Skip to comments.Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007
Posted on 01/01/2008 12:39:23 PM PST by rfaceEdited on 01/01/2008 12:48:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
We can, and should, draw very bright red lines.
This forum - and other forums - don’t tolerate Holocaust deniers? Do they? So why should we tolerate supporters of the candidate of the Holocaust denies?
Stormfront garbage ins’t welcome here. So why do we welcome Stormfront’s candidate?
Treason isn’t welcome here - so why do we welcome treason’s half-brother, in the form of Ron Paul and his supporters?
Of course forums should be open, to the degree that it’s possible. But you wouldn’t want a giant pile of stinking, rotting garbage sitting in the middle of your town meeting - would you? So why should we welcome Ron Paul’s worthless supporters?
They should, at the very minimum, be banished to the sewers, with the rest of the excrement.
Maybe I misread you initially, I just reread your post and I think we are agreeing.. I am for not booting anyone who is playing by the rules, no matter who they support.
Or should we expose them to the light of day? Show them for who they are so that anyone who is googling Paul will fall across the truth behind his Fraud. Heck, the whole Google Ron Paul campaign is starting to backfire on them as the first couple of pages of results have conspiracy websites and commentary on his relationship with Stormfront and Alex Jones.
That's a load of hog feces and you know it.
Saying “I’m against the war” is just another way of saying “I want the Islamists to win.”
Whatever your reasons for wanting the Islamists to win are - whether you’re an Islamist, whether you’re a soft-hearted fool, whether you think it will weaken the President, whether you’re just plain stupid - are irrelevant, since your views would lead to the same result.
Oooh! Me! Me! I wanna play the Guilt-by-association game!
This Forum doesn't support restrictions on the 1st Amendment. You support a candidate (McLoser) who did just that.
I bet Soros is behind this nutter’s fundraising.
EXACTLY- the so called 'non-interventionism' is actually giving our enemy moral authority over our allies and against treaties we have. We have a defense treaty with Israel (as part of the Oslo Accord) and it is unconstitutional to break that treaty outside proper congressional action. Our enemies say they attacked us because we are on 'their' land, and Paul agrees, yet that is giving our enemy authority over that land, authority they don't have. In Saudi Arabia (for example) where Mecca is, we are guests and Al Qaeda doesn't have any legal authority, so who do we listen to, those who have legal authority and say we are guests or those who don't have authority, are sworn enemies, and whose victory is our becoming 'non-intraventionist'?
People do pay attention.
No, I don't think Huck will get the nomination, but he's put on a solid performance, and Paul and his folk have performed too.
actually I had nothing to say about him until I found out he supported the Soviets in the cold war and spit in Lincoln's face.
His foreign policy is so out of whack with what I think is even remotely possible in the real-world geopolitical situation that it verges on the bizarre.
His domestic policy is a message that no other candidate is giving and that resounds with many people tired of the same duopoly party candidates for more, ‘better,’ government. I suspect a lot of his support is from this angle.
Let's get some things clear.
Nobody on this Forum, Paul supporters included, supports the Islamofascists.
We want terrorists dead just as much as you do.
We have killed thousands of terrorists over the past six years, brought new governments to two countries, etc.
Please explain to me, why we need to stay in the Middle East any longer than we should have, while our borders remain open and we're letting Muslims here radicalize and affect our policy.
Personally, we should have put a giant protective bubble over Israel, and turned the rest of the Middle East into a parking lot. But I know that's not practical.
For the most part, we have accomplished our goals and gotten our revenge. There ain't going to be any more hijackings or terrorist attacks HERE...
You want to remain in the Middle East, keep fighting, which will depreciate our military to the point that a draft will be needed, all the while devaluing our dollar to pay for the war and for unconstitutional domestic spending here at home.
“Who or what are the benjamins?”
Hundred dollars bills, in this case
sounds fun until your name is up there too.
“I wonder how safe votes for women would be with Paul? Obviously he did not like the ban on slavery either.”
You should refer to the constitution for methods of amending the constitution to make womens’ suffrage become unsafe.
Note that the President has no role in this.
Do you really believe a president could make any change on this topic at all?
“Ron Pauls supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole.”
I really think you would be happier under a system of government other than a Republic.
Based on what I have read of his interview on this topic, I don’t think he addresses the sectionalist issues in the united states in the early and mid-19th centuries at all. This was a much more complex topic than he is making it out to be, and I am not sure there was any logical reason to expect the southern states not to break away at some point, if not in 1860/61.