Posted on 07/19/2007 8:31:22 AM PDT by uxbridge
Notice that "war veterans" is included. I seriously doubt many of the active duty troops contribute much to Ron Paul.
I'm dizzy there is so much spinning of this questionable disclosure. BTW, how many more times is this article going to be posted on FR?
I wonder if Dennis Kucinich will take a money order?
Yes he does :)
The Spin Factor ^ | July 18, 2007
You sure?
Here's a representative, not inclusive, showing of Paul's total from the FEC web site by employer for the 2nd qtr...... There are others listed such as DOD, Veterans affairs, etc so not sure what this group is including in their totals. Many maybe employers of the US Army and not members of the military, per se.
Pauls contributors by Employer
US AIR FORCE 1,000.00 US ARMY 6,375.00 US NAVY 6,265.52 US NAVY CIVILIAN 500.00 USAF 1,000.00 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY2,300.00 USMC 500.00 USN 1,000.00
You people are rediculous. Ron Paul is the candidate FURTHEST away from liberals than any of the other GOP candidates and probably the only candidate who would actually decrease government’s size. The media does not like Paul obviously. So what do they do? Focus on the one subject that can hurt him. I can stomach having to pull out of Iraq early to get everything fixed at home. Your attacks and accusations are pathetic.
Then you're not too bright.
Oh my God, you mean we should govern this country according to what does/doesn't make terrorist organizations angry?
There are a lot of countries on AQ's list, are they all wrong too, and AQ is right? I guess according to you the people killed in Spain, UK, Beslan, Bali, etc, all should have listened to AQ too.
Ron Paul on top at 49.5%
Ron Paul 32.94%
Besides the fact that this looks like RP is going down with regard to this statistic, what does this statistic even MEAN?
I followed the links but don’t see what is a percentage of what.
If A/B = 49.5% (or 32.94%, I guess it depends on the day), then:
what does A represent?
what does B represent?
If you’re going to talk about contributions from a certain group, why not just talk about how much $$$ that group gave, rather than give us some undefined PERCENTAGE?
Or at least tell us in plain words what is a percentage of what.
Herr David Duke is competing with Cindy (Mother Moonbat) Sheehan, Dennis Cuckoocinich, Sean Penn, Hanoi Jane and a handful of other “diverse” visionaries to be running mates of El Ron paleoPaulie on the Zoo Parade ticket.
Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I know three military types very well: Two vets, one USMC and one Green Beret, and one active USAF. To a man, they are all under the age of 35 and they are all supporting Ron Paul.
For the record, I am not supporting Ron Paul. I am backing Fred Thompson, though I can see why Paul has some hard core supporters - certainly on economics and invididual freedoms.
LLS
This at best is a showing of military donations to the various candidates collected by a website called Phreadom [http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-is-most-financially-military.html] and spread about the net. They offer no detail of the groups they classify as military, the amount of each group, whether they are actual military members or civilian employees, etc.
The 49% was his supposed standing among GOP candidates and the 32% is his supposed standing among all candidates including the Democratic nominees.
Already debunked:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1866778/posts
49% of WHAT???
The total money contributed by military personnel? Is that what they are saying? If so, why don’t they just say it?
Or is it the percentage of RP’s money that comes from military contributions? And if it’s that, why don’t they just say that?
Why the obfuscations?
The specific policy in question is Bush I's refusal to allow Sadaam to annex Kuwait and likely take over the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula. We should have deposed Sadaam in 91, but since we didn't, troops were needed to secure Saudi Arabia. I support that policy irrespective of the increased risk of terror. Sadaam monopolizing the world's oil would have had consequences as well.
The Republican party ignores Libertarian/blue collar voters at their own peril. Paul is building a unique coalition of these folks, people who are thoroughly disgusted with big socialist government, the insane war on drugs, endless foreign aid boondoggles, and the erosion of our sovereignty.
Although he may not win, Paul's message will be heard loud and clear by the establishment, and he'll go deep in the primaries.
THIS — is certainly spin.
Who’s the joker?
Our military personnel are not stupid...
He didn't say it, Giuliani and the establishment said it.
I know it's hard for you Paul bashers that you cannot refute Paul's record, but taking his words out of context and smearing him? This is what liberals do.
I hate to say it, but traditionally, military people don’t contribute a lot to campaigns. One third of military contributions may be a couple of hundred dollars. Hope the Kool Aid drinkers for Paul don’t get too excited about this.
This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services. The “veteran” column was derived by looking for “retired ______,” “______ retired,” or anything containing the word veteran, with the exception of Veterans’ Affairs (or the like).---posted by John Farson, on a related threadGiven that Paul supporters have so avidly spammed online polls for their candidate and the fact that Paul had 0% in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last week, I smell something fishy. Could it be that Paul supporters are just pretending to be in the service when they send in their donations?
Thank you, John.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.