Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007

Boston Globe ^ | 01.01.08 | Foon Rhee

[rface]

Ron Paul said today his presidential campaign raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007 from 130,000 donors.

Ron Paul brought in nearly $5.3 million that quarter.

Paul's campaign said that more than 107,000 donors were new and the average donation was about $90. More than half of the total came from two 24-hour online fund-raising events organized by supporters -- one on Nov. 5, and the second centered in Boston on Dec. 16.

[Milligan]

If Ron Paul becomes President.

If you can’t beat them join them.
If we limit the Federal Government....we could start a revolution to limit the State Government interfering with our daily lives.

Why should I pay for State Income tax....its unconstitutional.

Those who need State Aid...too bad...its SOL for ya...get a job.

Why should I have a drivers license...its unconstitutional.
Why should the State be regulating my life.
License of any kind is invasion of my privacy.
Why should I drive on the right side of the road and follow the rules of the road. It’s all mind control.

If its deer season I should be able to hunt and kill as many deer as I can. We shouldn’t have seasons to hunt. We should hunt deer all the time without a hunting license.
I should be able to hunt deer with a automatic weapon because I have poor eye sight and I want to make sure I make a direct hit.

Property rights.....they don’t exist because I should be able to hunt anywhere I want. Free will is just as important as Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. My rights are more important than rights of others especially if they’re illegals.

Deport them or include them in hunting season.

Vote for Ron Paul...vote for anarchy.

[Proud2BeRight]

“If you want the GOP to win, they need to either get out of Paul’s way or start incorporating some of Paul’s views into their platform.”

Which views should they accept? The blame America first? The isolationism? The releasing of prisoners? The lack of national defenses? The softness on drugs? The destruction of the FBI and CIA? The dismantling of the Patriot Act?

[Bastiat_Fan]

What did we gain out of the Civil War, aside from a stronger and more intrusive federal government? Nothing. Slavery could have been ended just like Paul said, buy the slaves and free them. No matter the cost, it would have been cheaper than 600,000 dead Americans. The Civil War was about power, nothing more. All it did was set us further down along the road to an all powerful intrusive state.

The costs of the Civil War were absolutely horrendous, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the complete destruction of the southern states, and the hundreds of thousands dead. All for what? A more powerful federal government? Yippee.

I got a little off topic there, but this quote sounds perfectly reasonable to me

So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

If everyone else in the civilized world could figure out how to do it without bloodshed, why did we waste 600k lives on fighting the Civil War?

[Bastiat_Fan]

What did we gain out of the Civil War, aside from a stronger and more intrusive federal government? Nothing. Slavery could have been ended just like Paul said, buy the slaves and free them. No matter the cost, it would have been cheaper than 600,000 dead Americans. The Civil War was about power, nothing more. All it did was set us further down along the road to an all powerful intrusive state.

The costs of the Civil War were absolutely horrendous, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the complete destruction of the southern states, and the hundreds of thousands dead. All for what? A more powerful federal government? Yippee.

I got a little off topic there, but this quote sounds perfectly reasonable to me

So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

If everyone else in the civilized world could figure out how to do it without bloodshed, why did we waste 600k lives on fighting the Civil War?

[gusopol3]

The south had seceded from the Union beginning 12/20/1860, thereby , in its mind ,removing itself from the jurisdiction of the USA and its President. Therefore who was the "we" that was going to buy the slaves, even if the south had been willing to sell them, which they weren't as slavery was the basis of the region's economically productive labor force? Lincoln, whom Paul and you blame for the war, did not become President until 3/4/61. In his inaugural, he explicitly reassured the South that the fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court would be upheld. Their answer weeks later was to attack Fort Sumter. Contrary to the lie you have repeated, the major benefit to the civil war was to preserve the union, and second ,to free the slaves, not to expand the federal government. By the way a government whose "iron fist" allows one group of people to enslave another group seems to be a lot more intrusive and rights grabbing than anything we have today, for without the fear of that government, the enslaved ones would certainly sneak up to the house and murder the owners in their beds and run off.

[gusopol3]

If everyone else in the civilized world could figure out how to do it without bloodshed, why did we waste 600k lives on fighting the Civil War?

sorry, stupid question, not you, the guy you're quoting.Lincoln answered it March 4, 1861:

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you."

Now which of these other countries that Paul so admires, even idolizes for their wisdom, was in a similar situation? Weren't the bulk of their slaves in distant, subordinate colonies? Could you draw a line on the map to designate free and slave areas, as we could with the U.S.? Either Paul is unforgivably stupid or he is motivated by terribly distorted values.

[gusopol3]

just a gadfly

good gadfly, bad Presidential candidate

[Milligan]

I agree with some of Ron Paul’s points of view but to a degree.

I’m for limited government and it should start by limiting the terms that Congressman and Senators can serve.

Ron Paul been in congress for 10 terms!

We are supporting career politicans for both sides of the aisles. Ron Paul is apart of the problem not the solution.

How did this happen? I think 30 years of voter apathy. Statistics show only 40% of US Citizens come out to vote during congressional, senatorial and presidental races.

Ron Paul is like the Candyman. He has a platform that suits to every sweet tooth fantasy and promotes more tooth decay.

[RetiredArmy]

I see you are from Wisconsin. Never mind. My wife is from Wisconsin also. She doesn’t come close to believing that Ron Paul is the answer for America. I assume you also support him in his pulling American forces from around the globe? Right. Go ahead pal. Vote for him. Your total loss.

[jmc813]

I should be able to hunt deer with a automatic weapon because I have poor eye sight and I want to make sure I make a direct hit.

You really don't know much about firearms.

[Milligan]

I do have a current fire arms permit and go regardly to the fire range with the Citizens Police Academy Alumni.
I have fired Colt 45, M16 and Shot Guns in the US Navy.
It was apart of my job.

I just like to joke around because you do have people who have no regard for anything. Fishing with dynamite makes good sense to them. Wiping out all wildlife is a G@d given right and who needs stinky permits to hunt.

Not the image of Theodore Roosevelt’s Conservationism.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Which views should they accept? The blame America first? The isolationism? The releasing of prisoners? The lack of national defenses? The softness on drugs? The destruction of the FBI and CIA? The dismantling of the Patriot Act?

Paul never blamed America for 9/11, he's not an isolationist, he supports a strong national defense and border security, the war on drugs is a joke, intelligence gathering would return to the Army, to the best of my knowledge he never said he'd dismantle the FBI, and parts of the Patriot Act reek of Big Brother.

If the Republican Party don't reach out to Paul, they are going to get their butts spanked in November as his supporters stay home or vote 3rd party.

[Proud2BeRight]

“Paul never blamed America for 9/11, he’s not an isolationist, he supports a strong national defense and border security, the war on drugs is a joke, intelligence gathering would return to the Army, to the best of my knowledge he never said he’d dismantle the FBI, and parts of the Patriot Act reek of Big Brother.”

If you believe all that, then Ron Paul is just right for you and you deserve him. The rest of America does not.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The first two are unconstitutional, as are most tort reform bills. I agree that our judiciary is often out of control, but the legislative branch can’t dictate to them. A right way to fix it is to elect better people to the executive so that we get better nominees. As for the third, my guess is that Ron Paul is not going to compromise on a one day waiting period - he wants NO waiting period, and certainly not at the federal level.

[KevinDavis]

True.. Plus I think Lincoln said to Britain if you help the South we will attack Canada..

[Bogtrotter52]

Got the bank statement.....or are these all “pledges”?

[Bogtrotter52]

A truly smart and savvy politician would avoid photos like that being taken, or at least have assistants.staffers who are smart enough to do it for him. A photo with Cindy S? Not very smart on his part.

[Bogtrotter52]

Correction, photo of him and Mr. Black....not as bad as he is not as widely known. Sorry, its late and they were on top of each other. LOL!

[traviskicks]

thanks FRiend, I appreciate it

[Free Thinking Conservative]

Back in the old days of FreeRepublic, Ron Paul was a favorite. Wonder what happened?