What's Wrong With Ron Paul?
- Thread starter 4sarge
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
Moderator
Really? So when he is photoed next to Don Black with a big smile that doesnt bother you?
I didnt think so.
O. I forgot. He doesnt know who Don Black is.
Because your candidate attracts and/or hangs out with a peculiar number of folks who giggle madly at the thought of my great great auntie getting shot in a ditch and that, for want of a better term, aggravates me. In ordfer to ensure that my daughter doesnt end up in that ditch, I'm going to fight the fringe so to speak.
Yeah but they are selling good. Taste is a personal thing
Here's one for you...irony. So he didnt even pay for the blimp.
So wheres the money? I raised 20 million dollars for Ron Paul and all I got was a blimp Stormfront paid for.
Pauls history in this campaign, which means the fringers will go away for four more years.
WildhaveyouhbuggedyourBlaserF3todayAlaska ™
WildlyInaccurateAlaska said:
No, he has raised 28 million at last report, and none of it had anything to do with the blimp project.
The blimp was a way to get around McCain's regulations on political speech, and I am curious what you think about it. It seems to be the only RP related topic that makes all his detractors completely mute, and I do wonder why that is...
As for the Boortz question, I'm a big fan of Neal Boortz and Ron Paul. I have no idea why he might refuse an interview request, if such a request was made. Let's have some facts to discuss. When did Neal ask Ron to come on the show, and were there any conditions attached to the proposed interview? I can see no reason why Ron Paul would not go on that show, though there are some disagreements between the two.
I appreciate what you're tryin to do, publius42, but I think it's wasted. WA will tell his lies about Paul in the hopes something will stick.
It won't, but we'll just have to put up with it appearing from time to time. It's what WildAlaska does, it's his mission to lie about Ron Paul.
He's already stated he may vote for Hillary Clinton, so we should judge based on that.
Sorry Pat, but you do the same thing in favor of Paul. The only difference between you and WA is that he has tangible evidence to point to (photographs, donations, newsletters, publishing companies) that lends creedence to his theory.
Your horsepuckey about media a media conspiracy is totally devoid of any supporting evidence.
So once again, start working on your own plank.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Now where did I say that...hmmmm.......
WildhaveyouhuggedyourSSG3000todayAlaska ™
Unregistered
Moderator
It never ceases to amaze my why some of you spend so much time attacking a man who gets so few votes.
Alaska must be a very boring place.
Alaska must be a very boring place.
rp
one part of RON I did not like was the isolationist part.this country went thru that twice.before ww1 and before ww2.maybe if we had not there might not have been two ww.one cannot be isolationist in the present.we engage with to many countries.since I was in ww2 I dont think I want another.
One other thing the congress desides if we get gun control and a conserv scotus.we must have a majority of repub in congress.if every one lets them know we want results then we should get them.
Now I will ask:why did nor RP answer the NRA invitation to speak.at least acknowledge it???
--------
one part of RON I did not like was the isolationist part.this country went thru that twice.before ww1 and before ww2.maybe if we had not there might not have been two ww.one cannot be isolationist in the present.we engage with to many countries.since I was in ww2 I dont think I want another.
One other thing the congress desides if we get gun control and a conserv scotus.we must have a majority of repub in congress.if every one lets them know we want results then we should get them.
Now I will ask:why did nor RP answer the NRA invitation to speak.at least acknowledge it???
--------I think McCain Feingold is as stupid and effective as a Ron Paul presidential run.
As opposed to those who continually bring him up and sing his praises.
You mean the McCain who voted against waiting periods, or the McCain who voted against the AWB, or the McCain who voted to repeal the AWB?
Yup, he's no different than Hillibama.... more of the same Paul talking points
That's nice, but not responsive to my question. Maybe I should spell it out more, as I did in the other thread I linked above.
Basically, the blimp project was an attempt by some Paul supporters to launch an effort outside the official campaign to support Dr. Paul. The idea was to give people who had already donated the maximum legal amount to the campaign another outlet for political speech. Your thoughts on that idea?
They started without any discernible legal framework, just the idea of "hey, give us some money and we'll fly a political blimp!" That is how I think such things should be done, but of course, it's not legal. Thoughts on that topic?
Then they formed a PAC, which would allow people to contribute up to $5k, less any amount already contributed to the official campaign. This short lived segment of the history is uninteresting to me.
Then they did something really interesting, to me at least. The PAC went away, and was replaced by an "advertising company" which sold only one product: blimp time on the Ron Paul blimp. You could buy as much as you wanted! No McCain-type restrictions on spending your own money on politics, if you can imagine such a thing. It was a transparent attempt to circumvent campaign finance laws, in my completely unprofessional opinion, and I loved it! I kept hoping for the Feds to come down on them hard, causing a huge amount of publicity and donations, but they never did.
Do you think those folks were committing a crime by undertaking the project in that way? Our campaign finance laws are far too complex for mere mortals like myself to comprehend, but it sure seems likely to me that you could make a case that they were just circumventing the law. Thoughts on that subject?
Plus one for ingenuity I suppose. I've never been a fan of holding people accountable for "violating the spirit of the law". Either its illegal or its not. If too many people can circumvent the law then it means either the law was poorly written or the idea was a poor one to start with. In this case its clearly the latter (though probably the former as well).
- Status