Ron Paul breaks fundraising history!

Please.

Some of you TV Heads are obsessed with proving your own 'rationality'.

The North American Union is real. So are open borders, our foreign-owned Central Bank and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Paul rails against all these. Get over it.

The people who would snicker and laugh at you for broaching these topics are intellectual cowards or apathetic fools.

Try not to get so caught up in what Neil Cuvato tells you what everyone else thinks of your positions.

Its total bs. A mind game.

The mainstream media knows all about the dark halls of power in America yet never utter a word about it. Never forget that.

You still think this is a level playing field?
 
a28:
>You still think this is a level playing field?

It's not. It hasn't been. It won't be.

To use your own words. "Get over it".

JB
 
Quote from achilles28:

haha. Good one.

Refuse lies and demand truth.

Doesn't work both ways.

Fair exposure is right.
More...

If the above is in response to my immediately preceding post, you'll have to explain yourself better, 'cause I've missed your point.

JB
 
Quote from Cache Landing:

Every electronic machine that I've voted on has printed an actual ticket also. I thought that was issued as a requirement in case the need for a manual recount arises.

On a different note. What is obvious evidence of voter fraud? Paul supporters have it in their heads that "legitimate" polls would have RP at 30-40%. When he only comes in at about 5-10% I'm sure many will say there is "evidence" of fraud. Then they will round up a couple people who claim people were being bussed in to offset their vote, or that Paul supporters were being intimidated and discouraged from voting. Then they will claim that he didn't do well because the biased media didn't give him as much exposure. I'm sorry, but dealing with the biased media is part of campaigning, and if he can't overcome it, then he doesn't deserve to win.

When this happens I'll be happy to recite this post. I support Ron Paul too, but unfortunately that lumps me in with a bunch of conspiracy theorist nut-cases by default. If Paul loses it will simply be due to the fact that he doesn't have mass appeal, and the vast majority of people voting don't understand his platform.
More...

Just so you know the last election the electronic machine I voted on didn't offer anything after voting. That was in 2004.

When I say obvious and blatent voter fraud, I refer to the fact of the youtube video shown in the Florida caucus for the REP's. I am not refering to any assumptions or pollings. I am just talking about what would be an obvious observation to any human eye of falt of fraud. I am not in anyways going into the fact of some of the goofy scenarios that some Paul supporters refer too. Just remember there are bad apples in every crowd. I myself would like to kick some of the dumbass non-educated Ron Paul supporters right in the teeth.

But, I would assume many educated people would understand taht you always have bad apples in every crowd.
 
Quote from Haroki:

RP's not ALL bad. He thinks the conspiracy wacko theories are preposterous. Poor guy, trying to run a campaign and he's got all these CT morons trying to attach themselves to him in some bizarre way....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tsPfuTxQyE
More...

mind you.. earlier this year he was also discussing the belief that the US might attempt to go into Iran with a staged Gulf of Tonkin type event

he may disavow no planers and remote controllers, but that doesn't necessarily imply everything you'd prefer it to. a lot of people who want answers on 911 also find those theories absurd (and would never advocate violent reform). the biggest crime in US history never received a criminal investigation, the leadership fiercely resisted one...

there will always be people who are just fine with that sort of thing, likewise people who aren't
 
Quote from Avid_Consumer:

mind you.. earlier this year he was also discussing the belief that the US might attempt to go into Iran with a staged Gulf of Tonkin type event

he may disavow no planers and remote controllers, but that doesn't necessarily imply everything you'd prefer it to. a lot of people who want answers on 911 also find those theories absurd (and would never advocate violent reform). the biggest crime in US history never received a criminal investigation, the leadership fiercely resisted one...

there will always be people who are just fine with that sort of thing, likewise people who aren't
More...

Uhhhh, no, there was a criminal investigation, they know who was responsible, but the perps are mostly dead. Now they're just going after the ring leader. Remember the questioning CTerz had about how the hijackers were id'ed so fast, etc? The FBI did that, right? And who investigates these cases again? Do you know? Does that resonate with you?

But again, you're twisting his words to fit your world view. He knows who was responsible for 9/11. He has questions about the failure of the intelligence agencies and the effect of our foreign policy on al quaeda.

I have other Q's along his lines that I have also. But the circumstances of 9/11 and who did it ain't one of them. And it isn't one he has either.

You do him a disservice when you speak for him. That's exactly what he and Glenn Beck were talking about.....
 
Quote from Haroki:

Uhhhh, no, there was a criminal investigation, they know who was responsible, but the perps are mostly dead. Now they're just going after the ring leader. Remember the questioning CTerz had about how the hijackers were id'ed so fast, etc? The FBI did that, right? And who investigates these cases again? Do you know? Does that resonate with you?

But again, you're twisting his words to fit your world view. He knows who was responsible for 9/11. He has questions about the failure of the intelligence agencies and the effect of our foreign policy on al quaeda.

I have other Q's along his lines that I have also. But the circumstances of 9/11 and who did it ain't one of them. And it isn't one he has either.

You do him a disservice when you speak for him. That's exactly what he and Glenn Beck were talking about.....
More...

i only represent myself. i've considered whether it's better to back off the advocacy of ron paul.

what you frequently attempt to do, and glenn beck it seems as well, is reduce all 911 doubt to the opinions of its deepest fringe elements. you attempt to portray the entire notion as taboo

it seems clear ron does believe more accountability rests with our own government than has been properly explained. he isn't accusing the FBI of perpetrating 911, but for example, he has mentioned wanting to investigate why the FBI refused to act on 70 field tips, some extremely specific. he calls the 911 commission a "Charade"

questions of internal accountability and intentional coverup obviously run far deeper and more mainstream than that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

yes the FBI has investigated 911... but the failures and accountability within our system have never entered a criminal investigation or trial to my knowledge.

an FBI spokesman himself stated "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on america". even if we caught the guy, it's not apparent that he could be charged with anything related to 911.

My biggest issue however is that Bush and Cheney couldn't have been more opaque with respect to investigating this crime. If it were up to them we wouldn't even have had a commission. You may be ok with that. I'm definitely not.
 
Last time I looked it was votes that got someone elected not how much the they fundraised.

Ron Paul consistently polls under 5% in National polls, no amount of fundraising is going to help that. He is a fringe candidate that has no chance of being nominated.
 
Quote from Avid_Consumer:

i only represent myself. i've considered whether it's better to back off the advocacy of ron paul.

what you frequently attempt to do, and glenn beck it seems as well, is reduce all 911 doubt to the opinions of its deepest fringe elements. you attempt to portray the entire notion as taboo

it seems clear ron does believe more accountability rests with our own government than has been properly explained. he isn't accusing the FBI of perpetrating 911, but for example, he has mentioned wanting to investigate why the FBI refused to act on 70 field tips, some extremely specific. he calls the 911 commission a "Charade"

questions of internal accountability and intentional coverup obviously run far deeper and more mainstream than that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

yes the FBI has investigated 911... but the failures and accountability within our system have never entered a criminal investigation or trial to my knowledge.

an FBI spokesman himself stated "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on america". even if we caught the guy, it's not apparent that he could be charged with anything related to 911.

My biggest issue however is that Bush and Cheney couldn't have been more opaque with respect to investigating this crime. If it were up to them we wouldn't even have had a commission. You may be ok with that. I'm definitely not.
More...

So you're calling for a criminal investigation into what RP calls the "inept" FBI? Or for the lies told to the 9/11CR? Lying under oath would indeed need to be prosecuted. If only that would have worked with Clinton......

And I agree that the 9/11 CR was a farce. Do you know what RP's specific views are on it?

To be clear, here's mine - Dems agreed to fund whatever wars Bush wanted if he agreed to NOT pin the blame on the intelligence failure on Clinton's admin erecting an intelligence "wall" between groups such as Able Danger and the FBI. Jamie Gorelick was instrumental in erecting that "wall", and yet was on the 9/11 Commission. Sounds a bit screwy, eh?

BTW, OBL said himself that AQ did 9/11, so even if they have no DIRECT evidence, there's lotsa indirect evidence, right?

What 70 tips are there? I would like to read about them. From what I've read, none are specific to date/time/target at all, nor in even a general way. Only that it was possible that they were capable of it. This had been going on for years also. The report that Rice read to the Cabinet was years old, from what I've read. So realistically, the only way to prevent such an attack would be to start with the type of investigative techniques that were brought into existance by the Patriot Act - something that the typical RP supporter screams about, btw.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top