Friday, October 05, 2007
|
|
Ron Paul's Web of Cash
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
4:32 PM
|
I just got off the phone with Jesse Benton, communications director for Ron Paul.
Benton reiterated what he told me this morning -- that more than 70 percent of Ron Paul's $5 million this quarter came from the internet. These numbers aren't 100 percent confirmed, but I'm told the numbers are very solid. (The campaign is hoping to have exact numbers on Monday.)
Benton told me that the campaign raised more money online than even they expected. For example, the campaign set a goal to raise $500,000 online in the last week before the deadline, but ended up raising about $1.2 million.
When asked about Ron Paul's ability to raise money online, despite his not being an internet aficionado, Benton said: "Ron's a little bit more web savvy than people give him credit for," but also admitted, "he's not Mr. Facebook, or anything."
Benton believes much of Paul's internet success is due to not trying to reinvent the wheel.
For example, he described John McCain's attempt to build his own social network as a disaster.
"We're using Eventful, Meetup, Facebook, YouTube, MySpace -- proven social networking sites that consumers already like, Benton told me. "We used what was already in place ... We're using proven, effective tools..."
Of course, I asked him the perfunctory Howard Dean comparison question ...
Benton told me that unlike Howard Dean, Ron Paul, "has had a legitimate following for over twenty years." He also added that "the internet ... has matured a little bit and is more capable of translating online activism to on-the-ground organization."
Ron Paul's internet fundraising has been nothing short of remarkable. Like him or not, his campaign deserves credit for exceeding our expectations ...
|
|
What has the republican party come to when its supporters believe adherence to the Constitution is a "twisted philosophy?"
But I guess that describes the current GOP base to a tee. Thanks one hot minute for making me even prouder to be a Ron Paul supporter.
|
|
Germany declared war on us so we returned the favor.
As far as Christians that support Israel, I have no problem with normal ones. I do take issue with Pastor Hagee because I think he is a very smart man and is completely immoral by spewing his war propaganda wrapped around the cross. This is a guy who plays songs while people in Israeli and American military uniforms act out scenarios, he openly calls for strikes on Iran, and he is trying to scare people with his end of the world stuff. Sorry but the man is only in it for the money and he does well. So it really has nothing to do with his "support" for Israel but it is just the problem I have with money changers and dishonest men with the cloth.
|
|
can you please point out where I've expressed sentiments of "rage" towards Israelis, Jews, AIPAC, or Christians who support Israel? I'd like to see you back up your inane Hannity talking points with specific examples.
Thanks. |
|
Anyone with half a brain realizes what a disaster Truman was. That's why he "retired" from the presidency - his approval ratings were so atrociously low, he'd never have won re-election after his debacle in Korea (kind of like Bush now).
Try to look up a little history before you spout off inane terms you hear on Rush like "Jihadist" and "Communist." And just to further educate you a bit, Ron Paul is much farther from *every* other Republican from supporting Communism.
You also show what a simpleton you are by claiming what you think I believe about al-Qaeda and Iran. Al-Qaeda needed to be attacked and eradicated. Dr. Paul fully supported Afghanistan. Paul did NOT support letting bin Laden find safe haven so we could divert our military to fight a non-threat. See the difference?
Iran poses no more threat to us than Iraq did. That being the case, I wouldn't support an Iran quagmire. You seem to like quagmires. And if so, fine - arm yourself to the teeth and join an Iranian anti-government guerilla group. Just don't ask me to fund it.
And stop calling people with whom you disagree "America haters." You really show your lack of capability to think with any depth... just like a huge percentage of Hannity parrots.
As for fighting Nazis, if it was the moral fight, then bring it before Congress and demand a declaration of war. They thought it was, so war was declared. So, yes, in matters such as war, follow the Constitution, and demand your rep to vote to suit your morals. Pretty simple.
Your final paragraph is more mindless Rush/Hannity talking points. But to address your points, yes, the neocons are guilty of hijacking our foreign policy and shredding the Constitution. Just see how you like it when President Hillary starts monitoring your e-mails under the Patriot Act. Or maybe you wouldn't mind so much - you sound like a Hillary Democrat. |
|
Al wrote;
-------------------
"Truman was an evil b@stard who has many people's blood on his hands."
-------------------
I swear, outside of Communists and Islamic Jihadists, the only Americans who think Harry Truman is "an evil b@stard" are...Ron Paul supporters !
See, this is the revealing aspect of the twisted ideology of the Ron Paul Brigade of 18th Century Romantics.
It's not so bad that they they are "non-interventionists" as they CLAIM; rather, it's that they actually believe Harry Truman was the evil-doer (!) RATHER than the North Korean Communists.
And the same goes for the current paradigm regarding the Global War on Terrorism; they don't think Ahmadinejad or Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda are evil.
They think President Bush and Israel are the evil ones.
That's why Ryan01 was defending America-haters such as Chomsky and Finklestein.
Chomsky doesn't even think WW2 was a morally "good" war.
Al writes;
--------------------
"About the morality of fighting the Nazis - to me, it comes down to the Constitution first. The US Congress issued a formal declaration of war against the Nazis, per the Constitution, so that was the correct choice."
--------------------
See, Al admits that for him, fighting the NAZIs is a Constitutional question before it is a moral question.
The US Congress can issue a formal declaration that pigs fly, but that doesn't make it a valid point.
If the US Congress were to declare on Thursday that they authorize the President to go to war against Iceland, that doesn't mean it is a 'moral' choice.
It may be a path followed by the Constitution, but morality is exclusive from any legal or Constitutional hoops.
'Morality' is different than 'legality' or 'Constitutionality.'
The Ron Paul supporters are in bed with all the America-haters, including leftists, Communists, and Jihadists---yet the Paul supporters kick and scream that everyone else is guilty of treason and infidelity to America.
|
|
can you please point out where I've expressed sentiments of "rage" towards Israelis, Jews, AIPAC, or Christians who support Israel? They have every right to support whomever they choose. I just don't like my tax dollars taken from me to give to a country which I may or may not think complies with my standards of morality. That goes for Israel, Egypt, Jordan, or any other country to which the US government gives taxpayer dollars. If someone else wants to donate large sums to the Israeli government, have at it. Just leave my money to me.
You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions in your latest posts, and from your writing. Your credibility is going the way of Earlobe's, and it appears your IQ has dropped several points... which makes me think you might just be the same poster. |
|
"You are the real cowards: Lazy about how America was formed"
-uhhh, no, we actually have a very good understanding of how America was formed. That's why we're offended when rogue presidents try to skirt the Constitution to ramrod their politically motivated agenda down our throats.
"Even Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al., realized that Washington's admonishment about "avoiding foreign entanglements" was a guide was not to be taken literally."
Bwahahaha! You really outdid yourself there saying one of the fundamental philosophies of the Founders couldn’t be taken literally. And here I was thinking you couldn't get any more illogical, and you go ahead and prove me wrong.
I guess Washington was just kidding when he issued that warning in his farewell address. Jefferson didn't really mean it when he advocated peaceful friendly relations with all, entangling alliances with none. JQ Adams was just messing around when he said we do not look abroad for monsters to slay. James Madison couldn’t possibly have meant that tyranny would only come here under the auspices of a foreign enemy.
What’s interesting is how right Madison was. Americans actually felt like we needed to have the Bill of Rights severely curtailed (Patriot Act) to fight terrorism.
Yeah, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, JQ Adams... that’s some bunch of John Birch kooks I tell ya.
I’m glad to see what a tremendous historian you are, all able to figure out which philosophies of the Founders can be ignored despite mountains of historical evidence. Very erudite!
Oh, well, that's enough smacking you around for one night. Be sure to hit the books in that remedial 8th grade history class of yours, and try to get your info from more than just Hannity. You might be better off.
Class dismissed. |
|
"al, Is there a US President you cared for at all?"
-yes. Recently, Reagan had some flaws, but overall, was good. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Tyler, James Madison - all great presidents. All lived up to my "fringe kook standards" of following the Constitution. Wow... what a bunch of extremists!
I'd like to see your top 4. Let me guess: GW Bush, Wilson, LBJ, FDR. All fiscally irresponsible, big spending, war-mongering, power hungry Democrats. Ok, maybe W's nominally Republican, but he sure acts like a Dem.
"Blame the Catholics, Jews, capitalists, businessmen, Mormons, rapture-seeking pastors, Isrealis, CIA, State Department, UN, heck, is there a party that you don't blame?"
-the above is a blatant display of idiocy, and requires no further comment.
"How sad and marginalized your weird philosophy is; and no, it is NOT constitutionalist--you are sadly mistaken! Not every war has been declared so by Congress. Heck, I am sure you blame Reagan for Grenada and Bush I for Panama. You blame everything on everybody else except yourselves."
-Yeah, it's really weird to believe in the letter of the law. What a kook I must be for wanting our government to follow the Constitution (aka, the law of the land). And yes, we had no business in Panama and Grenada. Why should I blame myself for those events? I didn't make those decisions. You follow? And Vietnam and Korea were both undeclared. Both were unmitigated disasters. WWII was declared. We had clear objectives and achieved them. See the difference?
|
|
"Ike and FDR for WWII"
FYI, Ike wasn't president during WWII. He was a general. See if you can follow the chronology: FDR then Truman then Ike. Get it? And as for FDR, he at least bothered to get a formal declaration of war from Congress before attacking anyone. He had that shred of respect for the Constitution. And Ike (Republican) was elected to replace a disgraced Truman (Democrat) with horrid approval ratings after his adventures in Korea... approval ratings about where Bush's are now, after his adventures in Iraq.
"Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam"
-Vietnam was an unadulterated quagmire with no exit strategery and no clear goals for winning, and sold to us on lies... which sounds eerily like Iraq now. Do you think Vietnam was some glowing success? If so, you're even more vacuous than I had thought.
and and now Bush and before that Clinton and Carter
-Clinton was a lying dirtbag. Carter was feckless. Bush is simply horrid on every level (elective wars, unprecidented spending, trillions in debt, shreds the Constitution). I notice you left out Reagan... and for good reason. We less-government types tend to like Reagan (a conservative Republican icon, btw).
Oh, and you left out Wilson, certainly high in the running for worst president of all time, war-mongering us into WWI where we had absolutely no business. He ran on a platform of humble foreign policy... then, once in power, he wanted to "make the world safe for democracy" building nations and everything. Hmmmm... sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Come to think of it, Bush sounds a lot like a nation-building interventionist Democrat. Interesting that you defend him and want Paul supporters out of "your" party... which has recently been hijacked by a small group of powerful PNAC neocons... who injected their traditionally Democrat philosophy into the GOP.
|
|
you've obviously gone off your meds again. Try to post everything in one message, that's my only request... I know asking you to be coherent and keep the playground insults out is a wee bit much for a junior high kid.
"It is YOU John Birchers, neo-isolationist nutcases who continue to lose"
-actually, no, we're gaining quite a bit of traction, just like Jefferson gained lots of traction back in 1776 to convince a complacent populus to fight for freedom instead of a just master. And I can tell your back hairs go up when you try to argue with someone who uses logic, as most Paul supporters do. Maybe you're finally getting tired of being wrong all the time.
And, btw, we're not isolationists. We're non-interventionists. I know it's a hard distinction to draw, but please look up the difference. Use m-w.com if you need to. The neocons are the true isolationists. Many of them want the US to inflame every other country in the world so we're left with only Israel as an "ally"... to whom we pay >$500/citizen/year for that distinct pleasure... and get... what in return? I really don't know.
"Your ideas continue to lose in America's marketplace"
-no, actually they're the same ideas as the Founders (Washington, Jefferson et al.). And there's been a groundswell of support for these ideas after Bush's disastrous tenure in office.
Truman for Korea,
-yes, Truman was an evil b@stard who has many people's blood on his hands. He *needed* a war so he could be a wartime president like FDR. Or maybe losing >30,000 soldiers' lives was a good thing to you.
|
|
Ryan01,
Hey, good ole' boy, you can tell me to 'go to hell' all you want.
(I bet you charmingly punctuate it with a nice draw-w-w-l, huh ?)
I know after you've sat on your front porch and enjoyed some tasty southern fried chicken for supper and tipped back a couple of Lynchburg Lemonades, you're probably feeling feisty enough to spout off about how Trent Lott was right about how things would be different 'if only Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 election on the Dixiecrat ticket'...and then after dessert, you'll mouth off about how Israel is the source of the world's problems.
You think that anyone who supports Israel must have been bribed by Jewish money to do so, or at least they've been drugged and manipulated by...Israeli spies !
By the way, I think you got confused about what Bill Buckley wrote about Pat Buchanan.
He said that he can't defend Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism.
And he wrote that around 1992, when Buchanan was running for President.
It has nothing to do with supporting the current Iraq War.
But it is interesting how folks such as yourself are so obsessed with having Israel as an ally.
You John Birch Society holdovers never seem to question our nation's alliance with...England !
And we give the same amount of aid to Egypt as we do to Israel---but none of you guys ever whines and moans about giving aid to Egypt---even though many components of the Islamic Jihadist movement are from Egypt.
Additionally, nobody ever asks if Costa Rica, or Belgium, or Pakistan has 'the right to exist.'
I swear, you good ole' boys need to cut back on CONSUMING the moonshine.
It cuts into your profits---and your ability to think clearly.
Shalom ! |
|
There is no one to fool, for you have shown yourself to be a fool and someone who can't defend the indefensible. You and your "antisemitism" crap can go straight to hell.
"In fact, you can look up Bill Buckley's quote from an issue of National Review many years ago, when he wrote that he can't defend Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism."
Buckley has since his tune about the Iraq invasion. You going to call him an "antisemite"? |
|
Al, Ryan01;
You good ole' boys can sit there on the front porch with a Jack Daniel's Lynchburg Lemonade in your hand and bang your pots and pans and justify all your misplaced rage at Israel, at Jews, at AIPAC, at Christians who support Israel, at 'neocons,'---but at the end of the day, when you spout off the same narratives being pimped by Al-Jazeera, Al-Qaeda, as well as far left wing nuts like Jimmy Carter, Chomsky, and Finklestein, you're just not gonna fool anybody.
By the way, Chomsky and Finklestein certainly are anti-Semites.
The fact that they are of Jewish lineage has nothing to do with who they hate.
For heaven's sake, Adam Gadan, the American dude from Orange County, California who ran off and joined Islamic Jihad---he's of Jewish lineage, too.
And by the way, your hero Pat Buchanan also has an anti-Semitic reputation.
In fact, you can look up Bill Buckley's quote from an issue of National Review many years ago, when he wrote that he can't defend Buchanan against charges of anti-Semitism.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but people can see that it's still just a pig.
|
|
1. Kooks who say that whatever the U.S. does must be ok because Israel told us to do it.
2. The conspiracy nuts who say Saddam was behind 9-11
3. Conspiracy kooks who say Iraq had tons and tons of WMD
4. The nutjobs who said Iraqi soldiers were ripping out the extension cords of incubators
5. Weirdos who want to destroy the world so Jesus will apear in israel ie. the "Christian right" or "Armaggedonites" Dick Cheney is one of them. |
|
It was from that article Charles wrote that I first learned of him. A search took me to his old website where he used to keep his audio archives. Unlike these other shows that feature the usual small rolodex of so-called experts like fellow ideologues from other shows and the AEI, Charles actually gets some highly informed guests from a variety of backgrounds. Charles showed a great deal of moral courage in his dealings with Clear Channel, something which is sadly lacking today.
Speaking of Goyette, here he is on CNN:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015963.html
As an add historical note you're right about the US declaring war on Germany right after Pearl Harbor Most people have forgotten that was after Germany declared war on the US first. No "pre-emption" there. |
|
found the link here:
http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_01_19/article3.html
I listen to Goyette on my way to work, but now I know I can stream him once I'm at my desk. He's the best I've heard on talk radio and should be national.
The week Goyette got fired from Clear Channel, he got a bonus check for being #1 in the Phoenix ratings. It's almost comical. Integrity and principles aren't always desired (especially for a rogue corporation cheerleading a rogue president), but I have a world of respect for Goyette for speaking his mind amidst the Iraq war hysteria.
one hot minute - sorry, didn't answer your last line. I really don't think leveling a charge of anti-Semitism on the son of Holocaust survivors is at all appropriate. In fact, I think it's dispicable. Finkelstein and Chomsky certainly aren't against Semites (which are comprised of both Arabs and Jews). They're critical of Israeli policies which they feel are damaging. Many Israeli Rabbis agree. And Finkelstein raises valid points that the Holocaust is used in the US to drum up unquestioning support for Israel no matter what. Just look at the national debate shows - see how long it takes a neocon like Hannity to say "anti-Semite" when someone's critical of Israel. (Interestingly enough, Hannity loves it when Ann Coulter advocates bombing those "camel jockeys.")
About the morality of fighting the Nazis - to me, it comes down to the Constitution first. The US Congress issued a formal declaration of war against the Nazis, per the Constitution, so that was the correct choice. That way, America had clear objectives in mind, finished the job successfully, and prevented even more mass murder. |
|
|
Why do all the people whining about a John Birch something or other sound like they just left one of "Pastor" Hagee's war rallies, I mean "church" service? |
|
Anne, your comments are silly and ignorant. I can see you don't like Ron Paul, that doesn't mean you have to make things up about him.
I wish all you fake "conservatives" got out of my party and went back to the Democrats. |
|
You're welcome. You can find him here in the morning at 9AM EST. He wrote an article for Buchnan's magazine I'll find for you if you wish about why he was fired by Clear Channel over the war.
http://www.1100kfnx.com/
Of all the people I have heard on talk radio he is the most rational and the clearest thinker. I heard him one time tear Tom Delay up over his dispensationalists views. Tom isn't much different from Hagee.
Quite true about the Bizarro World we live in. It is like a form of mass insanity has overtaken the country.
|
|
You still haven't answered my question for the reason you know as well as I do. You don't have an argument and really have resorted to the sort of nonsense that idiots like Hannity do.
I wrote what I did because on another thread Earlobe started ranting and raving about Orthodox Jews and how messed up they were. Between that and writing about "Sam Bowie" and "no-nothings" I concluded he was a foreigner and probably an Israeli who really was trying to do everything he could to involve the US in another Mideast war. If I make jokes about him it isn't any worse than some of the things some of you people write about Muslims. This guy has been an abusive jerk since I first encountered him. If he can't take the heat, tough. He shouldn't post stupid and insulting crap.
The problem that some Americans have is they seem to think Israel and America are the same. AIPAC does everything to insure this mental confusion. They are not and people who hold another nation above that of which they were born in should move there. This holds true for Bush with his coddling of Mexico or Clinton pandering to China for campaign money. |
|
sorry - accidentally posted pre-maturely.
Anyway, to continue - I don't think all Israel supporters are members of the 3 classifications you listed. I think many are Christian evangelicals who want the Rapture... whereby all Jews will cease to exist, so they obviously aren't truly friendly with Jews.
Most of the pro-Israel types I've talked to mindlessly say we "need to have a military presence over there to protect our interests with respect to oil." This, of course, is patently false. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are about oil. If Israel were about oil, we'd divest entirely from the only country in the region with *no* oil and cozy up to Iran, Iraq, Venezuela et al. |
|
I disagree with that. I didn't read anything about Jews or Israel's right to exist. I think Ryan just doesn't believe it's our duty to align ourselves with Israel when it doesn't suit John Q. Public's interests.
As for my, I'm not a John Bircher. I don't even know exactly what that organization stands for. |
|
I missed that piece by Goyette - I listen to him often, living in PHX. Thanks for the post.
I'm scared as hell of these people as well, even though this may be a scam, as you indicate. I'm even more scared of mindless idiot voters who buy these people's drivel.
I certainly don't think you're an anti-Semite. I think you're pro-American, and comprehend what our Founders warned us about entangling alliances. Unfortunately, many voters think if you're critical of Israel then you're anti-American.
We've truly entered Bizarro World with some... but thankfully, there are still some who choose to live in reality. |
|
Al,
Ryan01 doesn't sound like he likes Jews, and it sure sounds like he doesn't think Israel has the right to exist.
See, you old John Birchers don't think it's even POSSIBLE for average Americans to support Israel UNLESS;
a)they're Jewish
b)they've been manipulated by AIPAC
c)they've been paid off by "Jewish money"
That's why Ryan01 and Jack Shiite always accuse people of "flying over here on El Al," or blogging from Israel.
And by the way, the fact that they have Jewish lineage doesn't exclude Chomsky and Finklestein from being anti-Semites---they most definitely are.
Chomsky doesn't even think fighting Hitler was the right thing to do.
Al, what do you think about fighting the NAZIs; do you think it was the right thing to do ?
|
|
|
Yes, what did I write that was "antisemitic"? People that have thrown that term around recklessly have marginalized it to the point of meaninglessness. |
|
Yes, I'm aware of what you write pertaining to Israel. I was simply having some fun with the board lunatic and his insipid posts. This clown is a trip. Shoot, I've read accounts of sessions of the Knessent where the MKs are calling each other nazis. The only Israelis I have a problem with are those who operate with their sayanim here to involve us in every stupid project they come up with.
Dispensationalists. Those folks are crazy as hell. Speaking of crazies, here's a short interview of Rapture Bunny in chief, John Hagee where he says Congress has no say over war. According to him, Bush can do whatever he wants.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/05/john-hagee/
I personally think he is running a scam. However, his supporters believe this nonsense and vote. That scares the hell out of me. |
|
can you please expound upon that statement? I didn't read anything anti-Semitic in Ryan's statements.
You must be a Hannity listener who believes than any criticism of the Israeli government is anti-Semitic. I guess Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are huge anti-Semites... nevermind that Finkelstein's parents were Holocaust victims.
These people must be anti-Semites too, right?
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/ |
|
Ok, first it was juvenile name-calling, now you're challenging people to a fight? You've really marginalized yourself here as a total idiot. I think that's what 6 year olds do: lose an argument, so they resort to fighting and throwing temper tantrums.
Regrettably, this is indicative of a large percentage of neocons: armchair general chicken hawks with no arguments, just hot air. It's probably why registered Republicans are leaving in droves.
As for your fight invitation, I'll certainly take you up on that. I'll meet you 30 minutes after the debate just behind the Ford Center. If I'm late, just keep waiting. I'll show eventually. |
|
Here's hoping any candidate in Dearbornistan (I agree with him on that one) not agreeing with Earlobe's opinions has Secret Service protection.
/we really need ignore list capability |
|
Ryan01,
You're an anti-Semite. |
|
that may not be true. Israel actually has a more even-handed media than the US does with respect to Israel/Palestine issues. Sad, really, but in a way, it makes sense. Israelis have to see blood on their streets whenever there's a terrorist attack, and realize that actions of their government sometimes have deadly consequences. Americans just say "oh, they're just a bunch of [insert Arab racial epithet here]."
Israel also has a fairly prominent Labor Party which advocates peace for the most part. Here, we have the Republicans who are owned by AIPAC and the Likudnicks and the Democrats who are owned by AIPAC and the Likudnicks.
Finally, America has the far right evangelicals who are pushing to incite the Rapture, per Book of Revelations. Sadly, I'm not making this up. And these Evangelicals care nothing for the Jews - according to Revelations, upon the Rapture, all Jews will either be killed or convert to Christianity. That's their *goal*. With friends like these... |
|
The buck has to stop here and now!
Good, now go to Iraq. Maybe someone over there will take you seriously. I don't.
|
|
Boy, that was quite a drunk you pitched this weekend. Other than the usual stupid comments it is clear to me that you have sobered up.
"History is a good indication. Why did QuackPaul run on the Libertarian Party--answer that?"
Because he has paleolibertarian views.
"Why do you keep stating that you are NOT Republican in your rants. Why do you keep tearing down the GOP ? You and QuackPaul have no loyalty except to yourselves."
I used to be a Republican. When the RNC went hard to the left in the mid eighties they lost me. The Republican party is doing a pretty good job destroying themselves without my help.
"Mark my words, QuackPaul will run as an independent in some wacky form, because he will NOT be elected by the GOP mainstream."
Maybe not. He has stated three different occasions that he won't, but it won't hurt my feelings if he did run on third party ticket.
"This part is only for the eyes and smallish brain of Ryan01, so the rest of you Paulites I am done with you..." Blah, blah, blah.
I didn't know that El Al could get you over here that quick. In any event, I think you are full of it.
"If you have never carried the Sandman, and been through SERE, and let's see if you can get away with calling me a punk again."
I doubt you have done any of this and you still are an obnoxius punk and worse, now run along. |
|
I think he's actually posting from RNC headquarters.
That's about the level of desperation they've reached. |
|
"If you want to live in a country where the federal government has absolute power and can start elective wars anytime it wants to suit a political agenda of a minute few nefarious extremists (like PNAC), then fine."
I think he already does-- Israel. |
|
If Ron had as much coverage in the press he would have even more. Who-ckabee got tons of more press, it was even positive press from the MSM, eventhough he is an evolution denier, and he only pulled 1 mil. If Ron got as much coverage as Rudy and Romney, and wasn't always described with the disclaimer that he cannot win, he would have surpass Rudy and Romney, at least the money that Romney actually raised. The real question is just how small the Republican party has shrunk, that will be a big indicator in just how much of a chance Ron has to win, because he is viable.
A side not to the polls, which were wrong in the last primary season when we were going to have President Dean, did anyone notice how right after Who-ckabee announced his horrible fundraising, he shot up in some of the polls. Yeah that is really believable. If the polls were accurate, we'd have a Republican Senate right now, by 2-3 seats. Also Kerry pulled 4% in the '04 polls around this time in the primary season. |
|
How anti-American you must be to support the Constitution!
Earlobe - the people who should be kept far from power are the neocons. All Ron Paul want to do is follow the Constitution. Why do you have such a problem with that? And please, try not to say "John Birch" in your response.
If you want to live in a country where the federal government has absolute power and can start elective wars anytime it wants to suit a political agenda of a minute few nefarious extremists (like PNAC), then fine. There are plenty of countries that fit that description. As an American, it's not my cup o tea. I prefer limited government under the Constitution. |
|
|
Ron Paul, during a presidential debate on national TV, publicly blamed the Neocons for the war in Iraq; no wonder a spike in contributions ensued. NOTHING is as important as taking control of our government back from these sinister foreign agents. |
|
What kind of work do you do for the National Scrabble Association? Must be fascinating. No, wait. You must mean the National Skateboard Association. Yeah, that must be it, for it would explain the irrationality of your posts to me. One too many times winding up landing on your head.
"...and then did real soldiering for the SOF..."
Yeah, I bet you are a holy terror, killing "Islamo-fascists", Nazis and Paul supporters in your computer game. Another tough talking, lying punk on the Internet.
Here's something for you that should make you happy:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11723 |
|
What part of this statement do you disagree with Ron Paul?
Forbes-”Congress should dramatically reduce its overseas commitments, as well as spending in areas like corporate welfare, and devote one-half of the savings to debt reduction and the other half to transitioning to a market system of retirement security and health care. This action will allow the government to meet its obligation to those relying on Social Security and Medicare while allowing younger people to escape the mountains of debt we are leaving–$60 trillion of liabilities.
“As president, one of my priorities will be restoring the 10th amendment and federalism. Decisions about issues like civil unions or right-to-die legislation should be made by the states, not the federal government. I will stop federal judges from imposing new definitions on the States. I will also return control over education to parents and local communities. Decisions about whether or not to fund vouchers, have merit pay for teachers or extend the school year should be made by parents and local school boards, not by D.C.-based bureaucrats.
“I will also pursue true free trade with low tariffs and less burdensome regulation. However, I reject the “managed trade” approach of the World Trade Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement and Central American Free Trade Agreement.”
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-speaks-for-americans
|
|
If all we are doing is replacing Saddam with regional strongmen why did we get rid of him?
NW- The U.S. military discovered too late that Iraq’s tangled network of tribal leaders is a major key to security. Yet over the past year, “government from the bottom up” has become one of Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s favorite catchphrases. As violence has declined in Sunni enclaves like Ramadi and Fallujah in recent months, commanders have tried to replicate the apparent success of the region’s Anbar Salvation Council elsewhere. Last summer American military commanders spent millions of dollars on “concerned local citizens” programs—essentially paying off tribal sheiks to keep their followers from planting roadside bombs. In Tikrit’s Salah Ad Din province, the Army has spent more than $5 million to buy the loyalty of 26 different sheiks. (Kanan is not among them, although another sheik from the same family is.) With Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s central government weaker than ever—unable to provide basic services even to Baghdad—power brokers in the provinces are enjoying something of a renaissance. That’s fine with Kanan al-Sadid. “We have to get rid of central control,” he says, exhaling a cloud of French-cigarette smoke.
Yet “government from the bottom up” is not without risks. Critics say empowering regional strongmen is creating a warlord state in Iraq, with tribal and religious leaders operating increasingly independently—and often unconstitutionally.
READ MORE
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/strong-like-saddam
|
|
Numbers may be concrete and objective. Poll numbers, however, are a totally different thing and are easily manipulated.
I realize that you'll now probably claim to be a student of statistics much as you are a student of history. My measly graduate level statistics class is probably inferior to your vast knowledge of the subject. |
|
Thompson's "command over the pertinent issues..." is absolutely a matter of opinion... Subjective, as it were.
However, numbers are certainly concrete and absolute. Objective, as it were.
Cheers! :-)
|
|
I wasn't referring to Thompson's poll numbers when I said underwhelming. I was referring to his command over the pertinent issues of the day. Look up the interviews with very friendly hosts just after he announced his candidacy for more details.
In any case, I'd hardly expect you to comprehend the difference. Anything beyond "evil terrorists" seems dreadfully difficult for you to follow. |
|
Anne,
What is it about the term "original source" you have problems with?
Using the link you provided takes me to that blog. I already know that. The link I want is the one that Garthwaite provided. If you click that one you get this:
"Error: Invalid story key (D2,20071006,NEWS09,71005048,AR). Error: Invalid story key (D2,20071006,NEWS09,71005048,AR). Error: Invalid story key (D2,20071006,NEWS09,71005048,AR). Error: Invalid story key (D2,20071006,NEWS09,71005048,AR)."
You have to register with this paper to find the original story.
I'm sorry, but this isn't rocket science.
And then there is this:
"Underwhelming is NOT being on this list or any other list that actually registers poll numbers!"
From the other link you provided (posted below) one can see that Paul is listed. While not from the original poll posted by the "Register" I'll accept this as reflecting what the "Register" originally posted.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
I'm sorry I called you a liar. Perhaps your real problem is like that person in the Bush administration who told Ron Suskind that they create their own reality. It appears you are doing the same thing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. |
|
Underwhelming is NOT being on this list or any other list that actually registers poll numbers!
Des Moines Register Poll
29% Romney
18% Thompson****
12% Huckabee
11% Giuliani
7% McCain
Now, THAT'S underwhelming!
Cheers! :-)
|
|
|
You need to get back on your meds, buddy. |
|
I think it could tell us something about Thompson supporters. He's been extremely underwhelming on policy to date, even in softball interviews. But don't tell that to Anne. She's still watching encore presentations of Law and Order and probably has no idea where Fred stands on specific issues.
Fred's poll numbers were high because he had good name recognition and many thought he could save the party from faux-conservatives like Rudy McRomney... until he started fielding questions. Then, unfortunately, reality set in, and his poll numbers started falling. |
|
childish all the time.
"ronniepaul"
"idiot"
"you are truly stupid and limited"
"That's it, I'm done wth you!!!!"
Does this tell us something about Fredheads? |
|
I was just on the site.... and you don't have to register!!!!
That's it! I'm done with you!!!!
|
|
You really do have a problem with reading, don't you? Here's what I wrote:
"Because the link doesn't work and I don't feel like registering with that website I don't know what the undecided is, but I don't think it is 23%."
Now, I'm a patient person, so I'm going to try to explain this to you one last time. What I wrote above means that I wanted to see the original source of the poll, not what Garthwaite posted, but the information from the Register itself. I couldn't care less about that about a TH blog. The original source, got it? Garthwaite's link doesn't work and I went on and dealt with the little information provided.
You added that other link later in an attempt to be cute. The actual source provided much more information than Garthwaite did.
|
|
|
|
|
You pulled this results from the top of the thread initially, so stop lying about where you got it. The link you just posted is based on the "Register's" own poll. The link at the top of the page to the Register's website doesn't work. By the way, he is mentioned. Another lie you been caught telling. |
|
talking about...
The http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ link does not require a registration... ?
And the "Iowa in October: Romney 1, Fred 2" is a TH blog...
Geesh! You can't be that limited.
|
|
|
Sorry in return, Anne. There are 23 percentage points missing. Because the link doesn't work and I don't feel like registering with that website I don't know what the undecided is, but I don't think it is 23%. Because this paper has shown hostility in the past towards Paul I suspect he wasn't included in this poll. |
|
Iowa in October: Romney 1, Fred 2
Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 10:39 PM
Des Moines Register Poll
29% Romney
18% Thompson
12% Huckabee
11% Giuliani
7% McCain
|
|
"FROG preceded SCUD: you really expect that Free Rocket Over Ground was such a difficult challenge."
I don't know. In your case it might very well be, seeing how it took you two hours to answer the question. Maybe you did know the answer. I have my doubts for you asked previously what Scud stood for. Anyone who knows anything about weapon systems would know that the term means nothing, it is the NATO classification for a weapon system that they don't know the Soviet name for and assigned for identification purposes.
Now, how about growing up if possible. |
|
There is no "we" about it, just one moron who came on the thread throwing rocks. People like that shouldn't be surprised if on occasion folks pick them up and throw them back. This isn't the only thread where he acts in this manner. In any case, this was more fun than anything else. People like him I don't take seriously.
|
|
|
It just seems like people are just as obsessively anti-Ron, as some are pro-Ron. It's just a huge pit of insanity with this place. |
|
|
Look at the level this thing has come down to. Wtf is wrong with townhall.com ? |
|
Yes, maybe his mommy came in and saw what he was making a pest out of himself and made him turn off the computer. I posted a link above to him, telling him I had a question for him there. On that thread he acted in the same bizarre way. Judging by some the posts he made about American history I don't believe he is an American.
I'm glad you read that link about the USS Liberty. I knew a lot of this, but this further shows with the new information that this wasn't an accident. Earlobe probably filled the air with curses when he started to read that. There are a number of folks here with double digit IQs and darn near all of them are junior neocons.
Here's another link for you.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/10/miller-center-f.html
If you have time tomorrow you might want to watch this. It is well worth the hour invested.
Later. |
|
|
He could be a rich as Davy Crockett, Ron Paul has not a prayer of winning the Republican nomination or any national election for that matter. |
|
nice - I agree 100%. It sounds like Earlobe just got off the playground. He's anything but erudite. His mommy probably signed him up on this site or something.
Also, good link on the Liberty. That gets zero MSM coverage, and it should be widely reported. The LBJ Admin (and subsequent admins) completely sold our sailors out. It's simply dispicable. Of course, Mr. Earlobe, being such an esteemed intellectual, just resorts to the predictable accusations of anti-Semitism. It's difficult to tolerate people with IQs under 70 at times, but I do my best. |
|
wow, Earlobe - you just keep teeing them up to get hit out of the park. SCUDs are not WMDs. You see, we went in because Saddam allegedly had WMDs, constituting a violation of UN Resolutions. SCUDs didn't qualify.
Nice try. And be sure to pay attention in your remedial social studies class. You might learn something.
|
|
|
Why don't you enlighten us and while you are at it, tell me what FROG stands for. |
|
I think either you may be right or he's drunk, one or the other. His style, if I can call it that, resembles Neoconscum. Long on personal insults, totally lacking in any sort of facts. Most junior neocons are this way. Come to think, most of the older ones are too.
If he is old enough to vote, this is proof positive that we need to make a person upon hitting 18 years of age to undergo a civics class and be able to pass a test before even being allowed near a voting booth. I have a feeling that a number of folks, regardless of whether they call themselves conservatives of liberals would not be able to pass it. |
|
|
Earlobe sure is big on vacuous vitriol. Unfortunately, he can't argue facts and policy, so I guess vitriol is all he has left. It's ok, though. Judging by his posts, he's way too young to vote anyway. Perhaps Townhall should mandate a proof of at least a GED before posting. |
|
I guess you want to know if Paul will run as a third party candidate. Kind of hard to tell with all the babbling you are doing. He has said on three different occasions that he has no intention of doing so.
Isn't it a little early to be hitting the Mogen David or whatever it is you are drinking?
By the way, only a fool votes for someone on account of looks, but seeing how you have this thing about Log Cabin Republicans begs the question. Are you gay? If so, you should support Guiliani. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anne Wrote:
Actually I have a MUCH better grasp of history than you think... and maybe even a better grasp than YOU! :-)
ronniepaul shot himself in the foot more than once... the Rep. debate being the first.
And since then advocating immediately pulling our troops out of Iraq he shot himself in the foot yet again.
*********
If you have such a good grasp of history, then can you please show that? I love this country more than anything. I want the country i was taught about in civics class growing up. The government of the people, democracy, freedom.
Our country is great, it's the policies of a few in power that have destroyed us. How do you explain our overthrow of the Iranian government in the 1950's? How do you explain our giving money and weapons to Osama Bin Laden in the 1980's? How do you explain us giving money and weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's...to fight Iran...then he turned around and used it on his own people? HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? And...can't you understand how this would p*ss some people off? We need to be an example of freedom to the world...not try to force our way of life on others with guns and war. And before you call me anti-gun...i'll have you know i am a female with a conceal carry permit...i love our constitution...that's why Ron Paul needs to be our next President.
If you are going to argue history...give me some facts, please.
|
|
The fact is that Bush was planning to attack Iraq way before Sept. 11, 2001. Neo-con war-mongers saw 9-11 as the perfect "Pearl Harbor" incident they could use to gin up support for a war with Iraq-which had nothing to do with 9-11, terrorism, nuclear bombs, etc. ad nauseum.
The press did its part by portraying this as a gigantic "war with Islam."
Funny-all of the hijackers died in the attack so there were no "live" suspects still on U.S soil! That left the entire Middle East as happy neo-con hunting grounds. Of course, the guy who set up 9-11 has not yet been caught-Osama Bin Laden. Instead, we punished a mediocre dictator with no air force, navy or army to speak of who, due to sanctions and a "no fly zone" did not even control 2/3 of his country!
It will probably take a consortium of neighboring countries to straighten out this mess, good luck. |
|
Good thing Annie can read such unbiased opinions like Daniel Pipes... the Silencer in Chief of anyone in academia who dare question Israeli policy. How very un-American it must be to exercise your First Amendment rights to speak freely about ANOTHER COUNTRY!!
Anne - you've just lost a lot of credibility. Actually, scratch that - that would assume you've ever made a coherent point to begin with. You do, however, do a superb job of mindlessly repeating Rush/Hannity talking points. I'm sure they're proud to have you as a dittohead.
|
|
What a pitty for someone who has such an obvious agenda.
Bet you're one of the paulists who think the al qaeda "Death To America" is just something the Conservatives made up.
Do dealing with those whose agenda blinds them to truth. What a fool!
|
|
"Having read extensively, books and articles by Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson (neither of whom are partisan)..."
No, he's just a militant Zionist, no partisanship there. You're funny, Anne. |
|
"But it's so typical of the liberals and the paulists to throw out insults to those who don't agree with them."
You have no idea in the past months, on many threads on TH, how many names and insults have been launched by "some" paulists at those who support other candidates.
In fact, some were so reprehensible that some TH regulars suspected these paulists were actually democrats trolling around as paul supporters.
|
|
I've said why I am not a paul fan, and why I don't think he's got a snowball's chance in global warming of winning, and why I think the notion of him winning the nomination is a fantasy.
Having read extensively, books and articles by Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson (neither of whom are partisan) as well as many others who are experts in terrorism, and I firmly believe that if we leave Iraq too soon, it probably won't matter who is pres.
It's a difference in opinion, and I'm as entitled to my opinion as you. It just seems to me, according to the pollsters, that many others also believe as I do. And when it comes down to the wire, it's the numbers that count.
And, I don't know where this "foreign money" thing started, but as much as I think paul would be a disaster, but for what it's worth, I can't believe for one second that he would take illegal foreign money for his campaign.
|
|
"But it's so typical of the liberals and the paulists to throw out insults to those who don't agree with them."
Careful with that one. You are playing awfully close with hypocrisy.
And you still have not addressed the issues I raised earlier. Look, if Fred Thompson can get serious about addressing our financial problems and will promise to deliver serious government reform, I would have no problem supporting him should he be nominated. The problem is that none of the other candidates are really talking about the root problems in our country.
Also, people would have said it was impossible for Ron Paul to have raised $5 million this last quarter. But it has been done. Just because you say that he has no chance does not make it true (your opinion, remember?). He now has a great deal of mainstream media exposure, and many people who hear his message like what they are hearing. It has been a long time since we had a true conservative in the race, and people are hungry for a change.
I am not saying that Ron Paul IS going to win, but it is way too soon to say that he absolutely will not. |
|
that if I gave you guys enough time, you be saying exactly what you've said.
Ryan01: Am I to understand that you're saying that if ronniepaul doesn't get the nomination, then it's given that HELLary will win?
Actually, who knows who will win the pres. election? But there is absolutely NO reason to even entertain the notion that ronniepaul is the only one who can beat HELLary.
I am in NO WAY a Rudy or Romney fan, and for a multitude of reasons, but either one stands a better chance of beating HELLary than does ronniepaul.
And this whole thing is a moot argument because there is NO WAY that ronniepaul will get the nomination. Zip! Nada! Zero! Zilch!
As a matter of fact, paul has about the same numbers as Kucinich, and exactly what chance does anyone think Kucinich has of getting the nomination? Same as paul... Zip! Nada! Zero! Zilch!
al: Thank you, but I am quite capable to thinking for myself... Been doing it for a long time. But it's so typical of the liberals and the paulists to throw out insults to those who don't agree with them. But, thanks again.
|
|
|
of TH for finally covering Dr. Paul's achievement here. It's most impressive considering he did it with zero Old Media coverage. Maybe they'll have to cover him now... and watch ever more support and donations flow in. |
|
can only spout talking points from Rush and Hannity. Beyond that, she's pretty much a lost cause. We really can't expect her to know the difference between criticizing policy and blaming victims. That's a little out of her league.
And we certainly can't expect her to realize that there's hardly any difference between Rudy/McCain/Romney and Hillary. Rush and Hannity never said it, so to Anne, it must not be true. |
|
|
The only people who hate Ron Paul are anti-gun nuts, drug warriors, and Zionist "Israel firstsers" |
|
My wife and I just sent 250 of our hard-earned dollars to the Ron Paul campaign. We both consider it a great honor to support a politician with integrity. A very rare thing today. We are also telling all our friends, both republican and democrat, to just "google Ron Paul" and make up their own minds. I look forward to their replies. |
|
My wife and I just sent 250 of our hard-earned dollars to the Ron Paul campaign. We both consider it a great honor to support a politician with integrity. A very rare thing today. We are also telling all our friends, both republican and democrat, to just "google Ron Paul" and make up their own minds. I look forward to their replies. |
|
whatever. And if that does happen you can look forward to Hillary for none of those other guys will win. They are simply too tied to Bush. There is a good side and a bad side to this for you, however. The good side for you is that you'll likely get an attack on Iran and maybe WW III. (or IV, if you love Norman) The bad side is that you can look forward to your taxes to go up and the possibly an economic depression. Khomar is correct. The US is broke in more ways than one.
|
|
Did you even watch the video I linked to? It is not just me who is saying it. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States and chief economist, is saying that we are facing a financial disaster if we don't take serious steps to reform our country.
Seriously, watch the videos I linked and then we can talk. |
|
"He is the only one offering REAL solutions, and he is the only one with the proven character to actually try to see it done."
|
|
because YOU say so?
Now there's an interesting concept. People should just think as you do?
Don't think so, scooter!
|
|
You may be right, but I sincerely wish with all that I am that you are wrong. Seriously, watch the video in my last post. Every presidential candidate should watch that video. Unfortunately, Fred Thompson does not understand the seriousness of the situation:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1zv2bFzeiak
Maybe if we had made this change a couple decades ago we might have been able to fix this problem the way he suggests, but there is no way that it will work today. We have waited too long, and now serious reform will be necessary to solve the problem.
But the Republican leaders don't want to think about this. They are more concerned with their own retirement plans and pocketbooks to worry about the dismal future they are leaving to those of us unfortunate enough to also have to fight their wars.
Do you understand now why we are so outspokenly in support of Ron Paul? He is the only one offering REAL solutions, and he is the only one with the proven character to actually try to see it done. |
|
then by all means, go for it!
Knock yourselves out! Have a blast, for as long as it lasts.
But the reality is, there is just NO WAY that he'll get the nomination. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
Gallup
Paul ...................... Thompson
Jan. – .................... -
Feb. – .................... -
Mar. 1.0 ................... 12.5
Apr. 2.0 ................... 10.8
May – ...................... 12.8
June 2.0 ................... 27.0
July 3.0 ................... 23.0
Aug. 2.5 ................... 17.5
Sep. 2.7 ................... 20.0
|
|
If you know your history then you know that the Middle East has been a quagmire of wars and factions for centuries. It is a land of shifting allegiances and long-held grudges that is a nightmare to try to unravel. As if that isn't bad enough, our involvement in the region has only made things worse. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both empowered directly by US foreign policy.
Regardless, one of the important things to remember is one of key reasons WHY Ron Paul wants us out. We simply cannot afford this war any longer. We are spending billions of dollars every day to keep this war going. This is money that we simply do not have to spend. We must get out of Iraq if we are to save our country from economic collapse.
This is the big elephant in the corner that the other candidates won't even admit exists. The baby-boomers will start retiring this January whereupon they start collecting Social Security. As they continue to get older, their medical costs will start taxing Medicare. We DO NOT HAVE the money to pay for the future payments we owe for Social Security and Medicare. It has long since been spent on other things, and due to the low birthrate as well as the 40 million babies we have slaughtered in the past four decades, we do not have enough younger workers to make up the difference. The chief economists of our nation estimate that we are facing a $40 trillion dollar debt just to pay off these two programs alone.
Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican candidate who will not only admit that the elephant exists but has a plan to address it. By cutting back our military and foreign aid spending (around $1 trillion per year) and ending the Iraq War (another $1 trillion per year), we can focus on economic reform, government cutbacks, and a serious effort to not only balance the budget but actually start eliminating our debt. |
|
"And, $5M is NOTHING when it comes to financing a pres. campaign! 125000 contributers is not even a drop in the bucket!"
How many individual donations do any of the other candidates have at this point? I almost guarantee you that the average donation is much higher than $40 for the other candidates because they get much of their money from wealthy supporters, big corporations, and Washington D.C. lobbyists. The fact that Ron Paul can raise over five million dollars from contributions of average American citizens while having minimal media coverage is nothing less than astounding, and anyone has a clue about American politics would understand that.
"Gallup and Rasmussen, still have paul at 1-2 at best."
Not true. The Gallup poll has Ron Paul current at %4 -- twice the "at best" you quote. It should also be noted that this poll was taken back in mid-September before the news came out about Ron Paul's earnings.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28702
"paul just shoots himself in the foot each time he speaks... either in a debate or an interview. And, he did himself in right off the bat, during the first Rep. debate when he blamed America for 9-11."
This has been addressed in both this forum and in many others. Ron Paul was citing the 9/11 Report and CIA findings based on quality research and in depth study of our history in the Middle East. Many of those in Republican leadership who were outraged over his comments at the time have since apologized as they have come to understand his actual position and the accuracy of his statement. Our actions did push the terrorists toward their dastardly act, but the ultimate responsibility lies with them. We would be foolish not to consider that our actions around the world could have bad consequences.
|
|
Actually I have a MUCH better grasp of history than you think... and maybe even a better grasp than YOU! :-)
ronniepaul shot himself in the foot more than once... the Rep. debate being the first.
And since then advocating immediately pulling our troops out of Iraq he shot himself in the foot yet again.
Even HELLary has backed away from that foolish possibility.
But, have your fun. Enjoy! :-)
|
|
Anne Said: My comment had only to do with his accusation that 9-11 happened because "...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."
The man is a nut-job
If you know anything about our CIA's history, you'd know Dr. Paul's statement was accurate based on our own government's findings. We've been occupying and overthrowing governments for fifty plus years. We'd be crazy mad if this had been done to us.
Anne, if you think he is crazy for saying that, then you obviously have no grasp of of American foreign relations over the past century. Our actions do have consequences. |
|
That's NOT what he said... and that's not what he's said numerous times he's made that point.
But, think what you will. Have a good time, and enjoy... right up until the time someone ELSE gets the Republican nomination.
|
|
|
Ron Paul is talking about US policy in the region, not America as a whole. Let me ask you this. I was against Clinton bombing Serbia. Does that mean I blame America or the Clinton administration for pursuing a policy I consider a crime? |
|
And, of course, right to name calling.
Most people grow out of name calling by 6th grade. Guess we know how mature knight of night is!
And, of course, posts stupid accusations that are meaningless. What a fool!
|
|
AND I watched the re-run of the debate, TWICE, and I listened very carefully to the video... many times, because I couldn't quite believe that I heard what I thought I heard.
And that QUOTE is word for word what he SAID...
Let me repeat it for you....AND I QUOTE!
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
Actually, maybe YOU should watch the video again and LISTEN to what he ACTUALLY said... not what you want him to have said....
|
|
"And, he did himself in right off the bat, during the first Rep. debate when he blamed America for 9-11."
Did you actually watch the debate or are you simply repeating what someone on the radio said?
Here's Paul on this. You have to watch the whole thing and listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW2tgSewA7o
I really get tired of seeing this lie constantly repeated by either ignorance or design.
Ron Paul and Michael Scheuer attempt to educate the demagogue Guiliani about "blowback".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
[Warning: 13 minute tape. Not for those with short attention spans. Critical thinking skills a must.] |
|
yellow brick road...
Enjoy as long as your fantasy will last.
And, don't forget, it's the first star to the right, and straight on 'til morning! :-)
|
|
No one is talking about nuking anyplace!
And, this column is about ronniepaul.
My comment had only to do with his accusation that 9-11 happened because "...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."
The man is a nut-job!
|
|
But I thought with the Good Guys (Romney, Guiliani, McCain, etc)want to keep our army in the Mideast indefinitely in order that the terrorists dont come over here and kill us. And also they promise to nuke Iran if the situation is right. This is the right path because they keep saying that it is.
So I'd vote for any of these guys! Keep us safe from terrorism! |
|
of galactic proportions!
I'm not sure how anyone can go from not withdrawing our troops to "nuke and kill the Mideast enmasse...."
What an absurd connection!
But, if that mentality is what's typical of the ronniepaul followers, that's all the MORE reason he drop out.
|
|
|
I agree Anne! Only someone as wise as Guiliani, Romney, McCain or Clinton can be trusted to nuke and kill the Mideast enmasse so that we'll be done with terrorists. Ron Paul can't be trusted to do that. |
|
And, $5M is NOTHING when it comes to financing a pres. campaign! 125000 contributers is not even a drop in the bucket!
I'm not sure how the poster above actually comes up with 5-7%, but the respected pollsters, Gallup and Rasmussen, still have paul at 1-2 at best.
paul just shoots himself in the foot each time he speaks... either in a debate or an interview. And, he did himself in right off the bat, during the first Rep. debate when he blamed America for 9-11.
It's amazing that paul's plan to just take the troops out of Iraq makes HELLary look more reasonable. Now, that's scary!
|
|
It's incredible to watch self-described 'conservatives' now whine about getting rid of the Dept. of Education and the IRS, amongst other anti-freedom organizations. The neo-cons have not only hi-jacked the Republican party, but now their useful idiots are robotically repeating their Trotskyite mantras.
Bottom line, this country will get what it deserves. It is looking like they'll get a Constitution more and more by the day, despite the agitprops of the "new Republican party." |
|
JackShiite
I meant anti-Iraq war! |
|
This was from Iowa:
"August 23rd, 2007 — 12:25 pm
51% of Republican Caucus Goers Support Iraq Withdrawal Within Six Months"
" 4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 51%
No 39%
Undecided 10%"
http://cmondisplay.com/2007/08/23/51-of-republican-caucus-goers-support-iraq-withdrawal-within-six-months/
While an old poll, I suspect the longer the administration thrashes about in Iraq that more of this thinking will be seen elsewhere in the nation. Paul will get some of these voters if not most of them. The opinion makers in the "new media" who used to (and some still do) call Paul a kook are starting to show a little more respect after the fund raising numbers were released while still attempting to demoralize Paul supporters with the follow up line "he can't win." They are running scared for they know most folks can find little to be inspired about in any of the candidates they are pushing. The "he can't win" claims along with trying to push fear upon folks by invoking the name "Hillary" won't work this time the way it did in 2000 when a lot of people were afraid that a Gore administration would be a repeat of the Clinton and went with Bush. Most folks are fed up with the lying by both parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
who will be voting in the primaries and am trying to get everyone I know and meet to vote as well for Ron Paul. Most of the people like his message and for the most part are won over.
This is your country people. We the people are supposed to own it, not some politicians and bankers.
"Freedom is popular" - Ron Paul
Ron Paul rEVOLution 2008! |
|
The Numbers are only as good as the pollsters and quite frankly I think they're missing this one by a mile. There are tons of assumptions that have to be built into the small samples they choose to call and the questions they ask. Many don't even explicitly offer Paul as a choice. I'm interested to know if the assertion that some polls call cell phones is true . . . because *something* is seriously off.
It's also bandied about quite a bit that both Carter and Clinton were polling around 1-2% the October before their elected year. You can point out that this season the campaigning has started earlier, you can try and argue that those were Dem candidates and somehow the rules don't apply to the Repubs *but* you can't argue that in recent memory we've seen pollsters miss the mark by a *wide* margin. They weren't asking the right people the right questions. Plain and simple.
I truly believe that the numbers will finally get more interesting the closer we get to the election . . . especially if Paul can pull an upset in an important primary somewhere. And working as an underdog, Paul could claim an upset if he gets enough votes for 4th place lol.
I've met lots of Ron Paul supporters. All of them are firmly *republican*. Maybe Paul has crossover appeal that could be useful in a general election, but the Paul supporters I've seen (even online) are *far and away* more likely to be staunch, conservative Republicans than anything else.
Finally, my own father told me just yesterday that he hadn't heard anything about 'this Ron Paul guy' and so was assuming he must be some kind of "nut" (he only listens to clear channel radio and watches FOX news and really expects them to give him the important, relevant news). More and more Americans are like my father and *finally* at least asking *who* Ron Paul is. |
|
|
Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL! We need to WAKE UP and notice this man. Gut Dept. of Education? Absolutely! What has the No Child Left Behind done for us? Exactly that, because they just push our children through the system. Has it ever occurred to you that our Testing skills have fallen dramatically ever since the Government got involved. How about Gutting Spending? Has it ever occurred to you that this country is so far in debt that the Largest Lender is CHINA. NEWSFLASH!! Practically every good in America says, "Made in China." How about the Patriot Act and No Writ to Habeas Corpus? There is alot more at stake than squabbling over who has the money. This election is about OUR RIGHTS PEOPLE!!! Maybe if Americans would stop being spoonfed Media BS and start supporting the only CONSTITUTIONALIST we have, our kids won't be eating dirt sandwiches once this countries Rich get richer and poor get poorer!! IT's TIME TO MAKE A STAND!! This is not the Lesser of two evils this time around. This man is the REAL DEAL. |
|
**pollsters don't call cell phones, and they generally target "likely" voters.**
Most polls now call cell phone numbers, and have for the past couple of years.
|
|
|
Ron Paul is raising impressive money. However, how much of it is from non Republicans? It will be interesting to see who is donating and where they are from. |
|
"Many of Ron Paul's supporters are democrats, independents, and libertarians. These people would not be considered 'likely' voters for a Republican primary, so they are not likely to be polled."
I've raised this issue before. If your base of support comes from people not likely to vote in a GOP primary, then you are not going to win any GOP primaries. You will never be a frontrunner.
And what is it exactly about Ron Paul that appeals to these "Democrats" that they wouldn't find in their own fringe candidate of Kucinich?
Is it his willingness to totally eviscerate the government? Gut spending? Abolish the IRS? The Department of Education? Look, if they want an anti-war candidate, they can find it in their own party without all the anti-government baggage that is anathema to their creed. |
|
I don't know if you will see this or not, but there is at least two things to consider regarding Ron Paul: pollsters don't call cell phones, and they generally target "likely" voters.
Among people under the age of 40, cell phones are increasingly become the primary phone of their households. My wife and I do not even have a land line. We will never be called to get our opinion even though we have been faithful Republican voters for years. A recent study indicated that Ron Paul could have at least a 3-5% boost from this factor alone. This puts him in the 5-7% range which is solidly in the second tier.
Many of Ron Paul's supporters are democrats, independents, and libertarians. These people would not be considered "likely" voters for a Republican primary, so they are not likely to be polled. Further, consider the fact that the last serious primary was held in 2000. This means that anyone under the age of 26 has probably never voted in a primary and therefore are not considered "likely". Ron Paul could pick up another 1-2% here putting him in the 6-8% range.
Now consider the fact that Ron Paul has had virtually no mainstream media attention, and a large percentage of the coverage he HAS had has been negative. He is said to have "a snowball's chance" or he is a "long-shot" or he has "no chance of winning". The Fox News debate was filled with deliberate attacks from the moderators and commentators of Fox News. In spite of all of this, he has still managed to grow a strong following with over 40,000 committed volunteers and 125,000 people who were willing to give up their hard-earned cash to support his campaign. I think there is more to this movement than you give credit for.
|
|
ROGUE: As I pointed out in another thread...$5 mil at 40 bucks a pop is only 125,000 people...
FRANK: Yeah, but at TEN bucks a pop, it's FOUR TIMES that many!
No, of course I'm not saying Ron Paul has half a million $10 donors. I'm simply pointing out the arbitrariness of your $40 average donation.
And one thing RP has got that money can't buy, and that requires no monetary donation: Supporters who donate time (carrying signs or passing out flyers), property (painting Ron Paul signs on vehicles, buildings, etc.), skills, etc.
RP's "army" is doing all this and more, with NO VISIBLE CHAIN OF COMMAND!
Where is Rudy's army? Or Romney's? (No, not the Band of Five Brothers ...) McCain's?
Zip. Zero. NADA.
Best go change your Dockers, Rogue. I think you made a stain ... |
|
That is 93,750 (or 125,000) who actually donated to his campaign. There are very, very few people who actually go out and donate to a campaign relative to actual votes come election day. Using your logic, that means that Romney only has about 250,000 supporters around the country -- and that is assuming that his donations averaged only $40 per donor. The fact is that most campaigns get a lot financing from lobbyists and corporations making their larger figures possible. I would wager that in the number of actual donations, Ron Paul is much closer to the front runners than you would like to admit.
Ron Paul, with minimal mainstream media exposure and little to no corporate sponsorship, managed to get 125,000 people to donate to his campaign to raise over $5 million dollars in a quarter that is traditionally weak for donations. To downplay this is really to ignore reality. This was a huge achievement. Imagine what might have happened had the press actually given him as much exposure as they gave the other candidates -- even Huckabee. |
|
|
I know it is a lot more. The people who voted for the Constitution party and the Libertarian party far exceed 125,000 in terms of number of voters. I doubt if they will turn out for whatever establishment candidate the Republicans might nominate save for Paul. |
|
Yes, I remember reading that. Most impressive, though not as much as your theory that Paul might be receiving foreign money. The truth of the matter is no one knows how much support he has, but I would bet it is a hell of a lot more than 125,000.
Dream on, Paul has a real campaign. |
|
"Ron Paul has a constituency ...... in every county in the nation."
As I pointed out in another thread...$5 mil at 40 bucks a pop is only 125,000 people...that's high because only 70+% came from the internet, let's be generous and say 75%...that's $3,750,000, at $40 a pop that equal 93,750 people. There are roughly 3077 counties in the USA...that averages 30 people per county. (40 if you take the full 5 mil at $40 per = 125000 people)
Quite a movement y'all got there. |
|
... in every county in the nation.
"Benton told me that unlike Howard Dean, Ron Paul, 'has had a legitimate following for over twenty years.'"
Liberty-loving American patriots have known about Rep. Paul since 1988 and before. When the Internet came along and made him even more accessible to even more Americans, it simply stoked the fire.
================
Ron Paul 2008 ...
Because regime change begins at home! |
|
After each of the first and second quarters, Hugh and Dean lined up posts almost immediately on the financing numbers. Especially touting Romney's prowess and surge. Strangely that has been absent this time.
They are likely pouring over the numbers to see how they can fit data to their pre-determined post" Romney clear winner in fundraising numbers"..guys, don't fret- Andy Fastow and Scott Sullivan do take visitors and may be able to help you to stick to your message |
|
After each of the first and second quarters, Hugh and Dean lined up posts almost immediately on the financing numbers. Especially touting Romney's prowess and surge. Strangely that has been absent this time.
They are likely pouring over the numbers to see how they can fit data to their pre-determined post" Romney clear winner in fundraising numbers"..guys, don't fret- Andy Fastow and Scott Sullivan do take visitors and may be able to help you to stick to your message |
|
|
|