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!
Check = Checked
If you’d have bothered to check the context of my reply to Darkwing, you might have noticed that I was actually replying to
“...If you are active duty, using your position or rank to endorse a political candidate is forbidden.”
thereby inferring that making a monetary donation somehow constitutes an illegal endorsement. Jeez. Thanks for enlightening me, FRiend.
Paul has publicly stated that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on Islamic terrorism.
If that is the case, then the troops' mission is a lie and the troops are therefore dupes, since they believe that their mission in Iraq is indeed part of the war on Islamic terrorism.
Moreover, Paul has publicly stated that the war in Iraq is "unwinnable" which is the same as saying that troops are incapable of accomplishing their mission.
In reality, US troops are eliminating Muslim terrorists in Iraq every single day and they are quite capable of winning in Iraq.
Thank you, Cindy Sheehan.
Thank the Lord, and I'm not blaspheming - I literally thank the Lord - that there are some grown-ups in America who have their eyes open and are willing to make serious decisions to defend my family as well as overgrown children like yourself.
"There were no WMDs!" I feel like I've wandered into am Howard Dean fundraiser or a Workers' World Party rally.
If you, dear idiot, think we need to declare war on Islam...then you really DON’T know squat all about war. That is like saying the enemy in the Cold War was communism. There was an element of truth to it, but we didn’t need to attack Russia, China, and everyone else.
We did need to fight to stop communist expansion, which is pretty close to how GWB is approaching the GWOT.
Yes, I’ve read part of Sun Tzu. I gave up because I think he’s full of cr@p. People read him & then interpret him any way they want.
That doesn’t make sense. He probably had 25% of that number just at my command.
Why would that be a shock to you or anyone else?
Since when is the U.S. Military presumed to be all Republican?
Or even all conservative, for that matter?
Not only that, but they have taken an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution".
Perhaps they actually mean it.
Any documentation?
I call BS.
Show us where you got that idea.
For the second time, I will direct interested thread participants to the book Stolen Valor by retired Army Ranger B.G. Burkett.
The book gives Burkett's painstakingly documented research on people who live off of fake claims to veteran status.
Burkett also assists law enforcement in cracking down on such scam artists:
I call BS.
As usual, you are wrong.
Perhaps if wideawake were to take a remedial English Comprehension class, he would then be able to understand.
When Ron Paul blames our failed foreign policy, he is in fact, blaming our "leaders" who devised such policy, but nowhere did he ever "blame America".
Blame goes to the socialist, globablist, neocons, who are selling us down the river, and rightfully so.
Pay no attention to your lying eyes. The troops like to be surrounded, then the other side can’t get away. Overwhelming force, who needs it, we want to be here for 100 years bringing democracy to these oil wells.
LOL! this is a hoot!
"I can absolutely verify with 100% accuracy, and all confidence and there never was, nor ever will be someone with the same name as mine."
LOL!
Yeah, but we're talking about folks in the real military. /s
Who elected the current administration - two times? America.
America and its government aren't separate entities. We have, quite famously, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
America and its government aren't separate entities. We have, quite famously, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
I think I've found your problem.
Your statement above shows a pathetic lack of understanding of how this works.
LOL! I suppose this is where we hear a long spiel about the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the North American Union, the Illuminati, Opus Dei, etc.
No
I believe it was Military Times who did a poll of actual active duty military members a few months ago and support for Paul in the military pretty much mirrored the votes he was getting- around 5%.
Plus, Paul’s camp claiming that they are supported by the military is a complete insult to our military. Paul getting just about 5% of the vote and then claiming that the military supports him is insulting to our military implying they are too lazy or apathetic to vote. This campaign based on fraud has to end.
It is unwinnable in the same was Vietnam was unwinnable, that is, there is and has been NO PLAN TO WIN. I figured we had won when we deposed Saddam. But now we are doing what Bush himself said was wrong (way back in 2000), clinton-style nation building... which is NOT winnable, not in that area, and which now is NOT a legitimate part of the war on islamofascist terrorists.
Now please tell me how we will KNOW when we’ve “won” in Iraq under current conditions. What is our MILITARY GOAL? Please don’t spout the usual platitudes, like McLame and company. What is the MILITARY MISSION (as opposed to “restoring democracy,” which is NOT either feasible or a legitimate MILITARY mission) in Iraq? How long will we have to be there? How many lives and how much money are we going to have to spend? Will it be McLame’s 100-plus years and trillions in U.S. tax dollars? WHAT IS IT? And HOW is it a CONSERVATIVE value to promote endless war for vague and amorphous “reasons”?????
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.