Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

[red states rule]

Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Rudy... are my top three. yeah Paul might have suckered lots of fools into giving him money.... there's no way in hell he'll get the nomination. Perhaps he should've run as a liberal. Then he might have a shot. But him having 2.4 mil cash on hand is scary because it buys alot of Votes at the Straw Poll in Aug

Paul will be gone shortly.

snip

Despite getting 1% in the polls, you could not ignore his online support. His message is also a very classical conservative view of smaller government. Unfortunately it is out of tune with the Republican party of today. We predicted that he would gain 3-5% in the polls last month by assuming that his online support would positively affect his scientific polls. So far, we are wrong. Add to that, there were online reports that Ron Paul was going to bust out with a $5 million fundraising mark. The same source has recently backtracked and said the number will be closer to $1.5 million. At $5 million, he could gain some traction but at $1.5 million, he is not going anywhere.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

 

[JeffWartman]

Paul will be gone shortly.

snip

Despite getting 1% in the polls, you could not ignore his online support. His message is also a very classical conservative view of smaller government. Unfortunately it is out of tune with the Republican party of today. We predicted that he would gain 3-5% in the polls last month by assuming that his online support would positively affect his scientific polls. So far, we are wrong. Add to that, there were online reports that Ron Paul was going to bust out with a $5 million fundraising mark. The same source has recently backtracked and said the number will be closer to $1.5 million. At $5 million, he could gain some traction but at $1.5 million, he is not going anywhere.
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

Ron Paul wants small government and less taxes; something the Republicans you support DO NOT want.

YOU are a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL.

 

[SolarEnergy1]

Ron Paul wants small government and less taxes; something the Republicans you support DO NOT want.

YOU are a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL.

IF the GOP are against everything Ron Paul stands for then why run as a Republican? Why not run as a libertarian..... IMHO that makes him a Flipflopper.

 

[JeffWartman]

IF the GOP are against everything Ron Paul stands for then why run as a Republican? Why not run as a libertarian..... IMHO that makes him a Flipflopper.

Because it's NOT everything the GOP stands for.

Ron Paul is what to GOP WANTS to be. Barry Goldwater has literally NOTHING in common with the current crop of Republicans, because current Republicans are big government. Ron Paul wants to take the GOP back to it's roots which it has LOST with the current crop of Liberal Republicans.

 

[SolarEnergy1]

Because it's NOT everything the GOP stands for.

Ron Paul is what to GOP WANTS to be. Barry Goldwater has literally NOTHING in common with the current crop of Republicans, because current Republicans are big government. Ron Paul wants to take the GOP back to it's roots which it has LOST with the current crop of Liberal Republicans.

Why would Ron Paul care if he was a Libertarian? Sounds to me like he just wanted a bigger platform to spread his message and alot more people would listen if he ran under the GOP banner than if he ran as some nutjob libertarian IMHO...

 

[JeffWartman]

Why would Ron Paul care if he was a Libertarian? Sounds to me like he just wanted a bigger platform to spread his message and alot more people would listen if he ran under the GOP banner than if he ran as some nutjob libertarian IMHO...

Well, you're just showing a complete lack of knowledge of the philosophical history of the Republican Party.

 

[MontanaJack]

Why would Ron Paul care if he was a Libertarian? Sounds to me like he just wanted a bigger platform to spread his message and alot more people would listen if he ran under the GOP banner than if he ran as some nutjob libertarian IMHO...

It's true. As a nutjob he fits right in with the rest of the Republicans running.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Despite getting 1% in the polls, you could not ignore his online support. His message is also a very classical conservative view of smaller government. Unfortunately it is out of tune with the Republican party of today.

Yep, that pretty much says it all!

 

[red states rule]

Ron Paul wants small government and less taxes; something the Republicans you support DO NOT want.

YOU are a BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERAL.

and you are turning into a nut

 

[red states rule]

Well, you're just showing a complete lack of knowledge of the philosophical history of the Republican Party.

and you are showing your arrogance once again

 

[red states rule]

Why would Ron Paul care if he was a Libertarian? Sounds to me like he just wanted a bigger platform to spread his message and alot more people would listen if he ran under the GOP banner than if he ran as some nutjob libertarian IMHO...

He is "spreading" his message - that is why he is about 1% in the polls

 

[JeffWartman]

and you are showing your arrogance once again

If you understood the philosophical history of the GOP, you'd know the people in Washington DC who call themselves Republicans are NOT Conservative and have NOTHING in common with Goldwater.

 

[Eightball]

You mentioning the founding fathers in your sig, and then denouncing Ron Paul in this thread, flies in the face of respecting them to begin with.

Ron Paul is the closest candidate to the founding fathers as you will get.

He models himself after them, and makes no political decision that doesn't agree with their views and vision for America.

If someone's belief about evolution will make or break you voting for them, then you have no business voting, or even being involved in politics to begin with.

How does a view on evolution have anything to do with the type of leader someone could be for a country? You were wrong about him anyway, but it still begs the question...

Take Ghandi for instance...the man was a genious. He organized a population to fight for, and win their freedom, without ever firing a single shot, or throwing a single stone. He's a legend. Where would his view on the subject of evolution have anything to do with what the man achieved for a people?

The only thing that should matter when choosing a candidate is, how are they going to make the lives of the American people the best that they could possibly be, while abiding by the consitution that granted Americans their particular lives to begin with. Believing in, or not believing in evolution, has no impact on how someone votes on congressional legislation...it has no impact on whether or not a specific candidate would actually end the war like they might say they will...it has no impact on whether they might choose to raise or lower, or even END, taxes. It has no impact on whether a candidate might decide to work toward providing all Americans with universal health care...

Do you even know enough about Ron Paul to make a decision about him? Or is the evolution issue your deal breaker?

Even though you were wrong, anyway.

Though I don't agree with many of Ron Paul's political points, your points made are very good in the area of "why" we choose a person to elected office.

If "evolution" or "creationism" or "intelligent design" belief is the criteria for picking a candidate to the exclusion of all of their other stances, we are trully a sorry lot for a nation.

One person who rebuttaled your comment, mentioned basically that a believer in creationism, or intelligent design over evolution is a serious matter, and has an affect on this candidate's ability to govern.

The premise was, that believing in other-than evolution flies in the face of scientific testing, or findings. In other words, science and the origin of life, matter, existence, etc., must be rationalized via science, and science alone. Any spiritual aspect of defining or defining existence/matter/life, or it's origins must meet science's criteria, or it is "bugaboo", and "irrational".

So, if you want to be a viable, "safe" and "sane" candidate, you can be a Christian with a big old asterick "*", by your name, that indicates that you believe in Jesus, or Jesus was a good guy, but you also believe that God is semi-omnipotent, or maybe impotent would be more likely. Impotent, meaning that He/God maybe made the first matter, but then just sat back in the perverbial easy-chair and let the molecules do the rest, umpteen billion years later. Now these very, well-organized molecules, have lumped together by umpteen trillion chance meetings from primordial soup, and we have John McCain and Ron Paul, and such complex molecular structures that can cry, vote, make war, pro-create, tell lies, kiss, laugh, hug, .........but they still have the "flaw" in the face of reason, of believing in a, "higher intelligence". Hopefully this last flaw or characteristic that came via evolution will gradually breed itself out of the gene pool in a few more thousand years.

Though I highly respect this man, as he impacted our country in so many positive ways, Thomas Jefferson, took a similar route when he took it upon himself to rationalize God in his own terms via his Jeffersonian Bible. Basically, he cut and pasted the bible to such a degree, that, he finally had a bible that met Thomas Jefferson's criteria for reality, existence, sanity, etc..

Ronald Reagan actually didn't display his strong Christian beliefs in office as GWB has, but never the less, RR, was a deep bible believing man. In fact many Christians thought that his non-church attendance during his 8 years was a sign of a lack of total Christian commitment to his faith. Yet, when reading a book by his adopted son, Michael Reagan, "Twice Adopted", Michael found that his dad had refrained from public worship, as he feared for the lives of the various parishioners that might be exposed to danger of some "wacko" asassin right in a church service. It really took Michael back to find that his dad had withheld his participation in worship for nearly eight years for the sake of other folks safety.

Yet, if we look at RR's legacy, we see a person who led and represented our country in a bold, and renewing way, that brought us out of the muck and mire of the previous administration.

Also remember that Jimmy Carter was a strong liberal democrat, and a strong professed "born again" Christian, thoughout his campaign and his presidency.

So in retrospect, one's belief in the "here after", "salvation by Christ", doesn't necessarily have a bearing on one's rational to lead.
*****
Yes, I would prefer that a professed Christian be president, but I will not vote for one, whose policies, I believe are detrimental to our country as a whole.
******
So the argument that a non evolutionist would not make objective decisions is without merit, as most of our early presidents were strong creationists, and here we stand as a nation 200 years later.

In fact if anything is unsettling about our country, it's the lack or profound drive amongst so many to remove, or make void and ridiculous anyone who has a total biblical view of life, existence.....etc..

We are so much approaching the French Voltarian approach to government and religion. Instead of a country having a spiritual aspect that looks to a higher wisdom and power that's so obviously revealed through life and creation itself, there is a determined mindset to ignore, and find a manmade alternative.

We also see that the many Cathedrals of France on any given Sunday are empty mausoleums, with little or no attendance of parishoners. Why, because they don't exist. Atheistic rationality was carried to the other extreme, and the balance between mans spiritual side and his obvious earthly existence were missed or passed-by.

Science is good, it is part of man's inquisitive nature to "know", but there is a spiritual side of man's origin that is being eroded slowly in this and other Western nations.

It is not unlike the Orwellian 1984 saga only it's coming later than expected, but still coming.
*****
So for those that espouse the liberal cause, and see Creation believing candidates as a "red flag", just think, President James Carter; a man that didn't wear his religion on his coat sleeve. What is his legacy, and why did so many liberals vote for him and strangely overlook the fact that he was not an evolutionist at the time?

 

[JeffWartman]

Though I highly respect this man, as he impacted our country in so many positive ways, Thomas Jefferson, took a similar route when he took it upon himself to rationalize God in his own terms via his Jeffersonian Bible. Basically, he cut and pasted the bible to such a degree, that, he finally had a bible that met Thomas Jefferson's criteria for reality, existence, sanity, etc..

From what I understand, he liked the moral teachings in the bible, but disliked the mythology, so he cut out all the miracles out of the bible so he could read it for moral teachings alone.

 

[Eightball]

From what I understand, he liked the moral teachings in the bible, but disliked the mythology, so he cut out all the miracles out of the bible so he could read it for moral teachings alone.

I believe your correct as to T.J.'s intent, but I will differ as to agreeing that it was "mythology" that he was removing.

Many great statesmen/leaders of the past, saw the bible, only as a moral compass, but denied it as a spiritual compass. Never the less, many were great leaders.

One thing they did evoke or show, was a respect for those that did have an abiding faith in the alleged "mythology" or the "intangibles" of the bible. They did not pronounce those people as unfit for leadership, as is much the norm for a great number of non-religious rationalists of the present.

George Washington, comes to mind as one who would have raised his hand and said, "Aye", when asked if he believed in Creationism of the bible.

Nowadays, George Washington would have been a nominal or discredited candidate, yet his legacy reveals a man of both deep faith in the spiritual aspects of revealed biblical writing, and yet an uncanny wisdom in leading a fledgling nation both before and after it's official inception.

 

[Paulie]

The story of Christianity is a myth. It's the same exact myth, in fact, that's been told about countless other so-called "saviors" throught history, even thousands of years before Christ was supposedly born.

There's been a story of a figure that is born on the 25th of Dec, is the son of god, was born of a virgin, died and subsequently resurrected 3 days later, had 12 followers, performed miracles, etc, told to many different civilizations for 10's of thousands of years.

Each of those figures is really only a representation of the Sun, and how it appeared to move throughout the galaxy, and gave light and life, and dark and death, and so forth.

If anyone wants to know more, PM me, I have more than enough information that will blow your mind.

 

[Eightball]

The story of Christianity is a myth. It's the same exact myth, in fact, that's been told about countless other so-called "saviors" throught history, even thousands of years before Christ was supposedly born.

There's been a story of a figure that is born on the 25th of Dec, is the son of god, was born of a virgin, died and subsequently resurrected 3 days later, had 12 followers, performed miracles, etc, told to many different civilizations for 10's of thousands of years.

Each of those figures is really only a representation of the Sun, and how it appeared to move throughout the galaxy, and gave light and life, and dark and death, and so forth.

If anyone wants to know more, PM me, I have more than enough information that will blow your mind.

Sounds like an Amway pitch to me. I won't bite this time, I've been bit in the behind too many times before.

 

[red states rule]

If you understood the philosophical history of the GOP, you'd know the people in Washington DC who call themselves Republicans are NOT Conservative and have NOTHING in common with Goldwater.

You are right. We have nothing in common with the Goldwater wing of the party

We won elections - they did not

Libs love Republcans like them - they just want to get along and be invited to the Dems cocktail parties. They don;t win elections or speak out against them - but damn they are liked and get an occassional pat on the back

 

[JeffWartman]

You are right. We have nothing in common with the Goldwater wing of the party

We won elections - they did not

Libs love Republcans like them - they just want to get along and be invited to the Dems cocktail parties. They don;t win elections or speak out against them - but damn they are liked and get an occassional pat on the back

They were Conservative, you are not even close.

 

[red states rule]

They were Conservative, you are not even close.

They were losers who were invited to all the DC social functions