Skip to comments.Don't be TOO quick to condemn the GOP-e. [Rare One-Line Vanity]
Posted on 09/01/2012 11:03:13 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Guys, I am the first to jump on the GOP-elite when they backstab conservatives. I'm even sometimes at the front of the parade.
But I have certain information that might show that the GOP-e wasn't all too keen on some of the rules changes that got us so upset.
In fact, Romney's team might have been trying to avoid some of this stuff. I need to do more homework (there is a freeper who is my main source for this, and he's NOT GOP-machine whatsoever. If he wishes credit, I will be glad to give it to him).
Wait for my Freeper Editorial in the next day, two days at the most. I'm really glad I held my fire until facts started to come to light.
Okay, it was a four line vanity. Still is a rare thing for me to post. :)
Would the girls be included as well? I can't believe you, of all people, would be ignoring the girls among us (disclaimer: I'm not among them...)
Yes. Goils too. Dames. Chicks. Honeys. Whatever you want to call them.
Knowing what some of the young lady, college age, GOP staffers look like, I am not surprised you are usually the first to ‘jump on’ that. :->
Much more interesting facts to follow. Looks like we might have been ‘played’.
Laz the E has been backstabbing us since my Grandfathers day, born 1886.
They were in charge. They did it. Their sin.
They'll do it again and again.
Keywords are essential for everything on this forum....
Too much stuff for these old eyes to sort through.
“Guys” on the West Coast encompasses women. Like the way Randy Jackson uses “dude.”
Jump on my Laz Ping List!
Neutering the Paultards was a bad thing?
I rather thought it prudent.
That will be interesting. I honestly don’t think it was an attempt to “cut off the pro-lifers” or anything else that has been posted here. To me it seemed as if Ron Paul had taken advantage of loopholes to set up something that could have been the equivalent of derailing the entire process (not that it doesn’t need reform) and producing “jury nullification,” that is, people who went in with an entirely different outcome in mind, regardless of the law and the vote.
I don’t think the “Tea Party” or whatever you want to call it needs underhanded tactics to win. While the conservative wing hasn’t perhaps produced monumental changes in the GOP-e, we have certainly forced Romney much further to the right than he would have done on his own and I think have achieved a lot; there would be no Ryan without the Tea Party. But it has been achieved legitimately and through popular pressure, not through taking advantage of loopholes.
I’m looking forward to your posts on this.
But maybe not right, on this particular incident.
Well, it also looked like they were neutering US, the Tea Party folk. And while that might be a result, it looks like it was NOT the intent, which means there may be some workings possible to get those rules a little less exclusionary to OUR people.
You got those teasers down all right: DETAILS AT 11!
Mel Brooks: "We didn't know who was a lady...
MB: "They was with us, we didn't know who they were...
MB: "We didn't know who was ladies and who was fellas..."
Carl Reiner: "They were just diffenent types of fellas..."
MB: "Yeah, they're stronger or smaller or softer, the ladies I think were softer all the time...
CR: "How did you find out they...
MB: "A cute, fat guy you could have mistaken for a lady...
CR: "Who was the person who discovered the females?...
CR: "Who was Bernie?...
MB: "Well, he was one of the first leaders of our group...
CR: "How did it happen...
MB: "He said, 'Hey, dere's ladies here'...
CR: "I'm very interested in how it happened...
MB: "Well, one morning he got up smiling, so, he said 'I think there's ladies here"...
MB: "So I said "Whadda ya mean, ya know?"...
MB: "So he said 'Cause, in the night, I was thrilled and delighted'...
MB: "So, then he went into such a story, it's hundreds of years later I still blush...
The original was ladies, but it's your pick...
Distrust but verify.
OK—— we got some keywords now ....and there is the topic area....
Romney aproves of underhanded tactics on his behalf ~ his silence is deafening in fact.
We need an entirely NEW Republican National Committee ~ only way to handle this problem.
At the end of the day, no one will have supported it.
The Tyranny Fairy did it.
I would love to hear more, Laz. All the rage and histrionics about this from the usual suspects have shed more heat than light. Seeing some real analysis rather than screeds from frothing Paulestinians would be useful.
This wasn’t underhanded - it was an open motion that was publicly argued and settled. The underhanded one was Ron Paul, who has either learned from or taught the Occutards.
“Would the girls be included as we”
Well, I are a girl and in the NYC metro area the general address “guys” or “you guys” or even “youse guys” is assumed to include the gals also.
One might even address an all female gaggle as “you guys” or at least I would.
It’s the yankee version of “y’all”.
Looking forward to reading your editorial. I lost a longtime friend over this.
Please ping me when you post this.
The rules affect others ~
Can’t a guy do a little raz on laz without getting educated unnecessarily? Sheesh.
For your information, this use of “Guys” isn’t relegated to the East, or West, coasts...
Five days ago Mitt formally changed his abortion position to health of the mother, which is a euphemism for abortion on demand.
Life I always say, don't forget the homosexual Boy Scout Leaders.
We've been had.
Taking advantage of “loopholes,” otherwise known as “the rules as written.” At least until they change them when you start winning.
What would it have cost them to let Ron Paul have 15 minutes behind the podium? Certainly less than their brazen tactics against Constitutional conservatives, in the long run.
They had bent over backwards to placate Paul. However, his tactics all along were aimed at nullifying the vote of the electors, and while I doubt that he thought he could win, he planned for maximum disruption.
I still don’t like Romney, but Ron Paul is one of the reasons that we ended up with Romney.
The party cannot be sacrificed again to the whims of a nutcase. Ron Paul should never even have been accepted as a GOP candidate, but because we have a track record of letting cranks derail us, he saw his opening and he took it. I hope this seals up that opening.
I’m not defending Romney on this or anything else.
After Ron Paul delegates helped Code Pink get into the convention, even his tribute video should have been stripped from the convention.
I understand there is a hearing today in Main to punish the Ron Paul delegates for their actions at the convention.
When you claim that conservatives are forcing Romney to the right and achieving a lot, I felt the need to point out that Romney is reverting to his liberalism as we speak.
In the last couple of weeks, with out even getting into his control of the convention and erasing the first republican female veep, Romney has formally gone back to his pro-abortion position, and let us know that he still wants homosexual Scout masters.
Sure it was...
Awaiting your story with bated breath, whatever that is. I’m pretty PO’ed based on what I heard. But information has been darned hard to get on this subject.
In those couple weeks has there been any change in Obama’s position on anything, any change in the nation’s current tragic economic condition, any improvement in any of several dangerous situations overseas? And, has it turned out someone else won the long and arduous GOP primary season or that a third party has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency?
That is a very clear statement on your politics.
Comes from ‘abated’, meaning, held, stopped, contained.
Sorry, I’m agitated.
When’s the hearing to punish the RNC for refusing to seat duly-elected Maine delegates just because Ron Paul won a majority there?
They had already won the nomination, but the Romney contingent and the rest of the Establishment just had to grind the rest of the party into the dirt and crush all dissent - why? What was the point of that?
The problem is Paul didn't 'win' a majority there. Romney won the votes in Maine and the delegates were selected on the 2008 rules they would represent the winner of the votes. They then tried to bail on that agreement and refused to sign the delegate contract to support the winner of the election- this is why they were stripped of their seats. They basically lied when being selected as delegates that they would support the winner.
That was just another example of the rules being changed in the middle of the game. The Maine GOPe cheated their way through the caucuses, including cancelling one key caucus on the threat of imaginary “inclement weather” that amounted to three inches of snow, and then rammed this so-called “contract” down the throats of the delegates because they didn’t like the outcome.
Paul won 20 of 21 delegates, but under threat of being barred completely from the convention, they were sent this “contract” - vote for Romney or else. Would you have signed that contract without objection? Just because the party chair is pissed off that you followed the rules and won?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.