Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? (Paul increases campaign funds by 1,000% in 60 days to $5M!)
Ron Paul Campaign | June 7th, 2007 | FreeMarketNews.com

Posted on 06/07/2007 7:08:11 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis

GOP Ron Paul - Five Million Dollar Man? Thursday, June 07, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below).

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=42336

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.

To be sure such amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/gop.html

Sam Brownback cash-on-hand: $806,626

Jim Gilmore cash-on-hand: $90,107

Rudy Giuliani cash-on-hand: $11,949,735

Mike Huckabee cash-on-hand: $373,918

Duncan Hunter cash-on-hand: $272,552

John McCain cash-on-hand: $5,180,799

Ron Paul cash-on-hand: $524,919

Mitt Romney cash-on-hand: $11,863,653

Tom Tancredo cash-on-hand: $575,078

Tommy Thompson cash-on-hand: $139,723

Source: CNN

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; amnesty; constitution; giuliani; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; paul; paulnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 last
To: ejonesie22

“Islamos worse than Hitler.” — Now that’s Hyperbole!


201 posted on 06/08/2007 6:09:03 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Great news..........

Dr Paul is the ONLY candidate I will support in this election cycle.


202 posted on 06/08/2007 6:09:31 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
So far, it looks to me like Fox News Channel almost refuses to have him on their main news shows, no matter how much interest there is.

The issue is several things I think. Let's be frank. Fox is playing to a base. A base of hoo-rah ADD simpletons but base still the same. The same sort that will sit and listen to Rush or Hannity ramble on for three hours and then repeat verbatim what they said as if that's THE only argument. Conservatism is defined by what the administration says is conservative and if you don't like it then you must be a 'moonbat', 'anti-American', and 'unpatriotic'.

The other reason is Fox quells rational speech during their main shows. They bring on people just to give O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, and the like a jumping off point to start talking again. I can't stand to watch Hannity. He's not conservative and I'm beginning to doubt the man has read the Constitution (or if he has he refutes what it says because it gets in the way of Republican mantras). But O'Reilly is just the same. He talks over his guests if they dare to disagree with him and he rarely gives them opportunity to answer

But it's evident of the Republican party. Look back to the debates. How many of the other candidates even mention the Constitution? Last debate the St. Rudy mentioned it once (and that was to condone his view on abortion) and Ron Paul mentioned it in almost every question he was asked (in another question he discussed Christian Just War theory).

This view is foreign to Fox, and sadly to too many citizens of the respective states. One reason I believe we are seeing an upswing in his popularity (and funding) is Paul is saying something different. He's not playing the monkey see, monkey do, stand in front of the camera, look pretty, and ramble on about nothing game. He's stating substance. And saying things a lot of people feel but no one believed there was a politician that felt that way anymore.

And the establishment media, as well as the Republican Party, are doing their absolute best to quell it

203 posted on 06/08/2007 6:13:34 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: billbears

I agree with everything you’ve said except for Cavuto.

Fox News is now the Rudy Giuliani Campaign Network.


204 posted on 06/08/2007 6:29:46 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Sure, scoff at perhaps $4 or $5 million that Ron Paul is said to have raised, admittedly hard to tell because the numbers keep changing.

Cute that this PR piece compares fuzzy numbers on what Paul has raised with cash on hand numbers of other candidates at the end of March.

205 posted on 06/08/2007 6:43:34 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
If we go home and mind our own business, he is what will happen: regional powers will assert themselves and provide regional security, while in the Middle East Arab and Persian power will return to historical norms. Samuel Huntington, Author of the Clash of Civilizations, has stated that this needs to happen (something in the Arab power vacuum). I foresee many Arab states completely collapsing, with city-states like we see in the UAE emerging to provide authority. Leagues of these city-states or micronations will provide security in the region and will provide centers of Commerce. Leading city-states will be Dubai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, and an independent Mecca and Medina. This will especially be the case after oil ceases to be so important in a few decades as we move into other forms of energy.

Good general point.

If we left, the notion that al-Qaeda would instantly take it over and turn it into another Iran is not settled by any means.

We could, for instance, without even bothering to install an approved dictator, simply supply weapons and munitions to the two weakest factions in any area.

They would have to make their own peace with each other and drive out their own terrorists. But another Saddam would arise.

We could also pull back only to Kurdistan, partitioning the country.

As for the precious democracy we're trying to export to Iraq, when less than half of our own country votes in elections, it's hard to explain why it's so good for Iraq when it's considered so useless in our own country. Strangely enough, despite our attempts to export democracy, our war policy is more likely to result in the defeat of many of our own politicians in next year's primaries and the general election.
206 posted on 06/08/2007 6:45:15 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Cute that this PR piece compares fuzzy numbers on what Paul has raised with cash on hand numbers of other candidates at the end of March.

Aren’t all the candidate’s numbers “fuzzy” until the next required reporting date?


207 posted on 06/08/2007 6:47:48 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Democracy is nothing more than an advanced auction on stolen goods; liberty and protection of Natural Rights is what matters.

What very few people realize is how nationalist and xenophobic the Iraqi People are, even towards other Arabs. Illegal Immigrants are thrown in jail for years, while insurgents get out in a couple of days.

We’re the most foreign, so they truly despise us. But when we’re gone, the Sunni tribes will wipe out the foreign jihadists presence within their midst.

The only real problem I see for Iraq after we leave is the Shia radicals. The Sunni tribes will take care of their own and the Kurds are doing fine.

Perhaps we should follow a policy that accentuates the internal divisions between Arab Shia and Persian/South Asian Shia, because there are many.


208 posted on 06/08/2007 6:50:46 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: billbears
But it's evident of the Republican party. Look back to the debates. How many of the other candidates even mention the Constitution? Last debate the St. Rudy mentioned it once (and that was to condone his view on abortion) and Ron Paul mentioned it in almost every question he was asked (in another question he discussed Christian Just War theory).

I know that Romney was trying to get a slice of the Constitution in the Mormonism question he got where he correctly asserted that our inalienable rights arise from our status as creatures endowed with certain inalienable rights.

Smart guy. He's look to chip at the pro-liberty, pro-constitution folk but without making any real promises on the topic. It was a good answer but sounded, well, a little bit slick. He's going to have to do a lot better than that, especially on the Second Amendment.

Someone else (McStain?) did make some phony assertion about the constitution but it was a transparent ploy.
209 posted on 06/08/2007 6:52:31 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

Aren’t we only about a week away from the next mandatory FEC filings where they have to ‘fess up their actual numbers?


210 posted on 06/08/2007 6:53:46 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

***coffee spew***


211 posted on 06/08/2007 6:55:49 AM PDT by Petronski (imwithfred.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Hitler had a snowballs chance in hell of hitting the US with anything other than few spies. The America/New York Bomber was never finished, and the A10 rocket was still on the boards. Add to that their atomic bomb was still a dream.

Compare that to the fact that if any of these Islamic groups gets near a bomb, not too hard and getting easier, they can do more harm to us than Hitler did. Mind you I speak as an American in America, that is the country I am concerned with. Hitler’s twisted dreams gutted Europe and killed millions.

However given a shot, these Islamic groups would surely want to exterminate more groups than the Fuhrer wanted to. They not not only want the Jews, but the Christians and everybody else in their way.

We could see Hitler coming, and fight away from our people and our land. A Jihadist nuke goes off in an American city and we would not know it until the cloud rose up. If Hitler was around today with today’s weapons, anyone in their right mind would favor intervention, a preemptive strike once they came to know his true intentions. In away knowing what we know about the Jihadist puts us ahead of the game. Chancellor Hitler was a good guy at the time he was building up. Ask Chamberlain. Again, imagine if Hitler had todays weapons. He would be shaking hands as the bombs were launched.

If hyperbole means stressing the facts in your world, I’m guilty. Coming home and hiding is not a choice. It is a dangerious world with the instant death of millions possible from small boxes and crazy men. In that world, my world, I choose action, not reaction.

212 posted on 06/08/2007 6:56:31 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Perhaps we should follow a policy that accentuates the internal divisions between Arab Shia and Persian/South Asian Shia, because there are many.

Well, it is cynical as our foreign policy often is. But you can't give democracy to people. Especially if your own country doesn't have much confidence in it to begin with.

You might like this list, remarkably accurate for a domestic publication:

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
213 posted on 06/08/2007 6:58:29 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Aren’t we only about a week away from the next mandatory FEC filings where they have to ‘fess up their actual numbers?

Yeah, I’m not sure. I think it’s a quarterly reporting requirement.

We’ll find out soon enough


214 posted on 06/08/2007 7:00:45 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

“They would have to make their own peace with each other and drive out their own terrorists. But another Saddam would arise.”

If we left in 2003 after we captured Saddam. We could have retaken the country 7 times to dispose a leader we didn’t like with the amount of money and lives we’ve spent since in nation building and occupation.


215 posted on 06/08/2007 7:04:58 AM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Well, the article list the last figures from 3/31/07 so at the latest, it will be the end of the month.

Of course, no one in America will even notice because the iPhone craze will start on 6/29. I expect riots.
216 posted on 06/08/2007 7:12:36 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Not to mention the lives of our soldiers, dying or maimed because Jorge wants to "give" democracy to Iraq when they don't want it and won't organize to protect it with their own police/military, won't even drive out the terrorists killing their own citizens.

We can also withdraw to Kurdistan and our desert bases and let the Iraqis settle it among themselves. Let them do the dying for once, not boys from our midwest.

If they can't organize to drive out the terrorists, they don't deserve protection.
217 posted on 06/08/2007 7:16:11 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Hitler had a snowballs chance in hell of hitting the US with anything other than few spies.

Burning merchant ships were visible from New York City and one German sub still sits off the coast of North Carolina I believe.
218 posted on 06/08/2007 7:16:59 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

Of course, no one in America will even notice because the iPhone craze will start on 6/29. I expect riots.

I think I’ll take that week off and head for the hills for a while.


219 posted on 06/08/2007 7:17:57 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (GOP Congress - 16,000 earmarks costing US $50 billion in 2006 - PAUL2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: P-40
U boats sank shipping in the gulf, a Japanese balloon bomb killed a few folks in the northwest, a Japanese sub shelled an oil refinery, yes yes yes...

Imagine if they had WMDs....

You have to see that changes the equation radically. We in the modern era can’t use the “defensive position” strategy. Their first strike can do much more harm now.

220 posted on 06/08/2007 7:33:36 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

“Bin Laden would be proud of your allegiance to a self-serving traitor like Ron Paul.”

And THAT is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make. Thank you.


221 posted on 06/08/2007 7:59:17 AM PDT by oldfart (The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing left to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Imagine if they had WMDs...

The Japanese had a very advanced program, ahead of anyone else.

They never had the guts to use it on us. I think their top generals knew they were likely to lose in the end and we would exterminate, man/woman/child, if they did that on our soil.
222 posted on 06/08/2007 8:13:39 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
In the post-WWII 1950s, world economies outside of the US were quite poor, but we had a strong dollar and an amazing manufacturing sector.

We had the only manufacturing sector in the world that hadn't been destroyed by the war. We had a worldwide monopoly. And that's how the American Middle Class as we know it was created -- by the union movement.

Thanks to that monopoly and the unions, a man could drop out of high school, go down to the union hall and get his card, sign up for work at the local assembly plant, marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a car, a house and a vacation home -- and retire after 50 years to a nice fat pension. But that priced American goods out of the world market once other industrial bases came back on line. Once the Third World came on line, the cost of American labor forced companies to move offshore. It was not overt taxation that drove them away, or even environmental regulations, but the indirect taxation of high labor costs due to the Wagner Act of 1935.

A gold standard and low taxes will not get companies to repatriate our old manufacturing capability. You'd have to finish off the unions first.

Before WWI even started, there were movements around the world to move to a fiat currency.

In Europe it started in 1909 when the French government started paying its civil servants in paper, not gold coin. And it happened because France saw quite clearly that it was going to have to fight the Germans again.

We are too set on this paradigm of victory and defeat.

When we see a clear paradigm of victory and defeat, we win, as we did in World War II and the Cold War. When we don't, we lose, as we did in Vietnam. I can recall all too clearly the people who told us it would be good for the nation to lose in Vietnam. We would be a better people for it. Based on what happened to us after Vietnam, I would see us reliving the Seventies under a second Carter, with other nations running rings around us. We could easily be cut off from the region's oil. I can't see that being good for America.

Your view of the Middle East following an American departure strikes me as being unrealistic. Were the shah still in charge, I could see a Persian return to historical norms, but not with the current whack jobs in power. Regime change is necessary. Regrettably, religious hysteria is still too strong in that region for a positive outcome.

223 posted on 06/08/2007 9:10:13 AM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
That happens when your leadership isn’t totally nuts. They were doing well in several areas and perhaps could have mounted something if we were not as successful as we were in WWII, luck not with standing.

I can live with certain groups having weapons of this nature because their will to survive is as strong as ours. Mutual assured destruction and all that rot. Iran, Iraq and other, I can’t leave that as my only defense.

224 posted on 06/08/2007 9:11:45 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77
Supporting terrorists is not a Conservative position.

Of course not. That's another reason why Paul is a conservative.

225 posted on 06/08/2007 10:57:52 AM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet

Supporting terrorists is Ron Paul’s position.


226 posted on 06/08/2007 11:26:57 AM PDT by new yorker 77 (Speaker Pelosi - Three cheers for Amnesty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

That is not true. You need to study Ron Paul’s record more.


227 posted on 06/08/2007 12:29:54 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: The_Eaglet
What everyone seems to be missing:


At this point in the race...

NO CORPORATE DONATIONS....

Max of $2,300 per Individual

This is standard across the board.


Yes Ron Paul didn't make as much when corporate donations could still be received. Now that it's individuals only, let's see which candidate will be able to match him.


Understand that then go back and re-read this whole thread and you will find a lot of posts full of wrong misinformation.


Here are some snippets I've found lately:

Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me that, more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul the most. But yet he still says he’s going to endorse Fred Thompson because he has a chance to win....

-Charles Davis in Ron Paul interview


"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

-U.S. President Ronald Reagan
228 posted on 06/08/2007 3:39:56 PM PDT by keyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

When a man chooses to slam his country first when approaching the War on Terror that man has chosen his allegiance. Suggesting that some how we who not only stood by Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo have provoked Osama Bin Ladin and other extremists is ridiculous and any many who believes such nonsense has not the credibility to be President no matter what his fiscal policy is. We have also pressured Israel over and over again to ignore the constant attacks they face and give more and more back to a people who will accept nothing more than the destruction of Israel as a salve for their anger. Ron Paul and those like Moore and most of the Democratic party just can’t wait to hit America. Well I’m tired of America being the piñata for every small man’s trouble and I most certainly don’t want a President who wants to try to justify the reasons for a hateful enemy that would snicker with their hands out and hit us for our charity.

What he said, he had every right to say but we most certainly don’t need a Chomskey for President and that is what he sounds like. He had many ways to approach that answer and he chose to hit America first. America has enough thankless idiots standing in line in the Democrat party with their sticks out. Ron Paul should learn to separate his justified anger for a system here that is increasingly broken from a very real enemy that has the desire to break the back of America in the world.


229 posted on 06/10/2007 10:27:26 AM PDT by Maelstorm (A Patriot is one who loves his country, A wife beater says he loves his wife...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
In regards to Ajax, Mossadegh originally wanted 20% of the oil revenues for Iran, so he could embark on modernizing Iran’s infrastructure. The AIOC originally had contracts giving Iran ONLY 1-3% of the oil revenues.

MI6/CIA went into Iran with hundreds of millions of dollars; the whole coup d’état was done with under 20 people, around 10 MI6 agents and 10 CIA agents. This was done through staging false-flag terror events in Iran and bombing Mosques. Also, they printed up flyers which said and I’m paraphrasing: “down with Mossadegh, down with Communism, up with Allah.” These flyers were distributed throughout the country and people bought into the propaganda.

Mossadegh also kicked the Communists out of Iran.

Another part of the coup d’état was bringing the Mullahs back into the fold. Basically, if you read Kermit Roosevelt’s after action reports, they convinced the Mullahs that democracy was anti-Islamic. He was such an Anglophile, Kermit Roosevelt, with his glowing after action reports to 10 Downing Street.

For further reading, I would recommend CounterCoup by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Iran no longer wished to be a British Petroleum colony.

Also:

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup - U.S. National Security Archives

230 posted on 06/10/2007 6:12:02 PM PDT by CaptCrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

In regards to Ajax, Mossadegh originally wanted 20% of the oil revenues for Iran, so he could embark on modernizing Iran’s infrastructure. The AIOC originally had contracts giving Iran ONLY 1-3% of the oil revenues.

MI6/CIA went into Iran with hundreds of millions of dollars; the whole coup d’état was done with under 20 people, around 10 MI6 agents and 10 CIA agents. This was done through staging false-flag terror events in Iran and bombing Mosques. Also, they printed up flyers which said and I’m paraphrasing: “down with Mossadegh, down with Communism, up with Allah.” These flyers were distributed throughout the country and people bought into the propaganda.

Mossadegh also kicked the Communists out of Iran.

Another part of the coup d’état was bringing the Mullahs back into the fold. Basically, if you read Kermit Roosevelt’s after action reports, they convinced the Mullahs that democracy was anti-Islamic. He was such an Anglophile, Kermit Roosevelt, with his glowing after action reports to 10 Downing Street.

For further reading, I would recommend CounterCoup by Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Iran basically no longer wished to be a British petroleum colony

Also:

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup - U.S. National Security Archives


231 posted on 06/10/2007 6:12:09 PM PDT by CaptCrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Ron Paul, unlike Moore, supported the Afghanistan invasion.


232 posted on 06/11/2007 7:42:16 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pissant
ANd it was the LEFT, genius, that pulled the plug on Vietnam.

Uh, no, Nixon was the one who got us out of Vietnam. You are correct, though, insofar as it was the LEFT that pulled funding from the AVRN three years later so that the Communists could overrun Saigon.

233 posted on 06/11/2007 7:45:26 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

234 posted on 06/12/2007 9:00:25 PM PDT by johnreed (Beware, Lady Liberty has just stirred from her long slumberů)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: new yorker 77

I agree with another poster who replied. You really need to actually listen to what the man says in context. he is definetly not pro-terrorist (this is simply an absurd thing to say if you actually understood what the man believes). he wants to commit more troops and resources toward finding Bin laden and others. Blame America? No, he simply repeated what Bin laden and others have said reguarding their motives. read the 9-11 commission report. American policy is not the same as America herself. Anti-American? please, i suppose if adhering strickly to the U.S. constitution means one is anti-american then he is guilty as charged. :)


235 posted on 06/18/2007 6:51:00 AM PDT by chrisconlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

an isolationists does not engage the rest of the world. he does not advocate this. he is not anti-war either. merely anti-undeclared war, and wars fought under united Nations sanctions.


236 posted on 06/18/2007 6:51:05 AM PDT by chrisconlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: skr

“HAVE YOU EVER READ THE REASONS WHY THEY ATTACKED US?...”


237 posted on 06/18/2007 6:51:11 AM PDT by chrisconlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Go back and listen to Mccain in the New hampshire debate carefully. he repeatedly stated the “iraq conflict” he never stated “war”. Furthermore, when he was about to say war - he immediatly corrected himself and said “conflict” there is a reason for this. Sorry but there has not been a declared war since WW2, you know, the last war we actually won.


238 posted on 06/18/2007 6:51:14 AM PDT by chrisconlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: chrisconlin

Welcome to FR.

We won the Gulf War I (liberated Kuwait)

We won the Cold War (collapsed the USSR)

We stopped the Serbs in former Yugoslavia and toppled Milosevic

We freed Greneda from a communist takeover

We removed Noriega from power

We assisted Afghanistan in expelling the USSR

We saved S. Korea from falling to the communists

We had the communist north Vietnamese on the ropes before we withdrew. (Note Reagan called the Vietnam War a noble endeavor..but the quislings in our country pulled the rug out)

These are just recent examples. There are dozens of “undeclared” wars in our earlier history. Almost all successful.


239 posted on 06/18/2007 7:23:05 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: chrisconlin

Yes, I have, and, if you had read what you’re replying to, you wouldn’t have to ask. Have you ever read the resolution (aka, declaration of war) that the Congress passed?


240 posted on 06/18/2007 12:25:07 PM PDT by skr (Car bombs and IEDs are the exclamation marks for the latest Democrats' talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: skr

I read it, and it said we were going to enforce UN resolutions. I’m not sure what color our helmets are.


241 posted on 06/24/2007 7:16:10 PM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Well, Dr. No has passed McCain in cash on hand. I sent him another $50 donation this morning.
242 posted on 07/07/2007 2:07:48 PM PDT by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-242 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson