Unfortunantely, your polemic is too full of groundless assertions, name-calling, and a slavish devotion to the arcana of party rules to merit a response in detail.
Either a person sees the society in crisis, or he doesn’t.
If he does, he is willing to take action personally.
If he does not, he will hide behind archaic party rules and regulations developed by past power-brokers and would-be aristocrats to keep themselves in power, and take potshots at those who do see the necessity for real change.
thanks
thanks
You seemed to be able to put together some sort of response, it would have been nice if you could have explained what specific items in my post you disagreed with.
slavish devosion to the arcana of party rules
I happen to like the idea of not stealing people's votes. So when a state holds a primary, and people show up and cast votes for the candidate they want, I would not consider it "arcana" that the delegates sent to the national convention would vote for the candidate picked in the primary. I'm sorry that you, as a conservative, see that principle so negatively that you call it "slavish devotion", but yes, I am slavishly devoted to the idea that my vote matters, and that a political candidate shouldn't use backroom manuevering to negate my vote.
groundless assertions
My comments on delegate selection are based on reading party documents from several states, and I believe it to be accurate. My comments about goings-on in Iowa and elsewhere are from news reports posted in freeper threads, and the ongoing discussion, and I believe them to be accurate but am willing to entertain the notion that the reports are incorrect, if you have any evidence to the contrary. But without some information from you about which things I said you believe are groundless, I can't really provide you links showing my evidence.
Name-calling
I apologize for calling Ron Paul supporters "nuts" when it comes to foreign policy. There are people who support Ron Paul who have dangerous notions about our position in the world, and he draws support from a crowd that includes poeple considerably more anti-military than he is (I wouldn't call him anti-military, but peaceniks are a regular feature among the crowds of Ron Paul supporters). But I shouldn't have labelled them "nuts", because name-calling isn't helpful.