Money Bomb! Ron Paul Raises Almost $3 Million in a Single Day

As of this writing, Ron Paul has raised approximately $4 million.

Simply amazing!

Another nail in the warmongering, authoritarian neocon coffin, as Ron Paul is their worst enemy.

Bye bye Huckabee...Bye, bye McCain. Make room for Ron Paul.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Mother Jones.

I just donated!!

James has it all wrong. First, his plan of shutting down the American Empire is the only way to keep Social Security and Medicare from going bankrupt. Secondly, Ron Paul is the corporatists worst nightmare. He wants to eliminate corporate welfare and end the cozy relationship between the federal government and the corporations.

AND, when it comes to monetary policy, you really need to educate yourself - I'll get you started...

The Fed creates money out of thin air (presto!) then loans it to the Congress so they can do their deficit-spending. These private bankers then charge interest to the tax payers for this money that they created. Also, when this money is added to the money supply, it drives price inflation - destroying the
value of the dollar. So while your paycheck looks the same (or even increases), your buying power is going down.

All of this results in a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the bankers, Wall Street, and the corporations (who get billions in corporate welfare).

It's an economic scam against the American people and Ron Paul is the only one talking seriously about ending it.

People think constant, rampant inflation is a normal part of the economy - it is not. It is engineered to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Ron Paul thinks it's criminal. He means to stop it.

"As for Ron Paul's supporters, they remind me more of cult-members than anything else. Sorry if that offends, but that's how I feel about it."

I agreee.

Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.

****

Ron Paul and his paulites have a little trouble with the facts.

The gold standard worked until 1972. Then you might remember there was a bit of stagflation after the dollar was sunk to pay for skyrocketing expenditures.

Common, it was 35 years ago, don't tell me your public school education hasn't wiped out your ability to think critically, even about things like currency?

oh, kewl!

capt is back with 'the facts' again!

capt, tell us 'the facts' about how Ron Paul voted for a 'ban on gay adoptions in D.C.' again?!?!
that was a good one!
and i loved the part where you documented your claim with all the detail about the bill that would have instituted the ban and all...
it was every bit as good as the documentation you just provided about who had 'the biggest' fund-raising day!

you know, i can't help but notice that hardly a month ago, all you Ron Paul detractors were making light of him, with lots of noise and laughter, calling him a 'fringe candidate'; 'at the bottom of the second tier' of contenders, 'going nowhere', repeating all of Sean Hannity's belittling phrases and whatever

today, you're reduced to splitting hairs over whether he had the Second, or the Third biggest fund-raising day EVER by a presidential contender!!

could last month's position by Ron Paul's detractors have been WRONG?!?!

wonder what positions you'll be reduced to taking a month from NOW?

Ron Paul - Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ; vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2587:

********

Those darn facts - they seem to confuse some people.

james, i'm gonna go ahead and guess that you don't know the first thing about fiscal policy. i like a good argument as much as anyone, but do you think that you know more than a guy serving in the joint congressional economic committee?

Here's an odd test of truth. What did Ron Paul say when asked about his racist comments from his political newsletter by a reporter at the Houston Chronicle?

******

"Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

***********

I guess it took a few years to realize it wasn't HIM, it was that dastardly ghost writer.

Sure I believe it was Casper the friendly ghost.

Vote republican - it has worked so well so far. . .

Again - those pesky facts:

from -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c106:1:./temp/~c106Jj9pai:e49720:

H.R.2587

Making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending... (Reported in House)

ABORTION FUNDS RESTRICTION

SEC. 129. None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

DOMESTIC PARTNERS FUNDS RESTRICTION

SEC. 130. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not limited to registration for the purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally married couples.

*******

The other problem that seems to infect the Paulites is a complete refusal to admit error. Just like Bush, never made a mistake no matter how many times proven wrong.

You see a restriction is a ban by other words.

Too funny.

capt sez:
"His voting record exposes him as less than charitable to gays, blacks and other non-whites."

oh, you mean like his consistent votes against proposed constitutional amendments like this one?

[H J Res 88: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3878

Vote to pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman, and federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions.]

capt sez:
"Ron Paul has in those amazing numbers of supporters the white-supremacist and neo-nazis - no a ringing endorsement of cultural understanding."

got anything to keep that claim afloat, besides your own hot air?
link to some data perhaps?

@ Cap: "His voting record exposes him as less than charitable to gays, blacks and other non-whites. (strike two)"

Is this to imply that Gays, blacks and other Non-whites SHOULD be entitled (or by definition NEED) government sanctioned charity?

What you fail to see Capt, is that voting against federally sactioning some type of handout or redistribution of (forcibly obtained) tax dollars is in no way to say he is 'against' a particular person or group of people. It's just that he has the belief that it is not the business of the Government to stick it's nose into (and financially support) all these social agendas.

It is mental light weight simple mindedness that believes that only the Government can be charitable, and that charity should only come from Government. Please, read further clarification here.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul80.html

Typically, politicians do not conduct some particular activity because it's the correct or most moral decision, but rather base their agendas on things that have the highest potential to bring them personal reward (financial and vote-wise).

If you have any trouble understanding what having ethics and morals means, please read this article to be even further enlightened.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prjan30.htm

Regards.

capt sez:
["Yeah, we need laws to protect and defend people of color, gays, and others from the fear and hate represented by many in and out of politics."]

oh yeah, capt,

laws are going to Protect Us from other people's Emotions!

brilliant thinking!

there are laws everywhere to allow authorities to pursue retribution and restitution in case of crimes against persons and property, and that's all that laws can ever really do, until such time as we decide to allow government to shape our thinking
do you want to go there?
risk having a future 'karl rove' deciding how you're going to be 'programmed'?

legal or police 'protection' is a myth we'd do well to stop perpetrating

and before anyone gives me any BS about high taxes on the rich stifling business and making people lose jobs, just look at what Bush's tax cuts have done to our middle and lower class. Bush cut taxes on big business, and not a single new net job has been created, and people are falling farther in debt than ever, while tutoring programs for public schools and veteran's benefits suffer. The only people who can afford tax cuts on the rich are the rich, period. They're so selfish, they don't want to take care of anyone but themselves, and Ron Paul wants to give them the leeway to do just that.

Bless you, James, I agree completely. There's nothing wrong with taxing income - it's that rich fuckers with millions pay almost nothing. We need to not reject taxes but tax cuts to the highest percent. Ron Paul's ideas appeal to overly simplistic thinkers who actually believe that the average joe will make great choices for his neighbors without government controls. I'm no prohibitionist. I believe in people with no record of insanity or crime being able to own guns. I believe in legalizing marijuana. I believe for very personal reasons in legalizing same sex marriage. I do not want government in my back yard. But people are allowing the Bush administration's terrible record to sour their view of a solid presence of government in our lives. A solid government, funded with taxes, can maintain roads, public education for kids who need it, enforce environmental standards and basic laws that protect us, let alone parks and recreation, food safety and other benefits that people are taking for granted in their Ron Paul itty-bitty government zeal. In utter and complete defiance of the Ron Paul CULT - I am a proud socialist.

["You say you could rely on state's themselves to handle peoples' needs without the federal government? Yeah, sure, that's why we have the Articles of Confederation instead of the Constitution, right?"]

Some, closely associated with the Constitution itself, have felt otherwise.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
-- James Madison--1788

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison--1794

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
--James Madison--1794

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them"
--James Madison--1817

"It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected."
--Thomas Jefferson--1821

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
--Thomas Jefferson--1821

"I wish to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
--Thomas Jefferson--1823

they are like me and tell me anything about them wakfu kamas, I know wakfu gold. one of my friend likes to go to play buy wakfu kamas, I can not stand praising the land and the nature wakfu money , It makes us to be wakfu kama. My another friend do not like FFXI Gil, She like in home along FFXI gold, she like quiet and Final Fantasy XI gold, she always read books in the library and buy buy FFXI Gil, I will go to library with he cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold.

Do you know dofus kama? I like it. My brother often goes to the internet bar to buy kamas and play it. After school, He likes playing games using these cheap kamas with his friend.

6.9Cworld of warcraft goldANDworld of warcraft gold