Money Bomb makes history again today...

[comoballer1121]

As of 8:40 PM today, December 16, the money bomb for presidential candidate Ron Paul has raised about 5 and a quarter million bucks. Thats enough to beat his own single day record back on November 5th.

I saw there was one post on Ron Paul. I was dissapointed to see that almost none of the posters were contributors were in favor of the candidate. It is most likely that now that his campaign has gained some credit, yall feel like you must rebel against. Here is why I feel dissapointed:

For all the great knowledge dicussed here, how can someone like Ron Paul not be supported? Heres his views(actual fact not unfounded opinions like the first post-its obvious no one has looked at him too closely.)

-constitutionalist:He thinks we should read and follow the supreme law of the land, the constitution. Live by it or change it. DONT IGNORE IT.

-the FEDERAL government should be smaller and have less influence on peoples life

-federal reserve: much has been said on here about this organization controlled by private banks. Ron paul realizes that inflation is being caused by the creation of money out of thin air and wants to see competing currencies. He wants to abolish the system since no central bank is authorized in the constitution.

-War on drugs: I know we got some users here. Regardless, we all pay for this unsuccessful war the breeds crime. If you think prohibition will ever work, youre wrong.

-Abortion: cold blooded claimed his was against this issue. Not true, he only believes it is not the responsibility of the federal government.

-local government: in general he wants to keep federal government small and allow local goverments to determine policy.

-War on iraq: He is now the only candidate democrat or republican who would bring the troops home before 2013! We can't even afford to stay that long.

:::How can the Gathering of Minds be against a candidate that pays attention to history. He believes in "blowback" and that US terrorism(CIA) is the cause for worldwide hate in the U.S. He wants the US to mind its business. :::

Finally there is an election where someone offers a different stance (not just slightly different but DIFFERENT) than the rest. How are you going to use the rest of his party to judge him? Do you side with them. Will I judge you by what others think of you. I would hope you would look at facts and make an objective decision.

Thats what I'm doing now and I'm ready to recieve yalls criticism because this candidate and defend his stance against anyone with TRUTH. So whats up???

 

[Filthy Bay Ent]

Ill tell you why they aren't supporting him. Because

1. you have a small cabal of people who are in favor of bigger government even though they will be quick to bitch about it when it does something wrong.

2. You have maybe a handful of really bright minds who post regularly in here, then you'll get someone who will float on in from another forum and just go-along with whoever makes the bigger post, to keep up the appearance that they know whats going on.

3. Some are just outright pessimistic.

Ive been waiting for almost a week now for someone to point out to me a better choice or alternative in a diffrent thread... and they can't. It seems easier for them to point out their reasons for not picking him then pointing out reasons we should pick someone else...

 

[Rusto]

he needs to put that money to use.......the top 4 repubs are treading water right now, perfect opportunity for him

 

[comoballer1121]

Ill tell you why they aren't supporting him. Because

1. you have a small cabal of people who are in favor of bigger government even though they will be quick to bitch about it when it does something wrong.

2. You have maybe a handful of really bright minds who post regularly in here, then you'll get someone who will float on in from another forum and just go-along with whoever makes the bigger post, to keep up the appearance that they know whats going on.

3. Some are just outright pessimistic.

Ive been waiting for almost a week now for someone to point out to me a better choice or alternative in a diffrent thread... and they can't. It seems easier for them to point out their reasons for not picking him then pointing out reasons we should pick someone else...

my advice to all those people: do something about it. Give democracy a chance again. All my faith on the system is riding on it. I am doing everything I can do get him there and if he doesn't become elected, america has fucked itself and I'll find another place to live.

he needs to put that money to use.......the top 4 repubs are treading water right now, perfect opportunity for him

I agree. Hes already done so much with just grassroots support but he has a lot of catching up to do.

 

[nhojsmith]

Ron Paul is unique in that he speaks what he feels and i get the sense that he is being forthright, honest, and spilling his guts to the american people. i feel like he tells us what he really believes and i cant say that for any other candidate. but you cant confuse honesty with good policy, and you cant confuse someone you like with someone you think has a legitimate chance at winning. even if he were to get the GOP nomination, which is near impossible, he would be absolutely crushed in general election, its not even worth mentioning really, because he will be crushed in the primaries.

ron paul has no chance at winning in the current climate in the US. i would say his base of supporters, its no coincidence, are fairly educated with both interest in free information access to the internet, and so he raises masses of money through this medium. but this group is a minority. the problem is an educated truth seeking public is not what the america has at this point. dont get ahead of yourself, the US is a nation where more people beleive in dantes version of hell than in evolution, in fact the leading GOP candidate now, huckabee actually rejects evolution with a smile!! i think your faith in the voting public is severely misplaced.

so why dont people support him? they either dont know who the fuck he is, they dont agree with his isolationist policies in an era of globalization, and/or they think he has no chance at winning so why bother.

my opinion, he is a novelty item, with a romanticized sense of nostalgia who would better suited to govern a small town in the 1800s. he thinks small government, decnetralized banking, non intervention, isolationism, are best for the country when the eastern powers are rapidly weaponizing, exploiting africa, manipulating oil prices, consolidating banking, increasing the power of their central governments, and increasing their global power. i admit, i want the us to be a superpower now and for as long as possible, ronny boy wants the opposite, so he doesnt get a dime or a vote from me, but i do appreciate his candidness and honesty with the people.

but dont be sad, i dont vote anyway, i think our democracy is a sham, i think even if paul got the most votes it would be manipulated and wouldnt be alowed to serve, i think the GOP and DNC are one in the same, they are all connected through boards of directors of the major US companies. also 1 vote has never mattered in a general presidential election. i place my faith in the evil white men operating behind the scenes whose lust for power will ensure the viability of the US empire.

 

[comoballer1121]

Nhosmith, I just want to say that I appreciate your educated response and I am please to engage in debate with you.

Ron Paul is unique in that he speaks what he feels and i get the sense that he is being forthright, honest, and spilling his guts to the american people. i feel like he tells us what he really believes and i cant say that for any other candidate. but you cant confuse honesty with good policy, and you cant confuse someone you like with someone you think has a legitimate chance at winning. even if he were to get the GOP nomination, which is near impossible, he would be absolutely crushed in general election, its not even worth mentioning really, because he will be crushed in the primaries.

True, honesty can exist dependently from good policy. Let me ask you a question: Who decides who a probable candidate is? Ron Paul has enough money now to battle with the biggest. However, I agree that he has slim chances. Still, I will vote for the candidate I think represents my views best, if that person exists. Thats my responsibility.

ron paul has no chance at winning in the current climate in the US. i would say his base of supporters, its no coincidence, are fairly educated with both interest in free information access to the internet, and so he raises masses of money through this medium. but this group is a minority. the problem is an educated truth seeking public is not what the america has at this point. dont get ahead of yourself, the US is a nation where more people beleive in dantes version of hell than in evolution, in fact the leading GOP candidate now, huckabee actually rejects evolution with a smile!! i think your faith in the voting public is severely misplaced.

Sad but unfortunately true. Depressing....

so why dont people support him? they either dont know who the fuck he is, they dont agree with his isolationist policies in an era of globalization, and/or they think he has no chance at winning so why bother.

Actually, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He's a non-interventionalist. This means he not into the whole pre-emptive war idea. He would engage in war when congress has authorized it because it is a threat to national security. Having the troops home also keeps America more secure than being so spread out.

my opinion, he is a novelty item, with a romanticized sense of nostalgia who would better suited to govern a small town in the 1800s. he thinks small government, decnetralized banking, non intervention, isolationism, are best for the country when the eastern powers are rapidly weaponizing, exploiting africa, manipulating oil prices, consolidating banking, increasing the power of their central governments, and increasing their global power. i admit, i want the us to be a superpower now and for as long as possible, ronny boy wants the opposite, so he doesnt get a dime or a vote from me, but i do appreciate his candidness and honesty with the people.

No doubt, the man suggests radical changes that most people don't know how will work out in the end. These ideas are principled however and have merit. Is weaponizing, exploiting africa, manipulating oil prices, increasing the power of the central government, and increasing global power something you want to participate in? Don't forget cold war rhetoric. What are we defending if we commit crimes to humanity and the constitution to preserve it?

but dont be sad, i dont vote anyway, i think our democracy is a sham, i think even if paul got the most votes it would be manipulated and wouldnt be alowed to serve, i think the GOP and DNC are one in the same, they are all connected through boards of directors of the major US companies. also 1 vote has never mattered in a general presidential election. i place my faith in the evil white men operating behind the scenes whose lust for power will ensure the viability of the US empire.

Agreed. Our democracy is not very democratic. If Ron Paul did get elected, I think the first thing he should do is change the process and make it more democratic to prevent whats happened to america. I warn against your last sentence. We aren't in the as Americans together...........this is class war and corporations against the population. Get your personal liberties back!

 

[nhojsmith]

True, honesty can exist dependently from good policy. Let me ask you a question: Who decides who a probable candidate is? Ron Paul has enough money now to battle with the biggest. However, I agree that he has slim chances. Still, I will vote for the candidate I think represents my views best, if that person exists. Thats my responsibility.

fair enough voting of course would not work without voters. and i couldnt pinpoint exactly, but i would have to lean towards the elites in the respective parties who have access to media outlets; these are who decide who the probable candidate is, or more specifically, who they would most want in the white house to serve their interests. they are like odds makers in vegas, because even though the two parties, i feel are one in the same, greed stilll rules, and those closest to the power source still have an advantage, so they scramble and try to groom the candidate they think has the best chance.

Actually, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He's a non-interventionalist. This means he not into the whole pre-emptive war idea. He would engage in war when congress has authorized it because it is a threat to national security. Having the troops home also keeps America more secure than being so spread out.

ok then i take that back, but forgive me for my lack of faith in congress, they have a lower rating than bush because of their idleness and inability to operate and cary out the mandate of the people which was to leave iraq. i think this is a fundamental problem. in general terms i am also pro preemptive war, i think it is the natural evolution of warfare, and each step in the evolution of war from first man to man combat, to amassing armies, to lining up on the battle field, to killing generals, was seen as barbaric at first, and in retrospect necessary.

No doubt, the man suggests radical changes that most people don't know how will work out in the end. These ideas are principled however and have merit. Is weaponizing, exploiting africa, manipulating oil prices, increasing the power of the central government, and increasing global power something you want to participate in? Don't forget cold war rhetoric. What are we defending if we commit crimes to humanity and the constitution to preserve it?

yes this is where i have difficulty, i listen to the things he says and i find myself glad someone is finally saying it. he suggest radical ideals however in a time of polarization in the US. the changes he proposes are highly imporbable with a public this discorded.

and herein lies another problem, if you make the case that we shouldnt pursue those means, then are you also saying you dont think we should do anything to stop those pursuing them? because as it were, you are supporting a non intervention candidate. and i dont know what we are defending, those in power are defending their power, and those without power are working endlessly to acquire it, this is independent of america.

Agreed. Our democracy is not very democratic. If Ron Paul did get elected, I think the first thing he should do is change the process and make it more democratic to prevent whats happened to america. I warn against your last sentence. We aren't in the as Americans together...........this is class war and corporations against the population. Get your personal liberties back!

you are right, i should have been more careful in assuming my place. but these corporations are also made up of populations, and we live in a society, in fact a world, where money buys liberty and justice. there are but haves and have nots, the have nots want change, those who have do not want change, and i cant blame either group! but i can identify that there are limited resources, we cant all win, but i can "hope" the US retains its place at the top and regrettably must seek to take others resources to pass on to its own people, or else this gap will increase further and further, as that is the nature of capitalism.

 

[MRTHECOSE]

RON PAUL SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT CHOICE TO ME BUT, WOULD WHITE AMERICA AGREE THAT OR BELIEVE RON PAUL IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB? IF SO OR IF NOT WHY?

 

[kayvee]

i'm not voting for this cat.

~k.

 

[Filthy Bay Ent]

RON PAUL SOUNDS LIKE THE RIGHT CHOICE TO ME BUT, WOULD WHITE AMERICA AGREE THAT OR BELIEVE RON PAUL IS THE RIGHT MAN FOR THE JOB? IF SO OR IF NOT WHY?

I think so, Ron Paul is a grassroots canidate, that spans really all races and walks of life..

 

[Filthy Bay Ent]

fair enough voting of course would not work without voters. and i couldnt pinpoint exactly, but i would have to lean towards the elites in the respective parties who have access to media outlets; these are who decide who the probable candidate is, or more specifically, who they would most want in the white house to serve their interests. they are like odds makers in vegas, because even though the two parties, i feel are one in the same, greed stilll rules, and those closest to the power source still have an advantage, so they scramble and try to groom the candidate they think has the best chance.

I feel you on this in a diffrent sense. You mentioned fair voting without mentioning the diebold systems.. I know for a fact that these things are easily hacked because my lady used to work for diebold and laughed when i asked if they were secure.. HOWEVER.. when you learn how they can tweak the machines, you find out that they wouldnt be able to get rid of landslide votes..

now, The problemz i see ron paul running into is the smear campaign that will be aimed at him by democrats of how he's gonna want to do away with certain programz.. the last time i heard him speak he said something to the effect of about how he wanted to give people the 'choice' of opting out of it..he's gonna wanna keep that part on replay if he does get nominated..

 

[comoballer1121]

fair enough voting of course would not work without voters. and i couldnt pinpoint exactly, but i would have to lean towards the elites in the respective parties who have access to media outlets; these are who decide who the probable candidate is, or more specifically, who they would most want in the white house to serve their interests. they are like odds makers in vegas, because even though the two parties, i feel are one in the same, greed stilll rules, and those closest to the power source still have an advantage, so they scramble and try to groom the candidate they think has the best chance.

Right, thats what I was trying to show. Those "electable" candidates are invented as such by the elites and the media. Voting only for these people plays right into their hand. They are seeing now with this campaign that many people (although certainly not the majority) are wising up to all of this.

ok then i take that back, but forgive me for my lack of faith in congress, they have a lower rating than bush because of their idleness and inability to operate and cary out the mandate of the people which was to leave iraq. i think this is a fundamental problem. in general terms i am also pro preemptive war, i think it is the natural evolution of warfare, and each step in the evolution of war from first man to man combat, to amassing armies, to lining up on the battle field, to killing generals, was seen as barbaric at first, and in retrospect necessary.

Congress doesn't make much change either, of course. Ron Paul has mentioned, though, that they act according to their constituency. If Ron Paul gets elected by majority vote, they will have to change their policies. Not all of this program cuts wouldn't take place but many would and that would be the greatest step towards change yet.

yes this is where i have difficulty, i listen to the things he says and i find myself glad someone is finally saying it. he suggest radical ideals however in a time of polarization in the US. the changes he proposes are highly imporbable with a public this discorded.

You must admit that at times like these (declining dollar, U.S. opinion, war in Iraq, bush....) the population is ready for change. Back in 1988 when Ron Paul ran as a libertarian with this same platform it wasn't recieved like it was today because now the people want something different.

and herein lies another problem, if you make the case that we shouldnt pursue those means, then are you also saying you dont think we should do anything to stop those pursuing them? because as it were, you are supporting a non intervention candidate. and i dont know what we are defending, those in power are defending their power, and those without power are working endlessly to acquire it, this is independent of america.

I often see two types of people, those who see themselves as members of a nation and those who see themselves as part of the human race. I've been around the world and I got brothers out there. How am I gonna support a world empire based on conquering other nations and subjecting them to our will? Thats fucked up! I know we all want to be secure, but I want to remind you again.........whos getting those reconstruction contracts? Who benefits from the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL complex? Not you and I, my friend. In fact, we're facing a crisis. Look at funding for health care and education. Lets focus on ourselves and domestic issues.

you are right, i should have been more careful in assuming my place. but these corporations are also made up of populations, and we live in a society, in fact a world, where money buys liberty and justice. there are but haves and have nots, the have nots want change, those who have do not want change, and i cant blame either group! but i can identify that there are limited resources, we cant all win, but i can "hope" the US retains its place at the top and regrettably must seek to take others resources to pass on to its own people, or else this gap will increase further and further, as that is the nature of capitalism.

You are wrong about your assumption of limited resources. True, not everyone in the world can live as americans. We are fat consumers so wasteful. Think about the distribution of weath and resources. We don't need to live like this. We can give everyone a piece and live fine. We need to stop being such fuckers hoarding all this shit. If nothing else, mother earth is the most affected. Capitalism certainly is a beast and we must keep it at bay as much as possible.

 

[comoballer1121]

i'm not voting for this cat.

~k.

no one cares about your opinion brother, only the reasons why you feel that way. Elaborate and back it with something substantial. This is a debate!

 

[kayvee]

no one cares about your opinion brother, only the reasons why you feel that way. Elaborate and back it with something substantial. This is a debate!

if no one cared about my opinion then why would i bother to post the reasoning behind it? :ermm:

~k.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

if no one cared about my opinion then why would i bother to post the reasoning behind it? :ermm:

~k.

Because people are interested in what is causing you to form this opinion, not just the opinion itself. Just typing out that you don't support the cat isn't informative/interesting.

 

[kayvee]

well i dont agree on his views that have to do with economics and illegal immigration, thats all. he's the only one i've actually done some reading on. i have not looked too much into the other candidates yet.

~k.

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

since you guys say nobody is presenting an alternative candidate:

someone who has never said that he will abolish the IRS
"When I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing." -Ron Paul

someone who doesnt want to abolish the D.O. Energy OR Education

AND

someone who is also in favor of decriminalizing marijuana (a main reason a lot of people like Ron Paul as far as I can tell)

The small skinny weird looking guy!!!

KUCINICH 08!!

"Current drug policy ... regards all users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers," Kucinich states in his position paper, entitled "Marijuana Decriminalization." "A Kucinich administration would reject the current paradigm of 'all use is abuse' in favor of a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol."

"Non-violent marijuana users comprise the bulk of the half-million Americans imprisoned for drug violations, and many frequently serve longer sentences than do those convicted of violent crimes," Kucinich states on his website. "The rationale for continuing these draconian policies is unclear. Statistical evidence shows that marijuana use follows a pattern very similar to that of alcohol. Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives ­ pursuing careers, raising families and participating in civic life.

"In addition, marijuana has proven benefits in the treatment of numerous diseases, such as providing a valuable means of pain management for terminally ill patients. In either of these contexts, there is no rational justification for criminally enforced prohibitions. These unnecessary arrests and incarcerations serve only to crowd prisons, clog the judicial system, and distract law enforcement officials from violent crime. ... By ... moving away from criminally-enforced drug prohibitions, we will be moving toward safer streets and stronger communities."

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5850

 

[WHITE DEVIL]

Legalize weed

So people can tack out their houses and raise dumb ass ADD kids

Edit: Ron Paul is a bitch.

The reasons many here dont support him have been explained/discussed several times over again.

Your coming on here and PMSing about the lack of support for him means nothing to me.

 

[Filthy Bay Ent]

Legalize weed

So people can tack out their houses and raise dumb ass ADD kids

Edit: Ron Paul is a bitch.

The reasons many here dont support him have been explained/discussed several times over again.

Your coming on here and PMSing about the lack of support for him means nothing to me.

Like i said in another thread, why the fuck should our government care if someone lights a blunt inside there own home? why dont we criminalize alchol to white devil? or even caffine.. they both have been known to cause more problems. Show me a study where weed has been linked to ADD. Im gonna laugh if you bring up that study where they say "it makes ya crazy!!!" cuz they even covered there own butt and stated that it doesn't mean theres a link.. in their own study!!! haha

and ive said before also, they HAVE expressed there reasons for NOT voting for him.. but they have yet to offer a better alternative..

I like kucinich, but i doubt he's gonna stand up against the NAU

 

[nhojsmith]

Congress doesn't make much change either, of course. Ron Paul has mentioned, though, that they act according to their constituency. If Ron Paul gets elected by majority vote, they will have to change their policies. Not all of this program cuts wouldn't take place but many would and that would be the greatest step towards change yet.

why would they have to change their policies? if they dont even follow the mandate of the people when being elected themselves, a new president doesnt guarantee anything. the only power ron paul would have that supercedes congress are war powers, which he refuses to use. the congress could just as well like dormant for 4 years...much like they have been for the last 6 or 7 or 11. all these guys talking about what they are "going to do" is exactly like when kids ran for school president in middle school saying they would cut all homework. they make a lot of promises that they dont even have the power to carry out.

You must admit that at times like these (declining dollar, U.S. opinion, war in Iraq, bush....) the population is ready for change. Back in 1988 when Ron Paul ran as a libertarian with this same platform it wasn't recieved like it was today because now the people want something different.

agreed but i also dont put my trust in the american public to make the best decision, they are very fickle, very reactionary, and easily manipulated. the popultaion is ready to be rid of bush, which is why i actually favor the fact that most mindless idiots scapegoat every US problem and place it on his shoulders, because he will be gone soon enough.

I often see two types of people, those who see themselves as members of a nation and those who see themselves as part of the human race. I've been around the world and I got brothers out there. How am I gonna support a world empire based on conquering other nations and subjecting them to our will? Thats fucked up! I know we all want to be secure, but I want to remind you again.........whos getting those reconstruction contracts? Who benefits from the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL complex? Not you and I, my friend. In fact, we're facing a crisis. Look at funding for health care and education. Lets focus on ourselves and domestic issues.

then i am the third type who realizes he is both. we absoutely benefit from out nations place at the top i dont know how you can argue against that. we are a rich and prosperous nation no matter how you try to deny it, and as much as you hate it, it has more to do with us nuking japan and "winning" the cold war than our work ethic. I benefit from US hegemony, so do you do. this is why out nation can be so fat and lazy and stupid and still command a higher quality of life. My health care and education are just fine, and while I agree we should have a focus on ourselves and domestic issues, we should also be concerned deeply with global affairs, maybe even now more so than ever, because as you said, the dollar is weakening, US opinion has sunk, war, etc).

You are wrong about your assumption of limited resources. True, not everyone in the world can live as americans. We are fat consumers so wasteful. Think about the distribution of weath and resources. We don't need to live like this. We can give everyone a piece and live fine. We need to stop being such fuckers hoarding all this shit. If nothing else, mother earth is the most affected. Capitalism certainly is a beast and we must keep it at bay as much as possible.

ok, its a fact there are limited resources, this is indisputible. In fact there are people living better than americans, i too have been many places. and the so called champions of socialism in nations of any size comparable to ours have a more concetrated center of wealth! What exactly are we hoarding? In fact the US has no real industry or resources outside of service and waging war! I fail to see what exactly we are hoarding, maybe you can explain that.