Ron Paul set to exceed second quarter fundraising - Page 3

Truth-Bringer · #21 (**permalink**) 10-08-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by The12thMan";p=&quot

When he agreed with Cindy Sheehan's warning of a staged terror attack, he officially joined the tin-foil hat crowd. A real shame.

You cry babies are funny. Always crying about "How dare someone even imply such a thing."

That's not necessarily "cry baby", but it is moralism.

Well, yes, that would be the formal term...

---locke--- · #22 (**permalink**) 10-08-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

You know, as far as I can tell right now, Ron Paul is the only one among the candidates, who truly understands and repects the Constitution.

I'm with you on Paul, but I was curious to know your opinion on Thompson.

Truth-Bringer · #23 (**permalink**) 10-08-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

You know, as far as I can tell right now, Ron Paul is the only one among the candidates, who truly understands and repects the Constitution.

Let's see - let's go down the list:

Giuliani - very bright man, but he's an "attack dog", and when he gets into that mode you can kiss your Rights goodbye - on the other hand, he'd get "the job" done, whatever "the job" might be - he's kind of like an Eisenhower in that regard - very VERY capable, very excellent problem-solver, but yeah, I "do" worry about him when he gets angry about something....

McCain - his name is on McCain-Kennedy - need I say more?

Romney - everything about Romney is "business". But you'll notice, that on all the "social" issues, he's standing tall on all the ones that would require actual Constitutional Amendments (which means the chances of them passing are NIL, or next to nil) - and he's wishy-washy on all the ones that could be implemented through local laws. And on the other hand, he pulled a Medicare Part D in Mass to privatize the healthcare and make it mandatory, and that, in my opinion, is unconstitutional, just like Hillary-care is.

Hillary - so, speaking of Hillary, we can do a "secure-the-borders" thing on her, and then if that wasn't enough she wants to do the Universal Healthcare (which is a wonderful social dream but it's entirely un-Constitutional) - well, I do think she'd probably be the "strongest" Dem when it comes to defense (although, Obama hasn't really revealed himself yet, in that regard - he's said some very hawkish things at some very interesting times, and I'm entirely sure that there's some very interesting "philosophy" forming in his brain right now) -

Obama - too young. End of story (for right now) - and of all the candidates, he's probably the one I can "least" make a judgement about, in terms of his adherence to the Constitution (or lack thereof) - 'cause he hasn't said a whole lot on Constitutional issues so far.

Hmm... well, so there it is.

But Ron Paul, yeah - he "gets it". Listen to the guy - I mean, he may sound like a kook at times, but everything he says is 100% in alignment with the letter and the intent of the Constitution, and I can't say that about any other candidate.

Excellent analysis.

nonsqtr · #24 (**permalink**) 10-08-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ---locke---";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

You know, as far as I can tell right now, Ron Paul is the only one among the candidates, who truly understands and repects the Constitution.

I'm with you on Paul, but I was curious to know your opinion on Thompson.

Yep. Still forming. I don't know much about Fred yet. (Maybe it was a good strategy for him to "wait" to get into the race

)...

Well, I know the guy's a Senator from TN, he was chosen by the President to shepherd the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice through the Senate, I did hear his "opening campaign speech" that appeared on C-SPAN and elsewhere, I thought it was very good, the impression I got is that he was being "very specific" in terms of what he said, and especially in terms of what he didn't say -

So I'm still entirely open-minded on Fred. He seems right now, like he has one foot in a "traditional conservative" world, like, some of the things he says are right out of the Reagan playbook. But, I've also heard him use some of the Bush platitudes, and he's pretty careful about it, so I'm not entirely sure how much he "believes" that stuff -

But yeah, I'm going to have to check into his record as a senator, and that's about number 142 on my list of priorities right now (ie "it can wait").....

So right now I'm just open-eyes-and-ears.

Tedminator · #25 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer";p=&quot

I also wonder why Ron Paul is #1 in contributions from the military.

huh wow so he is. Very interesting numbers.

Quote:

The sum of the money contributed to pro-war candidates exceed the amount going to anti-war candidates but because Ron Paul is the lone anti-war Republican, he comes out the winner. This is precisely the reason why Ron Paul can not be discounted in the primaries. By being the only voice in opposition to the war, he does not need a majority but rather more votes than everybody else. With more voters siding against the war, Ron Paul has got to be looking like a more attractive candidate.

Source: Federal Election Commission (Q2).
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008...-soldiers.html

Truth-Bringer · #26 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedminator";p=&quot

huh wow so he is. Very interesting numbers.

Indeed. Here's another interesting piece on the military contributions Ron Paul is receiving.

stekim · #27 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

I could totally jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon. Almost.

That's where I am. I agree with nonsqtr that in many, many ways Ron Paul is the only candidate who "gets it". He is actually a small government, state's rights, constitutionalist as opposed to simply claiming those things to trick GOP lemmings into casting a ballot. And unlike 12th, I agree with him on Iraq. He's spot on, in fact. And I appauld the fact he's the only one who states the obvious: We are a huge part of our problem foreign policy-wise. The current situation with Iran illustrates that nicely.

But there is a part of him that is a tad TOO far out there. Enough that I really couldn't vote for him. His trade policies would reek and getting rid of the Fed would cause massive unrest in the markets.

Truth-Bringer · #28 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim";p=&quot

getting rid of the Fed would cause massive unrest in the markets.

Actually, this would be the best thing that ever happened to the economy. I don't think you truly understand the role the Fed plays in our problems. Give the first 4 (short) chapters of this book a read and then call me in the morning.

stekim · #29 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 09:55 AM

Truth:

I have a Master's in finance and economics. I know all about "fiat" currency and the Fed. That's my gig. Getting rid of the Fed at this point would be a total, unmitigated disaster, the proportions of which this country has never seen. We built the room around the elephant and there is no way to let it out without busting up the house. Any and all arguments against the Fed are meaningless circa 2007. Like asking who let the elephant in the room and discussing the merits of living without it in the room. It's done. Over. And there is no way to take it back. Which someone would likely tell Ron Paul on his first day in office.

Truth-Bringer · #30 (**permalink**) 10-19-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim";p=&quot

Truth:

I have a Master's in finance and economics. I know all about "fiat" currency and the Fed. That's my gig. Getting rid of the Fed at this point would be a total, unmitigated disaster, the proportions of which this country has never seen. We built the room around the elephant and there is no way to let it out without busting up the house. Any and all arguments against the Fed are meaningless circa 2007. Like asking who let the elephant in the room and discussing the merits of living without it in the room. It's done. Over. And there is no way to take it back. Which someone would likely tell Ron Paul on his first day in office.

Honestly, stekim, your posts is loaded with fallacies, starting with an appeal to authority...

There is one simple way to deal with the problem of the Fed. Just start issuing gold and silver backed United States Notes as JFK did. And repeal the legal tender laws. Give people the freedom to choose what they want to use as money.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode