LA State GOP Conspiracy Against Ron Paul?, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times
Topic started on 24-1-2008 @ 09:12 PM by TrueAmerican

LA State GOP Conspiracy Against Ron Paul?


www.jonesreport.com
The Louisiana State GOP also changed the rules at the last minute to allow other candidates to file more delegates. At the time of the original January 10 deadline, Ron Paul had the largest number of delegates pledged to him. The party then changed the rules to give other candidates until January 12 to file more delegates.
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.businesswire.com...

[edit on 24-1-2008 by TrueAmerican]


reply posted on 27-1-2008 @ 11:21 PM by TrueAmerican
reply to post by evilod



I just heard Alex Jones say on his radio network that Ron Paul has filed against LA State and that they never counted all of the ballots... This is still developing, and I will update as information becomes available.


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 11:38 AM by The Axeman
reply to post by TrueAmerican



It doesn't seem to be limited to the media, that's for sure.

For example, at our local Republican Committee meeting, people were slated to speak for each of the candidates. RP's spokesman went first; it was supposed to be three minutes each to talk about platforms, etc... they gave him about 45 seconds to a minute before they gaveled him to sit down... they then proceeded to give each of the other spokesmen 2 1/2 to 3 minutes each...

That's OK though... RP still won the straw poll. The Committee chairman was non-plussed about it (though he did say he was glad to see so many people there) and I could definitely sense in the committee that they were biased. Don't get me wrong -- some of the long-time members of the committee support RP too, but the chairman was quoted in the local paper as saying "I think it would be wrong to over-interpret this [vote]."

There is definitely something afoot. To say it is an outright conspiracy is going too far, I think.

A friend of mine recently told me of a report that the KGB made to the Cremlin during the Reagan campaign: "This man [Reagan] is a dangerous man; his words and his actions do not betray one another."

Ron Paul is a dangerous man, if you are "the establishment," and I think we are seeing behavior from those who wish to maintain the status quo that only bolsters that idea.

If they weren't afraid of him, they wouldn't snub him.

My problem is this: If the American people would reject Ron Paul, then I would argue that it is important for them to at least know what they are rejecting.


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 12:08 PM by Arcane Demesne
reply to post by resistor



I hear ya man. I just voted today here in Florida (Ron Paul of course ). I sure hope my 'vote' gets counted. They had electronic machines, though, I'm not sure of the make, but I assume Diebold.

Time to sit back and watch the live votes be counted in a down fashion again...



reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 12:25 PM by Double Eights
Originally posted by The AxemanMy problem is this: If the American people would reject Ron Paul, then I would argue that it is important for them to at least know what they are rejecting.


That's the thing. They don't know what they are rejecting.

The Media never lets Paul talk about his ideas on the issues. He gets less than half the time the other candidates do, and any question that is ever asked to him, is either sarcastic and unrelated to the issues and more so to do with how the other candidates perceive him (unelectable, crazy, uninformed, etc..).

No one knows his stances, because no media gives him the time of day to actually tell the American people what he thinks. It's sickening.

Then you have the people who just vote off of name recognition or something superificial like a candidate's looks. There are people voting for Romney solely due to him being the best looking candidate (no I'm not gay). Then you have people voting for Hillary and Obama solely due to their gender/race and because of last name recognition.

It seems as if Americans don't give a hoot about the candidates actual stances on the issues, more so just about what they look like and how the media perceives them to be.

If Americans really did know what they were voting for...they would NOT be voting for McCain. 75% of Americans are against the War in Iraq, so why in the blue hell is McCain winning delegates on his stance of keeping America in Iraq for the next 100 years?

Honestly, it's insane. I am ashamed to share this country with such morons known as the general American public. *This does not include ATS --you people actually know who stands for what.*


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 12:47 PM by SimonSays
Let me tell what is a conspiracy to me.

this same subject has been covered already in 3 different
posts here and even some of them have been moved
to the above politics forum cuz it is politically based.
Why has this thread been allowed to remain in ATS
when it should be in APS with the other political arenas?

Here are the other 3 threads at APS:

Paul not allowed to win

Did Paul just take the LA Caucus

Media failure to give fair coverage

I mean how many threads on this same subject does there
have to be in order to be called "beating a dead horse"?

True American, the topics are posted already if you'll take
the time to search for them and leave the politics in APS.

While I am an avid supporter of RP, I think this kind of
double and triple posting of the same topic is kinda
useless and wastes threads here at ATS and borders on
sensationalism.

Just my opinion


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 01:25 PM by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR
reply to post by SimonSays



I was told by staff the other day that . As long as there in different sections and are referring to different articles and or takes on the same subject . They are permitted.

As one may put a conspiracy spin on it for the conspiracy section . One for the science involved . One if it happened in space . ect.

But thats just what i was told . Maybe someone who's opinion matters will chime in

I would quote the pm . But i think thats rude and probably against the TOS.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

[edit on 29-1-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]


reply posted on 29-1-2008 @ 10:39 PM by TrueAmerican
Hmm, well for someone who's only been registered at ATS for a few days, you sure do know a lot about it, OldWorld. I mean heck look at Simon there, registered longer than you and apparently sick and tired of reading RP stories already, to the point that he'd come in here and tell one of his own friends to take it over to AP- and apparently unaware of exactly what you just mentioned. What's wrong with this picture? Or better yet, what's wrong with your picture?

But nah, it's just my imagination telling me you've been here before.

Simon, an ATS conspiracy to leave my thread in BAN, while the rest were moved to AP? ROFL.

Come on now, really. Isn't that a bit over the top?

Who knows why they left it... Some get moved, some don't. They have their reasons, and 99% of the time they are plenty good enough for me.

In the future it may serve you better to use the COMP/SUGG button in your member center if you really feel a thread is out of place, or duplicated in the same forum.

I think it's important to point out that conspiracies often involve politics. But I think one distinction between AP and ATS is that in ATS there is tougher policing on the evidence provided to back up opinion of a conspiracy. If I recall correctly, AP was created to provide a place where more opinion and political bickering could take place, without the more rigid expectations of ATS and ATSNN (now BAN).

ON TOPIC:
Oh, that's right, there is a topic to discuss. Well, I guess since I have provided no evidence whatsoever, and just given my opinion in this thread, there is nothing to see here folks, Hurry long...
Pages:     ^^TOP^^




ATS Live North America is broadcasting in 31 minutes.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 111: Timothy Good Interview, Hip Hop, Martial Law, Net woes, Civil War, Turbo's.....