Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul raises millions in today's Boston Tea Party event ($3.2 million @ 3:00 EST)
Boston Globe ^ | 12/16/07 | Michael Levenson

Posted on 12/16/2007 11:57:44 AM PST by traviskicks

On Nov. 5, supporters of Ron Paul raked in more than $4.2 million in donations in 24 hours, mostly of them collected over the Internet.

Today, they're at it again. Hoping to detonate what they call a "money bomb," the supporters started fundraising at midnight Saturday and have already raised $2 million as of about 10:30 a.m. today, more than at this point on Nov. 5, according to figures they posted online. They hope to collect a total of $10 million by midnight Sunday.

Last time, they tied their fundraising to Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccesfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. This time, they're seizing on the 234th aniversary of the Boston Tea Party and converging on this snowy city to rally.

They plan on gathering on the State House steps at 1 p.m. and parading down to Faneuil Hall, where they will listen to speeches in tune with Paul's libertarian platform. Speakers will include the Republican presidential candidate's son, Dr. Rand Paul, an eye surgeon, and Carla Howell, the libertarian who ran unsuccesfully for governor in 2002.

There are also plans to dump some tea (or at least some boxes labeled tea) into the Harbor, though the details were still sketchy as of this morning.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Candidates
KEYWORDS: 2008; 911truth; 911truthers; agreatestmanever; antiamerican; antisemite; appeaser; betterthanbush; betterthanfdt; betterthanmcpain; binladensboy; codepink; daviddukespresident; domesticenemy; fakeconservative; fundraising; heeeeeeeykoolaid; jihadisforpaul; losertarian; lron; marines; moonbat; neoconssuck; neonazi; nutjob; paul; paulahmadinejad2008; paulbearers; paulistinians; paulrules; pimpsforpaul; racist; rino; ronaldapplewhite; ronnutters; ronpaul; shrimpfest2007; surrendermonkey; tehranron; tehronpaul; treason; truther; wrongpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-289 next last
To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
He's already achieved it, and years from now future Republicans will speak fondly of him at GOP conventions.

I highly doubt that. He's no Goldwater. Not even close. By March '08, Paul will fade back into oblivion and forever remain an unknown outside his Texas district.

I thought introducing liberals to conservative beliefs was a positive thing? Liberals used to listen to Rush and now they're conservatives. There have been liberals and FR changed them as well. Paul's not allowed to do the same thing too?

I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.

They don't need to compromise with Paul on an immediate pull-out

But, that is the key part of Paul's Iraq policy. If the GOP doesn't adopt it, how can they ever count of Paul's supporters to vote for them?

And the GOP needs to start talking about REAL limited gov't - no, not the "tax credits," "middle-class deductions," or "targeted spending cuts" BS, START ABOLISHING SOME FRICKING AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS.

I 100% agree with that.

You think that the bulk of Paul's support are anti-war leftists, but it just isn't true.

No, actually I don't think that. I think the bulk of Paul's support are the type of people who regularly read antiwar.com and voted for Buchanan in 2000 rather than Bush. The type of people who think "Zionists" and "NeoCons" control our government and think that the America First Committee was swell.

AS LONG AS the GOP lets Paul speak at the convention and not support his opponent in the Congressional race.

Because the nominee is going to have such a different view on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc., do you really think it's wise to let him speak at the convention? It would only send mixed messages to the general electorate.


61 posted on 12/16/2007 2:47:07 PM PST by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"I honestly can't believe FReepers are engaging in this crap. We've prided ourselves for years on getting the facts and sniffing out BS in the liberal media."



62 posted on 12/16/2007 2:47:35 PM PST by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"I honestly don't give a feces if he doesn't. The fact that he's bringing in new blood into the GOP and returning it back to its roots is his legacy, and it's long overdue. Fiscal conservatives & libertarians have been getting crapped on for far too long."


BINGO! Why is this so hard to understand?
63 posted on 12/16/2007 2:51:53 PM PST by rob777 (Personal Responsibility is the Price of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
By March '08, Paul will fade back into oblivion and forever remain an unknown outside his Texas district.

Now do you mean like he was supposed to 'fade back into oblivion' by the end of the 2nd quarter after giving St. Rudy a history lesson? Or like he was supposed to 'fade back into oblivion' at the end of the 3rd quarter?

I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not) but I remember quite a few 'liberals' (i.e. Democrats) switching sides for certain specific aspects of Reagan's platform. What? You don't think they bought into the whole thing do you?

But, that is the key part of Paul's Iraq policy. If the GOP doesn't adopt it, how can they ever count of Paul's supporters to vote for them?

They can't. And next November they will lose the Presidency and even more in Congress.

I think the bulk of Paul's support are the type of people who regularly read antiwar.com and voted for Buchanan in 2000 rather than Bush. The type of people who think "Zionists" and "NeoCons" control our government and think that the America First Committee was swell.

Not true. Again, a small portion but not the majority. Now there are some in my family that do believe we have overreached our foreign policy yet again and it's time to try another tact. But they believe none of what you state. And I think I wrote in Dr. Paul's name in 2000 like I did in 1996...

Because the nominee is going to have such a different view on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc., do you really think it's wise to let him speak at the convention? It would only send mixed messages to the general electorate

If they hope to win, that can only be a good thing. Perhaps confuse some of the more easily led that the Republican party's agenda isn't as hawkish as it actually is.

64 posted on 12/16/2007 2:57:11 PM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: A message

Just proves the economy is great shape for people to waste money like this.


As opposed to donating to the Hunter Campaign Juggernaut?


65 posted on 12/16/2007 2:58:29 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
No, but the libs love him, because he takes the attention off from the real candidates.. just like McVain and a couple others...

I'm wondering who you consider the "real" candidates.... The ones you like? Or the ones the media has been promoting as the "front-runners"?

66 posted on 12/16/2007 2:58:31 PM PST by incindiary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks; All

How much of that was the illegal foreign money the Ronbots are bragging about having solicited from foreigners via the internet?


67 posted on 12/16/2007 3:01:10 PM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: incindiary

just read the tagline


68 posted on 12/16/2007 3:02:27 PM PST by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

He will add it to his re-election warchest to try and hang on to his Texas Congressional District.

That campaign only has $100K in the bank right now and by law he can transfer any money left over from the Presidential campaign to the Congressional campaign.


69 posted on 12/16/2007 3:02:53 PM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

“But, the majority of Paul’s supporters are not interested in limited government or individualism. They only care for his anti-war, anti-Israel and anti-Bush stances.”

As a very active Ron Paul supporter I can honestly say that you are flat wrong on that statement. Bring up free market ideas and reducing government on any of his supporter’s websites or forums and the thread starts jumping with ideas. Ron Paul supporters are every bit as interested in reducing government intrusion as they are in changing foreign policy. Many people support him in spite of his foreign policy because he is the only person with the record on wanting to reduce government.


70 posted on 12/16/2007 3:03:24 PM PST by Hurricane Bruiser ("Don't steal, the Government hates competition" Ron Paul's office desk sign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
He has already hit 4 million so far today (as of a few minutes ago) and, at least here on the west coast, it's only 3 o'clock! They already broke the Nov 5th record.
71 posted on 12/16/2007 3:04:19 PM PST by incindiary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

heheh... just Fred, eh? ;-)


72 posted on 12/16/2007 3:06:29 PM PST by incindiary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I highly doubt that. He's no Goldwater. Not even close. By March '08, Paul will fade back into oblivion and forever remain an unknown outside his Texas district.

Paul has inspired thousands of people with his message and you think he's going to fade into oblivion? You think the volunteers and grassroots that's supporting him now are just going to pack it in and return to their apathetic lives? These people are going to continue to be involved in politics and may even run for office themselves.

I don't see where any liberals are converting to conservative beliefs. All I see is some leftists willing to hold their nose and support Paul because of his foreign policy stances.

That's just ignorance on your part. Have it ever occurred to you that leftists are supporting Paul because maybe they're tired of being leftists and want some real change? You don't appreciate the fact that Paul is converting these people, just like Rush and FR has done for years. That's your opinion, but the facts say otherwise.

But, that is the key part of Paul's Iraq policy. If the GOP doesn't adopt it, how can they ever count of Paul's supporters to vote for them?

If they want to win back the WH, they'll try to talk to Paul and reach a compromise. Whether or not Paul stands his ground or the GOP stands theirs, I don't know. But I do know that there's going to have to be some sort of deal on the war. If the majority of Americans are against the war and want the troops to come home, then they're going to vote for those candidates who'll promise such, and there's really nothing you, I, or the members of FR can do about it, unfortunately.

Because the nominee is going to have such a different view on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, foreign policy, etc., do you really think it's wise to let him speak at the convention? It would only send mixed messages to the general electorate.

If Paul's allowed to speak at the convention, I think he'll tailor a traditional Republican message of limited government and free markets for the most part. He'll probably talk about the war and say our troops need to come home but I don't think it'll send mixed messages, because everyone already knows Paul opposes the war.

But like I stated. The GOP has a huge dilemma on it's hands, and it's better for them to reach out to Paul now instead of ignoring and denigrating him. Paul's not the smoky backroom type who's going to meet with party insiders and compromise the positions he's held for 30 years, so the ball's in the GOP's court.

73 posted on 12/16/2007 3:07:14 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Congratulations Brett Favre! All-time NFL leader in career passing yards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Hurricane Bruiser; All

“because he is the only person with the record on wanting to reduce government.”

What Dr. Paul wants to do to shrink government would not only wreck our economy...would wreck that over other nations as well...his foreign policy would put in a more dangerous situation than Clinton put us in...not to mention leaving some of our most valuable strategic allies vulnerable to attack as well.

The shortsightedness of his policies and the willingness of his followers to ignore those shortcomings is nothing less than amazing.


74 posted on 12/16/2007 3:07:34 PM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: txradioguy
"his foreign policy would put in a more dangerous situation than Clinton put us in"

Not since China is our most dangerous problem.

75 posted on 12/16/2007 3:10:35 PM PST by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

You really think that’s true, E^3? I’ve got serious doubts that the “new blood” that Paul’s brought into the process won’t just disappear when he does...because they aren’t really conservatives or libertarians, they’re single-issue anti-war voters who couldn’t give a rip about the rest of his stands.

I know there’s a lot of folks like you and billbears and the rest of the FR Paul contingent—conservatives and libertarians who support the totality (or most of it) of what he preaches. But I can’t bring myself to believe that he’s done what he’s done without getting a lot of the hardcore anti-war left on his train—people who would NEVER support him otherwise.

Maybe I’m wrong. I’m not a pundit, I’m just a normal guy who can’t support Paul because of his foreign policy stand, but likes a lot of his other positions.

}:-)4


76 posted on 12/16/2007 3:12:10 PM PST by Moose4 (Wasting away again in Michaelnifongville.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Have it ever occurred to you that leftists are supporting Paul because maybe they're tired of being leftists and want some real change?

My view on this is far more sinister: some leftists are supporting Paul in a long-range, cynical strategy on behalf of the hildebeeste to encourage a 3rd-party candidacy on the right. It is her ONLY chance of winning the general (should she get the nomination, which was once a given). Lots of her money should thus be spent on Paul in order to bring that about. Ron Paul supporters should not let this go to their heads. I believe this will come out into the open within the next month.

77 posted on 12/16/2007 3:12:51 PM PST by Migraine (...diversity is great... until it happens to YOU...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: txradioguy

Cutting the size and scope of government will never wreck an economy. However allowing a government to grow endlessly with no reduction in site can surely wreck an economy. I’m surprised to be having to make this argument to a FReeper.

As to foreign policy, I think us having 700 military bases around the world and being in over 130 countries might just might have something to do with the hatred many people have against the US. If another country had a military base in our country, do you honestly think segments of our population wouldn’t be fighting them with guns and whatever other means they could think of?


78 posted on 12/16/2007 3:15:25 PM PST by Hurricane Bruiser ("Don't steal, the Government hates competition" Ron Paul's office desk sign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

And who allowed China to become such a major threat?

Campaign cash? Illegal dual use technology transfers? Looking away as COSCO took over both ends of the Panama Canal?

Paul would pull us back from where we are in the world basically keep China and it’s client states at bay.

It would essentially give China a green light.


79 posted on 12/16/2007 3:17:14 PM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Hurricane Bruiser

“Cutting the size and scope of government will never wreck an economy. However allowing a government to grow endlessly with no reduction in site can surely wreck an economy. I’m surprised to be having to make this argument to a FReeper.”

Wanting to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return us to the gold standard would result in a major devaluation of the dollar and send the economy into a tailspin.

Actions that would pull the economies of several other nations...allies...down with us.

THAT is something I never thought I’d have to explain to a FReeper.

“As to foreign policy, I think us having 700 military bases around the world and being in over 130 countries might just might have something to do with the hatred many people have against the US.”

You might want to provide a link to that bit of mythology.

As a member of the military and someone who peridoically moves to different posts for a new assignment...I WISH there was 700 bases in 130 countries to choose from.

Get your facts straight.

“If another country had a military base in our country, do you honestly think segments of our population wouldn’t be fighting them with guns and whatever other means they could think of?”

But when you catually talk to the adult population of the handful of countries we are actually in...they DON”T want us to leave. For several reasons. Chiefly economically and militarily.

If we were in the situation that some of our allies were in and we needed them to provide for our defense...no I would be thankful for them...not resentful like some petchulant child.


80 posted on 12/16/2007 3:22:31 PM PST by txradioguy (In Memory Of My Friend 1SG Tim Millsap A Co. 70th Engineer Bn. K.I.A. 25 Apr. 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-289 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson