Post by: CNYCacher on December 13, 2007, 08:24:15 AM
Also, the Dec 16th Tea Party hasn't even happened yet!
GO, ___ ____!!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 13, 2007, 08:39:33 AM
Post by: CNYCacher on December 13, 2007, 08:56:23 AM
I was just pointing out the amount of money he has raised so far since it checked it today and was surprised. I understand that there are some people on this board who would also be excited to know this, so I decided to share.
What is the significance of calling this a "me too" thread?
Are you implying that my support for RP is based on a bandwagon-type "joiner" personality?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 09:11:43 AM
Maybe he can buy that funny money with his own face on it when he gets about .1% of the actual vote in the primary.
Post by: CNYCacher on December 13, 2007, 11:40:40 AM
FYI, the average donation on the last one-day fundraiser was $100.
Who are you backing?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 11:44:07 AM
Who are you backing?
Whomever proves themselves to me by the time of the primaries. This is politics, not a religion with prophets to follow.
Post by: CNYCacher on December 13, 2007, 11:47:14 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 11:51:56 AM
They managed to ruin Nashua's Holiday Walk, even.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 13, 2007, 01:55:08 PM
What is the significance of calling this a "me too" thread?
Are you implying that my support for RP is based on a bandwagon-type "joiner" personality?
Eh, I guess I was just tired of hearing people say "My guy (Ron Paul) is a viable candidate too" when all the available evidence indicates that he isn't.Are you implying that my support for RP is based on a bandwagon-type "joiner" personality?
If you like Ron Paul and are happy he's finally managed to raise some money, then good for you. But $12Million? Add that to the $8M he's earned to date, and you get $20M total. Romney made that much in Q3 alone. Hillary raised $30M in Q3. She's earned $100M to date.
I like most of Ron Paul's positions. If he had a clue about foreign policy, and if he had half a chance of winning anything, then I'd gladly vote for him. But really, he doesn't have a prayer. $12M is small change for a presidential campaign, and Paul consistently polls right at the margin of error. I won't throw away my vote.
Post by: CNYCacher on December 13, 2007, 03:53:54 PM
And it's always been the lesser of two evils as well. But not next year. I am going to know what it feels like to vote with a clear conscience.
Post by: pistolchamp on December 14, 2007, 11:12:19 AM
The best thing that could happen for freedom would be to have Bloomberg throw away a billion bucks and do a Perot surprise for the damocraps... split the vote and a republican patriot would easily win. I'd even donate to Bloomberg's campaing, if he needed the money.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 11:19:23 AM
Any vote for an "underdog" is wasted and given to the damocraps. Remember Ross Perot?
I remember hearing people say that back when Bush was running against Gore. Gore would have been a terrible president. If he tried really, really hard, he might have been 1/10th as bad as Bush. A trillion on the Kyoto protocol? It would suck, but it beats two trillion invading Iraq! He'd have liked to seize as much power as Bush, but he'd have been afraid to.
In that context, what you're saying loses most of its meaning. Sure, a vote against mugging is a vote for robbing. And sure, voting "none of the above" probably won't do much good. But is that a reason to vote in favor of your own mugging?
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 14, 2007, 01:32:32 PM
Any vote for an "underdog" is wasted and given to the damocraps. Remember Ross Perot?
I remember hearing people say that back when Bush was running against Gore. Gore would have been a terrible president. If he tried really, really hard, he might have been 1/10th as bad as Bush. A trillion on the Kyoto protocol? It would suck, but it beats two trillion invading Iraq! He'd have liked to seize as much power as Bush, but he'd have been afraid to.
In that context, what you're saying loses most of its meaning. Sure, a vote against mugging is a vote for robbing. And sure, voting "none of the above" probably won't do much good. But is that a reason to vote in favor of your own mugging?
--Len.
Your position follows logically from your premises. Problem is, your premises are false.
Post by: stevelyn on December 14, 2007, 01:34:03 PM
Who are you backing?
Whomever proves themselves to me by the time of the primaries. This is politics, not a religion with prophets to follow.
You'd never know it by the way the Kool-Aid drinkers are pushing the same old $^!t party line.
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 04:25:57 PM
Bush isn't nearly as bad as you think he is, he hasn't seized power like you say he has, and the Iraq war hasn't cost nearly as much as you think it has. Your position follows logically from your premises. Problem is, your premises are false.
He hasn't? Eliminating habeas corpus, not temporarily but permanently, would in a sane world have gotten him tarred and feathered, put in the stocks for 300 years, and then hanged. It's been the cornerstone of law and liberty since the Magna Carta. Contrary to the popular expression, it isn't the Arabs who dragged us back to the 13th Century, it's Bush.
Not that Clinton wouldn't love to have done it. Bush is living every politician's wet dream.
--Len.
Post by: wooderson on December 14, 2007, 06:34:54 PM
Post by: CNYCacher on December 15, 2007, 08:16:04 PM
I am just going to note here that it's only 1am on the east coast, and he has jumped $400,000 since I checked an hour and a half ago.
Update: I found this graph linked from teaparty07.com
This graph SHOULD update in real time throughout the day:
Times are in EST
Post by: Manedwolf on December 15, 2007, 10:05:59 PM
BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away. And no, they are NOT bad, some, in fact, most corporations are good things, they're not all evil, so don't even do that nonsense.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 15, 2007, 10:19:32 PM
Post by: Finch on December 15, 2007, 10:36:57 PM
I guess there's no must-have video game on the market right now. Lots of $49.95s going from basements nationwide to somewhere!
What are you talking about! There is HALO3, The Orange Box, Call of Duty 4 (you might like this, there is an invasion of a country who is of no threat), Kane and Lynch, Guitar Hero 3....so yeah.
Post by: LAK on December 16, 2007, 12:38:59 AM
Quote
Bush isn't nearly as bad as you think he is, he hasn't seized power like you say he has, and the Iraq war hasn't cost nearly as much as you think it has. Your position follows logically from your premises. Problem is, your premises are false.
How bad is George W. Bush then?Seized power? Just what has he done at all about those who have seized power in this country that fall under his executive office? How about .. nothing?
How much has the "war" in Iraq costs us? In blood? How about money; plane loads of cash "dissappearing" over there? $2.6 TRILLION that can not be accounted for by the Pentagon. So who can say exactly how much money the "war" is costing us?
That's logic for you.
-----------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CNYCacher on December 16, 2007, 04:19:05 AM
And the trend is curving up!
Post by: K Frame on December 16, 2007, 05:59:31 AM
Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.
Post by: GigaBuist on December 16, 2007, 07:24:52 AM
Quote
BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.
It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 16, 2007, 08:03:30 AM
Quote
BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.
It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.
Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?
Post by: Len Budney on December 16, 2007, 08:07:42 AM
Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?
He can keep my $100. I can afford it; I don't live in my mother's basement. Actually it's a duplex, and my tenant lives downstairs.--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on December 16, 2007, 05:39:08 PM
Quote
BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.
It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.
Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?
Even better. He'll subsidize the 10,000 most fanatical Paulistas to pick up stakes and move to NH to add to the Free-Staters already there.
Just thought I'd warn you.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 16, 2007, 06:07:56 PM
Quote
BTW, $800k? The corporate sorts funding every other candidate sneeze that much into a hanky and throw it away.
It'll be north of 6 million at the end of the day.
Is he going to give it back when he doesn't get the nomination?
Even better. He'll subsidize the 10,000 most fanatical Paulistas to pick up stakes and move to NH to add to the Free-Staters already there.
Just thought I'd warn you.
I'll buy a remote-controlled black helicopter and annoy them with it till they go completely paranoid and run away, then.
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 06:57:37 PM
"Seized power? Just what has he done at all about those who have seized power in this country that fall under his executive office? How about .. nothing?"
Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.
Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.
There are more than a few people who think Bush stole the 2000 election. Here's a parody, but you have to listen to both parts to get the detail.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 07:13:12 PM
"Seized power? Just what has he done at all about those who have seized power in this country that fall under his executive office? How about .. nothing?"
Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.
Specific examples, please, or abandon the point.
There are more than a few people who think Bush stole the 2000 election. Here's a parody, but you have to listen to both parts to get the detail.
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 07:16:48 PM
Quote
Just an aside, I don't want to hijack this thread, but do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Bush stole the election in 2000?
I think the will of the people was circumvented by legal means, and that democracy took a big hit.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 16, 2007, 07:36:42 PM
Post by: Paddy on December 16, 2007, 07:40:08 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 16, 2007, 07:48:22 PM
Quote
Just an aside, I don't want to hijack this thread, but do you really, truly, sincerely believe that Bush stole the election in 2000?
I think the will of the people was circumvented by legal means, and that democracy took a big hit.
Post by: LAK on December 17, 2007, 05:01:08 AM
How about the 'ATF?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 17, 2007, 05:37:02 AM
ATF has been around a pretty long time, you realize.
Post by: K Frame on December 17, 2007, 05:42:47 AM
Mr Irwin,
How about the 'ATF?
How about the 'ATF?
How about them?
Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.
On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.
Post by: LAK on December 18, 2007, 04:48:57 AM
Quote
How about them?
Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.
On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.
So states you. I disagree, as do plenty of other people in this country. The ATF has usurped and abused plenty of powers.Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.
On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.
And why not? Who has intervined to the contrary? You really are attempting to skew my point; while I would disagree with those who would state that George W Bush has seized power in this country, he has failed to reign in those under him that have. The ATF have done just that.
It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 18, 2007, 05:13:09 AM
It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.
Bush is responsible for not reining in an agency that's been goose-stepping since Prohibition?
Wow. That's just...wow.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 18, 2007, 07:09:47 AM
Quote
How about them?
Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.
On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.
So states you. I disagree, as do plenty of other people in this country. The ATF has usurped and abused plenty of powers.Popping out a three-letter acronym is not the same as citing specific examples to back your claim.
On it's very face the claim that entities are "seizing power" indicates that they are acting in a manner that is outside of the mandates authorized by Congress or the administration; in essence, you're claiming that there are numerous rogue agencies within the goverment that have ceased to respond to recognized authority.
And why not? Who has intervined to the contrary? You really are attempting to skew my point; while I would disagree with those who would state that George W Bush has seized power in this country, he has failed to reign in those under him that have. The ATF have done just that.
It is not that the ATF has "failed to respond to recognized authority" - recognized authority - the highest ranking person in the executive branch has failed to bring the ATF to heel.
So, please tell us how Bush is supposed to "reign in" an organization working within the laws passed by Congress.
Post by: Len Budney on December 18, 2007, 07:13:41 AM
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on December 18, 2007, 07:52:04 AM
Yes, I'm sure plenty of people do share your belief.
Then again, plenty of people in the United States believe that Israel (or George Bush, or the Illuminati, or whatever group you don't like/fear) was responsible for 9-11, that it was actually missiles that hit the WTC and the Pentagon and that eyewitnesses who claim otherwise are "part of the conspiracy," and so on.
Consensus is NOT the same as fact.
Post by: Tuco on December 18, 2007, 09:34:28 AM
Bush is responsible for not reining in an agency that's been goose-stepping since Prohibition?
Wow. That's just...wow.
Not too remarkable a statement considering....
ANNOUNCEMENT
Sarcasm follows.
....considering
"The Clinton's" were responsible for the Waco and the Weaver incidents;
Nixon was responsible for the Wounded Knee incident;
JE Carter was responsible for a botched rescue attempt of hostages in Tehran.
sarcasm ends here.
As Truman(?) said of the presidency "The buck stops (t)here.
Post by: CNYCacher on December 18, 2007, 04:09:37 PM
Post by: Bigjake on December 18, 2007, 05:04:16 PM
Post by: J.J. on December 18, 2007, 05:10:58 PM
I will suggest we keep it CLEAN.
Thanks.
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 05:29:32 PM
There has to be a better way.
Post by: LAK on December 18, 2007, 11:08:42 PM
Consensus is not fact. Right; and popularity is a mere measure of acceptence.
So I take it you do not accept that the ATF has in the context of my original point has seized some powers, and that the executive office has failed to do anything about that? Or not? Seems you forgot to clear that up; since you implied initially that I was somehow off base on that point.
-------------
And this is one of the reasons Ron Paul has so much support, and is getting all this campaign money from individual citizens in addition to some corporate interests. That he will most assuredly deal with some of these renegade three letter agencies and more. This is something that George W Bush, like his father - and bosom buddy William Clinton - have steadfastly avoided. There is a degree in complicity between these people in this regard. And there is no other candidate currently running that will do so.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on December 20, 2007, 02:41:38 AM
Quote
So, please tell us how Bush is supposed to "reign in" an organization working within the laws passed by Congress.
The ATF is a tax collection agency - or rather was. It is tasked with collecting taxes in accordance with the laws passed by Congress.Those laws do not detail ATF regulations and operating procedures, and do not include writing it's own definitions and running roughshod over the citizens of this country. The ATF is a Federal agency that falls under the Executive Ofiice - ultimately the pres. The POTUS is the highest ranking person in the Executive Office and thus has the authority to direct agencies like the ATF by by administration, and if necessary by Executive Order.
Simple enough.