Posted on 02/21/2008 6:18:29 PM PST by markomalley
On a couple of other boards, I have heard the allegation that "Ron Paul is the Military's Candidate." I always figured it to be your typical overblown hyperbole...
So I decided to research the numbers, in order to blow away the conspiracy theory. There's no way that he could be the leading candidate for military contributors...right?
Well, I went to the FEC Contributions Database that is maintained by opensecrets.org...the numbers I came up with were both surprising and very, very disturbing.
First of all, the methodology:
What I found was that the Paul folks were right! Both the number of individual contributions (372) and the amount contributed ($167K), far outstripped the other candidates checked. In comparison, McCain only had 110 contributions for $50K.
The disturbing part of this was that the runner up to Ron Paul wasn't McCain, it was Obama (172 contributions for $77K)! That was a shock!
So be it.
That the entire country feels the way you do? That is a lie. Sorry. Speak for yourself, not the whole country.
I'm quite sure telling others how to post is not.
All that, . . . . and yet he cannot garner more than 6% or so of the electorate to this point in the primary process. Wow, I'm impressed. Big deal he raised some much money (especially since I suspect that much of that money comes from tainted sources). He does not get support from voters. The people know he's a kook.
Care to point to the post of mine wherein I used the word, "entire"?
Speak for yourself, not the whole country.
Care to point to the pot of mine wherein I used the word, "whole"?
You can't, of course, because I never have.
So who's telling the lies?
This is too easy. :-)
LOL I was just responding EXACTLY in kind as you did. Strange that you do not see the irony.
The "people"?
Now you've done it. You're sure to get the rath of wacky RuPaul supporters who will claim you're making a statement for the "ENTIRE" country.
Ron Paul is a kook. :-)
Care to point to the post of mine wherein I have told anyone else how to post?
The "voters" chose McCain, Hillary and Obama. I'd rather be with the 6% than with the "voters" on that. Most of the country unfortunately is in favor of big government liberalism/socialism. I'm actually shocked Paul got up to 6% and did better in the primaries than Thompson (who had far better name recognition and air time in the media). The 2 most conservatives guys that ran--Hunter (My #1) and Tancredo--polled less than 1% combined. That should show you how far left America has gone even within the Republican Party.
And I quote "You're already stated your unsolicited advice; there is no reason to repeat it"
You have stated your unsolicited anti-Paul pieces far more than my "advice" which wasn't advice at all but my opinion.
with L Ron Paul wanting to bail out of the War against the IslamOfascist, I think the people in his Cong. Dist. have now a better understanding what a stooge of the left they have as a Rep.
I wouldn’t doubt that he will lose his Congressional seat in the Nov. election. He has a good Republican running against him.
People have said that on FR since 2002, and again in 2004 and again in 2006 and again now. The odds of him losing his seat is slim to none even ignoring the fact that his war chest at this point is ridiculous huge.
Considering most of the country would prefer immediate withdrawl of US troops than continued commitment, the fact that he would even state that seriously is humerous.
since L Ron Paul has had more face time on TV for more to hear his far left crapOla, I give the people in his dist. more credit that they will vote for the Pro American candidate not L Ron Paul in Nov.
I would tend to believe that most people still don't know who he is and have no opinion of him because the MSM (where most people get their information from if they bother to seek information) hasn't told them what opinion they should have of him.
Such as?
I give the people in his dist. more credit that they will vote for the Pro American candidate not L Ron Paul in Nov.
You think being Pro-Iraq means your Pro-American and if you are anti-Iraq that you are Anti-American LOL. Ron Paul has ALWAYS been against Nation Building and was praised for his criticism of Clinton and Gore on it on this site for YEARS. Bush himself campaigned as the ANTI NATION BUILDER in every debate and painted Gore (who admitted it) as the Nation Builder. Iraq has been a disaster, period. It was badly managed with NO exit plan. I wouldn't call being against that Anti-American. And to say that us putting troops overseas doesn't make it easy to recruit new terrorist is just putting your head in the sand. That is not the same as "Blame America" regardless of what you want to think.
EVEN if you say Iraq is a conservative position (which, historically speaking on foreign policy, it's not), he's almost across the board conservative on EVERYTHING else.
As for the rest of your post, you're seriously trying to tell me what I was "implying"? You really are desperate.
Your man's a wacko. I've heard that from people "across this country". You can't change that. Your lies can't change that. And his meager showing at the polls supports it.
Excellent post. I am also happy to be in the minority who does NOT support the 3 mainstream media-promoted globalists, Hillary, Obama and McCain. In my view, anyone who votes for any of those 3 is being a participant (whether knowingly or not) in the destruction of this country, and the road towards socialism-globalism.
The stooge deserves to lose his seat.
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.