Ron Paul raises over $4M in one day!

[Cursor]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-paul6nov06,1,4487583.story

I'm shocked the mainstream media picked this piece up. All this press Ron Paul is getting is great for him. It's helping get his name out there and make more people aware of his message. I think this country could use a level-headed president that could take us in a different direction.

Our founders were revolutionary geniuses. It baffles me why we don't follow our constitution more closely. Don't all elected officials swear an oath to uphold our constitution? So why don't they?

[leekohler]

I don't see why you think he's so great. His views on separation of church and state are disturbing all by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[Diatribe]

I don't see why you think he's so great. His views on separation of church and state are disturbing all by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

What's so wrong about the separation of Church and State? I find some of his other views far more disturbing.

[leekohler]

What's so wrong about the separation of Church and State? I find some of his other views far more disturbing.

Separation of church and state is a good thing- Paul doesn't seem to think it is and seems to be against it. And yes, his other views are quite frightening as well.

[Diatribe]

Separation of church and state is a good thing- Paul doesn't seem to think it is and seems to be against it. And yes, his other views are quite frightening as well.

Maybe I got it wrong but I actually thought he was against forcing someone to pray or follow a certain religion.
But yeah, the disturbing outweigh the valid points by far.

[leekohler]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[77]

I hope you can see what is scary about that.

[Diatribe]

I hope you can see what is scary about that.

Yeah, it seems like some of his views regarding this issue contradict themselves.

[Cursor]

I don't see why you think he's so great. His views on separation of church and state are disturbing all by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

I think he's great choice because he wants to change this country for the better, instead of pander to corrupt lobbies like the other candidates, ie Clinton, Guliani, Romney. There is very little differnece between Republicans and Democrats–they all flip-flop worse than a salmon in Alaska. And they also don't present much change from the present course, with the exception of Healthcare. We have very few choices that speak their minds and are consistent. Paul, Gravel, Kucinich are bout the only candidates that are consistent with their message. I don't agree with every issue presented by these candidates, but they seem to genuinly belive their message, and aren't just spewing niceties to get elected.

The fact is that this country was founded by people who believed in god. There are references to god in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I do, however believe that religion should not be taught in public school. But, I don't think that references to god (especially around holiday seasons) should be totally dropped either.

[Cursor]

Separation of church and state is a good thing- Paul doesn't seem to think it is and seems to be against it. And yes, his other views are quite frightening as well.

Just curious, other than religion, what "other views" are so disturbing. Especially compared to other candidates, who I think are disturbing. For example, no other candidate will take "military action off the table" concerning Iran.

[leekohler]

Just curious, other than religion, what "other views" are so disturbing. Especially compared to other candidates, who I think are disturbing. For example, no other candidate will take "military action off the table" concerning Iran.

There are few things I don't find disturbing about Paul. But I find his views regarding the separation of church and state to be very frightening, as well as his views on abortion, equal marriage rights, don't ask don't tell, and affirmative action to name a few.

[Thanatoast]

If I was forced to pick a Republican candidate, this is who I'd pick. Then I'd move to Connecticut or some other similarly liberal state.

[it5five]

He can raise all the money he wants, but he will always be a nut.

He is completely anti-environment, he has voted for some of the most anti-gay legislation in the House, he has voted against the separation of church and state, he is pro-life. Those are just some of my complaints about him.
Drilling in ANWR, what a great idea. Right? Right?

Oh, he is against net neutrality, and he voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (now I know why the skinheads love him so much).

No ****ing thanks. Keep him contained in his little district in Texas (or better yet get him the hell out of office). The country doesn't need him, now or ever.

[Cursor]

He can raise all the money he wants, but he will always be a nut.

He is completely anti-environment, he has voted for some of the most anti-gay legislation in the House, he has voted against the separation of church and state, he is pro-life. Those are just some of my complaints about him.
Drilling in ANWR, what a great idea. Right? Right?

Oh, he is against net neutrality, and he voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (now I know why the skinheads love him so much).

No ****ing thanks. Keep him contained in his little district in Texas (or better yet get him the hell out of office). The country doesn't need him, now or ever.

Let's have a discussion without name calling, please, since that really goes nowhere and erodes general discussion.

Also, Ron Paul doesn't support racists, and isn't one himself. He talks about equal rights for all americans, which means that minorities should not have more rights than anyone else. We should all be on equal footing.

Just curious, who do you support?

[kainjow]

He's not against any of those ideas, he's against the federal government controlling everything and spending all the money for these ideas. He wants it to be up to the states. He wants states to decide whether abortion should be legal, whether gays can marry, etc. Not the federal government. That is why he votes no on so much.

[CHROMEDOME]

He's not against any of those ideas, he's against the federal government controlling everything and spending all the money for these ideas. He wants it to be up to the states. He wants states to decide whether abortion should be legal, whether gays can marry, etc. Not the federal government. That is why he votes no on so much.

Exactly, He wants to get rid of the department of education not because he wants kids to be stupid but he thinks that the federal government does a horrible job and it should be up to the states.

While I don't agree with him on some things I think he can help America suck less.

[leekohler]

Let's have a discussion without name calling, please, since that really goes nowhere and erodes general discussion.

Also, Ron Paul doesn't support racists, and isn't one himself. He talks about equal rights for all americans, which means that minorities should not have more rights than anyone else. We should all be on equal footing.

Just curious, who do you support?

"Minorities shouldn't have more rights than anyone else"? Huh? Please explain that extremely paranoid statement, because minorities are hardly on the same level with everyone else.

Exactly, He wants to get rid of the department of education not because he wants kids to be stupid but he thinks that the federal government does a horrible job and it should be up to the states.

While I don't agree with him on some things I think he can help America suck less.

And given his stance on church/state issues, I wonder how long it would be before he OK'd teaching religion in schools as long as a state wanted it?

[Cursor]

Exactly, He wants to get rid of the department of education not because he wants kids to be stupid but he thinks that the federal government does a horrible job and it should be up to the states.

While I don't agree with him on some things I think he can help America suck less.

Exactly. The federal government screws up almost everything it touches, with the exception of a few things. Downsizing/cutting a lot of the programs the federal government stinks at doing, would help reduce costs, which, in turn would help cut taxes, while cutting the deficit and still spend money to help rebuild N.O., etc.

[yg17]

He's not against any of those ideas, he's against the federal government controlling everything and spending all the money for these ideas. He wants it to be up to the states. He wants states to decide whether abortion should be legal, whether gays can marry, etc. Not the federal government. That is why he votes no on so much.

Why should someone be denied the right to an abortion or marriage because of the state they live in? Everyone in America deserves those rights.

[carbonmotion]

For Ron Paul, everything boils down to the gold standard. I'm no sure if he's wrong or modern economics is. :D

[Cursor]

"Minorities shouldn't have more rights than anyone else"? Huh? Please explain that extremely paranoid statement, because minorities are hardly on the same level with everyone else.



And given his stance on church/state issues, I wonder how long it would be before he OK'd teaching religion in schools as long as a state wanted it?

One, I'm not paranoid. Two, yes, I believe everyone should be treated equally and have the SAME rights, no matter what their race. No group of people should have more rights than any other. Hell, their shouldn't even be "groups of people", we are all americans.

[leekohler]

One, I'm not paranoid. Two, yes, I believe everyone should be treated equally and have the SAME rights, no matter what their race. No group of people should have more rights than any other. Hell, their shouldn't even be "groups of people", we are all americans.

My point was that you seem to think that some minorities have more "rights" than you. That is hardly true. Please explain why you believe this to be true and what minorities you think have more "rights" than you.

[it5five]

Also, Ron Paul doesn't support racists, and isn't one himself. He talks about equal rights for all americans, which means that minorities should not have more rights than anyone else. We should all be on equal footing.

Just curious, who do you support?

********, ********, ********. He voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act. Pure and simple. He values unrestricted free-market capitalism above all else, especially how minorities are treated. And the nazi's love him for it (see stormfront.org , they love Ron Paul).

FYI, the Civil Rights Act didn't give minorities "more rights". It bought them to this equal footing you so desire. The Civil Rights Act was a landmark in ending segregation and Jim Crow. Seems like you'd be okay with "colored only" restrooms, restaurants, schools, drinking fountains, waiting rooms, etc..

I support Kucinich. He isn't my 100% ideal candidate, but he's the closet to what I would like.

[dejo]

He voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act. Pure and simple.
I don't believe there has ever been a vote to renew the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Are you thinking of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was renewed in 2006, and which Ron Paul did vote against?

[zap2]

, he's against the federal government controlling everything .

we tried that whole state are more powerful then the federal government... Articles of Confederation?

How did that work out?


(I don't understand why people like him so much, all he does is say nothing about issues, and say "lets states decide")

Kuchinich...now there is a man of the people!

[leekohler]

I don't believe there has ever been a vote to renew the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Are you thinking of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was renewed in 2006, and which Ron Paul did vote against?

He voted against the Voting Rights Act and opposes the Civil Rights Act. I think that should tell you everything you need to know.

[dejo]

He voted against the Voting Rights Act and opposes the Civil Rights Act. I think that should tell you everything you need to know.
Actually, that doesn't tell me everything I need to know. I would also like to hear his reasoning behind why he opposes them. Consider it my due-diligence.

[leekohler]

Actually, that doesn't tell me everything I need to know. I would also like to hear his reasoning behind why he opposes them. Consider it my due-diligence.

Not to be rude, but I posted a link earlier to all of Ron Paul's political views. Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Scroll down to the Election Law section.

[dejo]

Not to be rude, but I posted a link earlier to all of Ron Paul's political views. Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Scroll down to the Election Law section.
Thanks. I've already looked at that info. My point wasn't that I wanted more info but that I would not base my opinion on simply whether someone voted for or, especially, against something, which your "I think that should tell you everything you need to know" statement seems to imply but also that it behooves me, and everyone, to delve further into the reasoning behind an action.

[leekohler]

Thanks. I've already looked at that info. My point wasn't that I wanted more info but that I would not base my opinion on simply whether someone voted for or, especially, against something, which your "I think that should tell you everything you need to know" statement seems to imply but also that it behooves me, and everyone, to delve further into the reasoning behind an action.

I find his reasoning to be lacking for sure. It seems to be a convenient way out for him. The more I read about the man, the less it surprises me that Nazis like him so much. ;)

[Cursor]

********, ********, ********. He voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act. Pure and simple. He values unrestricted free-market capitalism above all else, especially how minorities are treated. And the nazi's love him for it (see stormfront.org , they love Ron Paul).

FYI, the Civil Rights Act didn't give minorities "more rights". It bought them to this equal footing you so desire. The Civil Rights Act was a landmark in ending segregation and Jim Crow. Seems like you'd be okay with "colored only" restrooms, restaurants, schools, drinking fountains, waiting rooms, etc..

I support Kucinich. He isn't my 100% ideal candidate, but he's the closet to what I would like.

You know, I was trying to have a lively debate, here, and everyone but you is keeping a level head.All you seem to do is name call and insinuate that people are racists. What are you, like 5 years old? I see in your location, that you don't enjoy living in the U.S., so why don't you take a hike.

[leekohler]

You know, I was trying to have a lively debate, here, and everyone but you is keeping a level head.All you seem to do is name call and insinuate that people are racists. What are you, like 5 years old? I see in your location, that you don't enjoy living in the U.S., so why don't you take a hike.

Although the delivery was on the rough side, he does make some valid points. And it seems it is you who have now lost your temper. Take it easy. ;)

[carbonmotion]

One, I'm not paranoid. Two, yes, I believe everyone should be treated equally and have the SAME rights, no matter what their race. No group of people should have more rights than any other. Hell, their shouldn't even be "groups of people", we are all americans.

Yes, of course, what a reasonable and fair idea...

That is if you're white, male, straight, protestant, and middle class. It's basically saying the American society needs no social engineering to correct past wrongs and to steer it toward a more just future.

If you think there's no such thing as institutionalized racism, sexism, or prejudice that is effecting this country and will continue to effect this country then you need to travel around the states and live in different communities more. Then you'll see that while every should be treated equally, not every one is treated equally. Some people get way more rights and privileges than others.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
I support Kucinich. He isn't my 100% ideal candidate, but he's the closet to what I would like.

Come out of the closet, man.

[rockthecasbah]

A lot of Paul bashing has gone on here, let me play devil's adovcate here. I support Ron Paul, but don't agree with ALL of his stances...

I don't see why people belabor the social issues of candidates so much. With the current political spectrum, they for the most part play very little into the overall implemented policies of a president. Moral/social issues are so divisive that most mainstream politicians won't vote for anything that will make them come under heavy scrutiny. Thus you won't see legislation passed these days that would, say hinder the equal voting rights for all for example. These kind of issues are decent indicators of a person's own beliefs, but will generally have little impact in national politics should that candidate be elected. They by no means should be overlooked, but it is my opinion that voting for a candidate based solely, or largely, on moral/social issues isn't voting for policies that a president will most successfully be able to enact.

As president, the most influential policies (as i see it in relation to today's current political spectrum) are foreign policy and domestic economic policy. These are the two issues where most Ron Paul supporters flock to. Ron Paul offers not just a solution to Iraq or Iran, but the entire misguided philosophy we have followed in regards to foreign policy. Few politicians speak of the complete change he offers, and certainly none of the presidential candidates to the point that Ron Paul does. As for economic policy, he offers ideals of fiscal responsibility both in regards to the dollar and spending is a breath of fresh air to many.

Another quick note would be his positions on individual rights. He opposes any programs and acts such as the Patriot Act that infringe on these rights. The Democrats like to say that they are anti-Bush, but most of the mainstream presidential candidates of the party do not speak on this issue. Ron Paul fights for the individual not the politically popular positions of the time. He offers great contrast to the blatant shortcomings (to put it lightly) of the Bush administration, which is why he has gained such popularity from grass roots supporters. To those who see the Democrats as just a slight variation of the same big-government presidency of the past few years, Ron Paul is a candidate like no other running right now.

[wonga1127]

Not to be rude, but I posted a link earlier to all of Ron Paul's political views. Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Scroll down to the Election Law section.

I read it, and it seems to show Paul's stance on both the issues. In regards to the Voting Rights Act, he doesn't oppose the voting rights clauses, but some of the property rights it violates. He didn't vote for it not because he didn't like the message, but because the legislation was poorly written in his opinion.

And in regards to the Civil Rights Act:

It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

His exact words.

And i do agree, most of his stances that his supporters like are his stances on foreign and domestic economic policy. I'd love to see a constitutional monetary system where my dollar is worth a little more than a can of soda.
And its not like if he gets elected, he's going help the South rise again, or re-enact slavery. All of the changes he wants to make would have to go through Congress. I'd love to see him try and persuade Congress to deny blacks the right to vote.

[hulugu]

He voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act. Pure and simple....

I don't believe there has ever been a vote to renew the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Are you thinking of the National Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was renewed in 2006, and which Ron Paul did vote against?

Ron Paul voted against H. Res 676 (2004) "Recognizing and Honoring the 40th Anniversary of the 1967 Civil Rights Act."

From Ron Paul's stated refusal to vote for H. Res 676:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

I'm not sure what I think about Paul's statement, but at least his policies are internally consistent.

[it5five]

Come out of the closet, man.

You got me Swarm. ;)

I'm gay for Kucinich, everyone. I have a thing for elves.

[solvs]

I think most of his supporters genuinely just want change and see him as more of a change for the better than any of the other candidates. Unfortunately, once you really look into his policies, it isn't really as glamorous as it seems. Ignoring the debatable reasons for some of his more recent votes, he seems to want unbridled capitalism and the dismantling of even gov programs that are, or could in better hands (and have), be working. We can already see that privatizing everything isn't working out so well for us. From healthcare to mining to the food's that have been making us sick to the toys with lead. The last thing we need is more business and less oversight. We thought gov bureaucracy was bad, for-profit seems to be even worse. That, and it's those same people telling you gov isn't working that are making it not work. Paul would just be even more of that, with everything, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

To be fair, neither does Kucinich. I agree with some of his principles, but after watching him in interviews, he seems just as unrealistic. His plans for national defense aren't the greatest, nor is exactly how he would pay for all of his gov programs, at least without negatively impacting the economy. But both have some good ideas, and moving more towards some of their better traits would be good for all of us. Just not either of them themselves.

I'm not currently supporting any candidate, and will more than likely simply vote for whichever one is less terrible.

[killr_b]

He can raise all the money he wants, but he will always be a nut.

He is completely anti-environment, he has voted for some of the most anti-gay legislation in the House, he has voted against the separation of church and state, he is pro-life. Those are just some of my complaints about him.
Drilling in ANWR, what a great idea. Right? Right?

Oh, he is against net neutrality, and he voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (now I know why the skinheads love him so much).

No ****ing thanks. Keep him contained in his little district in Texas (or better yet get him the hell out of office). The country doesn't need him, now or ever.

You need to do your homework before runnin' that mouth.

Ron Paul wasn't in office in 1964. He had been out of college for 3 years and was 29 in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon.

Drilling in the permafrost sounds like an excellent idea, we wouldn't give a **** what was going on in the middle east anymore.

[killr_b]

Yes, of course, what a reasonable and fair idea...

That is if you're white, male, straight, protestant, and middle class. It's basically saying the American society needs no social engineering to correct past wrongs and to steer it toward a more just future.

If you think there's no such thing as institutionalized racism, sexism, or prejudice that is effecting this country and will continue to effect this country then you need to travel around the states and live in different communities more. Then you'll see that while every should be treated equally, not every one is treated equally. Some people get way more rights and privileges than others.

You are missing a lot of proof.
We all have the same rights.
Privileges are just that, and there is no constitutional requirement for there to be "equally privileged people."
That's why all the helping of the poor and the minorities isn't our job.

You like social engineering? Take a look at China. That's the engineered future for us. They get more UN awards than any other nation, for how well they manage things there.

[solvs]

Ron Paul wasn't in office in 1964. He had been out of college for 3 years and was 29 in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon.
As already mentioned, he voted against the renewal and the recent commending of those acts.

[leekohler]

I read it, and it seems to show Paul's stance on both the issues. In regards to the Voting Rights Act, he doesn't oppose the voting rights clauses, but some of the property rights it violates. He didn't vote for it not because he didn't like the message, but because the legislation was poorly written in his opinion.

And in regards to the Civil Rights Act:

It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

His exact words.

And i do agree, most of his stances that his supporters like are his stances on foreign and domestic economic policy. I'd love to see a constitutional monetary system where my dollar is worth a little more than a can of soda.
And its not like if he gets elected, he's going help the South rise again, or re-enact slavery. All of the changes he wants to make would have to go through Congress. I'd love to see him try and persuade Congress to deny blacks the right to vote.

I read his exact words. I disagree with them wholeheartedly. He's basically trying to say that the Civil Rights Act had the opposite effect of oit's intention, I take issue with that. Are race relations worse now than back then? Who is he kidding? How can anyone take that seriously?

My other favorite is when he says gay marriage is a huge threat to liberty. Wow- I'm sorry, I don't care what his foreign policy looks like. This guy clearly doesn't live in reality.

Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow "same-sex marriage" is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[122]

WTF? So people having equal rights is hostile to liberty?

Have we gotten so desperate for change that we'll listen to a person like this? That is truly sad.

[kainjow]

Lee, I'd suggest reading the first few comments on this (http://inrepair.net/2007/05/31/my-correspondence-with-ron-paul-about-gay-rights/) page. I think they explain what Paul thinks regarding gay rights.

[leekohler]

Lee, I'd suggest reading the first few comments on this (http://inrepair.net/2007/05/31/my-correspondence-with-ron-paul-about-gay-rights/) page. I think they explain what Paul thinks regarding gay rights.

Those folks already said they don't speak for Ron Paul. Knowing what I do know about him and what I've read on his own website, he's hardly for equal marriage rights. He merely doesn't want the Feds to make that law, he'd rather have the states do it. What's the difference at that point? Excuse me if I find his argument seriously wanting and merely an excuse to mask his own bigotry.

[it5five]

He merely doesn't want the Feds to make that law, he'd rather have the states do it. What's the difference at that point? Excuse me if I find his argument seriously wanting and merely an excuse to mask his own bigotry.

And that's they key. That is why Ron Paul is so wrong about everything. There are certain rights that EVERY American deserves, regardless of what state you live in.

[mactastic]

Drilling in the permafrost sounds like an excellent idea, we wouldn't give a **** what was going on in the middle east anymore.
Yeah, for about one year. Nothing like a temporary solution to a permanant problem...

The only thing more selfish than a Republican is a Libertarian.

[Swarmlord]

Yeah, for about one year. Nothing like a temporary solution to a permanant problem...

The only thing more selfish than a Republican is a Libertarian.

As the price of oil climbs, taking that risk for at least one year of oil from that permafrost is going to look a lot more attractive to people that were against it before.

I'm willing to bet there's more than a year's worth of supply there too. I'll even bet that those Californian and Floridan commuters might not mind a derrick or two off their coast in a few more months either.

[mactastic]

As the price of oil climbs, taking that risk for at least one year of oil from that permafrost is going to look a lot more attractive to people that were against it before.

I'm willing to bet there's more than a year's worth of supply there too. I'll even bet that those Californian and Floridan commuters might not mind a derrick or two off their coast in a few more months either.
Yeah ok. If you say so. What's in ANWR is just a drop in the bucket of US consumption. And it's not like we get a year free of foreign oil. We extract a small amouny (at best a couple percent) annually over a long period of time. No oil company wants to set up the infrastructure to suck that field dry in one year, then pull up stakes.

It's just drilling for ideology's sake.

On topic, however; my hat is off to Ron Paul, who is doing this cycle what Howard Dean did last cycle: recognizing and using the internet in creative ways to boost his profile and campaign war chest.

Would that more of the candidates were able to harness the series of tubes...

[Swarmlord]

<snip>It's just drilling for ideology's sake.
<snip>

Would you really risk standing in front of the stamped that would result for the rights to drill there the moment it was allowed?

[mactastic]

Would you really risk standing in front of the stamped that would result for the rights to drill there the moment it was allowed?
Yes. And I assume you mean "stampeed"?

[leekohler]

On topic, however; my hat is off to Ron Paul, who is doing this cycle what Howard Dean did last cycle: recognizing and using the internet in creative ways to boost his profile and campaign war chest.



I'm just waiting for his real "Dean moment". ;)

[Swarmlord]

I'm just waiting for his real "Dean moment". ;)

I'm waiting for a number of candidates to have one either before or just after Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Thanatoast]

I'm waiting for a number of candidates to have one either before or just after Iowa and New Hampshire.

All we have to do is watch for which candidates are being groomed by the media as the obvious front-runner and the insurgent dark horse. One of those will be media "assasinated" for the enjoyment of the audience.

[mactastic]

All we have to do is watch for which candidates are being groomed by the media as the obvious front-runner and the insurgent dark horse. One of those will be media "assasinated" for the enjoyment of the audience.
We can be fairly sure that candidate won't be Guiliani.

[Blue Velvet]

Mutterings across the pond seem to indicate that that dubious honour is already being prepared for Fred Thompson.

[kainjow]

We can be fairly sure that candidate won't be Guiliani.

But Pat Robertson did announce his endorsement of Giuliani today.

Mutterings across the pond seem to indicate that that dubious honour is already being prepared for Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson doesn't even seem like he knows what's going on from interviews I've seen of him.

[mactastic]

But Pat Robertson did announce his endorsement of Giuliani today.
Yeah, I'm not sure how much that helps Guilani. Robertson's not quite the force he once was; particularly since he's developed a penchant for making outrageous and indefensible statements. Robertson may be politically pragmatic, able to hold his nose and support a candidate who's social views he must object to, but will Robertson's followers do the same? Many social conservatives have indicated that they would sit out the election -- or even vote for a third party -- should Guiliani win the GOP primary.

[hulugu]

As the price of oil climbs, taking that risk for at least one year of oil from that permafrost is going to look a lot more attractive to people that were against it before.

I'm willing to bet there's more than a year's worth of supply there too. I'll even bet that those Californian and Floridan commuters might not mind a derrick or two off their coast in a few more months either.

The last time I checked the best case scenario of oil supply from drilling ANWR was less than a year's supply of the total US needs. That number was drawn up from a comparison between the geologist's estimates and current US usages so I'll take that bet. Furthermore, even if we could immediately begin drilling, the likelihood that drilling in ANWR will do anything to mitigate prices at the pump is wildly overstated.

Of course, as oil prices go up we'll see more investments in off-shore oil platforms and the Canadian tar-sands, but that's just holding off the inevitable, we need to transition away from an oil-based economy. The sooner we do it, the easier the transition.

[KingYaba]

So when Ron Paul takes the reigns of Commander in Chief, I am having doubts ANWR will be drilled. Honestly what he believes about ANWR is a non-issue because Congress will not pass legislation.

[solvs]

Yeah, for about one year. Nothing like a temporary solution to a permanant problem...
The main reason not to support it, but why let facts get in the way.

The only thing more selfish than a Republican is a Libertarian.
I'll have to remember that one.

But Pat Robertson did announce his endorsement of Giuliani today.
Which is only going to hurt him, the way McCain has started slipping with Indies and Dems after he took a shift to the right. He risks alienating the Indies who already dislike the war he still supports. He may get some fundies, but not as many others as he risks throwing away.

Fred Thompson doesn't even seem like he knows what's going on from interviews I've seen of him.
The other day someone was helping him get throw a crowd and said something about the next Pres (referring to Freddie) having somewhere he needed to be. Fred said something to the effect of, "and so do I". Even he knows he's not getting anywhere. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Well, it's still kinda funny. Maybe he's shooting for VP. He's certainly got the charisma for it.

[obeygiant]

Mutterings across the pond seem to indicate that that dubious honour is already being prepared for Fred Thompson.

You should check your sources because Fred has no chance. too little too late. Its either Romney or Giuliani for the GOP nomination.

[Blue Velvet]

You should check your sources because Fred has no chance. too little too late. Its either Romney or Giuliani for the GOP nomination.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Do you have to be a frontrunner to be a sacrificial lamb?

[obeygiant]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Do you have to be a frontrunner to be a sacrificial lamb?
oh sorry. Well I wouldn't call Fred Thompson a front runner and I'm not sure why the party would need a sacrificial lamb. Dean kind of sacrificed himself with his strange performance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t-80QAqtSg). He didn't need anyone to do it for him. Actually that clip is pretty funny.

If by sacrifice you mean that once the Dem party saw him do that and said, "Hey there is no way we can let him be our candidate now. Just no way." Then, yes, Dean could have been a sacrificial lamb.

[killr_b]

I like how you guys set up a straw man in the first 10 posts, then completely shift the topic of discussion completely away from the point of the OP.

Fact is that Ron Paul got 36,000+ donors to donate in one day without his campaign even being involved.

No one seems to give a crap about Hilary, Guliani, Romney, Obama, Kucinich, or any of the other candidates. Unless you are brainwashed or in the media getting payed to say what the teleprompter says. Then it seems like Ron Paul is a huge threat to you.



Oh and guess what? People that are in the .1% of the country that have "special" problems don't get "special" laws made for their convenience. Your .1% voice gets that much of the floor time in a democracy. That's why we live in a Republic, so states can represent you and your .1% views and get them some actual attention.

@Mactastic-
The only thing more retarded than asking a democrat for freedom is to ask a socialist to fight for it.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

I'm anti-politics and I don't see how the president matters when things come down to it. But if I had to pick one of the current candidates to be president I'd pick Kucinich just because he seems fun and I want his wife in the media as much as possible. Imagine public service announcements about teaching kids or having an escape route out of your home with that babe instead of Laura Bush (who I'd still do, just so you know I'm not politically biased).

[solvs]

The only thing more retarded than asking a democrat for freedom is to ask a socialist to fight for it.

I believe I speak for everyone here when I say wah?

http://www.nndb.com/people/843/000044711/ellenfeiss.jpg