[Ron] Paul Raises $6 Million in 24-Hour Effort [December 16, 2007]

breitbart.com ^ | December 16, 2007

[grundle]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House.

Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.

At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.

Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, S.C., on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the Jan. 8 primary there.

[D-fendr]

Sure buddy, whatever you say.

I'm not perfect, but on this one I'm pretty confident.

I'll offer you the same bet, Five bucks at 10-1 odds. Ron Paul won't win the primary in his home state.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

Perhaps you’re right. It’s a heck of a gamble if you’re wrong though.

[D-fendr]

Strength is the ability to exert force, not the haphazard application of it.(IMHO)

I would add that it also requires the will and willingness to use it. Otherwise you're a paper tiger.

The tough part as you allude is how and when to apply it. I disagree with some of our applications; however, Paul's policy would err way to far in the other direction. IMHO also of course.

[incindiary]

My own just-turned 18 yo is supporting Ron Paul, and so are a lot of her friends. (well, what did I hope to get when I homeschooled her and had her learn real history, including a thorough reading of the Constitution and the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, and taught her to think for herself ?)

That's great to hear. I think too many kids are getting a very different 'education', which is why many of them go in the other direction. But the good news is, I think there are a lot of smart young people like your daughter who have learned American history and can see that our country is heading in the wrong direction, and that we're losing our liberties.

These young people can see that Paul is not like the same old status-quo politicians who will continue us down the same path, but someone who has the courage to tell it like it is, and who will restore our constitution and protect our freedom and rights - which is THEIR future. It makes me happy that there are many young people who are passionate about these things, I've seen that with my own eyes in the last few months.

[deaconblues]

"He may not win a single primary but he's already won by getting his message out to millions of Americans. A new generation of Constitutionalists is being born this election season. It's quite exciting to see it!"

Hmmm...I had to read through 268 posts, but finally someone hit the nail on the head!!

[incindiary]

Reg post #306 - I agree. I have been appalled at the viciousness and immaturity of some of those posters, and you're right, it makes me one wonder what they're really interested in 'conserving' because it definitely isn't the constitution or our liberties.

[incindiary]

the 'me' in my last post was not supposed to be there.

I hate not being able to edit after posting. :-p

[End Times Crusader]

I see you’ve flipped your lid.

[publiusF27]

I have encountered three types of Paulites: 1) Libertarians (small or large L) who are primarily looking at Paul because they are for minimal government. They’re for Paul because the GOP had 1994-2006 in charge of Congress and failed to deliver the GOP promise of less government. I don’t think these will vote for Hillary.

That's a fair description of me. And it wasn't just a "failure to deliver." Government spending grew almost $400 billion while Clinton was in office, mostly with a GOP Congress. Under Bush and (until recently) a GOP Congress, government spending grew over a trillion dollars, more than twice the rate of growth we saw under Clinton.

Sorry, but that goes waaaay beyond a failure to deliver the GOP promise of less government. I feel like the GOP had their shot, completely blew it, and now I'm looking for someone who knows how to say NO and mean it. Hence, Dr. No.

[publiusF27]

That sort of eagerness to organize and contribute makes them a Voting Block. Paul won’t win (and from what I read, won’t go 3rd party, so we needn’t worry about a Perot situation), but someone is going to get those votes in November.

I remember when I would come here, and there was a kind of tolerance for wacky libertarian types. Now I see mostly hatred on the Paul threads from a certain FR contingent. It does nothing to make me want to eventually join forces with these people. Maybe we'll wind up with another party. A small government party seems to be needed, and obviously has a constituency.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Get a load of this. Huckabee has his own Money Bomb set for December 27th (http://www.dec27th.com/). It's titled "Freedom Lives Day" (except, of course, if you smoking or eating trans-fat foods) The goal is to get $1,000,000.

ROFL

[incindiary]

Heh... He's not the only candidate who has copied the 'money bomb' idea. Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so... good for them. ;-)

[deaconblues]

"I see you’ve flipped your lid."

Are you taking any prescription medication.....perhaps they need to up your dosage.

[Dreddnafious]

I would add that it also requires the will and willingness to use it. Otherwise you're a paper tiger. The tough part as you allude is how and when to apply it. I disagree with some of our applications; however, Paul's policy would err way too far in the other direction. IMHO also of course.



Yup. I get it, and i respect it, and i respect you. I take your arguments for genuine because you actually have some. Thank you for the substance of your opinion.

I'm going to go on a tangent here because i think it best illustrates my position.

In martial arts, we are taught the concept of "supreme confidence".

It means several things, first is that you should not cheat, cheating is for those that lack the confidence to apply their skill on an equal field. Those that cheat are conceding their own weakness.

The second thing it implies is that you don't have to fight at every opportunity. Because you are confident in your abilities, you don't have to answer every challenge to your manhood. This goes to the "karate kid" style confuscianism of non-violence.

The final implication is that once the necessity of violence is obvious, once you are supremely confident in the virtue of your action, you can strike without remorse.

This parallels the Christian Just War Theory.

I am supremely confident that the superiority of our ideas, and system will outlast and overshadow a theocratic, backwards, divorced from any form of liberty system.

I support ending foreign aid to Saudi, Palestine, Pakistan, and all of the other nations with their hands out for our money while they incite hatred of us among their people.

I support ending foreign aid to Europe, so they can build a socialist state that the socialists of this country use as a model of where to take us.

I support getting out of the foreign affairs of Israel, and letting them deal with Palestine and Iran without our handcuffs on them.

I support small government and personal freedom, and frankly, if you line up in a similar fashion, you only have one candidate that really reflects those principles.

I have no illusions about converting you, my goal is to show you that there is a conservative case for Dr. Paul, and you don't have to be a moonbat liberal or a "hate america" person to feel that way.

[End Times Crusader]

I’m not the one that thinks Paulie actually has a chance of winning.

[Rick_Michael]

That wasn’t my quote....I was quoting someone else. FYI

[Rick_Michael]

” There is nothing in the U.S. Constituion about going to war under U.N. resolutions.”

Some A to Z logic on your part....

FYI, I didn’t favor entering this war.

[Rick_Michael]

“I’m sure you would just hate to roll the government back to what it was before FDR decided to go socialist.”

Definitely would like it for the most part (ie rolling it back), but not with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

[deaconblues]

"I’m not the one that thinks Paulie actually has a chance of winning."

I'm not exactly sure why you persist in a monosyllabic crusade against Ron Paul, I do however find your hit and run arguments amusing.
Do I think Dr. Paul has a chance....??? In today's political climate, no.

But, am I enthused that he has gotten people who were otherwise apathetic, disinterested, disenchanted, disappointed, etc. interested in the principles on which this country was founded? A resounding, YES.

He has upset the apple cart, and has actually encouraged people to think, rather than to blindly follow, and he has gotten people interested in the political process.......for better or worse. Is there something wrong with that?

BTW....If you choose to respond, can you come back at me with an argument that does not read like something from Pee-Wee's Playhouse? Otherwise, I will not respond. I have better things to do.

[Rick_Michael]

” That’s pretty damn funny and a good reson why RP is popular. There was a guy we used to finance in Afghanistan against the Soviets called ... Osama bin Laden.

It’s why RP does not support foreign intervention.”

Ever heard of Stalin? So we supported him to defeat Hitler. Want to take that back as well?

The enemy of our enemy is our friend....no matter how shortly that lasts. If it was up to me, Patton would have steam-rolled through the russian military right after world war II.