Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

[JeffWartman]

Looks like the programmed Republicans have their work cut out for them...

Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

July 06, 2007 1:14 PM

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Though often regarded as a longshot candidate for president, Republican Ron Paul tells ABC News that he has an impressive $2.4 million in cash on hand after raising an equal amount during the second quarter, putting him ahead of one-time Republican frontrunner John McCain, who reported this week he has only $2 million in the bank.

In an exclusive interview taped Friday and airing Sunday on "This Week," Paul said his campaign is on a better trajectory than McCain's.

"I think some of the candidates are on the down-slope, and we're on the up-slope," said Paul...

Full story: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html

 

[Edward]

I'm glad for Ron Paul as he would make a better President then John McCain. I may not agree with Ron Paul on every issue but at least he is more on the ball then John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I hope Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination because then it wouldn't be that bad to have a Republican President if he should win.

 

[jillian]

I'm glad for Ron Paul as he would make a better President then John McCain. I may not agree with Ron Paul on every issue but at least he is more on the ball then John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I hope Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination because then it wouldn't be that bad to have a Republican President if he should win.

Sorry... someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't "on the ball".

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Hmm, I thought in the republican debate, Ron Paul didn't raise his hand when they asked who doesn't believe in evolution. Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback did.

 

[Paulie]

Sorry... someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't "on the ball".

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.

 

[Toro]

McCain is dead man walking.

 

[onedomino]

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 do not get to select the ideas anyone uses as criteria to vote.

Some many consider that a person who can ignore the vast preponderance of evidence, and does not believe in biochemical evolution, should not be trusted to lead the United States. Anyway, while there are plenty of reasons to not vote for Ron Paul, his disbelief in evolution is not one of them. As someone pointed out above, it is Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo that raised their hands during the first Republican Presidential Debate to indicate that they did not believe in evolution. Paul is a physician and highly educated in biology. He agrees that evolution exists.

But on another topic, Paul thinks if we hide behind American borders we will be safe from the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. And that is the reason why he should not be President. Paul thinks it is our foreign policy that brought on the 911 attacks. Paul blames the victims for the attack of their murderers. Contrary to what that lunatic bin Laden believes, If Saudi Arabia invites American troops onto the Arabian Peninsula, maniac terrorists do not get to say otherwise.

 

[onedomino]

McCain is dead man walking.

He's been through for a couple of months. His illegal immigration stance killed what little hope he had left.

 

[red states rule]

McCain is dead man walking.

McCain is now known as McDone

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Paul thinks it is our foreign policy that brought on the 911 attacks. Paul blames the victims for the attack of their murderers. Contrary to want that lunatic bin Laden believes, If Saudi Arabia invites American troops onto the Arabian Peninsula, maniac terrorists do not get to say otherwise.

Ron Paul does not blame the victims of 9/11, he blames bad foreign policy, particularly our government's actions since the first gulf war. He's merely repeating the conclusions of the 9/11 comission report (which Giulianni apparently didn't read), and the head of the Bin Laden CIA unit agrees with him 100%.

And the corrupt government of Arabia may have invited us, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's not like the Saudi royals are popular amongst their own people.

 

[Annie]

Ron Paul does not blame the victims of 9/11, he blames bad foreign policy, particularly our government's actions since the first gulf war. He's merely repeating the conclusions of the 9/11 comission report (which Giulianni apparently didn't read), and the head of the Bin Laden CIA unit agrees with him 100%.

And the corrupt government of Arabia may have invited us, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's not like the Saudi royals are popular amongst their own people.

good for him.

 

[onedomino]

And the corrupt government of Arabia may have invited us, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. It's not like the Saudi royals are popular amongst their own people.

You are right, it was not a good idea, it was the only possible idea. We were in Saudi Arabia to protect against an invasion by Saddam, remember? And whether it was a good idea, or not, terrorists do not get to dictate our foreign policy. Period.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Looks like the programmed Republicans have their work cut out for them...



Full story: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/ron-paul-tops-m.html

Looks like McCain is going down for the count. Shows what being 'Bush lite' will net the GOP.

 

[onedomino]

Looks like McCain is going down for the count. Shows what being 'Bush lite' will net the GOP.

Regarding Iraq, McCain was more like Bush heavy. He has wanted more troops in Iraq for a long time, and he was no fan of Rumsfeld. His chances were flagging before the illegal immigration debacle, but that finished him.

 

[Edward]

You are right, it was not a good idea, it was the only possible idea. We were in Saudi Arabia to protect against an invasion by Saddam, remember? And whether it was a good idea, or not, terrorists do not get to dictate our foreign policy. Period.

But we sure as hell get to dictate to them and make decisions respective to foreign policy that affect their lives and their families and then when they do something about it we call them terrorists and cry about how evil they are for not being good little bitches and accepting our decisons on election day. Our foreign policy respective to the Middle East affects their lives and their families and they have as much right to object to that as we do to them attacking us. Whether they are right or wrong is not the question instead it is whether we want to use some common sense and decide to conform our foreign policy to matters that affect us and allow the people of the world to stand on an equal footing. The idea of "all men are created equal" is ignored by the American electorate and when people have the audacity to think of themselves as our equals we demonstrate a form of tryanny and oppression never before seen. The reaction is necessarily a violent one. Look at how we treat their governments. It is the form where we extol how democratic and free our society is while upholding those societies which are not. Let's take the State of Israel as an example. We know it is a religious state which has and does discriminate against anyone who is not Jewish including Christians and Muslims. The citizenship laws alone prove this. Take the law that says that if a non-Jew from the Gaza Strip marries an Israeli citizen he or she cannot become an Israeli citizen. Why? The Israeli legal system is based on the religion of a person (i.e., whether they are Jewish or non-Jewish). Yet we tolerate this and appove of it but looking to Iran who does the exact same thing we condemn them for their being a religiou state. I say we need to condemn all these idiots for what they are regardless of whether we agree with their religion or not. It may well be true that terrorists will not dictate our foreign policy but common sense should and when it does the reasons the terrorists attack us will disappear.

 

[dilloduck]

But we sure as hell get to dictate to them and make decisions respective to foreign policy that affect their lives and their families and then when they do something about it we call them terrorists and cry about how evil they are for not being good little bitches and accepting our decisons on election day. Our foreign policy respective to the Middle East affects their lives and their families and they have as much right to object to that as we do to them attacking us. Whether they are right or wrong is not the question instead it is whether we want to use some common sense and decide to conform our foreign policy to matters that affect us and allow the people of the world to stand on an equal footing. The idea of "all men are created equal" is ignored by the American electorate and when people have the audacity to think of themselves as our equals we demonstrate a form of tryanny and oppression never before seen. The reaction is necessarily a violent one. Look at how we treat their governments. It is the form where we extol how democratic and free our society is while upholding those societies which are not. Let's take the State of Israel as an example. We know it is a religious state which has and does discriminate against anyone who is not Jewish including Christians and Muslims. The citizenship laws alone prove this. Take the law that says that if a non-Jew from the Gaza Strip marries an Israeli citizen he or she cannot become an Israeli citizen. Why? The Israeli legal system is based on the religion of a person (i.e., whether they are Jewish or non-Jewish). Yet we tolerate this and appove of it but looking to Iran who does the exact same thing we condemn them for their being a religiou state. I say we need to condemn all these idiots for what they are regardless of whether we agree with their religion or not. It may well be true that terrorists will not dictate our foreign policy but common sense should and when it does the reasons the terrorists attack us will disappear.

Really? That's not what our enemies claim. Are they lying to us again?

 

[Edward]

Really? That's not what our enemies claim. Are they lying to us again?

No they are not lying to us. You are lying to us and I will not listen to your retarded shit or sit here as you talk out of your ass. Let's face the facts here. You are a lying, murdering, traitor and so are those who agree with you. If and when you want to debate the issues in an open and free manner and when you decide that you and your faction will not take us into a war of choice based on the opinion of those who agree with you and watch as those who disagree with you are asked to die for your opinion then maybe we can discuss this issue. When and if you decide that it was wrong for you and your representatives to decide to take us into a war that was not debated and voted upon by every member of Congress after they had looked at all the evidence justifying going to war then we can talk. We also know the reason the terrorists have attacked us and its you and your faction. 9/11 would not have happened if it were not for voters like you.

 

[dilloduck]

No they are not lying to us. You are lying to us and I will not listen to your retarded shit or sit here as you talk out of your ass. Let's face the facts here: You are a lying, murdering, traitor and so are those who agree with you. If and when you want to debate the issues in an open and free manner and when you decide that you will not take us into a war of choice based on the opinion of those who agree with you and watch as those who disagree with you are asked to die for your opinion then maybe we can discuss this issue. We know the reasons the terrorists have attacked us and its you and your faction you fucking bastard. 9/11 would not have happened if it were not for voters like you.

The terrorists attacked us because of me? Wow !

 

[Edward]

The terrorists attacked us because of me? Wow !

Nice attempt to twist my words you stupid ass. I did not say they attacked us because of you (singular), but because of you (plural) and your (plural) faction. There is a big difference between saying this and saying they attacked us because of you. Get real jackass.

 

[red states rule]

Nice attempt to twist my words you stupid ass. I did not say they attacked us because of you (singular), but because of you (plural) and your (plural) faction. There is a big difference between saying this and saying they attacked us because of you. Get real jackass.

He is not twisting - it is what you said