Free Republic

Ummmm, isn’t the senate election in 2008? Bush is out two months later.

It's worse, I think. I think the new Senators get sworn in right before or just after the President.

What are they gonna do, vote to impeach and convict in the 5 minutes between the two?

I'll summarize the interview:

Newt: Look at meeee! I'm relevant! No, really!

To be fair, the same should be said for the other candidates too.

And that, like the story last month, is the main weakness of claiming support from any group based on highly incomplete donation records.

You only listed those whose names are published because they went over the $200 limit. There are more but they are not identified by law. Chances are that the rest are much smaller donations and the number of donors is therefore much higher.

Then point me to those numbers. Can't? Wonder why? It's because the article, like the rest of the claims regarding Ron Paul's overwhelming military support, is based on FEC records. The article is based on donations over $100, unless you can explain how the Boston Globe knows about the donations. So here we are, an article based on about 20 people is being used to say the military supports Ron Paul.

One thing to note when using Open Secrets or most other open records is they only display donations above $100. What this could mean is there may be tens of thousands of on the ground troops donating ten or twenty dollars to XX candidate that we aren’t even seeing. For all we know, John Cox received a million dollars in ten dollar donations from one hundred thousand troops.

My info is from the FEC website and is meant only to show that the whopping $19k figure being touted here for Ron Paul equals about 20 people in support.

I'm still waiting for a Ron Paul supporter to step up and explain how this means something significant (I'm noticing a pattern where RP supporters like to say stuff but can't back it up).

To my knowledge it's never been 'shredded'.

Then allow me to introduce you to the 21 people (that's right, 21) who donated to the Ron Paul campaign and who appear to be currently associated with the military in some way. I have omitted the few retired military personnel since the Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that current military personnel are supporting Ron Paul because he is anti-war. For completeness, I've left in the civil servant, the economist, the meteorologist, the solar analyst, the physicist, and the computer administrator. I believe the total donated by these folks is $19,751.

ANDERSON, LOUIS MR. LAWTON
OK 73507 06/28/2007 1300.00 US ARMY/CIVIL SERVICE/ENGINEER
OK 73507 06/26/2007 1000.00 US ARMY/CIVIL SERVICE/ENGINEER

BALLEW, WILLIAM M MR. GROSSE POINTE WOOD
MI 48236 05/19/2007 250.00 USMC/AMMO TECH
MI 48236 06/19/2007 250.00 USMC/AMMO TECH

BANKS, RICK R MR. APO AE
ZZ 09361 05/19/2007 250.00 US ARMY/ARMY

BEGY, DAVID A. MR. SAN DIEGO
CA 92119 05/04/2007 300.00 US NAVY/PLANNER

BRANDL, KARL MR. CONCORD
CA 94518 05/16/2007 1000.00 US NAVY/OFFICER

DUNCAN, JOHNATHAN ROCKWELL MR. NEWTON
KS 67114 06/17/2007 500.00 US ARMY/SOLDIER SERVING IN OIF

HENDERSON, DAVID R. DR. PACIFIC GROVE
CA 93950 05/04/2007 1000.00 US NAVY/ECONOMIST

KING, WILLIAM MR. LEMOORE
CA 93245 05/16/2007 2300.00 US NAVY/SUPPLY CORPS OFFICER

KRAINTZ, NATHANAEL JOHN MR. LEXINGTON
SC 29072 06/10/2007 1000.00 US ARMY/SOLDIER
LEE, THOMAS F SEASIDE
CA 93955 05/17/2007 500.00 US NAVY CIVILIAN/METEOROLOGIST

LIGHT, STUART S. INDIAN HARBOUR BEA
FL 32937 06/28/2007 2300.00 US ARMY/SOLDER/COMPUTER SYS ADMIN

MONTGOMERY, JEREMY DAVID MR. APO AE
ZZ 96553 06/13/2007 2300.00 USAF-ACTIVE DUTY/SOLAR ANALYST & P

ONYSHCZAK, THEODORE L. HAMPTON
VA 23666 06/14/2007 250.00 USAF/PROGRAM ANALYST
VA 23666 02/15/2007 250.00 USAF/PROGRAM ANALYST

PAULI, MYRON ROBERT WASHINGTON
DC 20375 06/18/2007 2300.00 US NAVAL RESEARCH LAB/PHYSICIST

PODNAR, DANIEL N MR. DEL RIO
TX 78840 06/18/2007 1000.00 US AIR FORCE/AIRFIELD SYSTEMS TECH

RINALDO, DEREK R MR. STAFFORD
VA 22556 06/25/2007 250.00 US NAVY/AROICC

SHULLI, JOHN A MR. APO AE
ZZ 09063 05/22/2007 300.00 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CIVILIAN/OP

SMITH, ALBERT MR. SPRING LAKE
NC 28390 06/10/2007 201.00 US GOVERNMENT/SOLDIER

TUCKER, JOSHUA DEAN MR. NICEVILLE
FL 32578 06/15/2007 250.00 USAF/MILITARY OFFICER

WASHBURN, WILLIAM ANDREW MR. PENSACOLA
FL 32503 06/30/2007 200.00 US NAVY/ENSIGN

ZELL, RYAN B MR. SAN DIEGO
CA 92103 05/09/2007 500.00 USN/OPERATIONS SPECAILIST

Any Ron Paul supporters care to tell me that this proves our 178,000 contingent in Iraq alone overwhelming supports Ron Paul's campaign?

Paulites get caught in one lie, they shift to another.

It's worse than that. It's the same lie. The Ron Paul supporters did the exact same thing a month or two ago.

Out of $330,000, Ron Paul got $19,000. That's just over 5%. 95% of military donations went to people other than Ron Paul.

Out of $198,000 to Republican candidates, Ron Paul got $19,000. That's just under 10%. Over 90% of military donations went to people other than Ron Paul.

The numbers here are so small it's laughable. It's like the Gallop poll the other day that had Ron Paul at 5% in New Hampshire. Ron Paul supporters really pounced on that number, even though the margin of error was 5%! You're losing bad when you're within the margin of error of 0%. I said the same thing a couple months ago, and Ron Paul is still in the exact same position - within striking distance of 0%.

Here's the rub. Who asks about the occupations of their donors? I am beginning to believe that this is made up.

It's all self-reporting - the donators may identify their occupation. The thing is, the data is highly incomplete. Looking at the FEC forms last month, there were hundreds upon hundreds (probably thousands) of people who had not identified their occupations. Tom Tancredo actually had a self-identified "drug runner" donating to his campaign.

You can't make any kind of judgments based on such an incomplete data set. The really funny thing is that the incomplete data still shows 9x more money going to "pro-war" Republican candidates than to Ron Paul, yet the Ron Paul supporters are making a big deal about it.

And the only retort I see on this thread for this news (which it is) is blaming the paper, the reporting agency, and anyone else that dares to believe information that perhaps now even the troops aren't happy.

Ron Paul got $19,000 out of $198,000 in donations to Republicans. Yet Ron Paul supporters are acting like the military is supporting an anti-war Republican more than the other Republicans.

We actually like to know the facts, not just the headlines. We're pesky that way.

The article doesn’t actually give the totals for all Republicans. But, at $330,000 with 60% going to Republicans, this means that $198,000 went to Republicans in total. This kills the idea that the military supports Ron Paul more than the other Republicans since the other Republicans combined raised about $179,000 from military personnel, compared to Ron Paul’s $19,000.

Combine this with Ron Paul's ability to outraise any other Republican candidate among U.S. Service members, and you have a clear picture.

Keep saying that like it's true. You might convince yourself one day that it's true.

Do you honestly think $19,250 is supposed to be significant? Even out of military donations by themselves, it is a mere 5%.

"has received the most of any presidential candidate from uniformed service members -- about $27,000."
With about 6 top contenders on either ticket, that means $162K at most. More likely, that is <$150K. Of which, Dems got 40%, or $60K.
The paper the article was printed on cost more.

This is the exact same garbage the Ron Paul supporters used about a month ago. The headlines here were screaming that Ron Paul had more military support than any other GOP candidate. .

Then someone here went and looked at the FEC disclosures. Ron Paul had donations from a grand total of 22 (that's right, 22) self-identified military personnel. I had guessed earlier in the thread that the number would be 15 and got ciritcized by a Ron Paul supporter. He/she sure shut up real quick when the actual number became known.

I'll say the same thing I said then. You can't rely on self-identification to make any kind of judgments here, esp. when a huge number of people don't declare what their professions are when they donate (at least not on the FEC disclosure lists).

and wouldn't do something so profoundly stupid.

I'd call announcing to the world that the mutual defense treaties we have with countries like Britain are unconstitutional (and therefore wouldn't be supported by a Ron Paul presidency) is just as monumentally stupid.

You don't think that helps?

Of course it helps. But that's the extent of Ron Paul's plan to combat terrorism. That, plus withdrawing our troops to help radical Muslims feel better about us.

Did Paul say he would do that?

Yes, he did. He's said he wants to withdraw troops from Japan and Korea, and he's mentioned withdrawing troops from Europe. And he said in an interview last month that defensive treaties with countries like Britain were not constitutional. Gotta love the way he'd treat our allies.

I beg to differ. Paul advocates securing the borders, which
A) will shut out the lion's share of terrorist attacks, and
B) the current leadership is unwilling to do.

Baloney. You can't protect this country from terrorists by simply securing the borders. And you can't protect America's interests here and around the world by withdrawing our troops from every country on the planet (including Japan, Korea, etc.) and unilaterally declaring that you won't even honor defensive treaties with our allies (like Britain).

Isn’t this the state that has the slogan something like “Live free or die”, or am I all wet?

Correct. I get the impression Ron Paul believes we have a third option.

Referenced patent disclosure.

Hee, hee. The broadest claim requires you to perform 16 steps to infringe the patent. I'd hate to try to sue anyone for infringing that claim.

A couple more notes:

(1) Many US patent applications are already published 18 months after their earliest priority date (such as the date they were filed). It’s been that way for quite a few years. There is currently a way to keep an application from being published. I can’t tell if this bill would do away with that.

(2) The “first-to-invent” system that we currently have doesn’t really help small inventors. Over a 17-18 year period, there were only about 400 interferences in the US Patent Office (a procedure where parties argue about who invented something first) that involved small entities. This is out of something like 1.7 million granted patents and who knows how many patent applications. We’re talking about a very small percentage of the total number of applications (about maybe 20 a year). Also, small entities who filed first lost about half of those 400 interferences, which means those 200 would have won in a first-to-invent system.

The World Intellectual Property Organization does not and cannot grant patents to anyone. You cannot get a “world patent.” You cannot enforce a “world patent” against anyone. The WIPO only allows you to file PCT applications and never grants patents to anyone. No one has ever been sued for violating a “world patent.”

I know what WIPO is. It does not grant world patents.