Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul says he raised nearly $20 million in final quarter of 2007
Boston Globe ^ | 01.01.08 | Foon Rhee

Posted on 01/01/2008 12:39:23 PM PST by rface

Edited on 01/01/2008 12:48:40 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Ron Paul said today his presidential campaign raised nearly $20 million in the last three months of 2007 from 130,000 donors.

Ron Paul brought in nearly $5.3 million that quarter.

Paul's campaign said that more than 107,000 donors were new and the average donation was about $90. More than half of the total came from two 24-hour online fund-raising events organized by supporters -- one on Nov. 5, and the second centered in Boston on Dec. 16.


(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: fundraising; ronpaul; sorosmoney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-222 next last
To: furquhart; AuntB
..at that, to take it one step further, it says a lot about JimRob that he hasn’t gone through a purge, unlike RedState or LibertyPost.
The only Paul supporters I’ve noticed who have been banned were extremely abusive, attacking our troops, or conspiracy nuts.
81 posted on 01/01/2008 2:33:24 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
They key is, if they are breaking the rules.. I think it is good that some are playing apologist for their candidate. I know I would never have delved so deep into Paul’s record if it weren’t for his apologists. I don’t know if the same holds true for you, as I know you’ve also found the truth about Fraud Paul, would either of us have dug so deeply if we weren’t debating them?
82 posted on 01/01/2008 2:35:22 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Absolute nonsense.

We can, and should, draw very bright red lines.

This forum - and other forums - don’t tolerate Holocaust deniers? Do they? So why should we tolerate supporters of the candidate of the Holocaust denies?

Stormfront garbage ins’t welcome here. So why do we welcome Stormfront’s candidate?

Treason isn’t welcome here - so why do we welcome treason’s half-brother, in the form of Ron Paul and his supporters?

Of course forums should be open, to the degree that it’s possible. But you wouldn’t want a giant pile of stinking, rotting garbage sitting in the middle of your town meeting - would you? So why should we welcome Ron Paul’s worthless supporters?

They should, at the very minimum, be banished to the sewers, with the rest of the excrement.


83 posted on 01/01/2008 2:35:53 PM PST by furquhart (John S. McCain for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Maybe I misread you initially, I just reread your post and I think we are agreeing.. I am for not booting anyone who is playing by the rules, no matter who they support.


84 posted on 01/01/2008 2:36:47 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

Or should we expose them to the light of day? Show them for who they are so that anyone who is googling Paul will fall across the truth behind his Fraud. Heck, the whole Google Ron Paul campaign is starting to backfire on them as the first couple of pages of results have conspiracy websites and commentary on his relationship with Stormfront and Alex Jones.


85 posted on 01/01/2008 2:38:15 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
“Non-interventionism” = support for the victories of our enemies = treason.

That's a load of hog feces and you know it.

86 posted on 01/01/2008 2:39:29 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Nonsense.

Saying “I’m against the war” is just another way of saying “I want the Islamists to win.”

Whatever your reasons for wanting the Islamists to win are - whether you’re an Islamist, whether you’re a soft-hearted fool, whether you think it will weaken the President, whether you’re just plain stupid - are irrelevant, since your views would lead to the same result.


87 posted on 01/01/2008 2:42:51 PM PST by furquhart (John S. McCain for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
This forum - and other forums - don’t tolerate Holocaust deniers? Do they? So why should we tolerate supporters of the candidate of the Holocaust denies?

Oooh! Me! Me! I wanna play the Guilt-by-association game!

This Forum doesn't support restrictions on the 1st Amendment. You support a candidate (McLoser) who did just that.

JOHN MCCAIN, YOU TREASONOUS BASTARD, I CHALLENGE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR TRAITOROUS COHORTS...

88 posted on 01/01/2008 2:43:51 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rface

I bet Soros is behind this nutter’s fundraising.


89 posted on 01/01/2008 2:43:55 PM PST by manic4organic (Send a care package through USO today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
“Non-interventionism” = support for the victories of our enemies = treason.

EXACTLY- the so called 'non-interventionism' is actually giving our enemy moral authority over our allies and against treaties we have. We have a defense treaty with Israel (as part of the Oslo Accord) and it is unconstitutional to break that treaty outside proper congressional action. Our enemies say they attacked us because we are on 'their' land, and Paul agrees, yet that is giving our enemy authority over that land, authority they don't have. In Saudi Arabia (for example) where Mecca is, we are guests and Al Qaeda doesn't have any legal authority, so who do we listen to, those who have legal authority and say we are guests or those who don't have authority, are sworn enemies, and whose victory is our becoming 'non-intraventionist'?

90 posted on 01/01/2008 2:44:29 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
One of the lessons of this campaign, which we all knew could only be contended for by a $100 million plus warbank, is to be found in Ron "I'm in the margin of error!" Paul, and Mike "I'm broke" Huckabee.

People do pay attention.

No, I don't think Huck will get the nomination, but he's put on a solid performance, and Paul and his folk have performed too.

91 posted on 01/01/2008 2:46:34 PM PST by SJackson (If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
the moment he declared his candidacy, you guys

actually I had nothing to say about him until I found out he supported the Soviets in the cold war and spit in Lincoln's face.

92 posted on 01/01/2008 2:50:19 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

His foreign policy is so out of whack with what I think is even remotely possible in the real-world geopolitical situation that it verges on the bizarre.

His domestic policy is a message that no other candidate is giving and that resounds with many people tired of the same duopoly party candidates for more, ‘better,’ government. I suspect a lot of his support is from this angle.


93 posted on 01/01/2008 2:51:39 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: furquhart
Whatever your reasons for wanting the Islamists to win are - whether you’re an Islamist, whether you’re a soft-hearted fool, whether you think it will weaken the President, whether you’re just plain stupid - are irrelevant, since your views would lead to the same result.

Let's get some things clear.

Nobody on this Forum, Paul supporters included, supports the Islamofascists.

We want terrorists dead just as much as you do.

We have killed thousands of terrorists over the past six years, brought new governments to two countries, etc.

Please explain to me, why we need to stay in the Middle East any longer than we should have, while our borders remain open and we're letting Muslims here radicalize and affect our policy.

Personally, we should have put a giant protective bubble over Israel, and turned the rest of the Middle East into a parking lot. But I know that's not practical.

For the most part, we have accomplished our goals and gotten our revenge. There ain't going to be any more hijackings or terrorist attacks HERE...

You want to remain in the Middle East, keep fighting, which will depreciate our military to the point that a draft will be needed, all the while devaluing our dollar to pay for the war and for unconstitutional domestic spending here at home.

94 posted on 01/01/2008 2:52:34 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (13-3 Green Bay Packers - The road to the Super Bowl begins NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“Who or what are the “benjamins”?”

Hundred dollars bills, in this case


95 posted on 01/01/2008 2:53:14 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

sounds fun until your name is up there too.


96 posted on 01/01/2008 2:55:11 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Martins kid

“I wonder how safe votes for women would be with Paul? Obviously he did not like the ban on slavery either.”

You should refer to the constitution for methods of amending the constitution to make womens’ suffrage become unsafe.

Note that the President has no role in this.

Do you really believe a president could make any change on this topic at all?


97 posted on 01/01/2008 2:59:18 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: furquhart

“Ron Paul’s supporters - traitors all - are a cancer upon the Republican Party and, indeed, upon the American people as a whole.”

I really think you would be happier under a system of government other than a Republic.


98 posted on 01/01/2008 3:01:31 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Based on what I have read of his interview on this topic, I don’t think he addresses the sectionalist issues in the united states in the early and mid-19th centuries at all. This was a much more complex topic than he is making it out to be, and I am not sure there was any logical reason to expect the southern states not to break away at some point, if not in 1860/61.


99 posted on 01/01/2008 3:04:43 PM PST by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Stormfront is really coming through for him.

Conservatives, White Supremacists, Take to Florida Streets; Stormfront Leader Joins Bush Protest

100 posted on 01/01/2008 3:05:06 PM PST by niki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221-222 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson