Posted on 09/18/2007 9:08:04 AM PDT by lormand
Check it out here, at The New York Times' Contributions to Presidential Campaigns page.
3 Manilow, Barry Woodland Hills CA 91367 Self employed $2,300 Hillary Clinton
4 Manilow, Barry Woodland Hills CA 91367 Self employed $2,300 John Edwards
5 Manilow, Barry Woodland Hills CA 91367 Self employed $2,300 Barack Obama
6 Manilow, Barry Woodland Hills CA 91367 Self $2,300 Ron Paul
7 Manilow, Barry Woodland Hills CA 91367 Self $2,300 Joe Biden
Not if the RIAA has anything to do with it.
Why would a “closet Libertarian” give money to Hillary(!) Clinton or Barak bin Ubama? I think “confused poofter” is a more appropriate label.
LOL...that would have been my guess too.
We use our parent's address super secret locations, they could never find us!
The biting sarcasms just on this thread is enough to keep me laughing for weeks.
Thanks guys and gals.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that...
He can’t name any. He doesn’t deal in facts. If he did, he’d not be a Run Paul supporter.
It just hit me.
We could update the Virus protection to the latest version of Avast!
The could make a special edition called Avast Ye, with Scurvy Dog Anti Spam...
Of course not....
The could make a special edition called Avast Ye, with Scurvy Dog Anti Spam...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
GREAT idea, Matey!
Whoever came up with "stenchhippiesforpaul" should be given the key to the city. I liked it so much, I added it to this thread. :)
Same here in Seattle. Ron Paul is almost exclusively supported by liberals. I suspect it's because they are hoping to sabotage the republicans, but they might actually say "well, I'm a lifelong republican, but I just hate the Iraq war". Total BS. I don't know if Paul is smart enough to realize this, or is he like Hagel where he thinks it will endear him to the electorate by getting all the press attention for being anti-war. Instead he ends up alienating his base, and won't pick up a single liberal vote.
Arrgh...
You bet! What bothers me is I'm afraid some on the right are falling for it, and boy if that's the case then we deserve what will happen to us. Talk about dumb! I'm sorry, but the old adage of selling yourself before you can sell anything else is so true. This man is just unelectable by anyone's standards IMHO.
And I was the first to denounce them for doing it too.
Tell the truth, do you have any HARD evidence that Paul's campaign (his official campaign, not the work done independently by grassroots volunteers on his behalf) is in coordination with the MoveOn folks? If there is, I'd be the first to denounce Paul and won't support his candidacy from here on out. 104 posted on 08/26/2007 2:10:27 PM CDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886824/posts?q=1&;page=101
Well actually it's not in that specific post, it's buried among the thread where I stated I don't approve of what Paul supporters were doing.
A liberal view of American foreign policy would be to send troops into Darfur, Haiti, or use them for humanitarian purposes. Paul doesn't advocate that. Yes, he wants the troops out immediately but that's not a "liberal" view it's a non-interventionist, traditional Republican view.
Thus, his lone support for leftist foreign policy stances makes him the ONLY person in the Republican Primary fighting AGAINST conservatives.
Give me a break. His foreign policy is not leftist. It's traditional Republicanism and I'll admit part of it sucks, but what about his other positions? Good grief, are you really going to say Paul's a liberal just because he doesn't agree with the rest of the candidates on one part of a single issue which is foreign policy?
I doubt it. Most of Paul's donations came from individuals less than $20.
Please explain to me why would liberals support Paul in the primaries? He's virtually the only candidate who can pull a coalition of voters together like Reagan did in 1980. If he's nominated, the Dims will lose a good third of their voting base (young adults, single professionals, Reagan Democrats fed up with Bush, etc) right there.
Except for withdrawing from Iraq (and even then, his reasons for withdrawing is not similar to the liberals' reasons), Paul has nothing in common with liberals or liberalism. He wouldn't use troops to help the Left's favorite humanitarian causes. He supports limiting the federal government and is pro-life.
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.