$4.2 million in one day!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonder how much came from the KKK, Stormfront, and other white supremacist and "anti-zionist" groups that support him?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes. First we're fake, then we're real. Then we're computer hackers, and then we're hippies with no computer skills.
Now we're KKK members and Stormfronters...who happen to spend our free time running around New Hampshire wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

And here I've been hearing that the Paul supporters were the paranoid loonies.

Try this on for size: I'm a black guy in Iowa who's never been to NH and I donated $100 at 9:30 yesterday morning. :p
 
I hate to say this, but 4.2 million dollars is not a lot of money anymore.
Click to expand...

Heh. Tell that to Mitt Romney, who could only manage 3.1 million in a day. (I guess we're excluding days on which he loaned his campaign some of his own money?)

A fringe group of a few wackos beat the big money man at the big money game. I'm a money bomber, and lovin' it. :D
 
Yes, yes. First we're fake, then we're real. Then we're computer hackers, and then we're hippies with no computer skills.
Now we're KKK members and Stormfronters...who happen to spend our free time running around New Hampshire wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

And here I've been hearing that the Paul supporters were the paranoid loonies.

Try this on for size: I'm a black guy in Iowa who's never been to NH and I donated $100 at 9:30 yesterday morning.
Click to expand...

all that means is Ron Paul is supported by Black Panthers too:rolleyes:

what is this "Borders" thing you speak of in previous post?

anybody have a extra bullet resistant vest and helmet? probably going to need that next range visit have a feeling my shooting partner might ask me to setup the targets down range. :o
 
Everybody likes to complain about chameleon politicians (i.e. liars) such as bush/romney/hillary and all the rest, but few americans have the guts to DO something about it. Even worse, most americans end up supporting and voting for the "typical politicians" they claim to hate.

I'll bet most of these Ron Paul bashers are the type who love to whine about "typical politicians." Then comes an honest man running for president and they start bashing him because he's a "longshot." Even worse, they pull out the childish tactic of Calling Mr. Paul a "kook."

Ron Paul is the next Reagan except he's 1000 X better than Reagan (who signed a massive tax increase, a massive gun ban in 86, and a massive amnesty for illegals). Anyone who claims they liked Reagan yet bashes Ron Paul either doesn't REMEMBER what Reagan said or never even KNEW what Reagan said in his campaigns. Reagan campaigned as an anti establishment, anti tax, anti federal government candidate (and only governed that way some of the time).

To be completely honest, if Ron Paul doesn't win at least a few primaries, then american's heads are buried so deep that the day will come when the federal tyranny gets so bad that your kids and grandkids will WISH for $4.00 a gallon gas and a pointless quagmire in "eye rack."

This isn't entertainment we're debating here, this is the very lives of your kids and grandkids that we're dealing with.

The islamists will always hate us, just like they always have. We need to get our constitutional house in order and restore our liberties before we start pulling our hair out over some imaginary "possible" nuke from Iran (all while illegals and the spanish language are literally taking over the land as we speak). Bush's refusal for almost a decade to seal the mexican border is more of a threat than the boogie man from the middle east.
 
I have really enjoyed on this very board reading posts by people who profess to love the constitution and this country, bash the one guy who wants to return the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Thus far, I have not heard of Dr. Paul advocating a single position that violates the letter or the spirit of the constitution.

Iraq War- Dr. Paul's resolution did not prohibit it, it only demanded that Congress get behind it with a declaration. Unfortunately, they did not and now we have Congress constantly tearing the military endeavor down in Iraq verbally and funding it on the other hand. Yep- that sure beats a formal declaration of war (read the ones against Japan and Germany and see that the language is quite clearly pledging the President have access to all resources to execute the war).

I guess a politician can't win if he has a 20 year track record of opposing the IRS, DOEngy, DOEd, FDA, and the many other "constitutional" agencies we have. Most especially he can't win if he still hasn't switched positions.

It reminds me of that passage from another antiquated document: "He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our peole and eat out their substance"

Hmmmm.....

Of course, I am a kook.
 
Thus far, I have not heard of Dr. Paul advocating a single position that violates the letter or the spirit of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Take heart, kjm, Fremmer will be along any minute now to disabuse you . . . :rolleyes:

Good posts, tooltimey and The Tourist.
 
It is sad that our political system has become this wasteful. If I had 1% of that money my life would be entirely different, for the better, but instead it goes to such revolting wasteful task as pushing for a losing candidate.
 
Well Mr. James- I am waiting!

In the mean-time, I am curious as to how close the other candidates positions are to the Constitution? As far as I can tell, the further away they are, the higher they go in the polls. Hence, Rudy is the highest, Mitt is the next in line on down.

Republicans are voting according to who is actually the closest to the Democrat but still running as a Republican. Hence the candidates who really seem to be conservatives like Tancredo, Huckabee, Paul, etc... tend to be at the bottom of the heap.

Unlike a lot of folks, I don't just pick one part of the constitution to support. I support the whole thing. I tend to vote that way whenever possible. I heartily encourage you and others to go read the two founding documents again and try to find some way that our government does not resemble the government overthrown due to being tyranical. The quote I included above should demonstrate one really funny similarity.
 
"Disabuse"?!? :D How the heck do you disabuse somebody?!? :p

try to find some way that our government does not resemble the government overthrown due to being tyranical.
Click to expand...

Our present government does not quarter English soldiers in the homes of our citizens (with or without compensation).

Man, that was pretty easy. :D
 
Last edited:
I'll bet most of these Ron Paul bashers are the type who love to whine about "typical politicians." Then comes an honest man running for president and they start bashing him because he's a "longshot." Even worse, they pull out the childish tactic of Calling Mr. Paul a "kook."
Click to expand...

A lot of us “bashers” think he would make a fine president…. if he’d just get his head out of the sand regarding foreign policy. Save the “his foreign policy is fine” replies for one of the other 33 (hey… it went up from 31!) supporters. The rest of us just don’t think we can stop interacting with the world in one term. Could we slowly disengage while playing hardball with the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, North Koreans, terrorists? Yup! Can and should! Should we hide in the barn while they have their way with our family? No thanks, Dr. Paul.

Now that's "kooky".
 
I'm not 100% sure that Fremmer knows what disabuse means, but I can disabuse KJM of his notion that Ron Paul never steps outside constitutional bounds.

Ron Paul voted for a federal ban on partial birth abortions.

The Constitutional authority for such a law? Why it's the same as a homegrown wheat plant, cannabis plant, or machine gun for personal consumption, the same as a gun too near to a school, the same as rape, and, some have argued, the same as indigenous California toads: all affect interstate commerce, meaning they are federal matters. :rolleyes:

At least Ron Paul wrote an article explaining that he knew there was no federal authority to make such a law, but he thought the law was too important to be stopped by mere unconstitutionality.

I have not found another candidate who can correctly identify something which is not interstate commerce, so I'll continue giving money to Ron Paul's campaign and I intend to vote for him in the primary. He's the least wrong choice.
 
Our present government does not quarter English soldiers in the homes of our citizens (with or without compensation).
Click to expand...

Now instead we have up to a 38% income tax that the government uses to provide quarter to our troops.
 
A lot of us “bashers” think he would make a fine president…. if he’d just get his head out of the sand regarding foreign policy.
Click to expand...
You'd prefer the current course? Is there a candidate out there who's foreign policy is closer to your ideal? Seems to me that everybody except Dr. Paul and a couple on the left are content with the status quo; I don't see anybody advocating a gradual shift. Do you?

Here's my beef with the current policy: It takes a long term view to be successful, but it's implemented by people with a 4 year horizon. It's led us to the current messes in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq... pretty much everywhere.
Is there some point at which you recognize a downward spiral due to a flawed philosophy and try something different, or do you continue with the same hoping somebody will finally get it right?
 
And nobody is advocating stopping interacting with the rest of the world. We just want a change in how we interact with the rest of the world.
The current model is much like the Federal domestic policy; If we don't like what they're doing attack them. If we like what they're doing subsidize them.

It *is* possible to trade and communicate with other nations without meddling in their affairs. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing.
 
Save the “his foreign policy is fine” replies for one of the other 33 (hey… it went up from 31!) supporters.
Click to expand...

$4.2 million in one day. $7.7 million so far this quarter.

35% of Republicans disagree with the status quo in Iraq, as do 70% of Independents and 90% of Republicans.

Do you seriously think nuances about how soon and how much to bomb Iran and torture terrorist suspects is really a formula for a Republican victory in 2008?
 
$4.2 million in one day. $7.7 million so far this quarter.
Click to expand...

Well, I’d have to say that all both of his supporters have been very generous!:p

You'd prefer the current course?
Click to expand...

We don’t fight expensive wars and subsidize those friendly to us for the hell of it, we do those things to protect our interests. Problem is we’re confused about our role in the world and we’re going about managing our affairs the wrong way. We should never be building democracies or countering communism or taking down terrorist sponsoring governments and then re-building their country. We should be good people protecting our interests and nothing more.

Less talk, fewer troops, more bombings; a recipe for success! Ron Paul doesn’t have the stones to do that. Pretending the threats don’t exist is foolish and “talking to our enemies” is ignorant and useless.

Do I like the current course? Nope!
Do I want to abandon our interests? Nope!
Would a Paul presidency further undermine our ability to manage our affairs? Yup!
 
If people can stop foaming at the mouth long enough to recognize and accept that Iranians have a legitimate beef with the US for covertly overthrowing their democratically elected government and propping up the absolute monarchy of the Shah for years, then spiriting him out of the country to prevent him facing justice for his tyranny, then we might actually be able to make some headway in discussing foreign policy.
 
accept that Iranians have a legitimate beef with the US
Click to expand...

OK, so we done them wrong. Now, while they develop nuke capability, we should ignore them? Talk to them? Offer to do business with them? Welcome them into the exclusive Club Nuke?

What does Dr. Paul suggest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top