Ron Paul Raises Over 3.8 Million ON Monday

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Alex Jones, Nov 6, 2007.

  1. Alex Jones

    Alex Jones Guest

    Ron Paul raised over 3,800,000 dollars on Monday. His campaign HAS BROUGHT IN OVER 7 MILLION DOLLARS SINCE OCTOBER 1. VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!! <>
  2. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

    Sent my money in today.
  3. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    He is going to lose, but at least that money will be spread around to stimulated the economy.
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I personally don't think Ron's campaign was ever about winning to begin with. Let's face it, his name among the public is still very much unknown factor. I think the idea in the beginning and even now was to use the campaign and it's vocal platform to get a certain message out in the public arena of ideas and maybe, just maybe, enough force behind it to get a seat at the table so to speak. America is not ready for that much freedom and "if" Ron got elected and "if" Ron started dismantling gov't (he won't because he knows this too) that there would literally be riot and revolution in the street. We are all addicts of gov't and it will take years, decades and likely several generations to wean off just as it took the same to get hooked.

    As for Ron's internet campaign, look at Howard Dean who at least IMO was the first to use the internet as a campaign tool. I know al invented it but good ole Howard (God Bless him) showed the world how it could work. I was never a Dean supporter as he and I differ on public policy in a ton of areas but I did cheer his efforts as it really was a populace campaign early on outside the controls of the big corp. movers and shakers. Ultimately Dean failed so it seemed but did he? The Clinton machine and the DLC had to cave and give Dean a seat at the table (party chair) as they were smart enough to realize that Dean come 08' could in fact be a real player. Imagine Dean out in the democratic campaign now with the message he had in 04'? Yeap, Hill baby would be in trouble and they were smart enough to foresee that problem. Even though we disagree in many areas I was a big fan of Dean in 04' and very sad he caved in to filthy lucer and joined the neocon lites and his voice was silenced.

    As for Ron, what has surprised a whole lot of people including me is how his libertarian/Austrian economics message has clicked among the younger college set. Will it hold? Will it sustain over time? Or is this just a college fad to buck the system so to speak? Who knows. Iowa would be a tough sell for Ron because IMO this State is not out on the edges either way but pretty much likes moderation and for the most part the status quo. However New Hampshire may prove a rather interesting animal as those voters tend to have a different mindset. I mean, what State in the country has the balls to have on their license plate of their cars the State motto of "Live Free or Die!" This State was also choosen several years ago for a effort called the "Free State Project" the idea of getting 20k libertarians, if you will, to move to New Hampshire in order to begin a concerted effort to effect political change. Exactly where they are in that effort I don't know, I don't think it's much (couple of hundred maybe?), but the fact is this State was choosen out of the 50 for a reason and it wasn't because it had a hardened Federal gov't mindset. Facts point otherwise.

    Some experts are even starting to suggest that Ron could make a 4th and even a 3rd place showing and if that happens, the dynamics of this race and the exposure of Ron's message will change. At the same time the big guns will also come out full ablaze against Ron and there is weakness in his armor. Here's one example:

    Don't get me wrong, I like Ron and met him back in 1981' through my friendship with then Congressman Larry McDonald. He a very smart man but also very sincere and respectful. Most politicians are arrogant beasts (even Larry had his moments)who think God has bestowed them divine right to be King for a day. Ron never showed those type of personality traits that I could see.

    I do hope Ron places in the top 3 or 4 and I also hope and pray the Republican attack dogs of talk radio come after Ron with full force. This campaign IMO is a chance not to win the White House but rather a chance to seperate the wheat from the chaff and for true historical conservatives like the Goldwater era and before to realize the so-called Rockerfeller wing has won and maintained control of the republican party and that your choice is to follow the NeoConservative platform which is nothing more than a fiscal conservative Trotskyite movement (they really aren't fiscally responsible if you look deep) or a return to true conservative values moored in the beliefs of the individual expressed in the writiting and traditions of our founding fathers. It also IMO presents an opportunity for estranged Americans to discover one another and become a force.

    For years people made a choice in that they choose civil liberties and tended to vote democrat or choose economic and tended to vote republican. However across the spectrum they shared lots of common beliefs that tended to defy both parties but fear of the other tended to keep them in check. Ron may have tapped that divide but it's a time will tell kinda thing. Your choice in many repsects is the expression of freedom as written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence or the ideas of gov't expressed by FDR, LBJ, GW and in the near future Hillary and Newt.

    As I said, this campaign IMO is about making people think first and foremost rather than win an election. Besides, as I've said before, you want by-partisanship in Washington and in the Congress? You want the Congress to work hand in hand with lots of unnanimous votes on bills, amendments and legislation? Well here's you chance. Make Ron the next POTUS and you will see unparralelled by-partisianship never before seen in the annuals of American history as bothsides work at fever pitched pace to save their protected turf and monetary playground!

    I'm wkmac and I support this message!

    What freaking moron came up with the idea that political commercials for and by the candidate needed this tagline? Are we that damn stupid? I'm sad to say I think we are!
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  6. livinitup

    livinitup New Member

    I think there is a chance for him to win. I can say he is the only politician to ever gain my trust. I have even registered as a republican so I could vote in the primaries. His main problem is getting media exposure. However, if he continues to raise money like on Monday the media will cover him because money equals power in politics. By the way it was $4.3 million in 24 hrs. Dates to watch for are November 11th, December 16th and Christmas.

    Vote for Ron Paul.

    Visit to donate to his campaign.
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Ron sees the campaign as the means to get out a message.

    I've heard mention that Ron is not getting exposure in the campaign but in fairness to the media Ron is by no means a front runner either. Sure you can point to internet polls but those are not scientific by any stretch either. Now what is interesting is the dollar contributions and these aren't coming from mega lobby groups either. The last thing they want is a Ron Paul in the WH.

    That said, if you take the premise that in general the media is "so-called" liberal and that they are also anti-war and to some degree by default anti-business in the sense of international globalism then at some point if Ron can score a surprise in Iowa or NH, then some of this may change. Obviously Ron is anti-Iraq (as I understand it he voted to go into Afghanistan) and as it pertains to gov't policy manipulation by big business, he's opposed to that as well. On the liberal side where it comes to civil liberties he tends to fall right there with it although some have concern of his anti-abortion views and his wanting to control immigration which runs more to the so-called conservative side.

    I think Ron will become an even bigger media darling if it can be seen that he can play the finger in the eye of the neo-conservative thinking that directs the policy of the republican party and the potential of exploiting that to affect a positive for the democrats. What is potentially dangerous is if the media does play that game and the Ron Paul message as it already has begins to resonate with folks on bothsides of the isle who are more of an independent thought and open to other ideas. As things do get worse and the 2 parties runnign the show continue to show no effort to bring things into order, then the Ron Paul message could begin to experience upward movement and the dynamics of this thing could turn on it's head.

    Ron knows he's limited and a Congress still controlled by the 2 parties will block his every move but a lot of policy came into being by virtue of Presidential Executive Order and any sitting President can nullify any past executive order at will. This is where Ron can be the most effective and the beauty of this is that it will force Congress to take these issue on themselves and pass them into law via the proper Article 1 processes and then the beauty is the public debate of these issues and whether they stand the test of the Constitution itself. Ron will IMO kill executive prviledge that has been abused for years by past Presidents and return our country back towards a republic of representative democracy as the founding fathers set out.
  8. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

    All I know is that I'm through voting for the lesser of two evils.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Good for you vols! If about 15% to 20% of the voting public would take that stand and just vote anywhere else but republican or democrat, it's an excepted belief that electoral dynamics would change overnight. A revolution without a shot fired or a drop of blood spilt.

    It's also why the 2 parties are pushing harder and harder to broaden the number of voters and to get them out and voting because there is a growing base of discontent out there that is looking seriously at alternatives past the republicans and democrats. Perot, love him or hate him, shook up the status quo when he ran in 92' and denied the repubs and demos a clear majority in the general election based on popular vote. Had Perot carried a couple of States to earn their electoral college votes then I would contend America would be very different today. Both democrats and republicans spew hatred to the electoral college when it suits them but make no mistake, they both know it saved their game back in 1992' when Perot was a real threat.

    Imagine a Perot type personality in the close elections of 2000' or 2004' where the popular vote was so close. Throw a Perot like personality in there and then how does the electoral college breakout. Who would have really won Florida for example in 2000' had Perot been around like in 92'? Or what about Ohio in 04'? Would it have gone the other way or would the declared winner now have enough votes that no question at all could be raised? I don't have an answer either way, but I'd love to watch those fireworks.

    That 50% marker is all important and never doubt that at all. I saw a libertarian in 1992' take 3% of the general election vote in Georgia in the US Senate race that denied a clear majority for either the democrat or republican. A runoff was held but after the election the state Legislature wih a overwhelming democrat majority led a fight to amend the State election laws that would no longer require a clear majority but the general election winner with the most votes takes it all and also to change election laws making it very hard for 3rd party efforts because now the general election does favor more for a 3rd party than the old system. It was afterwards that they changed to a "highest vote getter" wins that they realize the pandora's box they had opened so they called a special legislative session in order to try and close that box by restricting ballot access for 3rd party efforts. And make no mistake, the republicans, what few there were, marched lock step with them the whole way even though they benefitted from the election outcome that forced this change. They saw the threat as well and they wanted to protect their turf in case they ever became the majority and they have now in this state!

    I learned firsthand just how afraid the 2 parties are of 3rd party efforts and what a threat they are to the stranglehold they have on American politics and public policy. The more people support maverick or 3rd party efforts, the more the 2 parties are forced to make room at the table so they can at least feed them from the scraps and hopefully keep them in check. Look what they did for the maverick Howard Dean and you can take it to the bank that the Clinton machine was none to happy about that as well as the DLC.

    It's these scraps is how you make inroads into their fortress and start destroying the base from within. The problem is keeping to the plan once they have you inside, sitting beside the warm fire and drinking lots of their fine wine. Ask Howard about that!

  10. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

    Why would you say that? You sound like my wife. :happy-very:

    Up to over 9.1 million dollars now.:peaceful:
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2007
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    As I responded to Satdrivers "he won't win comment, I said in post #4

    It would seem that the Washington Post in yesterday's Sunday paper is figuring this out with a lot more Washington insiders to boot.

    What scares them is not the winning part but the simple fact that people are starting to wake up and ask of themselves very good questions. They know Ron is about powerless if he wins the WH because the same powers that be run the Congress.

    It's the idea of individual thinking and really questioning all they are told that scares them to death. Ron doesn't have to win to really win and that's the beauty of all of this. It's pure revolution on an intellectual front where no shots are fired and not the first drop of blood is spilt. It's that 10% to 20% I spoke of that they mention in the article that is what really scares them.

    The other amazing bit about Ron is his diversity of supporters. They run the gammit but are realizing that they in reality share a whole lot in common. This movement is bringing together people who in the past shared little if any common ground and in fact were mortal political enemies of one another. The gaycouple who want the States to have the power to determine for themselves what is marriage are now in political alliance with the religious Pro-Lifer who wants his community to be able to say no to abortions contary to federal edict. What happens if this political alliance works and sticks?

    That's really what scares them!
  12. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Question....Can and will Ron Paul change his party affilliation to Independent after losing his bid in the Republican primaries ?

    And if he does follow thru with the above mention, how much will it further lessen the chances of a Republican victory in the main event as all these registerd Republicans cast their vote for Ron paul instead of the Rep' frontrunner?
  13. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

  14. livinitup

    livinitup New Member

    If Ron Paul won the White House he would have the power of veto. I'd bet that if he becomes president, he will go down in history as the president that vetoed more bills than any other in history.

    He could also call a press conference to expose the members of Congress that are trying to pass laws that benefit special interests instead of their constituents. If both parties tried to gang up on him, I'm sure that the people would be outraged. Hopefully that would get more honest people to run for congress.

  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Good question D but in this day and age I don't have the answer. Ron has insisted he won't go independent in the General election but we've seen all to often before. It will be a big test for Ron if that scenario comes into play.

    As to your 2nd part, Ron has drawn a following and to what extent that following is, we won't truly know until the primaries start coming into play. You can bet if the party number crunchers see Ron getting a much higher % than previous thought and then the actual count of those numbers show a good count and the indication that thse numbers will go elsewhere in the general election, I'm not saying Ron gets a VP offer but he may be allowed a more visible advisory role which IMO he should decline. As soon as the election is over and not needed, he will be cast aside.

    As the big guns really haven't attacked Ron yet. He's seen almost in a carnival sideshow fashion in this whole process but if he scores top 5 and especially top 3, I predict the Ron Paul Camp will see a Neo-Con D-Day invasion. The Brothel owner endorsement for example will be nothing as the "Forces of God" comes out of the woodwork with all kinds of unsavory characters who have made public comment favorable to Ron. At least, that's what I think will happen.

    The real differences between the republican and democrats is so shallow that a Ron Paul WH would so threaten the status quo that in their world you'd think both parties had become one as they would override Ron's vetos like a champion hotdog eater wolf's down a pot of Nathan's hotdogs. Party politics and agendas would fall by the wayside as we watch those loyal to the system, hardcore so-called liberal democrats walking hand in hand with hardcore so-called conservative republicans who in almost unnamious stride override the President time and time again. I'd love to see it happen just so every American could once and forall see Washington for what it really is.

    Where Ron can be effective is dismantling the gov't via the pen of Executive Orders. Much of gov't today is more a result of executive orders from the President than anything else. Executive Orders have been around since 1789' and are justified in law with small vague sections in the US Constitution in Art II, Sec. 1 Clause 1 and Art. II, Sec. 3 and I think Clause 3 or 4. It's been a while so not positive on the exact clauses but if you look and can't see it, look for the words "Executive Power" (sec. 1) and then "careful execution of the law" (sec. 3) and there is where the power derives from.

    There is a process for all of this from the 1946 Adminstrative Procedures Act found in Title 5 starting in Sec. 500 but Ron can kill a lot of gov't with the stroke of his pen as it was a former President's pen who begin it. If you (or especially Diesel) are freaking that my anarcho-capitalist utopia will come into full view, I wouldn't freak just yet. What I suspect would happen is the Congress will take up these matters as it should have been in the first place in the Constitutional mandate of legislative process and the direct voice of the people instead of an old means that in earlier times we would have called it "a decree of the King!"

    This puts the Congressman and Senator on record on any matter for the voter to see instead of sneaking in federal power via the executive order and the wheelng and dealing that goes on around it. President writes a favorable executive order on a matter to some group of Congressman that keeps them off the record for their voters not to be seen and thus expose their true self and then in return those same Congressman pass something for the President. Ever wonder why unrelated nonsense get's added to bills in Congress? If you think it doesn't work like that you have a lot to learn about Rome..uh I mean Washington.

    Many in Congress decry what they call "the abuse of Executive powers" and they are correct to do so. However, they only decry this when it's not their guy doing the absuing. The other side right now defends the abuse only because it's their guy but 10 years ago the shoe was on the other foot. If you doubt me, go back and look at the record itself and look equally at bothsides. You'd think they swapped scripts in a play and now it;s the 2nd act and the audience is totally confused. That was the idea in the first place. The more confused you are, the more you need them and their cohorts to tell you what to believe and what is going down via their intrepretation of the Federal Book of Revelations.

    I've not voted republican or democrat on the Federal level in well over 20 years and I'm quite proud of that. Ron Paul isn't perfect by any stretch but I have to admit I'm having a tough time on this one. I've not decided yet to vote for Ron and break my record but it is refreshing the conversation on the role of gov't in our lives that he's bringing to the table. I doubt he'll win either but he has opened the eyes of many people who were once political adversaries to each other and they realize they have a lot more in common than they once thought. This IMO is the real threat of a Ron Paul Presidental run and may end up being the real legacy that comes from this.

    God Bless Ron and especially God Bless all you Ron Paul supporters. Hey Sean Hannity, there are your "GREAT AMERICANS"

  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    What's ironic about the Paul video is it's getting exposure via a non Ron Paul supporter and there were elements of Ron's point the poster admitted were valid. People are freaking that Ron is saying "drugs for everyone" but in fact what Ron is preaching are the 9th and 10th amenedments of the Constitution. If States want to outlaw marijuana as they had done prior to the 1938' Marijuana Tax Act, then fine but if States also want to allow some or any use of the product then it's a matter for the local people to decide. Same for abortion or same sex marriage.

    Why is it that me and my neighbors in the South can dictate via Federal control how the people in the north or west live and do things and visa versa. Who decided one day that God had died and we were now God to dictate to other communities of people just how they should live? That is at the heart of this whole matter IMO.

    As for Mitt, isn't it ironic and IMO telling when a Protestant Televangelist who is very anti-abortion sides with a Pro-Choice Catholic because in his mind the other choice is a Mormon. Pat Robertson and his ilk believe that Mormon's are some kind of cult (a wide general belief among fundamentalist Protestants) and therefore he went over to Rudy. The real question is, what did Rudy promise Pat?

    To quote the great Monty hall:
    all together now

  17. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Too bad the blimp has more history and more dynamic personality than Mr. Paul.

    Thank goodness Mrs. Paul still makes those great fish sticks !! She'll support him.
  19. govols019

    govols019 You smell that?

    That doesn't even make sense.
  20. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    HISTORY OF THE BLIMP[​IMG] Since 1925, Goodyear blimps have adorned the skies as very visible corporate icons of the world's largest tire and rubber company that began operations in 1898.

    In the 1930s, Goodyear built two giant rigid airships for the Navy. Within their envelopes, they had internal metal frames used to maintain their shape. The aircraft measured more than two football fields in length and needed 6.5 million cubic feet of helium to become airborne at its gross weight of more than 400,000 pounds.

    The USS Akron and USS Macon were designed as aerial aircraft carriers and could launch and retrieve specially equipped planes while in flight. Although a good concept, sadly, both airships were lost in storms within two years of going into service, effectively ending the era of the rigid airships.

    In the 1940s and 1950s, Goodyear built a series of large surveillance airships used to protect merchant fleets along the coast. They also served as early warning radar stations. Some of these airships could stay aloft for more than a week at a time. In fact, an airship of this type still holds the flying endurance record of 11 days in flight. The airship was a Goodyear-built ZPG-2 called the Snow Bird. In March 1957, it flew from Weymouth, Massachusetts, to Europe and Africa and back to Key West, Florida, without refueling or landing. Today, Goodyear operates three airships in the United States -- the Spirit of America, based in the City of Carson, California; the Spirit of Goodyear, based in Akron, Ohio; and the Spirit of Innovation, based in Pompano Beach, Florida.
    Over the years, there has been a lot of speculation about the derivation of the term blimp.
    The most plausible explanation, experts claim, is that the name originated with Lt. A.D. Cunningham of Great Britain's Royal Navy Air Service. He commanded the air station at Capel, England, during World War I.
    As the story goes, while conducting a weekly inspection of the station, Cunningham playfully flipped his thumb at the envelope of His Majesty's Airship SS-12 and an odd noise echoed off the taut fabric.
    "Blimp!" he cried out humorously, imitating the sound. As they say the rest is history.