Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter

best money I ever spent!!

Ron Paul may not be an idiot but he is close to it. He DOES NOT believe in Evolution (a Doctor who does not believe in Evolution is like an aerospace engineer who believes the world is flat).

Worse than that, Ron Paul is for Deregulation of corporations!

Don't they have enough power on K Street already with Paul running on a platform to reduce government regulation?

Haven't we seen that corporations can't be trusted with firms like Enron. World Com, Exxon, Merrill Lynch, toy-makers, automakers, utility companies, coal burning plants, mining, forestry, agri-businesses, big oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, the mortgage industry and more of the same that have always comprised Bush's "base"?

If you Ron Paul backers think deregulation will make corporate fascists "Play Nice" you are sadly misinformed and are basing your support on emotion and some fairy tale about ending the Federal Reserve and stopping the income tax.

In every election, there are those who gain "rabid" but hopelessly misguided supporters who chant the candidate's name as if they were forecasting the "second coming".

Stop for a minute and think. With K Street already writing most of the laws that are passed, are you seriously saying DEREGULATION is the key? Ron Paul is and he is against National Health Care (not surprising for a Doc).

Not one single industry except perhaps the Airline Industry has proved better for consumers after deregulation!!!!!!! Ever!

Ron Paul is not electable in the first place.

He has never gotten more than 15% of the vote and that was in the Iowa caucus. Make your energy count and get behind efforts to abolish K Street influence and the stranglehold Corporate Fascism already has on our lives.

Ron Paul is electable.

DONATE TODAY!! its ron's 51st anniversary!

Tell me why Ron Paul's platform of dismantling corporate regulation would do anything but HELP corporate dominance of the kind you fear in the New World Order.

Surely you don't really think the greedy corporate fascists who pay K Street and the lobbyists for any kind of laws they want will "play nice" if we cease to regulate them, do you?

Ron Paul would be a disaster as President. Thankfully, he cannot muster enough delegates to affect the race.

his 51st anniversary of what? being old?

Ron Paul raised more money then other Repub's. Ron Paul only got 15% white(?) vote in Iowa? Well, Duh!!!

Ron Paul is getting his money from the Oligarchy. The group who would be most fearful of gov regulation and would be most in favor of deregulation. Where is the confusion?

If you run as a Republican, you'd better get more than (not then) 15% of the vote, be it white or any other sector of the electorate.

I think I'll do a film pod asking Ron Paul supporters what they like about Paul. I'll bet the clips go silent after they mention he wants to downsize government, get rid of the Federal Reserve and repeal the income tax.

That is the trouble with politics. It is like High School prom dates where the chief reason someone goes with another person is "Gee, I like him or her" - or "Wow, he or she is good-looking."

When anyone looks deeper at the tragic state of our political system, they finally see that the absence of regulation of special interests when it comes to the influence on ALL THREE BRANCHES of the government as well as media, has given corporate fascism far more power than individual voters.

In Texas, for instance, (the home state of Paul), it is still okay for a PAC to give money to a Texas Supreme Court Justice''s re-election campaign even when the corporation or industry the PAC represents HAS A CASE on that Judge's docket!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until we FIX things like that, Paul's ambition to decrease government regulation is the exact OPPOSITE of what individual voters need to counteract the influence of malignant corporate fascism.

Until individual voters carry more weight than PAC'S, lobbyists and special interests, we are doomed to a path that will eliminate the middle class as corporations outsource more middle class jobs, declare bankruptcy to cheat people out of retiree pensions and/or health care and battle to keep the status quo in place by exploiting illegal immigrants with low wages.

Did you know that 42% of all Wal-Mart employees make incomes small enough to qualify for YOU to pay taxes that subsidize them with benefits?

People hate unions but Wal-Mart has made 28 hour weeks the norm so that employees who work for them do not qualify for benefits like health insurance that are required when workers put in 30 hours or more!

Wanna transfer a balance on a credit card to get a lower rate? Do it and miss ONE payment due date because THEIR processing center takes 7 days after receipt of your payment to post it to your account and pay an irrevocable and usurious 30% APR interest rate from then on.

Don't you think that K Street lobbyists and big business have feathered their nests enough after EIGHT years of looking the other way under Bush regulators and legislators?

Why then support a candidate who wants to dismantle government regulation AND who is against universal health care for people like those who Wal-Mart and others have thrown into our laps to support because they want to inflate their bottom line for the 30th quarter in a row?

Did you know that corporate profits have been in double digits for the last 22 quarters except for one single quarter where those profits dipped to a paltry (LOL) 9.89%?

In that same span the median income for a family of four has not even kept pace with the less than 2% average annual rate of inflation!

The minimum wage hadn't changed for 15 years before the Democrats took back Congress last year and somehow you think Ron Paul's DEREGULATION philosophy will make corporations suddenly want to "play nice"? LMAO!

Ron Paul is a disaster.

Hmmm

If you are all right about Ron Paul and how the corporations love him and his policies then why on earth is he being excluded from debates, asked very few questions...and ridiculed by the corporate media...
if they loved his policies they would be upholding him... right?


or why does he have 0 campaign bundlers?

Hillary has 322
Obama 359
Giuliani 225
Romney 345
Mccain 464
Edwards 665

In fact the only people that I see still in the race that have 0 bundlers are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel


I'm sorry everyone but i feel like you have really jumped to conclusions about Ron Paul and his policies...

You all sound like you know washington DC and how things work...good for you, i'm keeping an open mind

One thing I do know is when the evidence does not fit the conclusion


check out whitehouseforsale.org


RON PAUL 2008
HOPE FOR AMERICA

Are you saying that Ron Paul is NOT for DEREGULATION? LOL

The reasons corporations are not behind Ron Paul is that he can't get their agendas through Congress. He has no working relationships with other lawmakers. You may think that is good but gridlock is worse than anything else.

Paul would give K Street 4 more years to fleece the public because his thrust would be to oppose so many things constituents want from their representatives in Congress.

Ron Paul is for deregulation.
Ron Paul is against health care.
Ron Paul is for doing away with the federal reserve but the president ALONE cannot accomplish this.
Ron Paul is for repealing the income tax but the President ALONE cannot do this.
Ron Paul is pandering to the religious right by saying he does not believe in evolution - a President who rejects science is not one I would trust to stay out of the battle for a state-sponsored religion.
Ron Paul will not be able to abolish K Street, raise ethics standards or fight PAC influence since legislation has to come from Congress.

Unless and until PEOPLE (individual voters) force Congress to prohibit the power seized by K Street and the corporate lobby influences, the country will continue its nosedive to a nation with only a rich class and a poor class.

Ron Paul is a closet Libertarian and the absence of or a drastic reduction of government regulation (a concept which all Libertarians espouse) is NOT what we currently need to bring America back to prosperity.

We need STRONG consumer-oriented regulation that will kill corporate fascism.

You are right about one thing. Things do not add up until you have more facts and Paul supporters are armed with very few facts and a general lack of experience about how government works.

which of the other candidates promote consumer oriented regulation for killing corporate fascism? i'm curious...is it obama? hmm...clinton! no...

although i don't agree with every single issue, here are reasons why i've leaned towards dr. paul as the best agent for change in our society (granted, someone will deem my opinion invalid somehow, i believe i have enough facts to ascertain an educated conclusion):

1) he is a staunch anti-imperialist.
2) cutting our spending for war abroad and redirecting all those funds to fix domestic monetary issues sounds good to me.
3) re-appropriating our military forces from an illegal war to direct national service, such as disaster rescue, sounds good to me.
4) deregulation of social services and education would allow people like me and you to start our own programs and schools that could compete against current, and ailing, government standards with funds redirected from the war.
5) after researching the truth about the federal reserve system, i've been a staunch advocate of its abolishment since. he stands to do just that.
6) war on drugs is a failure. he opposes it too.
7) since becoming a parent, i agree that abortion should only be in life-saving situations. he believes that.
8) i am anti-capitol punishment. so is he.
9) i don't believe in same-sex marriage so i choose not to have one. i don't think i have the right to dictate to anyone else and neither should government. he believes that too.
10) he is a proponent of re-installing civil liberties and a staunch advocate of individual property rights. if anyone, or company, deny us of safety, we can sue and win. (theoretically)

...and more.

here are my disagreements with him:

1) not sure if building a wall would make a difference with illegal immigration.
2) abolishing certain social service programs without alternatives for self-sufficiency is a bad idea for the most poverty stricken people in the country.
3) ...i'm reaching now...

that's all i could think of...but the reasons above are what i've felt and he resonates that. i kept thinking, 'obama! obama!' but looking into his political past and finding interviews of his imperialist leanings just made me gasp. what other candidate is there for someone like me? because i agree with most of what ron paul says, i guess that makes me libertarian.

(just for kicks, i was once a homeless teenage drug user but i eventually climbed out, became a social activist, graduated college, became a parent, an educator, and freelance media maker. ok, have fun).

He has some intriguing ideas but if elected (and that's a huge if) he'll likely never be able to see any of them to fruition without doing some major power grabs.

He's just too far in the minority.

He has balls though, I'll give him props for that.

Inofuilwell, cadsuch, pdeep...if you fear truth and justice then by all means continue to watch CNN and FOX news to stay in your comfort zone. Please don't hesitate to continue to act vicariously and ignorantly to the reality of our nations problems. For your own selfish sake, continue to sit on your couch thinking that our nation is doing just great and that we have no poverty, that our children are getting worthy educations, that our deficit is becoming a surplus, that our military should be the police force of the world, that violence, rape, and sex is beyond the reach of 10 year old children. Continue to believe that the economy is getting better, that our energy reserves are bottomless, that our federal government needs more control to secure our safety, that housing for low-income families and individuals is affordable, just continue to believe that everything is just fine and everything will be better with Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney in the White House. But please I beg of you DO NOT THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION because then you might change your mind. Vote Ron Paul for freedom and liberty, change and advancement, life and the pursuit of happiness.

collectivision...great comment

Anyone who wonders about Ron Paul's stance on the issues need just go to his website http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues and please do not listen to Inofuilwell since it's clear he/she has an agenda against freedom and is so very fearful of electing someone who would actually help change our nation for the better.

thanks Omnihilum. and, thanks to Inofullwell too. reading his comment only made me look deeper. he has the right to think the way he does. we've all become suspicious of any politician and his stance is shared by many also. but, we are all a jurist to the whole political campaign game and as long as we take in the facts i believe we'll all result to our own determined conclusion. after all, he is right: RON PAUL WILL NOT DO IT ALONE.

By the way, well done on your life changes, collectivision!

In another political climate, I would probably support many of Ron Paul's concepts but first read what I wrote a little more closely. I DO think he has some good ideas but not all of them are good and the main knock on him is that he is such a contrarian, he will have NO SUPPORT in Congress – virtually none, nada, zip, zilch.

Here are the traits you like about him but attaining success in many of these areas would be totally out of his grasp politically. For that reason, it is my carefully considered opinion that Ron Paul would do more damage by causing gridlock than any good he could possibly accomplish. My answers to some of your comments are labeled with an *.

1) he is a staunch anti-imperialist.- *Name a Democrat besides perhaps Clinton who is not a staunch anti-imperialist. This is not unique to Ron Paul.
2) cutting our spending for war abroad and redirecting all those funds to fix domestic monetary issues sounds good to me. *Again, among Democrats, only Clinton wants to continue the war and all have plans for withdrawal from Iraq.
3) re-appropriating our military forces from an illegal war to direct national service, such as disaster rescue, sounds good to me. *Again, show me a Democrat that isn’t more interested in domestic programs than using our military overseas..
4) deregulation of social services and education would allow people like me and you to start our own programs and schools that could compete against current, and ailing, government standards with funds redirected from the war. *At this point, allowing the power hierarchy that has sprung up around health care, Medicare, Medicare part B, HMO’s, PPO’s energy companies, utilities (deregulation of utilities in Texas, which is supposed to SAVE consumers money by fostering more competition, has resulted in $.125 per KWHour electricity in the Lone Star State where regulated utilities in Oklahoma are charging consumers less than $.075 per KWH. Deregulation doesn’t work unless legislators make profiteering unlawful. Ron Paul is for deregulation BEFORE any framework is in place to stop what has happened in ANY deregulated industry besides the airline industry – deregulation has always been worse for consumers in every industry except the airline industry. As far as education goes, deregulation will only put more money into rich schools and leave less money for schools in poor neighborhoods. In Texas, this has be an ongoing struggle but vouchers only mean that tax dollars will be taken away from poor school districts. The key is making the schools better for all with merit-based education, knowledge-based promotion of students and peer-reviewed teacher pay.
5) after researching the truth about the federal reserve system, i've been a staunch advocate of its abolishment since. he stands to do just that. *We agree on this but where will Paul find the votes in Congress until we ELIMINATE the lobbyists and financial institution money that buy the necessary votes to keep the Status Quo. The answer is to tackle the corruption on K Street and to eliminate the the “bundled” contributions that most politicians have to have to survive – incidentally Ron Paul has bundled contributions from the AMA and many Doctor and Hospital PAC’s.
6) war on drugs is a failure. he opposes it too. *I totally agree with this concept , too but again, there are many Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians along with some in the Law Enforcement community who oppose the concept. People with younger children are particularly opposed to anything that might signal a GREATER availability of drugs.

Continued -

7) since becoming a parent, i agree that abortion should only be in life-saving situations. he believes that. *I do not agree with that and vehemently do not agree that women who become pregnant from rape or incest should be forced to carry a child that is the result of that crime AND since you are wanting to do away with any governmental help on health care, what about babies that are born with congenital defects or injuries that might cost millions for care or treatment over the life of that child? In your other explanation, you DID want the poor taken care of but the SCHIP expansion defeat was engineered by giving us a TV commercial from Republicans that showed parents above the poverty level but who had kids whose needs placed them in that category with government help.
8) i am anti-capitol punishment. so is he. *So are many Democrats.
9) i don't believe in same-sex marriage so i choose not to have one. i don't think i have the right to dictate to anyone else and neither should government. he believes that too. *So do Obama, Clinton, Edwards and most other democrats.
10) he is a proponent of re-installing civil liberties and a staunch advocate of individual property rights. if anyone, or company, deny us of safety, we can sue and win. (theoretically). *NOW THAT is a LAUGHER. It is now so hard to certify a class in a class action lawsuit, that large corporations simply commit the crime and look at the potential for a suit ever collecting damages as a mere cost of doing business. Tort reform has made filing suits so expensive and the Gonzo-appointed judges with their back-up majority now in place through Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, companies like State Farm Insurance don’t even have to get a second supervisory signature on checks made out to pay punitive damages unless the check exceeds $125.000.00. Now, THERE is a great statement on just how scared corporate fascism is of our NEUTERED legal system when it comes to torts. They absolutely KNOW that few cases will EVER make it to court and that the new breed of Republican corporate-friendly judges will usually overturn the verdict or the jury award. Do you remember the Melinda Ballard $32,000,000.00 jury award for toxic mold levied against Farmers Insurance in Dripping Springs, Texas after Farmers was convicted of using unfair claims practices and bad faith? Well, Farmers never paid it. The award was vacated. The hype you hear about frivolous lawsuits is a publicity campaign from the insurance industry’s lobbyists and Trade Associations. They only tell you of marginal suits that get filed and never really follow the paper trail where those suits without merit are usually dismissed at the first hearing. In those that aren’t thrown out, you can rest assured that there are facts YOU don’t know about that are strategically withheld from the ad campaign and press releases you hear from Insurance sources.

Wow. Lots of opinions here. Inofuilwell, you seem to write a lot but so far I haven't read anything worthy of consideration. Besides, why am I going to listen to someone who forces his/her opinion on me? I'm glad you have an opinion, it means you're thinking for yourself but your thought processes do not seem logical to me and I'm a mathematician/physicist.

collectivision, your opinion makes more sense to me and you aren't shoving it down my throat so that helps.

Omnihilum, I agree with you, we should do our own research instead of listening to arm-chair philosophers in some blog, comment list, or forum.

For me and the research I have done, I think Ron Paul has the best strategies to change our nation for the better. Being a scientist, I know if I elect him I won't be getting as much grant money (or any for that matter) but our K-12 grade programs would benefit because our education system would be put back into the hands of our children's parents and state legislature. I would rather have our money put into our children's health and education at the state level and thus more controllable by the parents than have our federal government decide what our children should be learning. There is much more to say but I don't wish to inundate our readers with opinionated ranting.

I think everyone should look more closely at Ron Paul and his ideas on the issues.

thanks Inofullwell. that was a great response. informative and mature. first and foremost, i appreciate that.

i read over your response twice and agree with you in a few fronts. i do have answers to some which i'd like to share with you. (i found most of the information online from newspaper articles and online argument references so bear with me if i missed something). namely,

1) *Name a Democrat besides perhaps Clinton who is not a staunch anti-imperialist. This is not unique to Ron Paul.

Obama. his political leanings for adhering to Zionist agendas in this country is evident in his constituency and pro-Israel support. although i would love to visit friends in Bethlehem, i see the US/Israel involvement as being the apex of imperialism in its modern form. granted that sovereignty and self-determination should be upheld for all people, i would prefer to be involved as humanitarians IN BOTH SIDES, rather than act aggressively against nations for power over a region. this may be naive, but this issue cost me good friends and is highly emotional among my peers. what i do know is that obama is pro-israel and war ahead of us is imminent because of that relationship.

2) *Again, among Democrats, only Clinton wants to continue the war and all have plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

yes. i've been watching obama on iran and noticed that he never said 'bring our troops home' rather 'get our troops out' of iraq. read above and where we go next might be evident.

3) *Again, show me a Democrat that isn’t more interested in domestic programs than using our military overseas..

hmmm...ok. i guess if you buy my response in the past two, the answer would be obvious. if not, then i would say dr. paul still has the most extreme stance on KEEPING our troops out of harm's way. but, i can also buy the similarity between them as wanting to pursue aggression only through congressional advocacy. you got me there.

4) *Deregulation doesn’t work unless legislators make profiteering unlawful. Ron Paul is for deregulation BEFORE any framework is in place to stop what has happened in ANY deregulated industry besides the airline industry – deregulation has always been worse for consumers in every industry except the airline industry. As far as education goes, deregulation will only put more money into rich schools and leave less money for schools in poor neighborhoods. ...The key is making the schools better for all with merit-based education, knowledge-based promotion of students and peer-reviewed teacher pay.

i agree with you here too. and, you nailed it on the head. given enough momentum, we should make profiteering unlawful and demand a framework before putting up deregulation of certain industries to a vote. as far as education, i believe that too. but i much rather prefer parity with homeschooling degrees and community based education mainly because of my own experience in the public and private schools. it didn't matter which i went to. what mattered was my parent's involvement. if communities can set up and compete for quality and affordable education as a business, we could all have a choice. of course some will be more successful than others, and i should probably think more about it for the sake of those families that can't afford to bus their kids. i know i would work fulltime towards ensuring all kids get a good education if the career opportunity arose.

to be cont...

5) *We agree on this but where will Paul find the votes in Congress until we ELIMINATE the lobbyists and financial institution money that buy the necessary votes to keep the Status Quo. The answer is to tackle the corruption on K Street and to eliminate the the “bundled” contributions that most politicians have to have to survive – incidentally Ron Paul has bundled contributions from the AMA and many Doctor and Hospital PAC’s.

i agree. we should replace corrupt representatives. i did do some lobbying myself during college and hated (and loved) the fact that all other college lobbyists were only into hooking up promiscuously.

6) *I totally agree with this concept , too but again, there are many Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians along with some in the Law Enforcement community who oppose the concept. People with younger children are particularly opposed to anything that might signal a GREATER availability of drugs.

great, i see that too. i do, however, lean more towards allowing each community to deal with drugs the way they see fit and believe that parent communities are directly involved with their child's awareness instead of their neighbor's living room. i like the idea of hemp free enterprise and buy the idea that if we decriminalize drugs we would save law enforcement and incarceration money and spend that on cultural awareness while bankrupting violence in its name. again, maybe naive.

7) *I do not agree with that and vehemently do not agree that women who become pregnant from rape or incest should be forced to carry a child that is the result of that crime AND since you are wanting to do away with any governmental help on health care, what about babies that are born with congenital defects or injuries that might cost millions for care or treatment over the life of that child?

true, i thought of that too. i've battled with this since my wife's miscarriage. if her body didn't reject our next baby, it would've been born with defects and depend on greater help than what i can offer financially for sure. but, emotionally, i would've accepted him/her and take on the love it would require and reach out to a humanitarian community for help when needed. if my wife chose to kill the baby for the fact it had inconvenient defects, i would reconsider our marriage. in regards to child rape, child sexual abuse, and incest, abortion has shown to hide it more than deter it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...

8) ok.
9) ok to that too.
10) i agree this one is a pipe dream (it might all be). it would take more than just dr. paul to actually make a difference. but i'm willing to work towards it. criminalizing corporate misbehavior would be a big deal for me but i'm also aware that not having a national oversight for worker and environmental safety would be a disaster.

so, let's say dr. paul is not "revolutionary" per se but placed next to both of the democrat candidates, which of the three offer a better solution to a staunch anti-imperialist/anti-federal reserve/anti-prohibition/anti-monopoly/pro-baby choice young dad like me?

btw, much respect, Inofullwell. i'll let you have the last word but i'll definitely look into it more.

Inofuilwell, tell me which other candidate has addressed the national debt? which other candidate has addressed runaway inflation, the devaluation of the dollar, our imperialist foreign policy, free trade agreements, the constitution, taxes, the patriot act, civil liberties, the economy (which he has been warning people about way before it became mainstream news a month ago), on and on and on

so why don't you keep your welfare state and your CFR members and your bought and sold politicians and shove them.

MORE bureaucratic, wasteful, inefficient big-brother government is not the answer for every problem, as you seem to think, including tackling these huge corporations and the problem of ridiculously expensive healthcare. the republicans and democrats are one and the same these days. the only thing they differ on is WHERE and HOW to spend YOUR money. it's either WAR or WELFARE, isn't it?

open your eyes.

It's not Ron Paul as a candidate that frightens me. He actually has some important things to say about some very important issues - like the erosion of civil liberties or America wielding it's power on the world stage like a thug.

It's the legions of intolerant Internet Ron-Paul moonies that frighten me. Gangs of roving supporters who attack anyone, on any website, who'd dare say something negative about the man.

He's not a saint. He's a political candidate.

Get used to criticism.

-zen

zenbeer, I agree. Unfortunately for all candidates, there are always supporters who take it too far and thus hurt their own candidates campainge.

There's a very strange virtual territorial pissing contest taking place in the comments area on this site, youtube, and many others. Especially on any video that is of a political nature.

If you go on Youtube on most current political videos, there is a literal army of RP supporters who spam and post campaign adverts all over the place.

Passionate support is one thing, spamming is another. You don't win people over to your side that way.

-zen

That's sad and very dissappointing, especially because I think right now Ron Paul is more worthy than any other candidate to be president.

I guess this is just more reason to encourage voters do their own research and vote intelligently.

@pfestier - should we impressed that you're a mathematician? physicist? big deal, I'm a nuculear scientist which means I'm probably smarter than you.

I like that you support The Revolution, but not so much that you seem to need everyone else to understand and agree with you. I'd love to see The Revolution sweep the nation but not like this. Dr Paul doesn't believe in evolution, so why should you believe their ideas can evolve and change?

bobdobalina, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. First, a nuclear scientist is a physicist. So what's your point? Second, I never forced Ron Paul on anyone.

Additionally, why would you say you are probably smarter than me? Is that supposed to be insulting or feel like some epiphany to me? Why would you give a shit anyway, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Inofuilwell, unless that's your alter-ego.

Have I been telling you to read my comments? Have I said, "Hey, bobdobalina, read my comments!" You have a freedom not to. So I suggest if you don't like what I'm saying, stop reading it.

Lastly, unless we get Ron Paul's name out to the voters, how else will he have a chance since the media tries to keep him in the shadow?

Vote Ron Paul.

P.S. If you were looking for a mature debate maybe you should have started off by not trying to insult me. Now I don't care for you at all, especially your icon since it symobolizes your "assholeness".

i voted ron paul.

the media called him crazy and the sheeple listened. damn shame.

i suggest everyone google the following things:
-The Amero
-The National ID card
-The 1959 Freedom Bill
-Net Neutrality

I sure hope our next president does not intend to promote any of these things.