Paul Fundraising

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Some overlooked considerations:

  1. The only indication that MSM has of Ron Paul’s chances of winning are mathematically inaccurate unscientific polling. They are incorrect and highly erroneous because they only include previous Republican primary voters with landlines. There are not many people who vote in primaries as it is…this number is going to significantly change on Primary Day in NH in Paul’s favor.

  2. Ron Paul has taken first place in 17 Straw polls out of 37; he has placed second in 6 of 37; he has placed third in 7 of 37 – that is 30 top 3 finishers out of 37. This number is way more significant than the unscientific straw polls (I’ll debate the scientific-ness of the MSM polls with anyone who cares to).

  3. Ron Paul is pulling more money in fund-raising than any of the other candidates polling at less than 3%. He has now pulled in more money than John McCain who is considered a “top-tier” candidate among polled GOP primary voters. This is not the funding of a candidate with “no chance in hell” of winning. Chances are, people who paid money to Paul’s campaign will take the time to register as a Republican or attend a caucus and vote in the primary.

  4. Ron Paul has won every post phone in debate text-poll and internet poll. These of course are self-selecting and hence unscientific but measure quite well the motivation of people who are asked to make a choice. These polls are unhackable because they track IP addresses and phone polls only allow one call per voter. They are dismissed because they do not reflect what the MSM thinks they should – such as the unscientific MSM polls.

  5. The net-roots for Paul are quite substantial. He ranks higher than any other candidate on internet rankings (website hit rates) – this is expected because MSM doesn’t substantially cover Paul so the “open source” nature of the internet will fill the gap in information created thereby.[/quote]

lifty,

I admire Mike and his support for paul. He acknowledges that he has serious differences with paul.

On the other hand, your support for paul is pretty creepy. It’s beyond obsession.

ron paul can do no wrong in your mind. That should make you very nervous.

Further, note who is actively tooting for paul: lixy.

If nothing else, the latter should give you a great deal of pause.

JeffR

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:
He won’t lose because of some grand conspiracy. He’ll lose because he won’t get anywhere near enough votes. It’s like folks are already making up excuses for why he will lose. I have no hate at all for the guy. I really don’t. In fact, there’s a ton of things we agree on.

[/quote]

Sloth,

He’ll lose because of his “Fortress America” garbage.

Withdrawing in the middle of a declared global war on terrorism, will signal weakness.

If you want to attempt the Fortress America crap, you do it when you are at peace.

NOT, in the face of an aggressive enemy.

ron paul isn’t interested in you, Sloth.

ron paul is interested in the aggrandizement of ron paul.

JeffR

23

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
(b) powerful people with a lot to lose under his presidency won’t allow such a presidency to happen.

Your defeatism is shameful. Whatever happened to the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

If you guys (a free and democratic society with armed citizenry) just bend over and let the “powerful people” screw you, what chances do the Chinese or Egyptians have? And if you (an educated politically-aware person) give up, do you think single mums working three jobs, college kids, or brainwashed religious fanatics are going to do something about it? I don’t use the term loosely, but your attitude seems un-American to me.[/quote]

lixy,

Not buying your crap for one second.

You can forget about ron paul.

Your pals will be hunted down and killed well beyond 2008.

Your only hope is that rodham wins. Even though she won’t pull out of Iraq, she has a left wing stone around her neck.

If Rudy wins, your friends had better run for cover. He wants his hands on all of your pals. In fact, he wants to execute osama by his own hand.

Rudy will win because of his desire to combat terrorism.

His mandate will be to root out and destroy your pals.

JeffR

24

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Withdrawing in the middle of a declared global war on terrorism, will signal weakness.

[/quote]

There’s no “War on Terror”, the war is against the american people.

27

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Withdrawing in the middle of a declared global war on terrorism, will signal weakness.

There’s no “War on Terror”, the war is against the american people.[/quote]

WOW!!!

jlesk, as you are aware, your posts rarely warrant more than a cursory glance.

However, this one floored me.

Thanks.

JeffR

28

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

lifty,

I admire Mike and his support for paul. He acknowledges that he has serious differences with paul.

On the other hand, your support for paul is pretty creepy. It’s beyond obsession.

ron paul can do no wrong in your mind. That should make you very nervous.

Did you ever stop to think that there is a very good reason for this sort of obsession?

LIFTY IS RON PAUL!

Further, note who is actively tooting for paul: lixy.

If nothing else, the latter should give you a great deal of pause.

JeffR

I stated that on another thread. You have people like Lixy(who is strongly anti-American) backing Ron Paul. You think maybe the knuckle heads who are backing Paul on this forum could see something funny about that?

Naw…

[/quote]

Mick,

I think you might be on to something, there.

Shall we call him “lifty paul” or “lu paul” or “Ron maxi”?

JeffR

29

[quote]JeffR wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Some overlooked considerations:

lifty,

I admire Mike and his support for paul. He acknowledges that he has serious differences with paul.

On the other hand, your support for paul is pretty creepy. It’s beyond obsession.

ron paul can do no wrong in your mind. That should make you very nervous.

Further, note who is actively tooting for paul: lixy.

If nothing else, the latter should give you a great deal of pause.

JeffR

[/quote]
JeffR, the way I see it is that Paul’s position is quite clear – it’s the Constitution and nothing else. I disagree with his position on abortion (however I agree it is not a Federal issue). Quite frankly, his analysis of world events is flawless when when you take the time to research what he has said with regard to those events.

So no, Paul can do no wrong because as his record shows he has never voted against the Constitution. That makes it very easy for me to know how he will behave since I have an understanding of the Constitution. All other people in the race are politicking and hence say one thing but mean something else – they pick and choose which pieces of the Constitution are relevant. This is why government cannot work with politicians in charge.

As far as lixy goes…the fact that he can see the good in someone like Paul shows he isn’t the America basher you and everyone else claim – he actually understand the ideas this country was founded on. The fact that you fallaciously equate the validity of his ideals with the people whom support them shows you have little understanding of logic – therefore I don’t trust any of your judgments.

You are the same as the liberals you bash…coercion is coercion no matter whether it comes from the nanny or police state. Well, I want none of it. No warfare, no welfare – just a free market.

31

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
it takes more than that to operate as President of the US.
[/quote]
The only job a president has to do is stand by the oath he (or she) makes on inauguration day…by that standard he already has everyone in government beat.

If we want to interfere in world politics there needs to be some measure to go by provided in the constitution. I would advise against it as it isn’t smart to butt-in to people’s lives. Even children understand that.

33

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Withdrawing in the middle of a declared global war on terrorism, will signal weakness.

There’s no “War on Terror”, the war is against the american people.[/quote]

Yup, you’re right. The war is against the American people.

Wilson-

FDR-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/JA_internment.JPG

CLINTON-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Waco4.jpg
http://www.athousandandone.com/photos/0/448a07d7cb24f_s.jpg

mike

34

Let’s say Paul doesn’t get the nomination. Would he run as a Third Party candidate? If so, and Hillary gets the Dem nomination, what then? Hillary isn’t favored by the Anti-war crowd, at all. She’s flip-flopped hawkish on Iraq, and has come off hawkish on Iran.

Therefore, does Paul draw more votes from the Democratic nominee in this case, as opposed to the Republican nominee? Will Paul pull the Anti-War vote away from the Democrats (who may secure it with Edwards as their nominee)?

35

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Allow me to pick up where you left off with your comment on children.

Looking a little closer at who the Paulies are we find something very interesting.

Teens, 20 something rage against the machine types and academics find Paul an attractive candidate. Now ask yourself why these groups are so enthralled by Paul. Do you have the answer yet?

Two words Lift: Politically naive

But unfortunately for you there are just not enough of you to make a difference.

How does that feel by the way?[/quote]

You are right! We are politically naive because we don’t believe the political system we have works. We watch these jokers on television smiling and talking through their teeth giving huge, wide-open, vague, roundabout political talking points. We can’t understand the terms in which they speak. They seem to speak with moral authority ensuring us with such obfuscated rhetoric just to prove to us the strength of their conviction.

We don’t buy it. We are starting to understand they are all idiots and that they don’t really understand the world as it actually functions around them. They view themselves as puppet-masters manipulating the world around them for the mere sake of governing. This isn’t a game of chess. Actions have consequences and they all have demonstrated, with exception of Paul, a complete lack of knowledge of the principles upon which this country was founded.

Those truths haven’t changed:

(This is the document that started the First Revolution of These United State of America – read it and understand it!!)

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security…"

36

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

lifty,

I admire Mike and his support for paul. He acknowledges that he has serious differences with paul.

On the other hand, your support for paul is pretty creepy. It’s beyond obsession.

ron paul can do no wrong in your mind. That should make you very nervous.

Did you ever stop to think that there is a very good reason for this sort of obsession?

LIFTY IS RON PAUL!

Further, note who is actively tooting for paul: lixy.

If nothing else, the latter should give you a great deal of pause.

JeffR

I stated that on another thread. You have people like Lixy(who is strongly anti-American) backing Ron Paul. You think maybe the knuckle heads who are backing Paul on this forum could see something funny about that?

Naw…

Mick,

I think you might be on to something, there.

Shall we call him “lifty paul” or “lu paul” or “Ron maxi”?

JeffR
[/quote]

It has allways been fascinating who on this forum thinks it is in any way amusing, intelligent or furthers their agenda to give people weird and supposedly demaning nicknames.

Me, personally, I stopped that practice around the age of 10-11, most of the real insecure and slow of wit around 14.

Anyway, please carry on.