alternative to the dollar. give people a choice. There are competing currencies all over the world. Why can’t two people settle a contract with gold or silver.

If you want to see something stable, place a graph of the price of oil over the value of gold from the last 30 years. It is completely flat.

Well, there’s nothing at all to prohibit two people from settling a contract with gold or silver. The laws against private ownership of gold have long since gone off the books. You’re free to go buy a bar, if you want (here’s one place, right here). A few years ago, there was a big internet focus on new "e-currencies," some of which were backed, supposedly, by gold. So you seem to either have a misunderstanding of what Paul wants, or he wants something which the private sector could set up today, if a sufficiently large number of people were interested enough in it to make it profitable.

Most people, however, find it more convenient to settle in dollars, or in some other currency, gold being very heavy and hard to move around.

Beyond that, there’s nothing magical about gold. Its supply is not nearly as limited as it once was, and because more of it is always being discovered and mined, it is itself subject to "inflation" caused by increasing supply. Plus, the demand for gold as a metal fluctuates, which changes its value, too. Should the value of the dollar change just because personal computers came along and required a large amount of gold for the internal electrical components?

The fundamental definition of value is that the value of a thing is what that thing will bring. That’s as true with gold as with paper dollars. There was inflation back when the dollar was based on gold, too.

Explain to me then why the FBI raided the liberty dollar.

You can use whatever medium of exchange you want. Some stores in Mannhattan have started to accept only Euros. (Euro is also a “fiat currency”. But it seems to be doing just fine. The problems that exist with the dollar’s declining value are a result of bad fiscal policy, not the concept of the “fiat currency” itself as claimed (without any evidence or discussion of any kind) by the Paulbots.) You can legally pay me for goods or services in Monopoly money if you can get me to accept it.

But what you cannot do is what the "Liberty Dollar" people did and represent that your alternate currency is a legal REPLACEMENT for the U.S. dollar.

Big difference.

Oh. And "fiat dollar". Another red flag "scary word" from the talking points. You guys are so predictable because so many of you are exactly, slavishly the same, right down to the identically memorized phrases and talking points.

duff, when Paul (or anybody) tells you something about the law, ask to see the law itself. Don’t take their word for it.

Even if the law were such that you had to accept the "fiat money" that the guvm’nt issues, there’s no law that says you can’t set your prices based on the current price of gold. Each morning, you could wake up and print your restaurant’s menu via a spreadsheet which plugs in the dollar price of gold, so that each day, the price of lunch is the amount needed to buy the same amount of gold as could be bought with the price of yesterday’s lunch. Your contract can state that the final price to the customer is the amount of dollars needed to buy 10 ounces of gold at a specified market, as of the date payment is made. Or the contract can simply specify that the price is one bar of gold bullion of a specified purity amount.

"Legal tender" simply means that if you contract for a debt nominated in dollars, then you have to take the currency for that debt. But you don’t have to agree to incur that debt to begin with, and before the debt is incurred, you can, in negotation with the other party to the transaction, specify different payment requirements that do NOT involve accepting "legal tender."

But you, as a private person, don’t have to accept currency in return for goods and services. Here’s an excerpt from the U.S Treasury’s FAQ:

I thought that United States currency was legal tender for all debts. Some businesses or governmental agencies say that they will only accept checks, money orders or credit cards as payment, and others will only accept currency notes in denominations of $20 or smaller. Isn’t this illegal? The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

No, you big dummy, my husband makes a lot of money!  So we don’t seserve any of our money back. so, i can sit here on my ass and do this all day. Trouble is, we don’t live in a big house, we drive used cars, I don’t belong to the counttry clubs, I still shop at the sale rack, we have loans to pay off, we have to save for our kid’s college, but the gobmint thinks I am soooo rich that I don’t neeeed my money. that is why I am so angry.

A common theme here seems to be that Ron Paul want to do crazy stuff like eliminate child protection laws and environmental regulations.  These allegations are unfounded and wrong.  The huge thing that people are missing, including a huge amount of Ron Paul supporters in fact is the philosophy of government under which Ron Paul operates.  That is what is important.  I am absolutely convinced that once you get your head around the philosophy, the decision on individual policies becomes amazingly simple.  I assume all sides in the discussion have no aversion to a little reading so I would highly encourage the following article:

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

Ok, Travis, I got through about the first 2 pages of that polemic, and didn’t discern what deep "philosophy" he was espousing, beyond the basic distinction between individualism and collectivism.

Since it’s so "amazingly simple" to decide on individual policies once you have your head around that philosophy (as you say you have), could you kindly give us a few examples that would set our minds at ease?

Is it your and Paul’s position that child labor laws are unnecessary, because individuals acting through a free, unregulated market will not find it profitable to do so? Or is it your and Paul’s position that child labor laws are an appropriate use of the law under our Constitution? How about environmental laws? Please show us, with just one of those, what government laws and policies are "amazingly simple" to decide upon based upon Paul’s philosophy?

Citizen Mark, you Paulites do nothing but whine, whine, WHINE. Here, despite our name-calling, you’ve found people actually discussing substantive issues and directly debating the policies, asking questions about what exactly Paul’s policies are. But all you can choose to add to the discussion is more whining, and insulting us that we somehow are all zombies because we don’t agree with you. We, however, have taken great pains to explain to you exactly why we disagree with specific positions adopted by Paul and his supporters.

And I’d add that it takes 2 to fight, so stop acting like you’re going to hold your