Posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:22 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2007/08/three-ideas-for-ron-paul-for-president.html
1) Leverage your Internet power by setting up a direct competitor to freerepublic.com — the dominant “conservative” website whose patron, Jim Robinson, is openly hostile to Ron Paul.
As a matter of fact, there is...
Someone claiming to be pro-life but refusing to protect life, in the womb, in Iraq or in Manhattan, is MUCH worse.
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Don’t you wish you could just wring some necks and make these damn conservatives support liberal-tarian Ron Paul!!!
I hate when those conservatives think for themselves and insist on sticking to the facts. It ruins all the good nutcase campaigns!
It's beyond pathetic and it's something that'll make even DUers blush. Anyone who implies that Paul is pro-abortion should have their posting privileges suspended, period.
It's not just conservatives. It's a whole cross-section of Americans. Traditional liberals, old-line conservatives, libertarians, populists, etc. You can piss and moan all you want but Paul has the biggest grassroot support out of all the candidates.
I hate when those conservatives think for themselves and insist on sticking to the facts. It ruins all the good nutcase campaigns!
Like I said, you and the elites are just mad that ordinary folks won't kiss the rings of the establishment. Paul has support, and the GOP ignores him at their own peril.
Topic - Who disagrees with Paul that life beings at conception?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=12195
cujothekitten ** Moderator **
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 817
I disagree with him but it’s not a big issue for me. I feel that he’ll make the morning after pill and plan B more available so abortion isn’t really necessary in my view... unless the mother’s life is at risk of course.
Nobody said “pro-abortion”. Just not pro-life... in the womb, in Iraq or in America...
Topic - How to rob the coffers of other canidates. (sic)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=14811
Everyone has seen the Google ads on the right side of the page when you conduct a search for a candidate. All of the sponsored ads on Google cost PER CLICK. The price can vary depending on the keyword(s) used. Clicking on these links causes an automatic deduction from their advertising budget for that day, and will continue until they have exhausted all of their funds for the month. This can cost advertisers thousands and thousands of dollars. The thing is you don’t have to actually stay on the site very long, and multiple clicks usually end up costing them multiple times.
Something to keep in mind.
Do NOT spam click the Google ads on this (sitewww.ronpaulforums.com), this will cause Google to terminate their adsense account with this site, robbing the admin of their funds. There is little to no appeal process to getting your account re-activated. So please confine any multiple clicking for when you conduct Searches from googles main page.
However this can be a legitimate tactic for use on other blogger sites for getting them shut down.
Right now here are a few keywords and how much they cost the sponsor per click. Please note this only applies to ads that are listed in the blue sponsor boxes you see on the first line and on the right side of google searches.
“Ron Paul” $.50- .70 per click
2008 = $1.00
Barack Obama = $.83 - $1.22
Bill Richardson = $.73 - $0.93
Brownback = $.50 - $.59
dennis kucinich = $1.00 - $1.20
duncan hunter = $1.00
election = $.40 - $.43
fred thompson = $1.00
giuliana = $1.10 - $1.50
hillary clinton = $1.00 - $1.20
jim gilmore = $1.00 - $1.17
joe biden = $.51 - $.77
john edwards = $1.01 - $1.28
john mccain = $.62 - $.94
mike gravel = $1.00
mike huckabee = $1.19 - $1.55
mitt romney = $1.05 - $1.31
newt gingrich = $.89 - $1.23
president = $1.00 - $1.01
republican = $.61 - $.92
rudy giuliani = $.85 - $1.27
sam brownback = $.50 - $.64
tom tancredo = $.50 - $.51
tommy thompson = $1.00
And because I hate Hannity...
hannity = $5.00 <-— no shit, it costs him $5 a click for the advertisement to his site. ( Though I haven’t come across any sponsored ads using this keyword.)
If he has such BIG support with all the little folks, why can’t he get above 3% in any national poll? (without his supporters spamming the poll of course)
FR is a well known “conservative” site. Out of more than 300 posts on this column, only a few are in support of Ron Paul. Where are all his supporters? Out spamming other polls?
Topic - Please Give Me the name of Anti War groups: I am trying to co-opt there (sic) organizations
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=14750
I have contacted United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, and Iraq Veterans Agaist the War. I have talked to the leaders/editors of each one. While I know people on this board will yell at me and say “Focus on Republicans,” I think name regocnition is just as important. My strategy is to co-opt mailing lists to get Ron Pauls name associated with their issue. (I will do the same thing with Right to Lifers)
Non Profits generally can’t support candidates, but they can hightlight their stance on issues and post voting guides.
What are the names of other Anti War groups?
Tell me, or use my letter below.
We CAN win,
Re: (Insert Anti War Group Name here) and the GOP
I am a MeetUp coordinator for Ron Paul in NYC. He is the only candidate for the GOP that voted against the war. When Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Kerry and every Republican marched us Baghdad, Ron Paul spoke out against preemptive war. He was stifled, but he has more in common with your goal of getting us out of Iraq than any other presidential candidate. I bet you could have given this speech.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...2/cr090402.htm
It would be a great service to your cause (and mine) if you could highlight his anti-war stance to your membership. Ron Paul, Dennis K, and Barack Obama are the only people who made the right call. A Paul vs. Obama contest would be the perfect outcome for (Insert Anti War Group Name Here)
The reasons to support Ron Paul are obvious. The nomination will be decided by February. If the GOP puts up a “mini-Bush” we only have a 50-50 chance of getting us out of Iraq. And even then, Hillary and Obama both seem intent on building bigger and bigger military.
Ron Paul can win. He won straw polls in NH, Alabama, Washington, and Pennsylvania. And there is a statistical fluke which could squeeze him in. If Rudy, Fred, Mitt, and Mike split the pro war vote, Ron can go after the 50% of the GOP that realizes Iraq was a mistake. (75% of America sees the war as a mistake. The country is 50% for each party. That means 50% of the GOP is intellectually honest.)
I was thinking it was the pot.
I am wrong.
It’s the crack...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014164.html
Ron Paul moves up in Gallup Poll
Posted by Tex MacRae at July 17, 2007 10:04 AM
Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 3%
Heading Right says: “I would be remiss if I did not point out that Ron Paul has had a good week. Rasmussen isn’t tracking the second-tier candidates, but Gallup shows Paul with 3% support — probably his best showing in the entire primary season. He overtook Mike Huckabee this week by a single percentage point, which does not bode well for the Governor of Arkansas.”
Clearly the polls are still not measuring his real support, but it’s nice to see some upward movement anyway.
Wars are not always fought between nations. We had one of those on our soil about 150 years ago.
I believe we are fighting al Qaeda and the other Islamofascist groups. It would have been better named the War on Terrorists. It is the thing that really does matter far more than anything else if this nation and Western Civilization is to survive.
It's the damndest thing...Paul is irrelevant, yet these threads draw hundreds of responses.
Content?
It looks like slogans and your opinion to me.
Your determination to engage in war and "win" at any cost may win you friends on this forum, but it can also signal an obsession. Gamblers are especially prone to it, as I have discovered recently.
Successful poker players know when to bet, when to bluff and when to fold.
So you believe our intervention in the war between the shiite factions and the sunni factions has anything to do with the survival of this nation, let alone Western Civilization. That is simply incredible. You have truly moved into Alice in Wonderland territory.
How soon we forget!
And let's not forget, as much as we'd like to, the wars fought against the various Indian tribes in the 19th Century.
Still, each war had but two sides and two ultimate commanders. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Crazy Horse, after routing Custer's 7th Cavalry, eventually was forced to surrender.
Who, in this "War on Terror," will be designated to surrender for the terrorists, and, assuming the American military commander in the Middle East is empowered to accept such a surrender, how will the thousands of terrorists be identified, rounded up and imprisoned?
Yes, there could be trials for war crimes. But historically, only the higher-ups are put on trial. The troops are given amnesty.
No doubt there are entire sections of the Pentagon already making plans for such things, just in case.
They'll continue making plans for the next century if present policies remain in effect.
As you indicate, this thing may never be over
Major extreme bump
Yeah, I’ve seen it too. It’s by WF Buckley’s bosom bud, Gore Vidal. (Could he also have been named for Sen. Gore, who invented the inventor of the Internet?)
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.