After bombing the MLK day bomb, supporters lose hope, RP pulls out of the race because of the lack of funds. Then many of RP supports run back to their roots and vote for Obama or hilary...
Why would he drop out? He's got more money in the bank than any of the other candidates, except Romney, who is self-financing his campaign! The MLK bomb was underpromoted for sure, but it is far from a "bomb". It's the 3rd highest fund raising day for the campaign. In fact, it will probably finish up higher than Romney's recent high power fund raising event he held in Boston recently which brought in $1.5 million for the primaries. $1,192,867.89 so far today. We've just passed Huckabee for January. http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/rp_vs_huck_this_quarter.html .
Make that $1,208.112.20!!! so far today! Eat your heart out h8ters!!! FYI. I'm donating later tonight.
Aren't we still waiting to hear if Kalvin's representatives have supported some of the excellent bills Ron Paul has introduced to the floor, and if they haven't supported said bills, if Kalvin has taken any initiative in notifying his representatives about his distaste for their lack of support? Come on bud, let's hear it. As a side note, Guerilla, your name would be more fitting for someone like Kalvin or Browntwn (thanks for the idiotic red rep buddy!). They come in with a quick jab that doesn't even have much substance, retreating before logic can come back at them.
And that's the great hole in their argument Fletch. They are so quick to deride Paul for what he hasn't accomplished, when one would think most of the so-called Republicans or Conservatives on this forum would love to see this legislation passed. By riding Paul on his unfulfilled legislation, they are essentially arguing for more taxes, more welfare, pro-choice, and big government. And they have the gall to accuse RP supporters of being Democrats. HA!
What bills has Ron Paul introduced and passed that accomplished something substantial? What bills has Ron Paul sponsored and gotten passed that you think the MSM should be talking about? I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how tapping a foreigner's phone line is against the constitution. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to give an example of the government being in violation of the constitution. You mumbled something about warrants. Let's see him do it again tomorrow. Hillary and Obama have raised over $100 million each. Which works out to at least 274,000 per day for an entire year each. When will Ron Paul fans come to the same resolution as everyone else? What are the odds of all the other republican candidates dying before the election? If Kucinich's alien friends came down and killed all the republican candidates except for Ron Paul I'd vote for Bloomberg.
Co-Founder of the US Gold Commission First member of House to propose Term Limits. Defeated Republican candidate for his district that was supported by the NRA, Governor GWB and and speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Named one of the "50 Most Effective Members of Congress" by Congressional Quarterly (October 1999) Named the Taxpayers' Best Friend ever by the National Taxpayers Union 95% rating by Citizens against Government Waste for 2006 (those No Votes count for fiscal conservatism). Co-sponsor of legislation that successfully repealed the earnings limitation on Social Security. Seniors now continue working after retirement without being penalized Founding member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, a bipartisan group which promotes legislation to help the agriculture industry and rural communities Cosponsor of the enacted Earnings limit repeal 100% rating from United Seniors Association A+ rating from Gun Owners of America By successfully amending other legislation, he has also barred International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military (2002), American participation in any U.N. "global tax" (2005), and surveillance on peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens (2006) Never voted to raise taxes during his service in Congress. Introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would remove federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negate Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent. Has successfully won 10 elections to serve in the House. Ran for President, gaining over 400,000 votes with a 3rd party. Serves on these three committees, * Committee on Financial Services o Ranking Member - Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology o Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation * Committee on Foreign Affairs o Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight o Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere * Joint Economic Committee Has opted out of the Congressional Pension Program. Offered to pay a portion from his pocket to mint Congressional Medals of Honor for Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks instead of spending tax payer funds. Author or co-author of 11 books. His latest book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" is in the top 1000 on Amazon, #2 in Economic Policy & Development, #7 in Government and #13 in Accounting & Finance. Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC has endorsed Paul in 2004 and 2006 for Congress. Oh yeah, Paul regularly gets Veterans medals they were due and has fought for their benefits when they return from active service. http://www.militaryforpaul.com/article.html Dr. Paul may have fought for benefits you have received, or for members of your family who may be eligible later. One thing is sure, if a member of your family is due a medal for service, your Texas Congressman in District 14 is the guy to call. You can read his commitment to veterans here, http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=78 The comments are pretty interesting. Sounds like a pretty distinguished career, considering somewhere in there, he had time to deliver 4,000 babies, put 3 children through medical school without student loans, work his own farm and serve 5 years in the Air Force as a Surgeon. What have you done for your country? I'll get to this one later. It could take a few days to compile them all.
Nice cut and paste job. I asked for bills he sponsored and got passed. I don't care about recognitions and awards or his voting record or how many babies he delivered. John McCain was tortured for about 6 years in vietnam. He probably would have preferred to have delivered a few thousand babies over the course of several decades. That's one. And not very important. In fact, I'd call that a bad thing. Social Security is already strapped for money and now seniors can milk the system even if they don't really need the money.
Kalvin, I cut and paste from my own post. Because frankly, I don't have unlimited time to do your research for you. And what have you done with your life? Edited, forget it. If you pay into Social Security, you are entitled to it. Don't be obtuse. You're basically endorsing double taxation on earnings.
Well, maybe you should look it up. As for the other thing, it is not necessarily just non citizens. The act allows them to listen in on conversations involving a domestic phone and an international one, which means they don't know whether or not the person using the domestic phone is a citizen or not.
It doesn't matter who is on the domestic phone. That's the point. Read the constitution. It is perfectly legal for the government to tap a foreign line. You as a citizen cannot grant a right to a non-citizen. Someone in a foreign country cannot be granted a right to privacy simply because they are talking to a US citizen. You as a citizen forfeit the right to privacy by talking to someone in a foreign country regardless of your location. You cannot go into a bar with any expectation of privacy. You forfeit that right simply by walking in the door. Any government agent can record your conversation in any public area without your consent. You may not like it, but it's not unconstitutional. Read the constitution. Know your rights. If you had read the constitution you should know that our government can tap the line of anyone in a foreign country. Therefore, if you want to keep your phone calls private, you can't talk to someone in a foreign country. They need to come to the US first. But Ron Paul followers don't actually read or understand the constitution. That's why they complain about these perfectly constitutional wire taps. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. And it has been ruled constitutional. Foreign lines can be taped. By getting on a foreign line you forfeit your right. It's as simple as that. I'm not running for President. Obviously you can't defend Ron Paul. The numerous bills he has sponsored and passed should be on the tip of your tounge. Instead I get a count of the number of babies he's delivered. Well, if that's the criteria then I guess I should vote for the local Obgyn. McCain, misguided as some of them may be, has sponsered many important bills and fought hard to pass them. He has worked across the isle to try to get things done at the peril of his own career. The only thing you can come up with for Ron Paul is a lousy SS bill. I'm paying into SS and probably won't see a dime from it. So are millions of other people. But you're happy that the current generation (one of the last to see a SS check) can milk the system even if they don't need the money. I'm sure future generations of people who do need the money will be singing Ron Paul's praises. Seriously, what has Ron Paul accomplished besides casting votes like every other person in congress? What important ideas has he come up with and got put into effect?
Kalvin, I see you have still not watched Judge Napolitano on ReasonTV explaining the loss of civil liberties, and all of the various legislative acts that have enabled it. Please watch it, or read his book Nation of Sheep, and then get back to us. While it is in everyone's best interest to help you be informed, there is also an onus on yourself, to be intellectually honest and investigate the matter for yourself. To wit, I am providing the link again. http://reason.tv/video/show/178.html .
For one, wiretaps aren't covered in the Constitution. That's going to require getting knee deep in case law and judicial decisions, the Constitution alone barely addresses any of the specifics to really make a ruling on the constitutionality of the searches. Secondly, it's not so simple to say that one forfeits their rights simply by talking to a foreigner. The intention of the Constitution is to protect for citizens certain rights, such as the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to free speech. Now there are finer points here, such as not being able to yell fire in a theater because that speech, while free, would incite a riot. This is where the Constitution does not distinguish enough, and case law and judicial decisions come into play. I personally don't believe a citizen forfeits their right to privacy simply by speaking to a foreigner. You believe the opposite. To make it seem so cut and dry is just silly though. There is a reason a lawyer makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, because the law is not a simple matter and it's not an easy job. Previous judicial decisions provide the basis for so many legal decisions in our country, and with as complex and important an issue as right to privacy, you can't come close to making an informed argument on constitutionality without massive amounts of case law to back your argument. Stop making it seem like you've got it figured all out, because you do not.
It's way too early to know who's going to drop out. And why does it matter what bills got passed? Ron Paul tried to STOP many bills from passing; Most bills in congress are to grease special interests, and further erode our freedom. The only bill I want passed is the "Bill Of Rights"
Let me spell it out for you in even simpler terms: Let's say Bobby is a mob boss. His mother has no idea what's going on. The FBI gets a warrant to tap Bobby's home phone line. Bobby's mother calls him. Does the FBI suddenly lose their right to record the conversation because they don't have a warrant on the mother? Of course not. The only difference with a foreign line is that the government doesn't need a warrant. The Supreme Court agrees. End of argument. It is that simple. If the government wasn't allowed to record a foreign line when a US citizen in on the line domestic wiretaps would be 100% illegal as well unless the government had a warrant on everyone talking on the line. Which is impossible. Case law for decades has established that the government only needs to have the right to tap the line to record anyone who uses it. In the case of a foreign line, they always have the right. So, as the supreme court ruled, it is 100% constitutional.
why does it matter what bills got passed? Ron Paul tried to STOP many bills from passing; Most bills in congress are to grease special interests, and further erode our freedom. The only bill I want passed is the "Bill Of Rights"
What is that supposed to mean? Are you accusing the FBI of not following the law or saying that the courts never approve them when they ask?