Ron Paul delegates are not allowed to vote on Texas Straw Poll

[Ferre]

Just found on Digg...

Delegates that had Ron Paul t-shirts are turned away from the Texas Straw Poll. This is some messed up stuff to see going on here in America. Dirty Tricks in the Republican party against their own if he is not singing the song of the Neocons.

View here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnWT4gCJSE

[Ferre]

..and he still came in third.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...emise__96_.htm

Since Iowa, Ron Paul has finished first in four straw polls and is currently leading an online poll. The straw poll wins were in North Carolina, New Hampshire, Alabama, and Washington State. This is quite an accomplishment from a man whose support is supposedly meager and limited to just the internet. All this has been ignored by the media as they continue to propagandize him as a second tier and fringe candidate, when he has clearly broken that mold and has emerged as a viable option and threat. Over the weekend Ron Paul came in third in the Texas straw poll. He had by far the most supporters at the event, but most were unable to vote as only delegates to the state convention were eligible. He captured close to 17% of the vote. Also a recent online straw poll posed the question, “Who do you want to see as president?” The list included both Democrats and Republican candidates. At the time of this article Ron Paul had received a whooping 7678 votes - 61%. The closest candidate to him was Dennis Kucinich, with 1565 votes – 12%. USA Election Polls is responsible for this poll and they are one of the most recognizable and visited sites of this kind. While the haters claim that online polls are being manipulated by supporters of Ron Paul, keep in mind that most of these are limited to one vote per computer IP address.

[krahmaan]

I watched what happened on You Tube, and that absolutely SUCKS!

These tactics are shady and pure cowardice!

All I can say is -that's fine. Everyone just might get a BIG shocker, to see him win this one.

Go Ron Paul, 2008!

[John Scott]

Ron who?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Ron who?

the only smart republican running

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Brian

the only smart republican running

Not a Republican. He's pretending to be one, but obviously wants to be a Democrat. Some type of personality disorder.

[South]

This isn't the first time they've done this to him. He's a good man, but I think he scares many in the mainstream of politics with too much honesty.

[zibblu]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Not a Republican. He's pretending to be one, but obviously wants to be a Democrat. Some type of personality disorder.

Ron Paul is FAR from a democrat. He's not a Republican either. At least not the new breed of Republican that doesn't stand for anything except warmongering & destroying the civil liberties that make this country great. But as he's mentioned he is a Republican in the traditional sense of small government.

But how can you call Ron Paul a democrat? He's against ALL social programs. He's the antithesis of democrats on most issues.

It's actually how ANTI socialist Ron Paul is that makes me lose my support for him. I love the guy - but I just don't agree with all of his politics. I think socialism is an important part of any modern society.

Again though, to call Ron Paul a democrat is just obscenely ridiculous.

[Ferre]

From where I see it, Ron Paul is someone who wants to uphold the constitution, this makes him oppose much of both the democrats and republicans because neither one of them respect their own constitution anymore and stand for many issues which are in fact un constitutional.

In a way Ron Paul is the most conservative politician of all the candidates, he wants to conserve the US constitution and I guess that's also the reason why he became so popular because both democrat and republican voters have been complaining about their own party's direspect for the constitution the past years.

Anyway, that's how I see it from here.

[zibblu]

I agree that that's why Ron Paul has become something of a hero to a group of people here. The fact that he actually believes in the civil liberties & the non interventionist foreign policy that is laid out in the constitution is a great thing. Over the years our country has been taken over by some "evil doers" that have just no respect for people.

The only reason I do not support Ron Paul (and instead support his liberal counterpart Mike Gravel) is that Ron Paul does not think there is any place for the Government in our society and I just disagree with that. I think there has to be some governmental oversight with concern to issues like the environment, education, & health care.

More on Mike Gravel: He is the strongest candidate on civil liberties which is my #1 issue. He is the strongest candidate on ending the war on drugs. Mike Gravel is also pro choice & pro gay marriage while Ron Paul is not.

Mike Gravel also ended the draft during the Vietnam War (he was a Senator from Alaska at the time.)

---

Also I would like to thank everyone who is voting down my "reputation" because of my political views. Very Christian of you!

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by zibblu

Also I would like to thank everyone who is voting down my "reputation" because of my political views. Very Christian of you!

Yep, I noticed that, voting down someone's rep for his political views tells more about the person doing this than about the person who has an opposed opinion though. It's beyond childish and a way of bullying people for their opinion.

Rep should be disabled in the political forums because it is obviously being abused.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Yep, I noticed that, voting down someone's rep for his political views tells more about the person doing this than about the person who has an opposed opinion though. It's beyond childish and a way of bullying people for their opinion.

Rep should be disabled in the political forums because it is obviously being abused.

I would ask you what makes you think that anybody is voting down his rep on the basis of political views, but then that would require thinking.

As far as I can see, his rep was voted down for how he posts, not the point of view he posts from.

Too much common sense for a conspiracy theorist like yourself?

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

As far as I can see, his rep was voted down for how he posts, not the point of view he posts from.

Too much common sense for a conspiracy theorist like yourself?

"How" he posts? not the point of view he posts from?

Makes me wonder "how" people are supposed to post in order to not receive red rep in the politics forums.

Could you also see what was wrong with "how" he posts? I ask because "how" is subjective specially when not knowing "how" to post in such a manner that it doesn't deserves red rep points in these political forums because without knowing this it's easy to assume it's because of political views.

Maybe we need some guidelines for these forums.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

it's easy to assume

Of course. Conspiracy theorists have no regard for fact or truth, just assume the first thing that pops into your mind.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Of course. Conspiracy theorists have no regard for fact or truth, just assume the first thing that pops into your mind.

Why don't you tell us "how" he posted in order to get red rep?

When someone says he got rep for his opinion in the politics forums one does not have to be a rocket scientist to "assume" that this is the case. You state otherwise, so please eleborate.

Looking at your comments and the huge red bar under his name, I also "assume" it was you who gave him most of the red rep, no?

[John Scott]

Why don't you tell us "how" he posted in order to get red rep?

Posting untruths as truths. Somewhat similar to your misrepresenting the words of others. Somewhat hard to decide who deserves red the most.

If a Conservative Republican came in here and misrepresented the truth, posted un-supported theory as fact, or misrepresented the words of others, I'd give him red (or ban him) just like I red rep this clown.

Originally Posted by Ferre

Looking at your comments and the huge red bar under his name, I also "assume" it was you who gave him most of the red rep, no?

Hell yeah. Looking at his red bar, it seems a bit "incomplete".

*Going off to finish the job*

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Posting untruths as truths.

People do that all the time, simply because of their convincions, when people posts untruths as truths this gives an opportunity to show them facts and evidence for their ignarance and is simply part of normal debate.

I fail to see how this deserves to red rep people, specially when debating with them. Untruths are easy to dismiss and to prove wrong, no?

[John Scott]

People do that all the time, simply because of their convincions

You think it's ok to misrepresent the words of others? If I say, "It's raining in Tokyo", you think it's ok to go say "John says it has never rained in Tokyo"?

In America we call that lying.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You think it's ok to misrepresent the words of others? If I say, "It's raining in Tokyo", you think it's ok to go say "John says it has never rained in Tokyo"?

In America we call that lying.

John, you do that all the time with me. I had to correct your wrong assumptions about me and the twisting of my words on more than one occasion. You put words in people's mouth they never spoke and it's one of your basic debate "techniques".

Even as we speak, in another post, you do this.

So is it allright if you do it but you give people red rep if they do it?

[John Scott]

John, you do that all the time with me.

Not at all.

And, assuming I did lie, yes, of course I should be red repped. **** man, do I have to teach you that stealing is wrong, too? Didn't your parents teach you that lying is wrong?