Ron Paul expected to raise $12 mil in 4th Quarter

Why do we put so much emphisis on how much a candidate raises for campaign contributions? it is not about the money--it is about who has the money. It is suppose to be about "we the people".

I support Ron Paul---but I would rather see him win with out campaign contributions, which opens up the door for corruption---every time.

STOP ELECTING THE RICH C-SUCKERS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE BENIETH THEM!!

I would vote for Ron Paul---but I really don't care how much money the candidates raise. I vote for people because of their philosphies. If you let money rule you----it will---and it is.

I expect there will be death threats agains Paul, and his family---just like Ross Perot. It is our fault---we always elect the rich guy--and we let the system of voting remain so only the rich have a good shot of winning.
 
Last edited:
Paul has become the side-show clown and only exists in this election as pure entertainment. Both he and his supporters are responsible for his descent into a comedy skit.

The question is whether the Libertarian Party wants to saddle themselves with his baggage. Are they sure they want Ron Paul as the face of the party?
 
blackascoal said:
Paul has become the side-show clown and only exists in this election as pure entertainment. Both he and his supporters are responsible for his descent into a comedy skit.

The question is whether the Libertarian Party wants to saddle themselves with his baggage. Are they sure they want Ron Paul as the face of the party?
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably sure that the Libertarian Party will select their candidate long before Dr. Paul decides he'd take it. Plus, Paul isn't purely libertarian enough for most of those nutjobs. There is a reason they declined from what they used to get in votes. I'm reasonably sure that Dr. Paul thinks driver's licenses are constitutional...
 
Damocles said:
I'm reasonably sure that the Libertarian Party will select their candidate long before Dr. Paul decides he'd take it. Plus, Paul isn't purely libertarian enough for most of those nutjobs. There is a reason they declined from what they used to get in votes. I'm reasonably sure that Dr. Paul thinks driver's licenses are constitutional...
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
 
blackascoal said:
Paul has become the side-show clown and only exists in this election as pure entertainment. Both he and his supporters are responsible for his descent into a comedy skit.

The question is whether the Libertarian Party wants to saddle themselves with his baggage. Are they sure they want Ron Paul as the face of the party?
Click to expand...


Sir--you just insulted the majority that has a brain. (about 50% of the middle class--lol)---but, that is still a lot of people (to bad they feel their vote does not count)--and their vote would win. Who are you to insult all of those people? Because--that is what you did.




YA WANNA SEE BAGGAGE ON A NATIONAL LEVEL?

Impliment a national health care system. Here are the sad economic facts for the people.

#1---We have the most expensive, and largest government in the world. They collect more income taxes (gross) than any country in the world (even if they have health care). I am sure it is over 1000 billion right now/year. Our taxes are bound to go up at least 15% as a average---Other countries with a national helath care system is very very very strong evidence of that.

#2---Weather you believe it or not, the people of this country, a very large number of them are living on the edge right now. The soaring home forclosure rate, and the fact the government knows many are not able to set up for a good retirement (which is why we can now put more money into a ROTH IRA), are good indicatores that many are headed for the poor house---and beccome more of a burdon on the productive workers that are left---as government grows more expensive yet. The world is very dynamic right now when it comes to foreign policy, and trade---with a very uncertain future.

#3---many many people (I bet 40% of the population), right now, that are working are not getting raises that match the cost of living. That makes their future a little tougher. Most people are living from pay check to pay check. Their employeer now provides them with health insurance, and they are going to lose what they have, living from pay check to pay check, because of the higher taxes it will cost to run the national health care system.

Employeers will not have the burdon of providing health insurance, but their profits are tight (because of irresponsible trade policies--mostly), and they are not going to give their employees any money to offset the taxes they will pay. The employee that is just hanging on right now (many are losing their homes---remember?---there are many more on the edge)---will most likely become poverty--and a burdon on the what ever is left for productive workers--many--their mturn to be on the edge.



You libs and irresoponsible trade mongers don't understand. We have to have productive workers to pay for big government, and their expensive plans. The best ratio is as many productive workers you can get, with a wage they can live and retire with so they don't become a burdon---to as little non productive workers as possible (all governmental employees are ----overhead--non productive)



My prediction with a national health care system? The chess peices are in place with the facts above. all we have to do is make one wrong, expensive move---and poverity will rise (making less productive workers, paying less taxes and becoming a burdon).


Now

THAT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF BAGGAGE!!

If anybody disagrees---please take the time, like I did, to explain your points. You have to have a brain to do that--I know---it is tough for some of you. Because your thoughts are not your own (the reason you have no substance with your insults---and you know who you are)
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
Sir--you just insulted the majority that has a brain. (about 50% of the middle class--lol)---but, that is still a lot of people (to bad they feel their vote does not count)--and their vote would win. Who are you to insult all of those people? Because--that is what you did.

Ya wanna see baggage? Get a national health care system in this country.

#1---we run the most expensive government in the world, and collect more income taxes now than any country in the world (gross).

#2--- there is not one country in the world that has a national health care system, where the citizans don't pay over 50% of their wages in income tax. (ask our people now---if they can afford that, and keep their home)

#3---weather you believe it or not---the peoples economy is suffering more than it should, because of irresponsible trade policies (mostly), and the world is very dynamic right now--with uncertain future. Many many people are not making as much money, and many raises are not even keeping up with the cost of living----right now, and for the last 10 years.


Bottom line, IMO, I see the poverity level of this country rising greatly with a national health care system. The chess pieces are in place with the facts above. make one wrong move like this expensive social program--and we may go down hill fast.

Don't count on getting into medicine, to make a good living. I can also see those jobs being replaced to cut government costs with a national health care system.

NOW---THAT IS SOME STINKING BAGGAGE MAN!!!
Click to expand...

50% of what?

Neither 50% of Americans are Paul supporters or libertarian, so I have no idea what 50% you're talking about .. however MORE than 50% of Americans believe the US should have nationalized healthcare. Are you worried that you are insulting them?

And if any American is upset about their vote not counting, then they should have gotten off their ass and joined those who were fighting to ensure our votes do count. The fraud of electronic voting has been conclusively proven for at least 4 years now, but adequate protections are not in place even to this day .. why? Because the American people did not demand adequate protections be put in place. Politicians do not bear sole responsibility for our government, the American people have opted out of our obligation and sit on our apethetic asses and blame government for our ills .. as if we've never read the Declaration of Independence.

Did you join those who fought against the fraud of electronic voting?

1. Americans pay the lowest taxes in the industrial world, except for North Korea and Mexico.

It's interesting that you created a thread about "the rich in control" while at the same time whining about taxes. If you don't want rich politiicans in control then campaign financing must become public financing .. but that might mean you'd have to pay an extra nickel or two to ensure better government and greed just won't allow that.

#2. Every industrialized nation in the world has nationalized healthcare and a great many of them have better healthcare than what Americans pay incredible amounts of money not to have. Even with higher taxes and nationalized healthcare, the citizens of these nations have homes and lead good lives. All the screaming about the horror of nationalized healthcare is directed by the very plutocrats your other thread attempts to denigrate.

#3. A corporation taking its business to a country where it can make more profit is called "capitalism." Why do you expect "nationalized capitalism" when no such animal exists? Job loss and stagnant wages are the result of the "free market" which is free to give Americans the finger.

What is the "peoples economy?" There is no "peoples" in capitalism.

In my opinion, you're parroting the agenda of the plutocrats.
 
Tell me who wants national health care.

1--Rich Liberials who don't know any better, and have no idea what the tax burdon is going to be, or the ride of poverity will be (kinda just like signing NAFTA and not knowing how many people would lose their jobs)

2---people who are not working WELFARE POPPLE---or self employeed people, with big families who can't afford it (but they will pay more taxes and may go out of business---more welfare people coming)


The problem is the abuse of the current health care because of law suits, illegal immerigration, bad trade deals that make less money for the people and all of their smaller employeers--and a few other factors we did not have much of a short 25 years ago--when most could afford it. A national health care plan is NOT the the answer---and there is a agenda for it that has nothing to do with the children.

I hate you



Actually, a opperators (used to be called Drivers license a few years back) license should not be needed. A driver was a guy who hauled property into the cities. He made a profit by using the public roads, and had more responsibility than a normal citizen waho was just using the road to get to work. If you notice, your "Drivers license" does not say Drivers any more. it says "operators".

They say it is a priveledge to be able to drive on a public road to get grocheries, go to work or anything a private citizes uses if for for personal reasons. if you believe that, you have been duped. We paid for everything with taxes. We own those roads. We licence our cars (for state profit), we register them (for state profit), We pay a gas taxes to help pay for the roads--and the state profit. We have laws made against us (like the Michigan drivers responsibility fee--whic is double jepordy) using the public roads to increase revenue--not to increase safty. WE take all the burdon of having and using roads, while the state makes a profit. It should not be hard to see who is really prividleged.
 
Last edited:
theMAJORITY said:
Tell me who wants national health care.

1--Rich Liberials who don't know any better, and have no idea what the tax burdon is going to be, or the ride of poverity will be (kinda just like signing NAFTA and not knowing how many people would lose their jobs)

2---people who are not working WELFARE POPPLE---or self employeed people, with big families who can't afford it (but they will pay more taxes and may go out of business---more welfare people coming)


The problem is the abuse of the current health care because of law suits, illegal immerigration, bad trade deals that make less money for the people and all of their smaller employeers--and a few other factors we did not have much of a short 25 years ago--when most could afford it. A national health care plan is NOT the the answer---and there is a agenda for it that has nothing to do with the children.

I hate you
Click to expand...

You hate me?

You don't even know me .. what you hate is truth.

What Americans want healthcare ? .. MOST of 'em, including many republicans .. AND even many doctors are calling for nationalized healthcare ..

Majority of Americans Support National Health Insurance
Physcians for a National Health Program
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/october/majority_of_american.php

Unless the majority of Americans are made up of "rich liberals and welfare people" then your argument is seriously flawed.

What happened to all the whining about "have civil arguments"and "no name-calling"? As soon as you get challenged .. now you hate me.

Amazing
 
That's hilarious :) "I hate you" sounds more reminiscent of something Watermark would say in jest than a regular poster would say in the middle of an argument... :sexy:
 
Well in Nevada..........

Cypress said:
UPDATE:

Latest November Polls.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

And average of all November Polls for Ron Paul, shows 3.6% support nationwide.

He's doing a tiny, tad better in some early primary states. Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona have him vaulting up to between 4% and 6% support.

New Hampshire, which should traditionally be strongest hunting grounds for a Libertarian, has him to 8% support in the latest polls.


And Hey, my man Edwards isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. With a similar sized campaign chest to Ron Paul, he's only around 15% in national polls, and around 24% in Iowa.
Click to expand...



He did get the support of the 'Moonlight Bunny Ranch'...maybe the girls know something we don't...naw...they just want to tap the leftover campaign money!:cof1:
 
It's absurd to describe Ron Paul's cash flow as some sort of litmus test for the popularity of libertarian politics. It would be different if Ron Paul had $12 million starting in, say, June of 2007 and not December. The Iowa Caucus is in January - Ron Paul won't even be able to spend the kind of money that would be necessary in order to truly test the waters. Far more importantly, the mainstream media have not given him even remotely enough coverage for a true test of libertarian ideas.
 
Sadly, I'd say that most Americans essentially view government as an extension of their own beliefs and care little about protecting individual rights.
 
ironhead said:
It's absurd to describe Ron Paul's cash flow as some sort of litmus test for the popularity of libertarian politics. It would be different if Ron Paul had $12 million starting in, say, June of 2007 and not December. The Iowa Caucus is in January - Ron Paul won't even be able to spend the kind of money that would be necessary in order to truly test the waters. Far more importantly, the mainstream media have not given him even remotely enough coverage for a true test of libertarian ideas.
Click to expand...

He gets little to no coverage from the MSM.

But the big government types like Cypress keep suggesting he has some sort of grand media "buzz" about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top