Rep. Ron Paul for Prez

[alexamenos]

.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

it's an odd position you take....i really don't know what to make of it.

yes, there is a "free trade agreement"....

and nothing in that agreement calls for the sacrifice of our soveriegnty, or for the implemention of a common currency.

...and yes, there are plans to build highways from Mexico to Canada...

gee, those "highways from mexico to canada" have existed for decades..without any sacrifice of our nations soveriegnty or of any discussion of a common currency.

...and yes, there is disconnect between elite and common views on illegal aliens from Mexico...

huh? just what do you mean? who is the "elite" and who are the "common" and what are these varied "views"? and, trying to keep it germaine to the paranoia expressed by ron paul and alex jones, how do these "elite and common views" move our country towards a sacrifice of our nation's sovereignty?

and yes, there are people who advocate the creation of a common currency for N. America.....

that's odd, the only ones mentioned in your link who "advocate" a common currency are canadiens....

and yes, the Council on Foreign Relations proposes "a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010."

a very ambiguous "vision" that sure doesn't promote a common currency or a change in our country's national soveriegnty from what is mentioned. do you have further insight?

when you can show ANY real proposal of our country's sacrificing our soveriegnty, or ANY real proposal of a common currency, do let us know. otherwise it's fair to call those who scream that it is happening right now as being a bit dilusional and paranoid.

i don't know how seriously one should take the possibility of the creation of a North American Union, nor do I know whether such a thing would be inherently bad. But these things are happening and given the precedent set by the European Union I frankly don't understand why it is "borderline paranoid lunacy" to acknowledge these things.

the charge made by ron paul and alex jones was not the "possibility" nor the acknowledgement of a conceptual idea, it was an accusation that the sacrifice of our national soveriegnty and the move to a common currency were being actively planned and implemented by our government.
that alex is certainly "borderline paranoid lunacy" in my book.

perhaps if you would itemize some of the benefits arising from the Gulf of Tonkin incident....

first and foremeost was the consent of congress for the LBJ administration to send in hundreds of thousands of american troops into vietnam.

i didn't see any big flip flop there...I did see where the Fox anchor mis-characterized his position, and I can see how someone not familiar with important nuances of language and logic or someone relying upon the anchor's interpretation of his position could take this as a flip-flop.

it's interesting that folks are trying to smear Paul as a lunatic paranoid freak.....I actually think that's a positive development for him.

cheers

the fox anchorwoman "mis-characterized his position"??? please elaborate if you would. she asked him a straightforward question which he answered, an answer that was opposite of that he gave when he was interviewed by alex jones.

how is it a "smear" to review ron paul's interviews, pointing out his outlandish statements and contradictions?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the charge made by ron paul and alex jones was not the "possibility" nor the acknowledgement of a conceptual idea, it was an accusation that the sacrifice of our national soveriegnty and the move to a common currency were being actively planned and implemented by our government.

that alex is certainly "borderline paranoid lunacy" in my book.

you've an interesting take on paranoid lunacy....i remember only a few years ago when people all over the country were buying plastic bags and duct tape out of fear of some imminent bio-terror attack, and I remember those dread drones of destruction coming from iraq being touted as reason to hit iraq first....that struck me as a bunch of paranoid lunacy....

anyhoo....what paul is doing, in contrast to acts of paranoid lunacy cited above, is recognizing some trends toward a thing and suggesting this is cause for concern. he's not suggesting that we should nuke ontario or Mexico City, but rather that if people were more aware of the issues that they would be upset. I don't know whether he's objectively correct, but the suggestion that "people would be upset if they knew how much land would be grabbed for emminent domain to construct these highways" is hardly the same thing as suggesting that the Illumaniti are staging a world-wide takeover.

Is it likely, or at least plausible, that there are some big-wigs in washington that might view a North American Union as a good thing? I think the answer to this is yes, and I don't hear where Dr. Paul argues a position much stronger than this.

You may not agree that such a thing is plausible, but I wholly fail to see why you insist on saying that those who don't see things your way are insane.

the fox anchorwoman "mis-characterized his position"??? please elaborate if you would. she asked him a straightforward question which he answered, an answer that was opposite of that he gave when he was interviewed by alex jones.

how is it a "smear" to review ron paul's interviews, pointing out his outlandish statements and contradictions?

Like I said, I can see how people who aren't adept in dealing with the nuances of language and logic might have a difficulty understanding such a thing, and reluctantly I'll try to give some disquisition.

We might start out by recognizing that when a candidate for political office addresses a group he frequently does this because a) the candidate shares something in common with the group; and b) the candidate hopes to gain some additional support from this group of people.

Accordingly, candidates in these situations quite infrequently start a talk by saying that the group which they are addressing are by and large batshit insane. That would be rude and counterproductive. Instead what they do is acknowledge the concern and segue into their own area of interest. (you should try paying attention to politics from time to time -- this sort of thing happens routinely)

to wit....Alex Jones asks Dr. Paul whether we are in Great Danger of a staged terrorist attacked being as justification for going to war with Iran. Dr. Paul responds, "Yes, we are in great danger....we are in great danger because are poliicies are seriously flawed."

He is plainly interested in discussing our flawed foreign policies, a common theme in his campaigns as you are no doubt aware. Rather than quibbling over the point of whether we are in great danger because Cheney's buddies are getting ready to stage some attack (and perhaps alienating the listening audience in the process), Dr. Paul moves right into the dangers being incurred because of our flawed foreign policies. The Fox anchor misses the transition from Alex Jone's question to his segue into a campaign stump speech.

I actually really liked the fox interview and I thank you for linking to it. The anchor comes off like she's ready to dismiss Paul as a fringe lunatic guy, but she actually buys into a lot of what he says along the way. A good interview, I thought.

anyhooo....it really seems to me that the bigger problem you have here is that Dr. Paul would take the time to address an Alex Jone's listening audience. I frankly think that's quite elitist and snobbish of you, and I'm quite unimpressed by the critique as you may imagine.

cheers

[mcsluggo]

By itself, The United States already IS the "North American Union" that the EU, Asean, African Union, etc... are trying to emulate...

From a scale standpoint, adding Canada and Mexico is like adding another New York, and another Florida... we are already there.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

By itself, The United States already IS the "North American Union" that the EU, Asean, African Union, etc... are trying to emulate...

From a scale standpoint, adding Canada and Mexico is like adding another New York, and another Florida... we are already there.

certainly.....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

you've an interesting take on paranoid lunacy....i remember only a few years ago when people all over the country were buying plastic bags and duct tape out of fear of some imminent bio-terror attack, and I remember those dread drones of destruction coming from iraq being touted as reason to hit iraq first....that struck me as a bunch of paranoid lunacy....

yup, they were guilty as charged.

anyhoo....what paul is doing, in contrast to acts of paranoid lunacy cited above, is recognizing some trends toward a thing and suggesting this is cause for concern. he's not suggesting that we should nuke ontario or Mexico City, but rather that if people were more aware of the issues that they would be upset. I don't know whether he's objectively correct, but the suggestion that "people would be upset if they knew how much land would be grabbed for emminent domain to construct these highways" is hardly the same thing as suggesting that the Illumaniti are staging a world-wide takeover.

Is it likely, or at least plausible, that there are some big-wigs in washington that might view a North American Union as a good thing? I think the answer to this is yes, and I don't hear where Dr. Paul argues a position much stronger than this.

You may not agree that such a thing is plausible, but I wholly fail to see why you insist on saying that those who don't see things your way are insane.

you minimize the statements made by ron paul and alex jones, which were NOT that it is "plausible" that some people might consider a north american union "a good thing", but rather the acusation that the establishment of a "north american union" with a surrender of our national soveriengty and the abandonment of the dollar in favor of the "amero" is in fact being thrust upon us.

that you don't "hear" this is because you don't want to, or that you ignore it.

the links I provided validate me.

Like I said, I can see how people who aren't adept in dealing with the nuances of language and logic might have a difficulty understanding such a thing, and reluctantly I'll try to give some disquisition.

oh, I see, rather than to show by quoting the anchorwoman that she "mis-characterized his [paul's] position", you just make the claim that all of us not "adept" in "understanding...logic"and "nuance" don't see it.

what a fine defense....

she didn't mis-characterize his statements.

We might start out by recognizing that when a candidate for political office addresses a group he frequently does this because a) the candidate shares something in common with the group; and b) the candidate hopes to gain some additional support from this group of people.

Accordingly, candidates in these situations quite infrequently start a talk by saying that the group which they are addressing are by and large batshit insane. That would be rude and counterproductive. Instead what they do is acknowledge the concern and segue into their own area of interest. (you should try paying attention to politics from time to time -- this sort of thing happens routinely)

or, as is the case with ron paul and alex jones, they begin by agreeing with each other, such as was shown with the audio recording I posted the link to.

to wit....Alex Jones asks Dr. Paul whether we are in Great Danger of a staged terrorist attacked being as justification for going to war with Iran. Dr. Paul responds, "Yes, we are in great danger....we are in great danger because are poliicies are seriously flawed."

so he did answer in the affirmative.
he agreed with alex jones.
thanks for validating my point.

He is plainly interested in discussing our flawed foreign policies, a common theme in his campaigns as you are no doubt aware. Rather than quibbling over the point of whether we are in great danger because Cheney's buddies are getting ready to stage some attack (and perhaps alienating the listening audience in the process), Dr. Paul moves right into the dangers being incurred because of our flawed foreign policies. The Fox anchor misses the transition from Alex Jone's question to his segue into a campaign stump speech.

so in your view he did agree with alex jones but he really doesn't agree with alex jones?

we've been led to believe that ron paul was a candidate of a differenrt color, but now we hear from you that he is just another politico, saying just he thinks is what we want to hear.

I actually really liked the fox interview and I thank you for linking to it. The anchor comes off like she's ready to dismiss Paul as a fringe lunatic guy, but she actually buys into a lot of what he says along the way. A good interview, I thought.

anyhooo....it really seems to me that the bigger problem you have here is that Dr. Paul would take the time to address an Alex Jone's listening audience. I frankly think that's quite elitist and snobbish of you, and I'm quite unimpressed by the critique as you may imagine.

cheers

no, the problem is NOT that ron paul would take the time to reach out to alex jone's misguided followers, it is the fact that ron paul appears to share the opinoins of alex jones and his misguided followers.

as for the fox anchor, she is asking him questions based on his statements. if that type of questioning bothers you or ron paul, it says a lot.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

....no, the problem is NOT that ron paul would take the time to reach out to alex jone's misguided followers, it is the fact that ron paul appears to share the opinoins of alex jones and his misguided followers..

you're just trying to make too big a deal of all of this.

What exactly is Ron Paul's recourse for everything discussed on the Alex Jone's shows???

A limited federal government which is obedient to the Constitution.

my-oh-my...he's really going out on a limb there....

[Mavdog]

you know, if ron paul had stayed on course with a message of a ltd federal government which is obedient to the Constitution, we wouldn't be discussing how he went down the path that he did.

but...

he didn't. he joined in with excitement.

that shouldn't be ignored, nor swept under the rug.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you know, if ron paul had stayed on course with a message of a ltd federal government which is obedient to the Constitution, we wouldn't be discussing how he went down the path that he did.

but...

he didn't. he joined in with excitement.

that shouldn't be ignored, nor swept under the rug.

here ya go, md....Tom Tancredo on the prospects of a North American Union:

I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it.

why don't you go apeshite over at the Tom Tancredo for Prez thread for awhile?

Let's just agree for argument's sake that the concerns about a North American Union expressed by a variety of people are not valid concerns....what then shall we do? in my opinon what we should do (oddly enough) if the concerns are not valid is pretty much precisely the same things we should do if the concerns are valid...that is restrict the federal government to the Constitution...

(this is true unless of course you agree that we should make Canada and Mexico the 51st and 52nd states, in which case you're probably just a tri-lateral commission plant).....

seriously....I seriously don't see why you're getting your panties into such a wad over all this.

....

actually, Tancredo makes a pretty interesting point when he says that "[Bush] is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea."
The notion that the US is an idea, not a sovereign country with political boundaries, but an idea, is floated about quite abit and it's always bothered me....

anyhoo....

Ron Paul for President of the NAU.

Cheers

[alexamenos]

nice little story on paul on channel 4 in big d....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP9-ZG7wsdk

money quote: "Ron Paul's campaign is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore."

[alexamenos]

good interview with Joe Scarborough...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oESkqd1i3IU

money quote: in the end Joe says something to the effect of "lot's of GOP wannabees want to take the mantle of Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul is clearly the man on economic issues."

[alexamenos]

I normally don't watch presidential debates because they're not debates at all but rather a series of short and unsubstantial cliche ridden stump speeches.

Sadly, for me at least, an actual debate between Huckabee and Paul did break out briefly during last night's New Hampshire *debate*.....kinda wish I'd watched the thing....

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...ke_huckab.html

[alexamenos]

the aforementioned exchange

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E

I don't agree with Huckabee's course of action but I actually think that Huck takes this exchange.

Rep. Paul is partially (and importantly) wrong when he says that the neo-cons, not the US people, took us to war in Iraq. The neo-cons may have been (may, as in plausibly but not necessarily) the coniving liars who led us down the wrong path, but the people went goose-stepping along quite happily.

still, whatever position one takes it is quite encouraging to see some honest exchanges like this as opposed to the triangulating politico-stump speaking that normally goes on during this snooze fests.

[DevinFuture]

Rep. Paul is partially (and importantly) wrong when he says that the neo-cons, not the US people, took us to war in Iraq. The neo-cons may have been (may, as in plausibly but not necessarily) the coniving liars who led us down the wrong path, but the people went goose-stepping along quite happily.

He may have overstated the case, but I think he's right to some degree. It's important to remember that plenty of Americans were in the streets protesting this war as wrong, even before it started. Also, if the neo-cons hadn't done the lying, or if the allegedly liberal media hadn't goose-stepped behind the administration, the public might not have been as happily along for the ride form the get go.

still, whatever position one takes it is quite encouraging to see some honest exchanges like this as opposed to the triangulating politico-stump speaking that normally goes on during this snooze fests.

Completely agree.

[alexamenos]

a rather concise and telling summary of the last debate and the campaigning thus for over at National Review Online --> link.

[alexamenos]

an interesting study in contrasts at the Chicago Daily Observer:

.....Tom Roeser, under the heading of "Appalling and Appealing", says that Ron Paul appeals not to conservatives but to:

a sweaty group of boisterous, screaming, jumping up and down in place, obese youth (obviously from hours spent huddled before computers), shaggy, unkempt, hirsute, noisy, obstreperous, rambunctious and raucous. And that’s before we consider the male contingent.

That's the "appalling" part. Under the "appealing" part of the essay he compares Paul to Hitler and a campaign stop to a Hitler Youth rally.

....and then there's the followup editorial by the paper's publisher, Jon Powers:

Sometime the more radical idea is full of common sense, yet political inertia has convinced us such issues as taxation, education, and foreign policy are best served by the status quo, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[alexamenos]

Dr. P is doing better than I ever expected -- when I started this thread in January I thought he'd be done by mid-February....really amazed to see him not only lingering on, but in it for the long haul.....

Exclusive: Paul Tops $5 Mil For Quarter
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, an anti-war libertarian making his second run at the White House, will report having raised $5.08 million in the third quarter. The number, which rivals those of John McCain and Bill Richardson, was boosted thanks to last-minute online fundraising that brought in more than $1.2 million in the last week of the quarter alone.

Paul has drawn himself in sharp contrast with the rest of the field, often engaging in loud exchanges with fellow candidates over his vehement opposition to the war in Iraq. His campaign has been marked by frugal spending and a surprisingly strong online fan base; he routinely wins online straw polls after debates.

This is the second quarter in a row Paul has shown fundraising strength. Last quarter he reported having more cash on hand than McCain, a sidebar that contributed to stories of McCain's collapse.

Whether Paul will be a major factor in the GOP nominating contests remains to be seen, but his money totals - it is likely he will have outraised several second-tier Republicans and Democrats combined - mean he will be in for the long haul. Paul's campaign announced they will begin running television spots earlier this week.

Particularly interesting, he's in the same league as Freddy Establishment Frontrunner Thompson ($8 million), he's practically out-doing "first tier realistic shot at the nominee" McCain ($5 million, but much more of a cost eating campaign), and he raised five-times as much as "best of the rest" Huckabee last quarter....

[rabbitproof]

I'm starting to get interested in this guy.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I'm starting to get interested in this guy.

me too....

I mean I'm starting to get interested him as a candidate and not just interested in him as a really interesting (but hopelessly Quixote) contrast to the establishment candidates.

In the beginning I put his odds at less than one in a million, and I've since revised those odds to something like one in a quarter million....

I think I underestimated just how soft the support for the other Repub candidates would be....I mean I thought the support of Rudy McRomneyThompson would be quite soft, but that soft support now looks more likely grudging and embarrassed and almost non-existent support.

Support for Giuliani and Romney is real soft, practically a grudging sort of "well if not the lisping transvestite or the Mormon John Kerry, then who?" kiind of soft. McCain is done, his corpse has just yet to start stinking. As far as Freddy T., his support I believe has long since peaked.

I saw somewhere that Romney raised something like $18 million this most recent quarter (and fund raising is the barometer #1 of a candidates viability, not national, scientific polling)....turns out, tho, that $8.5 million of that was a loan from Mitt Romney, Inc. to the Mitt Romney for President fund....

and the other $10.5 million to Romney came from something like "just more than 100,000" donors...by way of comparison, I've seen and heard reports that the average donation size of Paul's $5 million was $40....it takes 125,000 people to get to $5 million at $40 a pop....that databank of 125,000 donors is on par with the absolute size of any of the top of the top tier candidates from either party. that's quite astounding.

this group of Paul donors will likely become more enthusiastic (and generous) if Paul's candidacy grows in viability, hence an average donation of something like $100 is not out of the question down the line -- quite plausibly, Paul could raise as much as $10-$15 million in each of the next two quarters.

We could be talking about a serious top tier type war chest going into the very libertarian New Hampshire primary, with Paul facing a group of unspiring yet interchangable candidates.

i'm raising Paul's odds to one in one-hundred thousand.....

[rabbitproof]

agree. he's not quite a dark horse candidate but it's getting there with the online fund raising push and the snowball potential. his war stance will be the deal breaker or maker - does it turn too much republicans off? (too bad).

i think his best shot will be as an independent slash perot type position rather than as a republican rep, which, ultimately, will probably boon the democratic candidate in the end.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

agree. he's not quite a dark horse candidate but it's getting there with the online fund raising push and the snowball potential. his war stance will be the deal breaker or maker - does it turn too much republicans off? (too bad).

i think his stance on the iraq war is more likely deal breaker, and this is why I don't give him any realistic shot at the republican nomination.

Too many republicans (especially too many powerful republicans) can accept explosive government spending, they can accept LBJesque social policies, and they can even accept Senators who troll public restrooms for gay sex, but they can't accept an anti-Iraq war position.

i think his best shot will be as an independent slash perot type position rather than as a republican rep, which, ultimately, will probably boon the democratic candidate in the end.

i don't think we can say this with any certainty just yet....there are a lot of "hold my nose and vote for Hill" types out there, and a 3rd party Paul might pull them over the ledge.....

moreover, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that Paul will run as a 3rd party inevitably, but I'm not so positive about this either.

(and for the record, I think godzillary will win regardless of whether Paul runs as a 3rd.....)

cheers

[Arne]

Taken from www.ronpaulnation.com...

"Ron Paul - Tonight Show - 10/30

Breaking news, big scoop. Ron Paul will be a guest on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Friday, October 30, 2007. Mark your calendars, spread the word, and tune in. The momentum builds by the day…"

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Arne

Taken from www.ronpaulnation.com...

"Ron Paul - Tonight Show - 10/30

Breaking news, big scoop. Ron Paul will be a guest on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on Friday, October 30, 2007. Mark your calendars, spread the word, and tune in. The momentum builds by the day…"

did you watch the cnbc clip (the second video in the above link)?

pretty funny......Joe Scarborough makes a comment something to the effect of "the rest of Congress thinks he is crazy."

Given the present state of the "rest of Congress", I'd say that is about as ringing of an endorsement as one can get.

[Arne]

Yeah I watched that one, pretty cool. I like Scarborough a lot.

[Arne]

Ron Paul on Voting Against Congressional Gold Medal for the Dalai Lama
Posted on October 17, 2007
by Gerald Prante and Joseph Henchman

Today, the Dalai Lama was awarded a congressional gold medal from the United States. But before the House of Representatives approved the $30,000 funding for the award on September 13th, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), known as Dr. No for his typical opposition to government spending programs that he does see authorized by the Constitution, had this to say as the lone voice opposing the measure. Enjoy.

Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.

I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I’m sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.

We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal–if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved.


__________________________
Right he is.

[Arne]

Message from Ron Paul (10/18/07)

The other day, my old sparring partner in so many Congressional committee hearings, Alan Greenspan, was on the Fox Business Channel. After Alan promoted his new book, the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.

You and I are reopening a whole host of questions that the establishment thought it had closed off forever: on war, on taxes and spending, on inflation and gold, and on the rule of law and our Constitution.

A few years ago, I asked a famous conservative columnist a question. What did he think about the prospects for a restored Robert Taft wing of the Republican party? He thought I was joking. As you know, I was not.

After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too. It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only "top-tier candidates."

Some of the opposition claims that I am not a "real Republican," whereas I am the only one in the race. And our campaign is registering new Republican voters by the boatload. None of my opponents is doing anything approaching that.

Of course, they pooh-pooh our success. "He's just registering Democrats and Independents and people who have never voted before." Well, yes. It's called growth. We are laying the groundwork for the primaries.

All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.

The crowd cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary.

But time is getting short. We must do massive radio and TV advertising, open many small offices (three in just South Carolina the other day), staff them, pay all the bills, and turn out our vote with massive organizational and phone-bank efforts.

As you know, the blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers. And contributions are the key to more attention, and to our being able to do the actual work of victory. Good news: our recent green-eyeshade analysis of all the candidates' net finances, which got so much press attention, shows our campaign as one of only three in the top-tier.

But we must keep moving up, and the Iowa caucuses are now on January 3rd. The New Hampshire primary may be in early December!

As always, everything depends on you. Please, make the most generous donation you can https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ as soon as you can. I need your help so badly.

The other day, an 8-year-old boy handed me a small white envelope. It contained the $4.00 he had saved from his allowance, as a donation to our campaign. I can't tell you how seriously I take my responsibility to work hard, and spend frugally and effectively, to be worthy of his support, and yours.

Please help me keep working, even harder and more effectively, for all we believe in. Without you, I'd have to pack it in. Donate now https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/ . We have more than an election to win. We have a country to save.

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

[Arne]

Link to a video of his press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t5OY...om/fundraising

Text and data taken from his website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Data in PDF format:http://www.ronpaul2008.com/files/Q3P...CashOnHand.pdf

- Both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani spent more than they raised in Q3. Romney brought in $9.9M and spent $21.3M. Giuliani raised $11.6M and spent $13.3M.

- Mitt Romney often cites his executive prowess as a key credential in his White House bid. However, if the race ended today, his organization would have lost over $8M.

- John McCain is in the red. McCain claims to have $3.4M in the bank, but due to debt and money earmarked only for the general election, he is in the hole $53,446 for the primary.

- Dr. Paul outraised Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback’s combined efforts by 61 percent. Dr. Paul’s $5.4M is 8.5 times greater than all of their cash on hand combined.

- Dr. Paul is the only top-tier candidate who carried no debt into the fourth quarter.

- Because of outstanding debt of $678,432, Fred Thompson actually has $6,443,312, less than $1M more than Dr. Paul.

- Rudy Giuliani has $11,428,979 available for the primary. While impressive, this is far from insurmountable for Dr. Paul and Mr. Thompson.

- Dr. Paul stands alone in fundraising growth, trajectory and organizational health. Much work remains ahead, but the Paul campaign is in a strong position to make a run down the stretch toward the nomination.

[Mavdog]

so "Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards", but ron paul is ok with voting to spend $8 Million to promote shrimp marketing?

sems to me that ron paul wants it both ways, the "Dr. No" image to federal spending while he actively participates in earmark spending requests (many of the sort he calls "unconstitutional") himself.

list of paul earmark requests

[Usually Lurkin]

you know what would be cool?

A Ron Paul thread.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you know what would be cool?

A Ron Paul thread.

You know what, if dude can post his neo con propaganda in different threads, I can do the same with articles about Ron Paul.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so "Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards", but ron paul is ok with voting to spend $8 Million to promote shrimp marketing?

sems to me that ron paul wants it both ways, the "Dr. No" image to federal spending while he actively participates in earmark spending requests (many of the sort he calls "unconstitutional") himself.

list of paul earmark requests

for what it's worth.....requesting that funds be earmarked in a spending bill and voting for a spending bill are two very different things.

It's quite possible, and probably probable, that in these cases Dr. Paul has requested that funds be earmarked to his district in a spending bill be in one act, and then turned around and voted against the spending bill in the 2nd act.

if that's the height of his corruption, I'm pretty cool with that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

for what it's worth.....requesting that funds be earmarked in a spending bill and voting for a spending bill are two very different things.[/QUOTE

It's quite possible, and probably probable, that in these cases Dr. Paul has requested that funds be earmarked to his district in a spending bill be in one act, and then turned around and voted against the spending bill in the 2nd act.

if that's the height of his corruption, I'm pretty cool with that.

that isn't "corruption" by any means.

it's splitting some hairs tho

are you saying he asks for the earmarks and then he votes to deny them?

kinda schitzoid if you ask me.

wouldn't it be more honest to not ask for them if he isn't going to vote for them? and to not put them in spending bills if he is going on a crusade against the very same practice?

[Arne]

As far as I understand it, Ron Paul only wants to have his district and the people who voted for him to have at least some profit from the overtaxing that is going on. If he would not make any of these funding requests the people in his district would suffer more than the rest of America..

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are you saying he asks for the earmarks and then he votes to deny them?

yes

kinda schitzoid if you ask me.

i'd call it politically shrewd and very pragmatic on his part.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

As far as I understand it, Ron Paul only wants to have his district and the people who voted for him to have at least some profit from the overtaxing that is going on. If he would not make any of these funding requests the people in his district would suffer more than the rest of America..

that does make a good soundbite.

it seems to me that one either does what they preach or they don't.

did his constituency "suffer" due to insufficient shrimp marketing? does the rest of america
"suffer" from too little shrimp marketing?

imho we suffer from too much marketing in general, do we need to have taxmoney spent for more of it?

apparently ron paul believes the answer is yes...

[Arne]

The money is taken from the tax-payer anyways, so why don't use it for something he thinks needs to be done? That's only pragmatic and rational.

When he's in congress, however, he's vetoing anything that would increase taxes. That's not hypocrite. I think it's pretty cheap of you to nit-pick like that. It's very reasonable to act like Ron does. You, however are only searching for details in order to discredit him.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

The money is taken from the tax-payer anyways, so why don't use it for something he thinks needs to be done? That's only pragmatic and rational.

When he's in congress, however, he's vetoing anything that would increase taxes. That's not hypocrite. I think it's pretty cheap of you to nit-pick like that. It's very reasonable to act like Ron does. You, however are only searching for details in order to discredit him.

this may be news to you, but our federal spending is way more than our federal receipts. part of the problem are "earmarks" such as what ron paul, and most congressmen, put into the bills.

so if these earmarks aren't proposed, the money isn't allocated, and maybe, perhaps, our federal spending would be less, maybe even back to the balanced budgets of the 90's.

remember those?

so the fact that paul does put in earmarks is a) not conforming to his stated belief of only spending on those "constitutional" items he mentioned in the dalai lama speeech, and b) not contributiong to the goal of no deficits.

it's not "cheap" to expose these facts. they're his record.

[alexamenos]

great moments in US history

and great moments in political advertising

[Mavdog]

"king of awesome"????

cmon, with as interesting a video as she made there's gotta be a better phrase than THAT!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"king of awesome"????

cmon, with as interesting a video as she made there's gotta be a better phrase than THAT!

certainly, *king of awesome* is a lame phrase....but "the Paul Revere midnight run" thing was genius, so I cut her some slack.