Ron Paul supporters urged to attend MoveOn.org Rally !

RonPaul MeetUp Group ^ | 26 August 2007 | David Osborne

[davidosborne]

Many of you know that I help organize the Duncan Hunter "meetup" group(s). I decided to peek in at the "competition" and found it very interesting that Ron Paul supporters are being urged to attend the MoveOn.org rally....

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3421862

I post this because I know there are a lot of folks on FR that support Ron Paul.. I just wonder if you are participating in this effort.. or what you think about this whole business of catering to MoveOn.org

.... quote from an active Ron Paul supporter

Somebody posted a thread concerning moveon, and letting their members know about Ron Paul. As a member of moveon.org, I received today an invitation to create an anti-war rally on August 28th. They will be doing rallies all across the nation on that day. We should invade this event. During the rally, bring anti-war stickers, signs, and flags -- and also Ron Paul signs. Introduce moveon members to Ron Paul, the REAL anti-war candidate! Anti-war people will ask about Ron Paul and be introduced to him on that day. Don't be rude, just gently introduce people to the peace candidate. Moveon.org is well cordinated, so if enough of our people show up at their rallies, we might be able to convert a huge number of people.

I have already created a moveon.org anti-war rally, on the 28th at 7pm, right outisde of the West Covina Mall. Please, everybody who can in this group, COME. It's on the corner of Vincent and Plaza Drive in West Covina.

Edited by Karsten Nicholson on Aug 24, 2007 at 1:44 PM

[RasterMaster]

Funny, I don’t see SHRIMPBOATS in the Constitution...

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/08/07/looking-for-shrimp-in-the-constitution/

[txhurl]

Dude, I’m an Austinite. Alex Jones somehow wrangled the otherwise sane KLBJ-590 AM station for his local Sunday rant, wherein he loops over and over about WTC7, Ron Paul, The Federal Reserve, Bilderbergers, IRS, etc. enough to warrant the station a conspiracy reputation.

[karsten5]

This is old news. He votes against the bill. Check it out for yourself: http://dailypaul.com/node/1135

[upsdriver]

No, I am not a third party type. I have voted straight republican in every election since Reagan in 80. I was one of those Reagan democrats. But up until now, every candidate has been prolife. Rudy is not. I will not vote for any candidate who favors abortion or is ambivalent about it. Best thing is not nominating Rudy. Solves that problem. I would take no pleasure in seeing Hillary elected.

BTW, One of the reasons I like Hunter is his very staunch pro-life stand. He is not afraid, embarrassed or wishy washy about the issue like so many of our candidates are. He doesn’t stumble over the words or try to nuance the issue to try to fool people.

[RasterMaster]

Doesn’t change the fact he’s a CUT & RUN RINO, even if with a poor-attempt at a flip-flop:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

A Ron Paul presidency (as well as any DUmocrat) is an OPEN INVITATION for terrorist attacks to continue.

[RasterMaster]

August 6th:

Pet Projects

“Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul’s office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.”

[RasterMaster]

Pearls of wisdom from Maha:

[George W. Bush]

What a nice set of posts from those debunking your goofy shrimp story:

---

2. iiiyraeg Says:
   August 7th, 2007 at 5:26 am

   Ron Paul’s reasoning, which took me a while to figure out, is this: the money claimed by earmarks WILL be spent; it’s not a question of how much earmarking there will be, but who will get it. The only way to kill the earmarks is to kill the entire bill, which Ron Paul consistently votes to do, year after year. Since he cannot win the overall budget battle, he does his best to ensure that a fair share of the earmarked money at least returns to the taxpayers he represents, and not exclusively to someone else’s constituents. Once in a while his earmarks stick and his constituents get a bit of the federal loot returned to them in public projects (not as good as tax refunds, but better than nothing).

   Yeah, it’s too clever by half (he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon), but it is consistent with his philosophy.

3. 0zzy Says:
   August 7th, 2007 at 5:49 am

   Read this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=earmark#9

   Basically:
   The government is going to spend this money one way or another. By NOT earmarking the funds, you just give the bureaucracy $XX million dollars and say “have at it”.

   By earmarking it, you put where the money should be, back to the people, rather than trusting the bureaucracy.

   However, when the earmarks go on for voting, he VOTES AGAINST HIS OWN EARMARKS.

   So, please, do your research. The old media is known for telling half truths.

---

What that story doesn't mention is that these earmarks, like all of RP's earmarks, never get funded. It's because he won't engage in the porking vote-trading required to get pork of your own.

We have the list of earmarks since Ron Paul actually publishes his earmark list openly unlike some other candidates I could name.

[karsten5]

Well, I’m going to bed now. It was fun being the talk of the day. Have a good night, everybody.

~Karsten Nicholson

[RasterMaster]

"he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon" & "VOTES AGAINST HIS OWN EARMARKS."

Those are some CHOICE quotes alright! Lightweight cannot even stand up for his own amendments...just like a DUmocrat!

[txhurl]

OK, KN. Sleep tite.

Come back when you can, we need your campaign operational input.

[George W. Bush]

You made quite the splash here. I can’t recall we ever had a thread like this where the person being attacked actually showed up here and started posting. Funny stuff and a good thread.

[upsdriver]

Yes, I heard Rush say that! There are very few conservatives running and Hunter is the best one. I wish Rush would get off the dime and start promoting Duncan Hunter. He could make a huge impact in getting Hunter noticed.

BTW, I just listened to your clip with Lynne Hunter on Roger Hedgecock. It was good to hear her voice. We don’t see or hear much about her. Sounds like she stays home and tends to business while Duncan is off working.

[txhurl]

Let's just get serious about this. RP represents the sullen independents...who think there's a way to just magically constitutionally wand ourselves back to 1913.

Who don't want war, no matter what.

How do we get this 20% of the electorate to wake up?

War isn't forever, and it (in the US' case) leaves the planet healthier than the circumstance that caused the war.

How do we reach these peaceniks? Can it be done?

[George W. Bush]

"he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon" & "VOTES AGAINST HIS OWN EARMARKS."

It's very very little pork he brings home. In cases where his own earmarks match up with a push from local governments or organizations where RP and many other congressmen submit earmarks, then RP's will get funded along with everyone else's. And that's about all the actual "pork" his district gets. But then, that's not really pork. A Bridge To Nowhere, now that's pork.

Outside a few Paul-haters here at FR, no one believes that bilge about Paul and the earmarks. If you look through LoneStars comments, you can see they didn't manage to sell it to their readers either.

[upsdriver]

I have read all your posts and must commend you on your decorum. You added greatly to the thread. Nice job.

[RasterMaster]

Cannot take anyone seriously who says “our policy is to blame for terrorism”, nor anyone who’d support such a statement, let alone those who’d adopt the DUmocrat plan of CUT, RUN & SURRENDER, snatching DEFEAT from the jaws of victory.

Only thing to do is encourage them not to drink the bong water next time!

[RasterMaster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

“While Paul votes against most spending bills, he has diverted funds that have been authorized by other bills into his own district.”

[George W. Bush]

Who don't want war, no matter what.

We're not really peaceniks. Ron Paul voted to authorize the invasion of Afghanistan. He believed the Taliban was shielding Osama, their old comrade (and they were).

I'm not sure if any FReepers on our pinglist has ever said that RP's antiwar position is first on their list or even high on their list of reasons for supporting Dr. Paul. Anyway, I can't recall it.

I think the problem is that we don't hide under the bed whenever someone mentions terrorists. Generally, most of us don't think we're really safe anyway with wide-open borders through which illegals from terror states routinely cross, some in collusion with drug gangs. Anyway, I've read those sorts of things from the posters on our Ron Paul Pinglist many times.

I think the reaction of most Ron Paul supporters to politicians invoking the War On Terror is about the same level of excitement they'd get from hearing about a War On Drugs, a War On Poverty, etc., etc. Just more big-government nanny-statism.