United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: RNC Lawyer Says All Delegates Are Unbound!
Source:
Liberty Vlogger
URL Source: http://libertyvlogger.com/ron-paul/ ... ays-all-delegates-are-unbound/
Published: May 12, 2012
Author: Reality Check
Post Date: 2012-05-12 08:13:10 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 20463
Comments: 56
Rule number 38.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
If the Ron Paulians think attempts at subverting the will of the people as expressed thru the primary process is a good idea they're crazy. Oh wait...
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
Oh wait... LOL! Oh yeah, all our elections before this one have been completely fair and above board. Riiiiiiiiigghhttt!
Oh wait... Do you know how the electoral college works? 1.) Candidate A wins the popular vote in a state in November. 2.) Candidate A's party picks the electors who the meet in D.C. in December to elect the president. 3.) The electors can vote for whomever they want. They are not bound to Candidate A. The popular vote for President in the general election is just a suggestion. This is how the America system works. The parties pick electors who are known to be loyal to the party, but there have been instances when individual electors voted for someone else. The way that I read the RNC rules is that Rule 38 only applies to states that attempt to force a winner take all model -- which is only 14 states this year. Apparently the RNC council disagrees.
Don't worry lefty, you'll get your police state, your perpetual war, and your big government to take care of you. Both Romney and Obama will see to it. It's a win-win for you.
Lol..here's another suggestion for the RP lunatics..don't forget to wear Kelvar under your brown shirts at the convention.
I'm not worried at all. The Ron Paul 'revolution' has fizzled out and all you have to show for it is some hyper technical yammering about "rules". Pretty pathetic.
No, what's pathetic is leftist scum like you taking over the Republican party and turning it into the Democrat-Lite party. What's pathetic is because of liberals like yourself, a baby-murdering politician who has spent his entire political career governing like a Democrat is going to be the Republican nominee. That's what's pathetic.
Now we are talking 'real fun', indeed!!!
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'! Read the Constitution, BOZO. You neo-commie dimwits are why we will never get this country back on track.
Don't dismiss the POWER of alternative thinking, jw. There is an ol' cliché that parallels humanities time tested "golden rule": screw 'em.
Try taking a closer look around at the next Ron Paul rally at all the college students supporting that old man. Hint: They're NOT social conservatives. The way I see it.. it's foolish Ron Paul supporters like yourself who are the ones 'leaning forward' while the Obama left takes 'liberty' with your hind quarters.
I have. I'm just not sure my suggestion to crazy people attempting to subvert the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box to *wear body armor* while doing so has a constitutional reference point. Perhaps you'd care to point it out for me.
LOL! You have such a way with words! But see, these witty one liners are usually the last refuge of leftist idiots like yukon who really have no other argument. You can't argue facts, issues or views, because you KNOW they won't support your contentions, so you revert to these witty but puerile one line statements of NOTHING. LOL! Funny, but in reality, the funniest part is that you've just admitted that you can't compete.
LMAO! Today's social conservatism is LEFTIST doctrine! You actually want the fedgov to dictate what is moral and what isn't. Hell, why not even have a state sponsored church? Please, hopefully before I pee my pants laughing, please tell us all how any part of today's social conservatism is conservative at all. And as much as I love those witty one liners, if you would, do it in a little more depth.
The will of the people is being shown and you're the one arguing against them showing it. What is being subverted here is the will of the RNC.
Come on, don't be scared. There is one OBVIOUS plank in today's social conservatism that would actually help to support your argument. Can you figure out which one?
Hey..it was Fiber Dog who brought up 'baby-murdering politicians' in reference to Romney and Obama. Go back and read the quote I responded to.
Try taking a closer look around at the next Ron Paul rally at all the college students supporting that old man. Hint: They're NOT social conservatives. Maybe I misunderstood your post. Fibr Dog's post is literal and easily understandable. Then you make a point about Ron Paul supporters and even offer a hint. Romney and Obama are baby-murdering politicians. You think the majority of Paul supporters are pro-abortion? You think today's social conservatism is actually conservative? I have a hard time following you. I tend to think, speak and type literally, while you tend to post metaphorically. Example, "The way I see it.. it's foolish Ron Paul supporters like yourself who are the ones 'leaning forward' while the Obama left takes 'liberty' with your hind quarters." Now, while cute and witty, that could have many different meanings. It's easier to follow a conversation if one simply says what one means and leaves the catchy metaphors out.
Yet of all the candidates running only he performed abortions.
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
Yet of all the candidates running only he performed abortions. Paul performed abortions? LOL!
LOL! You didn't know that as an obstetrician, he performed abortions???? My, my.... are you the naive one.
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
LOL! You didn't know that as an obstetrician, he performed abortions???? My, my.... are you the naive one. OMG! LOL! You really are an idiot! Despite my previous posts, I'd actually given you the benefit of the doubt until now. Of course, you can PROVE this assertion.........right? Or, are you just making an ASSumption?
Hello? Proof? :o)
I stopped doing that 9 months ago. There is no point. "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." -- Ron Paul
You WISH. LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
Bottom/Latest f5 Bottom/Latest f5 Bottom/Latest f5 Still nothing! LMAO!
No, he did not. Ron Paul on the subject of abortion: Straight from his website: "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." This latest claim is just an attempt to smear the one man who represents a threat to o'Bungler and your socialist utopian dreams. Getting desperate, aren't you? Thanks for playing, you LYING BITCH.
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
I will assume that by now you've figured out that the information you are so desperately searching for does not exist. This should be a good lesson for you, but I doubt it will have any impact whatsoever.
She doesn't care. As a typical left-wing loon, she thinks that once she makes the accusation, the damage is done. Of course, by virtue of the fact that she is a left-wing loon who is attacking the credibility of a man who has been rock-solid consistent for decades, her accusations are not only not taken seriously, but downright funny because they're so outlandish. But that's how the lefty loons work- make an accusation, never offer a shred of concrete proof, and move on to the next accusation, while their target is trying to disprove the first accusation. In this way, they can shred a person with mere rumors. It's a typical game for them. Leftist Disinfo Tactic #4. Use a straw man. LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
And in typical left-wing loon style, the only damage she's done is to her own imaginary credibility.
Whinymold will keep telling the lie over and over hoping someone will believe it. Mostly it just wants to aggravate everyone. It must have posted that RP favors corporate person-hood fifty times, another lie. It's a yukon tard-bot.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
The economy is wonderful! Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent! A chicken in every pot! You might as well add "Ron Paul is winning!" to that list. Thanks for the laugh.
Given the large numbers of college students who vote for him, I'd say yes. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?
What's the matter, you lying bitch, can't provide proof of your accusations???? You throw shit out there, with NO proof, NOTHING to substantiate your "claims." And when called on your actions, you slither off, like a snake, to start over. You and your ilk are disgusting. It makes me smile to know you'll get everything you so richly deserve, you parasite.
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
Given the large numbers of college students who vote for him, I'd say yes. Do you have data that suggests otherwise? I do not. I doubt that you have data to support your contention either. I simply use logic. If Paul = anti-abortion then logic would dictate that the majority of his supporters would be anti-abortion. People who pay enough attention to support a politician tend to agree with his views. Of course, there are always exceptions to rules.
Do you disagree that Ron Paul draws most of his support from college students aged 18-24 years old? Do you disagree that the 18-24 year old cohort is the most pro-choice segment of the voting public? What does logic tell you about that?
The way I see it.. it's foolish Ron Paul supporters like yourself who are the ones 'leaning forward' while the Obama left takes 'liberty' with your hind quarters. As a big government Republican who has his tongue up the ass of Washington DC you wouldn't know the first thing about social conservatism. You are not a conservative, you are a neoconservative which isn't conservative at all. As for Obama taking our liberty, he is doing exactly what Ron Paul supporters said the Democrats would do when Bush and the Republican party first began building the police state infrastructure you champion - expanding on it. And when/if your socialist buddy Mitt wins he'll expand it even more. Either way, you're getting exactly what you want - a government to take care of you, control your life, and eventually put liberty-minded people like me in prison. That's gotta give you a real woody comrade.
Ron Paul's anti-abortion is rock solid. When the faux anti-abortion Republican party had complete control of the federal government, Paul was the ONLY PERSON to propose anti-abortion legislation. Therefore, if pro-abortionists are voting for Ron Paul they are doing so knowing his stance on the issue. That being the case, your comment is moot.
I could be wrong but i think the baby boom generation is the big abortion generation.
Hello Dog. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I don't think Ron Paul is strong enough against abortion. If abortion is murder and that is my position. Why isn't he in favor (like Rand Paul is) of a constitutional amendment banning abortion? I understand his state rights argument. But when you amend the constitution states rights doesn't come into play for you are changing the constitution. To change the constitution to outlaw murder seems like a no brainer to me. Why doesn't Ron Paul support a constitutional amendment to ban murder and Rand does? That is why Rand Paul is more appealing then Ron Paul. On many issues.
No it isn't. There are nay number of areas where Ron Paul's position doesn't square with anti-abortion lobby. For example in 1999 and again in 2005 Ron Paul voted against making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to have an abortion. In 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research (HR534) In 2004 Ron Paul voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (HR 1997) I'm sure Ron Paul had good libertarian reasons for voting that way, but it makes him less than "rock solid" on the issue.
No..it seems folks get less pro-choice as they get older.
What I am saying. Is that during time when they were child bearing age. The baby boom generation was the most pro choice. Maybe so many of them had abortions they now feel guilty. Hence your above chart.
You could be right. My observation was simply that the young college aged Ron Paul supporters are more likely than not to be pro-choice, and that Fibber Dog should think *twice* before making the assumption Ron Paul draws large numbers of social conservatives.
I don't think your chart factors in Ron Paul. Say your chart is accurate. That doesn't mean the Ron Paul supporters are pro abortion. The people I know who support Ron Paul are against abortion. Admittedly a short list I have.
I understand his state rights argument. But when you amend the constitution states rights doesn't come into play for you are changing the constitution. To change the constitution to outlaw murder seems like a no brainer to me. Why doesn't Ron Paul support a constitutional amendment to ban murder and Rand does? That is why Rand Paul is more appealing then Ron Paul. On many issues. Dr. Paul has stated that he believes that regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". However, with the Sanctity of Life Act that he and other real pro-life politicians (as opposed to those who don't give a damn about the issue and use it to manipulate the gullible) you do not need a constitutional amendment to outlaw the murder of an unborn child. To do that all that Congress has to do is "define human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." That quote comes directly from the Sanctity of Life legislation that real pro-life politicians have been trying to get passed since before Ron Paul was in office. Once an unborn child is given the same status as you or I then they are protected by the same laws as you or I. No constitutional amendment needed. But that would also take away an us vs them issue which draws a lot of people to the Republican Party. In addition, the Sanctity of Life bill would have "recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state." In other words, the states would be able to handle the issue just like they do any other murder case if they so choose. Also, "The Act would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions" Had the Republican Party voted on and passed this legislation when they had 100% control of the federal government rather than sitting on it and not allowing it to even be voted on in committee, there would be no abortions in this country today.
That is why we say he is weak on abortion. Why would someone let murder be lawful in any state. Are some states free to ignore the second amendment?
That really isn't the point.
Dr. Paul loves life and babies. He spent most his life delivering them.
Come talk to me when your party actually does something more than just talk about the abortion issue. Maybe you can detail to us the actions your party of big government took to stop abortion when they had complete control of the federal government.
Your party has done zero, nada, zilth about abortion and yet Ron Paul is weak on the issue? LOL! They had complete control of the federal government. Where was their proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit abortion?
It seems to me that you folks in the hard core anti-abortion crowd are the ones demanding the big government solutions. Ron Paul certainly isn't. The best example I can give you is Congress meddling in the Terri Schiavo case, which the anti-abortion crowd supported fervently. Frankly..you sound more like a big government butt-licker than I do.
First off it is not my party. Secondly they didn't do enough. Thirdly they did ban partial birth abortion. Fourthly they did eliminate stem cell research with aborted babies. That isn't enough. But the democrats go far in the opposite direction. If you think both parties are equivalent on this issue you are not thinking clearly.
Because Ron Paul is weak on the issue. Doesn't mean the Republicans are strong the issue. What makes you think that?
I find the killing of the Unborn to be between the conscience of the person killing the "unborn" and God. Anything else is your own sentence.
#2. To: A K A Stone, *Ron Paul for President* (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: Thunderbird (#1)
If the Ron Paulians think attempts at subverting the will of the people as expressed thru the primary process is a good idea they're crazy.
#4. To: Thunderbird (#1)
If the Ron Paulians think attempts at subverting the will of the people as expressed thru the primary process is a good idea they're crazy.
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#5. To: Thunderbird (#1)
#6. To: jwpegler (#4)
The popular vote for President in the general election is just a suggestion.
#7. To: Fibr Dog (#5)
(Edited)
Don't worry lefty, you'll get your police state, your perpetual war, and your big government to take care of you. Both Romney and Obama will see to it. It's a win-win for you.
#8. To: Thunderbird (#7)
Pretty pathetic.
#9. To: Thunderbird, *Tea Party On Parade* (#6)
Lol..here's another suggestion for the RP lunatics..don't forget to wear Kelvar under your brown shirts at the convention.
#10. To: Thunderbird (#6)
(Edited)
here's another suggestion for the RP lunatics
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#11. To: jwpegler (#10)
... we will never get this country back on track.
#12. To: Fibr Dog (#8)
No, what's pathetic is leftist scum like you taking over the Republican party and turning it into the Democrat-Lite party. What's pathetic is because of liberals like yourself, a baby-murdering politician who has spent his entire political career governing like a Democrat is going to be the Republican nominee.
#13. To: jwpegler (#10)
Read the Constitution, BOZO.
#14. To: Thunderbird, Fibr Dog (#12)
The way I see it.. it's foolish Ron Paul supporters like yourself who are the ones 'leaning forward' while the Obama left takes 'liberty' with your hind quarters.
#15. To: Thunderbird (#12)
Hint: They're NOT social conservatives.
#16. To: Thunderbird (#13)
crazy people attempting to subvert the will of the people
#17. To: Thunderbird (#15)
Please, hopefully before I pee my pants laughing, please tell us all how any part of today's social conservatism is conservative at all.
#18. To: We The People, Fiber Dog (#15)
You actually want the fedgov to dictate what is moral and what isn't. Hell, why not even have a state sponsored church?
#19. To: Thunderbird, Fibr Dog (#18)
What's pathetic is because of liberals like yourself, a baby-murdering politician who has spent his entire political career governing like a Democrat is going to be the Republican nominee.
#20. To: We The People (#19)
(Edited)
You think the majority of Paul supporters are pro-abortion?
#21. To: mininggold (#20)
You think the majority of Paul supporters are pro-abortion?
#22. To: We The People (#21)
Paul performed abortions?
#23. To: mininggold (#22)
(Edited)
Paul performed abortions?
#24. To: mininggold (#22)
#25. To: We The People (#23)
I'd actually given you the benefit of the doubt until now.
we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague -- loonymom
#26. To: Thunderbird (#7)
The Ron Paul 'revolution' has fizzled out...
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#27. To: mininggold (#22)
#28. To: mininggold (#22)
(Edited)
You didn't know that as an obstetrician, he performed abortions???? My, my.... are you the naive one.
Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life
In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#29. To: mininggold (#22)
#30. To: We The People (#29)
I will assume that by now you've figured out that the information you are so desperately searching for does not exist.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#31. To: Capitalist Eric (#30)
As a typical left-wing loon, she thinks that once she makes the accusation, the damage is done.
#32. To: Capitalist Eric, We The People (#30)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#33. To: Capitalist Eric (#26)
(Edited)
#34. To: We The People (#19)
You think the majority of Paul supporters are pro-abortion?
#35. To: mininggold (#22)
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#36. To: Thunderbird (#34)
You think the majority of Paul supporters are pro-abortion?
#37. To: We The People (#36)
If Paul = anti-abortion then logic would dictate that the majority of his supporters would be anti-abortion.
#38. To: Thunderbird (#12)
Try taking a closer look around at the next Ron Paul rally at all the college students supporting that old man. Hint: They're NOT social conservatives.
#39. To: Thunderbird (#18)
Hey..it was Fiber Dog who brought up 'baby-murdering politicians' in reference to Romney and Obama. Go back and read the quote I responded to.
#40. To: Thunderbird (#37)
Do you disagree that the 18-24 year old cohort is the most pro-choice segment of the voting public?
#41. To: Fibr Dog (#39)
Ron Paul's anti-abortion is rock solid. When the faux anti-abortion Republican party had complete control of the federal government, Paul was the ONLY PERSON to propose anti-abortion legislation.
#42. To: Fibr Dog (#39)
Ron Paul's anti-abortion is rock solid.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#40)
I could be wrong but i think the baby boom generation is the big abortion generation.
#44. To: Thunderbird (#43)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#46. To: Thunderbird (#45)
My observation was simply that the young college aged Ron Paul supporters are more likely than not to be pro-choice
#47. To: A K A Stone (#41)
I don't think Ron Paul is strong enough against abortion. If abortion is murder and that is my position. Why isn't he in favor (like Rand Paul is) of a constitutional amendment banning abortion?
#48. To: Fibr Dog (#47)
Dr. Paul has stated that he believes that regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)
#51. To: Thunderbird (#42)
#52. To: A K A Stone (#48)
#53. To: Fibr Dog (#51)
Maybe you can detail to us the actions your party of big government took to stop abortion when they had complete control of the federal government.
#54. To: Fibr Dog (#51)
Come talk to me when your party actually does something more than just talk about the abortion issue. Maybe you can detail to us the actions your party of big government took to stop abortion when they had complete control of the federal government.
#55. To: Fibr Dog (#52)
Your party has done zero, nada, zilth about abortion and yet Ron Paul is weak on the issue? LOL! They had complete control of the federal government. Where was their proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit abortion?
#56. To: A K A Stone (#55)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]