Quote :

"a million dollars a week is at a faster rate than the other candidates. it took hillary and obama a full quarter (3 months) to raise their initial 9-12 million dollar tabs."

a 2 second google search reveals that:

in the second quarter, hillary raised 27 million dollars

obama raised 33 million dollars

here is a week by week comparison



hmmmm

[Edited on October 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ,]

10/1/2007 5:21:12 PM

initial, maybe you missed that. This is the first time the campaign has had a donation drive.

10/1/2007 5:40:31 PM

im not voting for a guy with two first names

10/1/2007 6:16:32 PM

that's it, no Newt, my vote's for Paul unless somebody else takes off the gloves and gets down to the nitty gritty. I want uncomfortable questions and less photo-op garbage. I want someone who will no be swayed with every changing pole number or activist whiner baby media circus troll.

10/1/2007 11:18:08 PM

lol you have no chance

come on, you know how this works

10/1/2007 11:19:49 PM

I don't care, I've had it, I'm not a republican, I'm a conservative, damn it.

10/2/2007 2:01:59 AM

^ welcome to the camp, buddy.

10/2/2007 8:49:15 PM

Half of the people on the internet are saying that they are going to vote for him while the other half are saying he has no chance.

10/2/2007 9:53:46 PM

I wish Ron Paul were bigger in stature. He just doesn't look very president-like to me. Anyone know how tall he is?

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 11:13 AM. Reason : l]

10/3/2007 11:12:24 AM

Quote :

"Preisdent "

10/3/2007 11:25:30 AM

Oh cut the guy some slack, he's so gaunt because no lobbyists will buy him lunch.

10/3/2007 11:39:11 AM

Ron Paul raised $5.1 million in Q3, with $5.3 million cash-on-hand.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Tentatively, the campaign manager said that the average donation now looks similar to Q2, when it was $40. Even if wrong, if the average donation was $50 or even a little more, you could be looking at 100,000 donors!

Currently, this is more money than Biden, Dodd, and Huckabee combined.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM. Reason : s]

10/3/2007 2:19:50 PM

i'm guessing the donations will decrease after he doesn't come close to winning a single primary.

and i don't know where you're getting these numbers from, but looking at the FEC's site, dodd has $12 million and biden has $6 million (through 6/30/2007) and paul only had $3 million at that point.



[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 2:21:40 PM

Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear....I'm saying:

Ron Paul Q3 > BidenQ3 + HuckabeeQ3 + DoddQ3.

The donations will stop after he doesn't win any primaries? So the donations will stop if the primary election is over and he's lost? Ummmm, duh

I give him a strong chance to win NH - remember Pat Buchanon won in it 1996 over Dole. Right before the primary day, Buchanon was polling 20% lower than Dole, yet won it anyway because of massive turnout from his people. I think Ron Paul's fate will be similar, on a bigger scale. I don't know if it will be enough to actually win multiple states, but he'll come a lot closer.

Every last one of RP's supporters will vote, whereas less than 30% of the other candidates' folks will actually vote (historical average). This can wreak havoc with election results vs. poll numbers very easily.

This really is a HUGE number in the Republican race for a so-called 2nd-tier guy, which is why it was carried on MSNBC and ABC with 5+ minute coverage within an hour of the announcement.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 2:39 PM. Reason : a]

10/3/2007 2:36:40 PM

we'll see. believe me, i'd rather see paul win the republican nomination than any of the other republicans, but i just don't see it happening.

10/3/2007 2:37:54 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – He's locked in low single digits in most polls, but Texas Rep. Ron Paul raised more than $5 million for his presidential bid in the third quarter, roughly equal to or just short of several of his higher -profile rivals. "Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder said in a statement announcing the total. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message." Paul's fundraising total is a 114-percent increase over what he raised last quarter and is also only $2 million shy of what Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards raised during the same period. It is also roughly equal to the fundraising totals of Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson."

10/3/2007 2:55:44 PM

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

take the test...me and Rudy are tight!

10/3/2007 2:59:53 PM

dodd, kucinich, obama and clinton are all between 53% and 58% for me. those questions are pretty bad.

10/3/2007 3:07:49 PM

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Kucinich were all in the score 36 to 38 range. All the rest were 30 or below.

I watched the Edwards video attached to that. I like some things and learned some things about his positions. I liked what he had to say about education. Including evaluations of students that includes teacher evaluations of students improvements, not just testing alone. He talked about a kid of his in NC public schools spending half of the semester only preparing for End of Grade tests. He also talked about increasing funds on a federal level for college financial aid, provided that you agree to meet certain working requirements while taking classes as well. He wanted to make it for the full four years, and said that a test program that he & Elizabeth set in up in eastern NC doing this for the 1st year of college was very successful.

When talking about immigration, he said we are a law abiding country, so while he supports a path to citizenship for those who are already here, he believes there should be a fine, that they shouldn’t get off scot-free with breaking the law. What I didn’t know was the second condition for this path to citizenship was learning English while talking about is as the language of commerce for our nation.

10/3/2007 3:35:32 PM

Quote :

"those questions are pretty bad."

Agree. I'm not electing a president purely based on positions, I'm electing him on what I feel will be his overall level of competence. Bill Richardson came in last for me, but I feel like he is far and above the best qualified Democratic candidate while Rudy came in first and I simply can't stand him.

10/3/2007 3:59:51 PM

^^Get out of this thread with your Edwards propoganda. Dude is a liar and a crook, plain and simple.

His plans for education are uninsprired and costly, will never get passed and will only change the existing federal fuckup that is our schools, not make them better.

Also, ANY immigrant seeking a green card MUST learn english. It's nothing new or special. And allowing illegals to become citizens will just keep them illegal longer and make it that much more difficult and expensive to administer

10/3/2007 4:55:51 PM

As someone who is opposed to making English the Official language, saying that I learned Edwards is for requiring it isn't necessarily me giving him an endorsement. (i'm okay with national, but being an official language could limit hospitals that receive gov money abilities to have translators). It was from a link posted in the thread, so I thought it was legitimate to respond to once. I had no intentions of drawing it out any further, or letting it become a back and forth about whether or not it was legitimate, so this is the last I'll speak to that issue here.

10/3/2007 5:06:31 PM

English should be the official language of the US. It's BECAUSE of the US that the rest of the world uses it as the common language for commerce, science and conversation.

It shouldn't be the ONLY language, as I think we should REQUIRE our public schools to teach kids to be fluent in at least one other language, preferably two. But it's absolutely silly to oppose a national language mandate because of possible LOSS OF FUNDING??

10/3/2007 6:46:13 PM

1) or, maybe we should question what right the federal government has to threaten and coerce states into any course of action which is not explicitly delineated as a power of the federal gov't.

2) I'm not so sure that the US is the reason that English is so widespread and mainstream. The fact that the language is called "English" should be a bit of a clue to this... While the US may have influenced English's use in the latter half of the 20th century, I think England's colonial heritage has had far more weight in the matter than the US could ever hope to have. If you need more convincing, let me ask you what nation held power over the following countries/regions when they were colonies: Australia, Hong Kong, India, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Burma, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Sudan, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda?

10/3/2007 8:40:55 PM

wow, it's not often that burro legitimately owns someone, gotta give him credit where credit is due.

10/3/2007 9:02:02 PM

^^and, you forgot the US

10/3/2007 10:40:33 PM

dont forget poland

10/3/2007 10:45:46 PM

Quote :

"Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children by Ron Paul This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for. Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time. With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting. Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them. As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted. Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs. We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing. "

10/3/2007 10:59:32 PM

Hey, i am just glad that we get to use the letter Z a lot. it makes me realiZe how much i love Amuurricah


Oh, and Ron Paul is the man.

10/3/2007 11:01:02 PM

Quote :

"1) or, maybe we should question what right the federal government has to threaten and coerce states into any course of action which is not explicitly delineated as a power of the federal gov't."

This should always be questioned, but it is certainly well within the rights of the federal government to make English the official language of the Federal Government. It could be argued that it is also the language for all legally binding contracts involving commerce transiting state lines. At that point, it has created a de-facto national language.

10/3/2007 11:15:43 PM

i like how breaking news today was that ron paul raised a little over 5 million... either way i'm glad he got some more exposure

10/4/2007 12:39:47 AM

Quote :

"2) I'm not so sure that the US is the reason that English is so widespread and mainstream. The fact that the language is called "English" should be a bit of a clue to this... While the US may have influenced English's use in the latter half of the 20th century, I think England's colonial heritage has had far more weight in the matter than the US could ever hope to have. If you need more convincing, let me ask you what nation held power over the following countries/regions when they were colonies: Australia, Hong Kong, India, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, New Zealand, South Africa, Burma, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Sudan, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda?"

Instead try since the mid 19th century.

And holding power != common language.

And I specifically outlined it as the common language for commerce and science first. Both of which are DIRECTLY tied to the US and it's world influence over the past 100+ years. If England's colonial heritage carried so much weight, why are the overwhelming majority of ESL people learning American English, rather than British English?

10/4/2007 12:47:02 AM

Quote :

"If England's colonial heritage carried so much weight, why are the overwhelming majority of ESL people learning American English, rather than British English? "

durr, because the people you are looking at are in AMERICA. why the fuck would they learn British English in amurca?

Quote :

"This should always be questioned, but it is certainly well within the rights of the federal government to make English the official language of the Federal Government. It could be argued that it is also the language for all legally binding contracts involving commerce transiting state lines. At that point, it has created a de-facto national language."

That's perfectly fine. If the Fed wants to say "this is the language you use to talk to us," i have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with the Fed saying "you will use this language in YOUR BUSINESS, too, or else" when it has NO RIGHT to regulate such a thing.

Quote :

"And holding power != common language. "

it sure as hell does when as a result of that power an official language is enforced.

Quote :

"Both of which are DIRECTLY tied to the US and it's world influence over the past 100+ years."

Don't be obtuse. The US really didn't matter on the world scene until WWII. That's hardly "100+ years," and it's barely 50. However, if you want to look at a real influence of a "100+ years," then again, look no further than the British Empire. You've got a clear lineage of British influence over much of the world dating from at worst the 1950s back to the early 1800s and before. That Britain's successor as a superpower spoke the same language merely reinforced England's language as the language of trade and science. Thus, British English was the original language of commerce and science. Speaking with the new superpower required merely speaking the same language as before. Hardly influential on the part of the US.

10/4/2007 1:31:19 AM

Quote :

"durr, because the people you are looking at are in AMERICA. why the fuck would they learn British English in amurca?"

I was using ESL as a generic term. Outside of maybe India and Pakistan, American English is much more prevalent. The centuries of British colonization has quickly given way to American commerce.

Quote :

"Don't be obtuse. "

Pot, kettle.

Quote :

"If the Fed wants to say "this is the language you use to talk to us," i have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with the Fed saying "you will use this language in YOUR BUSINESS, too, or else" when it has NO RIGHT to regulate such a thing. "

I completely agree. However they do retain the right, as the justice department to require English for legally binding documents. You can write a contract in anything you want, but unless it's in English, it shouldn't be allowed into the court system.

Quote :

"You've got a clear lineage of British influence over much of the world dating from at worst the 1950s back to the early 1800s and before. That Britain's successor as a superpower spoke the same language merely reinforced England's language as the language of trade and science. Thus, British English was the original language of commerce and science. Speaking with the new superpower required merely speaking the same language as before. Hardly influential on the part of the US."

I'll take your word for it, because I don't really care either way.

10/4/2007 1:53:34 AM

WTF are you people going on about now? In Europe and west/central asia, most ESL is British English.

and then theres teh Africans who are coming to the US in record numbers speaking British English with French accents.

who cares anyhow.

10/4/2007 2:11:55 AM

yea, this is diluting the thread, my apologies.

10/4/2007 2:36:53 AM

^none of those work for me.

10/5/2007 1:31:54 PM

Ron Paul is the best candidate out there so far. Too bad he doesn't have the publicity and the money to actually stand a chance. Americans are for the most part to stupid and will vote for whatever they see the most on a road flyer ,advertisement, or whoever their parents vote for.

10/5/2007 1:37:28 PM

He's got a lot of cash on hand. He will stage an advertising blitz in New Hampshire, where 75% of potential voters are still undecided. If he finishes strong in NH (1st or 2nd), he'll get all the publicity he needs leading up to Super Tuesday.

I could see him pulling a Howard Dean and coming out of left field to win the primary. New Hampshire is a funny state.

10/5/2007 1:47:19 PM

Quote :

"I wish Ron Paul were bigger in stature. He just doesn't look very president-like to me. Anyone know how tall he is?"

i just can't get over why this should matter. I mean, really? Did you really say this? I'll let you take it back...but only today.

This is only one of the problems that faces America, it's about looks instead of content/personality. This can also be seen in present day music. Too many artists are "too fat" or "too ugly" and will not be signed. What has happened to this once great country?

Sorry to make you an example!

10/9/2007 3:31:20 PM

Capitalism is at fault for this.

The market wants tall handsome figures for leaders and thin sexy women for music.

10/9/2007 3:43:00 PM

^^I don't think the poster you quoted had a problem with his height. I think he was just pointing out the reality that he would be more electable if he were taller.

10/9/2007 4:05:06 PM

ah, I see.

[Edited on October 9, 2007 at 5:44 PM. Reason : he is a tiny little man]

10/9/2007 5:43:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8RWBfBvH5g

"As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means." Agree 100%

10/10/2007 5:22:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't think the poster you quoted had a problem with his height. I think he was just pointing out the reality that he would be more electable if he were taller."

Yep. I was just satirizing the American populace.

Next up, I'll make fun of the media for losing sight of the candidates themselves and focusing entirely on the amount of money each one has received as if I'm supposed to assume the candidate who makes the most money is automatically worthy of my vote. I mean, if Brittney Spears can sell a billion albums the music must be fucking phenomenal, right?

10/10/2007 5:51:02 PM

i'd vote for ron paul if he was the nominee....

...if he grew a mustache. its been 94 years since Taft left office. We need another mustachioed president, and i believe ron paul can pull it off. it's time people

10/10/2007 11:00:23 PM

^ lol

10/11/2007 12:56:37 AM

Quote :

"This is only one of the problems that faces America, it's about looks instead of content/personality. This can also be seen in present day music. Too many artists are "too fat" or "too ugly" and will not be signed. What has happened to this once great country?"

10/11/2007 1:06:58 AM

Who here can explain to me why we should have a president committed to returning us to the gold standard?

10/11/2007 1:45:24 AM

Ron Paul reminds me of some dried up old sprite. And he is the whiniest candidate on any stage, to be sure.

In any event, they need to put the hook on Paul already. I mean, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning and everybody knows it--including Paul (despite what he says publicly about that).

10/11/2007 2:08:34 AM