"Shut up," the GOP explained

This is a prime example of why I cannot support either of the "two" so-called "major parties."  Both have collectivist and authoritarian tendencies, and merely represent two flavors of the same statist approach to everything.  Character matters: if a party apparatus is willing to change rules on a whim to shut out dissenting voices on a convention floor, what does that say about their likely philosophy of governance?  Constitution?  Oh... that's nice (pats head...)

Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.

Ron Paul supporters filled the hall with boos and shouts of “no!” Delegates from Maine chanted “point of order!”

I firmly believe the "Ron Paul Revolution" and "Tea Party" phenomena represent the last peaceful attempt to pull power away from D.C.   The disillusionment that is already setting in and the realization that, like the pigs in Animal Farm, the rules always seem to morph into what the ruling elite want, will yield some bitter fruit.

"REVOLUTION, n. A bursting of the boiler which usually takes place when the safety valve of public discussion is closed." -Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary

(HT: Vox, from whose comments section comes the quote of the day:  "Is it just me, or is America just one big game of Calvinball?")