Ron Paul raises over 4 million in one day

[DrDNA]

I was out doing a lot of driving this weekend and Ron Paul supporters have placed homemade banners supporting him ALL OVER the place. Even out on 2 lanes that don't get a whole lot of traffic. It was great to see.

[ecoli]

I was out doing a lot of driving this weekend and Ron Paul supporters have placed homemade banners supporting him ALL OVER the place. Even out on 2 lanes that don't get a whole lot of traffic. It was great to see.

cool... where do you live?

 

I saw a small banner on one highway, and stickers on a nearby telephone pole. I live on L.I. Our primary is a while away, so I don't really expect much campaigning stuff yet. When the time comes, I may be doing a bit myself.

[DrDNA]

cool... where do you live?

 

I saw a small banner on one highway, and stickers on a nearby telephone pole. I live on L.I. Our primary is a while away, so I don't really expect much campaigning stuff yet. When the time comes, I may be doing a bit myself.

 

We live in the desert southwest. My son and I were in and out of the desert quail hunting all weekend. I was REALLY surprized at some of the relatively remote locations where the Paul banners were placed. A lot of them were afixed to barbed wire cattle fences on BLM or state trust land off of 2 lanes and remote highway locations. I saw so many that I was expecting to see some off road. Of course we didn't see any there. Paul's catus roots (errr.... grass roots) effort is really going strong.

 

I think I will join you in the effort. I did it for Ross Perot and look forward to doing it again.

[Pangloss]

BTW, not to change the subject or anything, but can you imagine how Ron Paul's Supreme Court nominations would upset religious conservatives? Almost worth it just to see 'em squirm.

[ParanoiA]

This is a Face the Nation interview. Obviously, there's tons, but I liked this one because he talks specifically about Iran, the coldwar, and his response to the isolationist label.

Part One (5 mins): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0C00o6mtwY&feature=bz302

Part Two (3 mins): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoK6UV4l_4

[ecoli]

BTW, not to change the subject or anything, but can you imagine how Ron Paul's Supreme Court nominations would upset religious conservatives? Almost worth it just to see 'em squirm.

 

Well, Ron Paul is a religious man himself. I think he has to brothers that are ministers.

 

They should like that he's anti-abortion. Of course, the fact that he would never allow the federal government meddle in everyone's lives by ruling on it might turn them off.

 

This is a Face the Nation interview. Obviously, there's tons, but I liked this one because he talks specifically about Iran, the coldwar, and his response to the isolationist label.

Part One (5 mins): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0C00o6mtwY&feature=bz302

Part Two (3 mins): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoK6UV4l_4

 

I really like Ron Paul's realistic foreign policy. We can't financially support foreign wars and the longer we are there, the more support terrorism gets.

 

Also, I don't think there is a candidate who's veiws are as misrepresented as Ron Paul. I cruise a lot of political forums, blogs and news sites and quite a few people are criticizing misrepresentations of Paul's ideologies. It seems as if people are trying to radicalize him in order to disenfranchize him. It's like they're trying not to get the facts right... because despite being constantly corrected by Paul supporters, the same misrepresentations keep popping up.

[CharonY]

I am not following this candidate in any detail but I came across this article http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404

 

One point was that he is getting support from white supremacist organizations. Granted, this is not his fault per se. However in the article are some quotes, which I find questionable, though I have no idea whether they are authentic.

 

The Houston Chronicle documented Paul as having written some questionable materials himself. In his 1992 independent political newsletter, Paul reported on a survey of blacks. He has refused to provide the survey to anyone. His comments include:

 

* "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

 

* "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

 

* "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

 

* "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

 

Can anyone comment on this?

[ecoli]

I am not following this candidate in any detail but I came across this article http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=404

 

One point was that he is getting support from white supremacist organizations. Granted, this is not his fault per se. However in the article are some quotes, which I find questionable, though I have no idea whether they are authentic.

 

 

 

Can anyone comment on this?

 

Yeah... it turns out that Ron Paul had this newsletter that was published under his name. However, he didn't write all the articles for the newsletter.

 

Perhaps it was poor judgement by his part, but the newsletter was published with the racist remarks without with his prior knowledge. The actual writer of the remarks, whose identity Ron Paul has declined to reveal was fired from the writing staff of the newsletter.

 

I suspect, at the back of my mind, that this latter part of the story was left out with the intention of smearing Ron Paul, though most likely by the individual writer rather than any large conspiracy against him.

 

If you look at any of his other writings, in terms of content and style, the newsletter remarks are completely inconsistent. Perhaps it was in poor judgement of Ron Paul to not make sure his staffers didn't print items he did not agree with in his newsletter, but it cannot be said that Ron Paul is a racist or anti-Semite.

 

Ron Paul is actually quite accepted in the black community. He is the highest polling republican amoung black voters.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/15/ron-paul-is-highest-polling-republican-among-black-voters/

[CharonY]

Ah I see. Thanks for the info!

[Saryctos]

Well, I think they handled political disputes much better back in the day.

 

I would love to see Clinton and Guiliani battle out the issues in a gun duel.

 

His policy may be all well and good...but how many scrotums does he have on his stick?

[JaKiri]

Ron Paul is a joke, but the level of support he has that ignores his horrific flaws turns it a bit sour. He's a traditional right wing christian who seems to have gotten spinned into some kind of libertarian upon the way.

 

If you want an anti-war liberal, support Kucinich.

 

Paul reminds me of the founding fathers

 

Except, say, Jefferson. And all the other guys who believed in personal liberty.

 

And before you say anything about Paul's stance, his "We The People..." act would... actually, I don't know why I'm going into this. Read it yourself.

 

Yeah... it turns out that Ron Paul had this newsletter that was published under his name. However, he didn't write all the articles for the newsletter.

 

Perhaps it was poor judgement by his part, but the newsletter was published with the racist remarks without with his prior knowledge. The actual writer of the remarks, whose identity Ron Paul has declined to reveal was fired from the writing staff of the newsletter.

 

Why did he defend the remarks when asked about them in 1996, claiming that they came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time"?

[ParanoiA]

Except' date=' say, Jefferson. And all the other guys who believed in personal liberty.

 

And before you say anything about Paul's stance, his "We The People..." act would... actually, I don't know why I'm going into this. Read it yourself.[/quote']

 

Care to support the claim of Ron Paul not believing in personal liberty? That would be a cool reason to go into it.

 

Why did he defend the remarks when asked about them in 1996, claiming that they came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time"?

 

Got a link or something for this one?

 

Seriously, with all the anti Ron Paul spinning out there, we have to be a little more diligent when we see the earmarks of misrepresenatation.

[ydoaPs]

JaKiri, pimpin' Nixon was better, imo.

[ecoli]

Seriously, with all the anti Ron Paul spinning out there, we have to be a little more diligent when we see the earmarks of misrepresenatation.

 

wow, jaKiri is back... there's a blast from the past.

 

Anyway, I've found, throughout the political forum-o-sphere that much of the anti-Paul sentiment comes from a distortion and misrepresentation of his views.

 

I've spent several hours today debating one particular guy who's idea that Ron Paul is some sort of messianic neo-Nazi hell bent on turning the US into some conservative christian haven full of corporate control. He has even suggested that the US would fracture under Paul's presidency... that states would secede starting a new civil war.

 

People say the darnedest things and come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories without a shred of proof. It's funny, in a way, because they attack Ron Paul because he is supported by 9/11 troofers, without realizing they sound exactly like them.

 

If you want an anti-war liberal, support Kucinich.

I like Kucinich's war policy, but not his government spending.

I don't think socialism would be healthy for our country right now.

[JaKiri]

Care to support the claim of Ron Paul not believing in personal liberty? That would be a cool reason to go into it.

 

His "We The People" act (HR300) would cause SCOTUS rulings to not apply to the states, striking down such things as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Engel v. Vitale which stop anti-abortion laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti-evolution laws and defend the seperation of church and state respectively. There are many trigger laws in place in many states if such a thing took place, including the banning of abortion and homosexuality. If "We The People" had passed, then it would be illegal for atheists to hold public office in Texas.

 

These laws are not merely remnants of history. Whilst referenda have removed some of these laws from state constitutions, others have been retained by referenda and opinion polls suggest that many of these laws, which directly restrict the liberties which the Supreme Court ruled constitutional, would be supported in the event that they became relevent.

 

In his introduction to the bill, Ron Paul specifically mentioned abortion laws as one of the areas that HR300 was written to address. The Sanctity of Life Act (HR1094) covers similar ground.

 

He wants to outlaw flag burning (HJRES80, HJRES82), repeal the Voter Registration act, which makes it easier to register to vote, (HR2139), repeal the nationalisation clause of the 14th amendment (HJRES42, HJRES46), repeal environmental protection laws, which are an issue of individual civil liberties if you like things like clean drinking water and air, (HR7079, HR7245 and several more) and supports a whole host of other nasties.

 

Got a link or something for this one?

 

Here's an indirect source (apologies for its rather mediocre level, but it's 4AM here).

 

Seriously, with all the anti Ron Paul spinning out there, we have to be a little more diligent when we see the earmarks of misrepresenatation.

 

I don't think you really have to misrepresent Ron Paul. F'r example:

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

 

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State

 

This is without even getting into things like his opposition of divestment in Darfur (HR180) - a bill to stop giving government money to organisations involved in the genocide in Darfur, which many would argue as the "free market" solution to the problem. Paul was the only vote against, and going by his remarks on the topic hadn't read the bill in question. Similarly for his vote against awarding the Congressional Medal of Honour to Rosa Parks - he voted nay to HR573 apparantly due to his opposition of funding the medal with $30,000 of taxpayers' money despite the fact that the bill stated that the medal would not be funded by the taxpayers.

 

I try to think the best of people, and I'd much prefer that Paul was one of illiterate, lazy or incompetent rather than the alternative, which would unfortunately have to be that Paul was evil.

[ecoli]

Ron Paul proposed the anti Flag burning amendment and then voted against it. This was to demonstrate that current policy allows the legislation of civil liberties without changing the constitution, which is, in itself, unconstitutional.

 

The "we the people act" was to grant power back to the states. He doesn't believe the federal government can rule on specific issues as you mentioned. Not, because he is against them, but because he doesn't believe the federal government should be dictating these things, either for or against, for the nation as a whole.

 

Ron Paul's document, the War on Religion, was expressing the fact that secularists take the "separation of church and state" to mean that no religion is allowed in public institutions. Paul argues that it means federal government can't tell people whether or not religion should be allowed to be in public places.

 

Therefore, you cannot make laws that forbid or require prayer in schools, etc. If students want to pray in public schools, that's their business, not the federal government.

 

Where was the money for HR573 coming from then, if not from taxes?

 

Maybe he voted against HR 180 because he felt it didn't go far enough in limiting federal involvement in Darfur. I'm not sure about this one though, I'll have to do more research.

 

I found Paul's opinion on HR 180.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070730-47&person=400311

it's towards the bottom. I'm reading through it now.

[JaKiri]

Ron Paul proposed the anti Flag burning amendment and then voted against it. This was to demonstrate that current policy allows the legislation of civil liberties without changing the constitution, which is, in itself, unconstitutional.

 

So I see. I apologise for misrepresenting the Congressman's position.

 

The "we the people act" was to grant power back to the states. He doesn't believe the federal government can rule on specific issues as you mentioned. Not, because he is against them, but because he doesn't believe the federal government should be dictating these things, either for or against, for the nation as a whole.

 

So if states outlaw abortion (lets set aside for the moment the rather more prickly issues of abortion in the cases where having the child threatens the mother's life, or of foetuses which are the result of rape) then that infringement on personal rights are fine because it's the states doing it, rather than the federal government?

 

I'm not sure how this is supposed to disagree with my claim.

 

Ron Paul's document, the War on Religion, was expressing the fact that secularists take the "separation of church and state" to mean that no religion is allowed in public institutions. Paul argues that it means federal government can't tell people whether or not religion should be allowed to be in public places.

 

Lets go into the rest of the paragraph that I sourced the quote from.

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

 

The context seems to support my interpretation, doesn't it.

 

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

 

Similar stuff here, with an aside that supports the interpretation that Paul doesn't have the best grasp of the history, context and indeed text of the Constitution (The words "God", "Creator" or "Lord" appear once between them in the Constitution, in the phrase "Year of our Lord").

 

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

 

Therefore, you cannot make laws that forbid or require prayer in schools, etc. If students want to pray in public schools, that's their business, not the federal government.

 

It must be noted at this point that there are no laws banning prayer in schools, only prayer which is organised, led or otherwise supported by the staff.

 

Where was the money for HR573 coming from then, if not from taxes?

 

As the bill states, the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

 

Maybe he voted against HR 180 because he felt it didn't go far enough in limiting federal involvement in Darfur. I'm not sure about this one though, I'll have to do more research.

 

I found Paul's opinion on HR 180.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070730-47&person=400311

it's towards the bottom. I'm reading through it now.

 

He criticises it because he doesn't support sanctions, and thus the restriction of american businesses to do business.

 

This is not what divestment is. There were no restrictions upon trade in HR180.

[ParanoiA]

So if states outlaw abortion (lets set aside for the moment the rather more prickly issues of abortion in the cases where having the child threatens the mother's life, or of foetuses which are the result of rape) then that infringement on personal rights are fine because it's the states doing it, rather than the federal government?

 

Yes. Jefferson also agreed with state power. This decision is upon recognition that while you see it as an infringement on personal rights, someone else sees it as preventing murder. Rather than force the hand of a major minority at the federal level, Dr. Paul seems to respect your local government - your state government - and prefers it be settled there.

 

A consistent position for a proponent of federation over centralized government. Your argument seems to imply that every referral to state power is a dismissal of personal liberty.

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

 

I see no issue with this statement. The Founders' political views aren't the same as the Framers' political document. Yes, the founding fathers were quite religious, but did not want to see the government establish and endorse any particular religion. Religion was also a source of morality code, as atheism wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. Religion mingling with government was somewhat a "given".

 

I wish I had more time. Good discussion though. I'm going to read up on HR180 as well.

[ecoli]

As the bill states, the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

I can't find the text of the bill... the library on congress said it hasn't received it yet.

 

What is the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund? It sounds like any source of funds that has the word "public" in it winds up costing the taxpayers at some point or another. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

He criticises it because he doesn't support sanctions, and thus the restriction of american businesses to do business.

 

This is not what divestment is. There were no restrictions upon trade in HR180.

 

I know, just on the fed. government doing business with these companies... I'm not sure if this is still inconsistent or not. I wonder if Paul has addressed it further.

 

It could be that the companies being accused of furthering genocide have not been convicted in a court of law. By what criteria are we judging these companies?

[JaKiri]

Yes. Jefferson also agreed with state power. This decision is upon recognition that while you see it as an infringement on personal rights, someone else sees it as preventing murder. Rather than force the hand of a major minority at the federal level, Dr. Paul seems to respect your local government - your state government - and prefers it be settled there.

 

A consistent position for a proponent of federation over centralized government. Your argument seems to imply that every referral to state power is a dismissal of personal liberty.

 

Every referral to state power over an issue of personal liberty which is deliberately designed to sidestep the checks and balances that are in place to defend personal liberty is a dismissal of personal liberty, yes.

 

What the christian right believe abortion to be isn't an issue. Some people cry that meat is murder, should meat eating be outlawed if you happened to find an arbitrary geographic collection of people that contained a majority that believed that way? What about religion - many atheists claim that religion itself is evil, should we permit religion to be banned?

 

The point of personal liberty is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. There's no value in the concept of it if it isn't defended when others disapprove, just like there's no value in freedom of speech, if speech is only free when you say things the majority wants to hear.

 

Governments of any size should have no rights to judge or restrict on what people do as individuals, only when it affects the group.

 

Yes, the founding fathers were quite religious, but did not want to see the government establish and endorse any particular religion.

 

That's the opposite of what Paul said, though - "Rigid seperation of church and state can't have been intended by the founding fathers as they were religious" is the only sensible interpretation of what he wrote, unless we want to redefine phrases like "on the contrary".

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

I can't find the text of the bill... the library on congress said it hasn't received it yet.

 

It has, it was from the 106th Congress (sorry, I should have mentioned that).

 

SEC. 5. FUNDING.

 

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS- There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act.

 

(b) PROCEEDS OF SALE- Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.

 

What is the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund? It sounds like any source of funds that has the word "public" in it winds up costing the taxpayers at some point or another. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005136----000-.html

 

It could be that the companies being accused of furthering genocide have not been convicted in a court of law. By what criteria are we judging these companies?

 

Paul's remarks don't touch upon this at all.

[ParanoiA]

Every referral to state power over an issue of personal liberty which is deliberately designed to sidestep the checks and balances that are in place to defend personal liberty is a dismissal of personal liberty, yes.

 

As long as you're going to pretend that abortion really isn't a controversial issue that has the country divided between personal liberty / right to commit murder - then yes, your position will continue to lead you to centralized, non-federal government.

 

The fact is, that the constitution is quite clear on personal liberty - there are no issues there. No state can override these liberties. The issue is how abortion is to be "interpreted" so we therefore know how to apply the principles of the constitution to it - we don't agree on that and haven't agreed on that for decades.

 

And I refuse to dismiss those who disagree with me that abortion is a right and instead see it as murder. I'm glad they are fighting for what they believe in - between the two sides, the discussion continues and perhaps one day we'll all agree.

 

This is not an arbitrary geographic collection of weirdos living in Idaho....this is half the freaking country.

 

What the christian right believe abortion to be isn't an issue. Some people cry that meat is murder' date=' should meat eating be outlawed if you happened to find an arbitrary geographic collection of people that contained a majority that believed that way? What about religion - many atheists claim that religion itself is evil, should we permit religion to be banned?

 

The point of personal liberty is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. There's no value in the concept of it if it isn't defended when others disapprove, just like there's no value in freedom of speech, if speech is only free when you say things the majority wants to hear.

 

Governments of any size should have no rights to judge or restrict on what people do as individuals, only when it affects the group.[/quote']

 

You're preaching to the choir. We already get that. I believe you refuse to accept your opponents POV to abortion. You don't have to agree with someone to grant that their point has value. In this country, each person's voice has value. To dismiss that, is elitist.

[JaKiri]

As long as you're going to pretend that abortion really isn't a controversial issue that has the country divided between personal liberty / right to commit murder - then yes, your position will continue to lead you to centralized, non-federal government.

 

The fact is, that the constitution is quite clear on personal liberty - there are no issues there.

 

Actually, a lot of things are a results of SCOTUS interpretation, something that Ron Paul wants to get rid of (at least where it applies to states).

 

And I refuse to dismiss those who disagree with me that abortion is a right and instead see it as murder. I'm glad they are fighting for what they believe in - between the two sides, the discussion continues and perhaps one day we'll all agree.

 

We won't all agree, like the two sides never agree. Unless the church changes, but that's generally something that the religious right thinks is dumb and so goes on trucking.

 

Like I said earlier, a lot of people believe that meat is murder, but the only sensible position is to allow people to eat meat.

 

This is not an arbitrary geographic collection of weirdos living in Idaho....this is half the freaking country.

 

Tyranny of the majority is such fun. Freedom doesn't mean half the country telling the other half what to do, or all but one member of the country telling that guy what to do.

 

I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be the freedom candidate. Although he says he wants to go back to the way the constitution originally was so I presume he wants black people to only count as a fraction of a person.

 

You're preaching to the choir. We already get that. I believe you refuse to accept your opponents POV to abortion. You don't have to agree with someone to grant that their point has value. In this country, each person's voice has value. To dismiss that, is elitist.

 

I'm indeed dismissing people's opinions, if the only thing you're allowed to have an opinion over is personal freedoms. But it isn't.

 

So I'm not.

[ecoli]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/ron-paul-suppor.html

 

 

Ron Paul beat John Kerry's record of raising $5.7 mill on a single day, by raising $6.04 mill on Sunday, the anniversary of the Boston tea party. Again, the entire event was completely volunteer organized, without input from the campaign. Out of the 60,000 donors, about 20,000 year first time donors, suggesting that his support is still growing.

 

Personally, if Dr. Paul truly has a shot at winning the nomination, I expect his support to literally explode nationally the week after christmas. It fits with the exponential growth curve the campaign is hoping for.

[Sisyphus]

At this point I see no indication that his amazing fundraising (or fund-receiving) is that different from Howard Dean in 2004. He, too, was an internet-fundraising sensation (a picture of him eating a sandwich on his website raised more funds than the most lucrative gold-plate dinners for Bush), was especially popular among college students (your "first time donors"), and was even basically a libertarian running under one of the major parties. And like Paul, he was successfully portrayed as a crazy person by his fellow party members, and like Paul, all the internet hype, enthusiasm of his supporters, and even money in the world couldn't substitute for actual quantity of votes.

[iNow]

I'd suggest he has a real chance if all the people talking about him on the internet and helping raise these funds actually GET OFF THEIR ASSES and VOTE. Which, if current fund raising efforts are any sign, they might.

 

 

 

I have been sharing this a lot, but I'm personally excited because it's a show I watch weekly, but Ron Paul will have the full hour on Meet the Press this Sunday, December 23. Let's see how the exchange with Tim Russert goes. His ideas will be heard, and it's up to him to express them in a way that translates.