Thomas Woods speech at PaulFest

[Jackson]

I am not AGAINST Ron Paul. I think he said some things that had to be said and he believed in what he said. I believe he is an honest broker as well. But there comes a time when you have to look at the reality of a situation. What good does it do Paul to come to a convention and denigrade the nominee? No one would have that! He could have used his influence in a much more positive way by helping determining policies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course the man couldn't win. They just wanted a smooth running convention without negative comments, and the DNC would have done the same if reversed. You know that as well.

So their 'solution' is to disenfranchise a large and growing segment of their own party, and do it through fraud, theft and deception?

How the fuck can you be good with that?

It is not a large and growing segment of the party. If it were, Ron Paul would have been getting more success in the primaries. He never was a serious contender.

Ron Paul wanted to be more than what he was. That is the reality of the situation. This continuing "to run," is making me think he was more of a mental case than I had really regarded him. He could have had important additions to the platform if he had cooperated with the DNC. What good does he do for himself to go negative against his own party except to satisfy his own personal need?

It's certainly not the largest segment of the Republican Party, but to say it's not growing one would have to be blind. Look at the difference from 2008 to 2012. Ron Paul never came close to winning the popular vote in a single state in 2008, whereas in 2012 he nearly won Iowa, Maine, and Washington. Not to mention the success he had at the caucuses. If that's not evidence of growing then nothing is.

 

[Jackson]

So their 'solution' is to disenfranchise a large and growing segment of their own party, and do it through fraud, theft and deception?

How the fuck can you be good with that?

It is not a large and growing segment of the party. If it were, Ron Paul would have been getting more success in the primaries. He never was a serious contender.

Ron Paul wanted to be more than what he was. That is the reality of the situation. This continuing "to run," is making me think he was more of a mental case than I had really regarded him. He could have had important additions to the platform if he had cooperated with the DNC. What good does he do for himself to go negative against his own party except to satisfy his own personal need?

It's certainly not the largest segment of the Republican Party, but to say it's not growing one would have to be blind. Look at the difference from 2008 to 2012. Ron Paul never came close to winning the popular vote in a single state in 2008, whereas in 2012 he nearly won Iowa, Maine, and Washington. Not to mention the success he had at the caucuses. If that's not evidence of growing then nothing is.

Nearly winning anything means he won nothing. My post still stands. He could have been a team member.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I am not AGAINST Ron Paul. I think he said some things that had to be said and he believed in what he said. I believe he is an honest broker as well. But there comes a time when you have to look at the reality of a situation. What good does it do Paul to come to a convention and denigrade the nominee? No one would have that! He could have used his influence in a much more positive way by helping determining policies.

Since the convention hasn't happened yet, how would you or anyone else know what Ron Paul would or would not say or do?

And even if it was known that there would be dissension or disruption, how can you support the breaking of RNC rules to stifle it?

 

[PredFan]

Meh. irrelevant. We have to deal with the reality of obama vs Romney.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is not a large and growing segment of the party. If it were, Ron Paul would have been getting more success in the primaries. He never was a serious contender.

Ron Paul wanted to be more than what he was. That is the reality of the situation. This continuing "to run," is making me think he was more of a mental case than I had really regarded him. He could have had important additions to the platform if he had cooperated with the DNC. What good does he do for himself to go negative against his own party except to satisfy his own personal need?

It's certainly not the largest segment of the Republican Party, but to say it's not growing one would have to be blind. Look at the difference from 2008 to 2012. Ron Paul never came close to winning the popular vote in a single state in 2008, whereas in 2012 he nearly won Iowa, Maine, and Washington. Not to mention the success he had at the caucuses. If that's not evidence of growing then nothing is.

Nearly winning anything means he won nothing. My post still stands. He could have been a team member.

No, your claim was that Ron Paul's support was not growing. Which is demonstrably false. Now he didn't win the popular vote in any of these states, though it could be argued that there was a severe case of fraud in Maine to keep him from winning the popular vote, his support certainly increased from 2008 to 2012. Not to mention, as I said before, his success in winning delegates. He won the majority of delegates in several states. So again, your claim is demonstrably false, and doesn't stand at all.

As for being a "team member," what we need to remember is that while Romney and the GOP did indeed steal Ron Paul's delegates from him Ron Paul's campaign allowed it to happen. In his quest for decorum from his supporters at the RNC he allowed Romney and co. to walk all over him. I'd say that's being a "team member." Which is, in my opinion, unfortunate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLN5NBZ5KU]Gary Johnson's Speech At PAUL Fest - YouTube[/ame]

 

[whitehall]

What the hell is a "PaulFest" and why are the ultra alleged libertarian crazies so angry?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Gary Johnson's Speech At PAUL Fest - YouTube

This was the best speech I've ever seen Gary Johnson give. He should've been more like this from the beginning.

 

[PredFan]

What the hell is a "PaulFest" and why are the ultra alleged libertarian crazies so angry?

As a long time Libertarian, I would like to apologize to everyone for the looneys that seem to have infested our party of late. These people are NOT Ron Paul, nor are they the Libertarian Party. They are just a bunch of pot heads who somewhere along the line heard that the Libertarian Party wants to legalize all drugs. If they put the bong down for a minute, they'd realize that it will never happen in their lifetime. Not even if a Libertarian were to win the White House.

They are pissed that they have to hide their pot smoking for another 4 years.

We Libertarians who are not among the above, believe in freedom, liberty, fiscal sanity, and the Constitution. Not a lot different than the Tea Party, a group that we founded. It's true that we do believe that people should be free to abuse their bodies as they see fit (as long as they don'tt harm someone else in the process). It is more of a fiscal sanity issue than a pro-drug issue. The war on drugs costs us too much in dollars and liberty.

I apologize for the wingnuts here and apologise for derailing this thread. I now take you back to your regularly scheduled verbal clusterfuck.

 

[PredFan]

Oh, yes, I almost forgot. I also would like to apologise for the empty-headed racist scumbags that have invaded our party recently as well.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What the hell is a "PaulFest" and why are the ultra alleged libertarian crazies so angry?

Two stupid questions in a row... Care to go for the trifecta?

 

[Dissent]

No go ahead. Post a disagreement but you said you didn't care then preceded to post so that shows you must care...

I said I didn't care who Woods was, but that there may not be much of an audience since the kids are evacuating. I read that there isn't going to be much media coverage, although I am sure if MSNBC is still operating, they will show his zingers ad nauseum. lol.

I'm just not a Paul supporter and feel that he should have gotten behind the candidate of choice, that's all. He's a nice guy, just cranky and too old for public office, and foreign policy is too much out of the main stream. But would like to have a beer with the guy, before Romney or Obama, if that makes you feel better. But let's face it having a beer with Biden would be a hoot, too!

Well I don't blame him for not getting behind the candidate the republican party chose. Why even allow delegates to vote on it if you are just going to change the rules and who the delegates are before the vote...its run just like a dictatorship. Ron will back who best represents liberty and freedom he is not a party hack like Willard.