United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Paul supporters make mark at Maine GOP convention
Source:
FOXNEWS: the voice of the GOP
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... -mark-at-maine-gop-convention/
Published: May 6, 2012
Author: staff
Post Date: 2012-05-06 10:22:01 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 25924
Comments: 52
"I think it shows that our numbers are here," Aaron Quinn, a 28-year-old Paul supporter from Brunswick, said after the close chairmanship vote. Paul supporter Brent Tweed, a state committee member from York County, was elected chairman with 1,118 delegates' votes, just four more votes than the mainstream candidate, Charles Cragin, a one-time gubernatorial candidate. A Paul supporter was also narrowly elected secretary. The votes were largely symbolic but important because they show the level of support at the crowded convention for the libertarian-leaning Paul. His supporters' real goals were to elect majorities on Republican county, state and national committees -- and elect a majority of the state's delegates to this summer's GOP national convention in Tampa, Fla. Delivering 13 of Maine's 24 delegates to Paul would ensure he gets a chance to address the convention, said Matthew McDonald of Belfast, a Paul-supporting delegate. "That's why Maine today is really, really important," McDonald said. Nevada Republicans, who were holding their convention Saturday, also expected a strong Paul showing. "I think it's a democratic process with a small D," Cragin said. "I just hope this enthusiasm continues with some longevity after Tampa." Votes for a party platform, national delegates and national committee members were also scheduled for Saturday. Paul supporters said they had no objections to the platform, which included calls for fiscal prudence and no new taxes, strong local and weak national governments, making English the official language of Maine, right to work and voter ID law, and other items. Two years ago, tea party activists who showed up in force at the convention forced changes that left their mark on the platform. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/06/paul-supporters-make-mark-at-maine-gop-convention/#ixzz1u6E5aNoqAUGUSTA, Maine – Ron Paul's army of supporters in Maine flexed their muscle Saturday as they elected their candidate for chairman of the state Republican convention, a first step toward taking over key party committees and giving the Texas congressman a voice at this summer's national convention.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: buckeroo (#0)
For all you neo's out there... if you do not have those 'libertarian leanings', you are not a conservative. This has been a Public Service announcement.
Don't you worry about a thing. Harrowup shall be here "lickety-split" to extoll the virtues of the LP ways.
Perhaps if you described or otherwise identified what those "libertarian leanings" are we'd have a more useful yardstick. Nancy Pelosi has "libertarian leanings", but I doubt you'd agree she's a conservative.
Nancy sings the same global statist tune as the neocons, but with different lyrics.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Sure! :o) I'd love to! Well, we can first take a look at the Bill of Rights, or, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution as one of, and arguably the most important of, our guidelines. There can be no doubt that the BOR has an immense libertarian leaning. And if one were to really stop and think about it, conservatism itself is deeply dependent, fundamentally, to libertarian leanings. Being fiscally conservative with the peoples' money stems from the basic and rudimentary libertarian belief that a man owns the fruits of his own labor. Today's 'social conservatism' is actually not conservatism at all, but an ideology from the authoritarian left, adopted by the right, (just like the leftist foreign policy of intervention has been adopted by the right) and coming from the belief that government can and should regulate what government considers the moral affairs of its citizens. This even leads to a bigger and more powerful central government which is polar opposite of conservatism. In true social conservatism, government has no business intervening in the moral affairs of its citizens. As long as one is not violating the rights of others, government has no constitutional authority. Then there is also foreign policy conservatism or nonintervention, which also stems from the basic libertarian belief against coercion. Liz Cheney, even from her senior thesis, "The Evolution of Presidential War Powers" has proven that she, like her father, prefers a unitary executive, big government and the leftist approach of intervention in the foreign affairs of other countries, in 'making the world safe for democracy', which is a leftist doctrine. Nancy Pelosi has "libertarian leanings", but I doubt you'd agree she's a conservative. Nancy Pelosi has absolutely no libertarian leanings. She may hold a couple views in common with the Big L, Libertarian Party, but her reasoning to reach those conclusions are polar opposite of conservative thought. EDIT: Sorry for the edit, but these are a few basic points concerning the most obvious issues. We can go even further in depth if you'd like.
Citations would help but rather than waste my time with your bloviations I might suggest you reflect on the fact that the libertarians in general and the wacko libertarians here are not conservatives. But you already know that. That isn't a compliment either.
You want citations to my own descriptions? Badeye asked...(Oops, sorry Badeye) I mean, Thunderbird asked, "Perhaps if you described or otherwise identified what those "libertarian leanings" are we'd have a more useful yardstick." So I described and identified the most obvious. If you want a citation, here you go... libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=29939&Disp=5#C5 but rather than waste my time with your bloviations I might suggest you reflect on the fact that the libertarians in general and the wacko libertarians here are not conservatives. Pardon me for being so blunt, but you wouldn't know conservatism if it climbed up into your lap and called you mommy. Conservatism is completely foreign to you. Don't claim knowledge of that which you know nothing about, or I may be forced into joining you in making you look like an idiot.
Darn tootin'!!! I'm so sick of this giant crap of Federal Government I could spit nails, (as my Dad used to say).
Excellent response!
Thank you. ;o)
I agree that conservatism starts with a deep understanding of our founding principles, but I disagree that libertarianism is at the root. For example, individual rights are largely enforced at the federal level which seems opposed to how libertarianism as I understand it operates. -btw Do you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a conservative?
Don't believe everything you hear WTP... I'm sure ole Badeye himself would get a 'chuckle' over the fact that I've been 'identified' as him by the usual band of boring liberal fuck-ups.
Then how do you explain the Bill of Rights?
Don't believe everything you hear WTP... I'm sure ole Badeye himself would get a 'chuckle' over the fact that I've been 'identified' as him by the usual band of boring liberal fuck-ups. Sorry. You're right. But Badeye and I had very similar discussions, and his positions were very similar to yours. But you're right, I jumped to a conclusion. Your logic, language and posting style appear almost identical though. Actually, I miss having these discussions. Where is Badeye?
Then you disagree with Reagan, who said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism". How about, you now tell me what conservatism means to you?
Your logic, language and posting style appear almost identical though. Actually, I miss having these discussions. Where is Badeye? As far as I know..Badeye got tired of some of the trolls at this site and posts almost exclusively on Facebook where folks can't hide behind a screen name. He and I share some of the same political philosophy, but he's been posting on these chit-chat sites much longer than I have. Our differences are more likely to be on some social issues (for example I don't like pit bulls and he's into dog rescue) than political issues, but I haven't really kept up with his views in the past year or so. I agree though, he'd make this a more interesting place.
Individual freedoms protected by a Federal judiciary. Today's libertarians seem to forget the second part of the equation.
Is he going to search out those that disagree with him? I guess that's OK for him, he's pretty safe in that since he's pretty much in lockstep with today's status quo totalitarian government.
Uhhhhhhhhh, are you serious here? Has the federal judiciary protected American citizens from the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent NDAA, which all clearly violate the Bill of Rights? Our founders believed those rights to be inalienable and insisted on their inclusion before the constitution was ratified. That shows definite libertarian leanings. Can you argue otherwise?
You seem to have a child's expectation of instant gratification and fairness. Go to Federal court and file your grievances. Exercise your first amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Vote out the scoundrels who pass those laws you disagree with. Get the drift?
You seem to have a child's expectation of instant gratification and fairness. I'll take that as a, "No, the federal judiciary has not protected American citizens from the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent NDAA, which all clearly violate the Bill of Rights". Go to Federal court and file your grievances. Exercise your first amendment right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. Vote out the scoundrels who pass those laws you disagree with. Get the drift? Have you petitioned the government for a redress of grievances concerning these laws and their clear violations of the Bill of Rights? Because I have, and I've been ignored. If you haven't, do you not have those libertarian leanings that would make you care about those rights, or do you believe these laws do not violate those rights? Or, does this mean you don't want to discuss the issue anymore?
No..take it as a suggestion to buy a vowel. The Federal courts are available to hear your grievance but you have to get off the couch, put on your big boy clothes and avail yourself to them. They aren't going to proactively "fix it" for you. Sabe?
Who knows what this is in reference to. My guess is you attended a tea-party or a similar Ron Paul event. BFD.
Who knows what this is in reference to. I told you, I think, speak and type literally. If you don't understand plain English, then I can't help you. My guess is you attended a tea-party or a similar Ron Paul event. BFD. LOL! Well, then that would make you twice as stupid, now wouldn't it.
Sure you can. For example you could explain in greater detail exactly what kind of petition you made, to what government entity you made it, and for how long. -btw Standing in front of the Post Office with a poster of Obama as Hitler doesn't count.
FWIW, I just talked yesterday to a friend I hadn't heard from in a while who is running for office locally. He tells me that of the 15 delegates going to the state convention here in Michigan, 14 are pledged to Ron Paul.
"if you're not cop, you're little people" Exclusively on FB since I stopped posting here. Yes, the trolls with fake screen names, and faked internet lives got tedious, but I also grew tired of the personal attack threads posted as 'breaking news'. I will say I find it hilarious just how many of these idiots claim I have multiple accounts and screen names here. Kooks are funny, to a point anyway. I see war got banned from here and another website again...continuing a 12 year pattern (laughing). Anyway....nice to see the site is a tad more focused on whats 'real' these days.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
On thing about you, your Badlies never change. How were the meals in the hoosegow? Earth to Badlie, war is not banned.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
He's not banned here. What other website are you referring to?
I see you found a friend... Odd...when he PM'd me he told me that he couldn't stand you and that he admired the way I drove you crazy... Here's a helpful hint for any ventriloquist, T-Boofer...when your lips move the effect is spoiled...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
VENTRILOQUIST'S DUMMY PING
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Oh, so something from a couple of months back where he told Stone to fuck off. Oh well lmao.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Odd...when he PM'd me he told me that he couldn't stand you and that he admired the way I drove you crazy.. Wrong again, Willie. Now, you can return to pretend you are somebody...but honestly? Quit living through your kid. Its pathetic.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
Fuck off Rick. Say "Hi" to the wife... (snicker)
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
BTW, Ricky, no one is buying this little Thunderbird tap dance of yours and as I mentioned to someone who posts here that the more I annoyed you as TBoof the closer we were to seeing you *appear* again. You weren't going to risk being booted from TBL with your "Willie" *tic*...I figured that it was just a matter of time before you broke free from the gurney... Thanks for being so preDICKtable...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Hey, stick around awhile. Worthy opponents are getting hard to come by.
sup
What do you believe petitioning the government for redress of grievances in a representative republic means? Do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you? I've met with my representatives in the house and senate, in their offices, spoken to their office on a number of occasions, exchanged multiple emails, written certified letters not only to my representatives but also to the DOJ and the white house on a variety of issues. I've had both of my senators and my representatives offices call my home. In each and every instance I have been ignored, dodged and brushed off, but believe me, my representatives know me well and absolutely know my views on issues. They can't even begin to represent me if they don't know my views. Rarely a week goes by without some sort of contact. My mailbox is continuously flooded with form letters. Have you ever contacted your representatives? If you had, then you would know exactly what I'm talking about without an explanation, so I doubt that you have. And no, posting photoshopped photos of Obama on Facebook doesn't count.
Well..apparently they think Thunderbird is one of those names, with the dwarf being the main instigator. I guess its projection on his part considering the multiple screen names & accounts he's used to follow you like a puppy across multiple chit chat sites over the years. It must satisfy some pathetic *need* he has to appear relevant to think he's responding to his 'nemesis' when he's posting to me, who knows? Fwiw I've posted on some of the same forums with you over the years too, using a different moniker. Some other names you'd likely remember from those days are LuisG, Sabertooth, and Magic (r.i.p.). Anyhow, thanks for dropping by and setting the record straight. Cheers -TB
You are full of shit.
Comments (41 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe votes were largely symbolic but important because they show the level of support at the crowded convention for the libertarian-leaning Paul.
#2. To: We The People, harrowup (#1)
#3. To: We The People (#1)
For all you neo's out there... if you do not have those 'libertarian leanings', you are not a conservative.
#4. To: Thunderbird, *Ron Paul for President* (#3)
(Edited)
Nancy Pelosi has "libertarian leanings"
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: Thunderbird (#3)
(Edited)
Perhaps if you described or otherwise identified what those "libertarian leanings" are we'd have a more useful yardstick.
#6. To: We The People (#5)
...but these are a few basic points concerning the most obvious issues. We can go even further in depth if you'd like.
#7. To: harrowup (#6)
(Edited)
Citations would help
#8. To: We The People (#1)
#9. To: We The People (#5)
#10. To: SJN (#9)
#11. To: We The People (#5)
#12. To: We The People, Badeye (#7)
Badeye asked...(Oops, sorry Badeye) I mean, Thunderbird asked,
#13. To: Thunderbird (#11)
I agree that conservatism starts with a deep understanding of our founding principles, but I disagree that libertarianism is at the root.
#14. To: Thunderbird (#12)
Badeye asked...(Oops, sorry Badeye) I mean, Thunderbird asked,
#15. To: Thunderbird (#11)
I agree that conservatism starts with a deep understanding of our founding principles, but I disagree that libertarianism is at the root.
#16. To: We The People, Badeye (#14)
But Badeye and I had very similar discussions, and his positions were very similar to yours. But you're right, I jumped to a conclusion.
#17. To: We The People (#13)
Then how do you explain the Bill of Rights?
#18. To: Thunderbird (#16)
As far as I know..Badeye got tired of some of the trolls at this site and posts almost exclusively on Facebook where folks can't hide behind a screen name.
#19. To: Thunderbird (#17)
Individual freedoms protected by a Federal judiciary.
#20. To: We The People (#19)
Has the federal judiciary protected American citizens from the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent NDAA, which all clearly violate the Bill of Rights?
#21. To: Thunderbird (#20)
Has the federal judiciary protected American citizens from the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent NDAA, which all clearly violate the Bill of Rights?
#22. To: We The People (#21)
I'll take that as a, "No, the federal judiciary has not protected American citizens from the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the recent NDAA, which all clearly violate the Bill of Rights".
#23. To: We The People (#21)
(Edited)
Because I have, and I've been ignored.
#24. To: Thunderbird (#23)
Have you petitioned the government for a redress of grievances concerning these laws and their clear violations of the Bill of Rights? Because I have, and I've been ignored.
#25. To: We The People (#24)
I told you, I think, speak and type literally. If you don't understand plain English, then I can't help you.
#26. To: We The People, SJN, hondo68, buckeroo, harrowup (#1)
#27. To: Thunderbird (#16)
s far as I know..Badeye got tired of some of the trolls at this site and posts almost exclusively on Facebook where folks can't hide behind a screen name.
#28. To: Badeye (#27)
#29. To: Badeye (#27)
I see war got banned from here and another website again...
#30. To: Badeye (#27)
#31. To: Thunderbird (#30)
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
#33. To: war (#30)
see you found a friend...
#34. To: Badeye (#33)
#35. To: Badeye (#33)
(Edited)
#36. To: Badeye (#27)
#37. To: war (#34)
#38. To: Thunderbird (#25)
you could explain in greater detail
#39. To: Badeye (#27)
I will say I find it hilarious just how many of these idiots claim I have multiple accounts and screen names here. Kooks are funny, to a point anyway.
#40. To: Thunderbird (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]