This is incorrect. I've quoted ABC News, which I would trust more than an RP minion, to list facts. To suggest that is not proof, is yet another example of dishonesty. It was also covered in USA Today. Huckabee is but one of several candidates I like. Although I spent a great deal of time a few days ago, comparing the positions of several candidates I like. As of right now (though I'm not through yet), Fred Thompson seems to be the most consistent where I stand. However, you must also realize that unlike you, my primary position is National Security. I want a candidate who understands threats and who will do his job in protecting America. Ron Paul has demonstrated he will not protect America in the least bit. Therefore, I can easily rule him out. Incorrect. The only thing misleading here, is when you have assumed that RP leads in military donations AND Veterans. Clearly I have debunked that dishonesty. At this point, face is the only thing remaining to save.
Have you looked at the link *I* posted yet? Your second link quotes this same center and their findings, but I've yet to see the numbers to back it up. To say that a news source is more accurate than the actual donation reports is dishonest. I'm challenging you personally to get off your soapbox, dig through the raw numbers, and do it yourself. Hell, even the freepers and FoxNews admit Ron Paul got the most donations. FoxNews does explain that these reports may not be 100% accurate, because it's self identification and some may choose not to report that they are a military serviceman or veteran, but that goes both ways. In any case, even if it's true, it backs up my claim that the military wants a candidate who will get us out of this war ASAP. After the admittedly military backed candidate McCain, percentages drop off tremendously, and 4th place is not even close. And you've yet to respond to me about percentages. Don't you think that's telling of a surge of military support if almost 1% of his total donations come from military servicemen? He's getting support in amounts equal to people like Barack Obama, but Obama is pulling in 10x as much money as Paul did last quarter. That clearly shows that when Ron Paul's message is getting to our military, it brings in their donations much more easily than any other candidate. Once again, you attack Ron Paul's stance on national security, when he clearly shows the most concern for our servicemen. He doesn't want them to die on the streets of Iraq acting as international policemen, having to protect Iraqi citizens, all to get exploded by a roadside bomb. Meanwhile, we have the largest unprotected border in the world (Canada-USA), and those 100,000+ servicemen who are right now protecting Iraqi citizens could be at home protecting OUR citizens and assuring that the enemy does not infiltrate OUR country. Again, respond to my words. You stated Ron Paul as being favorable to 1% of veterans. Looking at your link, it clearly shows Ron Paul is NOT on the table that has responders indicate if a certain candidate is favorable, not favorable, or if the responder has no opinion. Therefore, to say that he is favorable to 1% of veterans is misleading since your data does not show that. Your data does show that he is the preference for Republican nominee among 1% of veterans, which again, I argued has more to do with name recognition than actual support. Rather than respond to this argument, you called me misleading, when my data is showing Ron Paul is leading military donations, or at worst, 2nd best. Your data does not indicate the favorability of Ron Paul among veterans as you claim it does, it does not indicate that data for Ron Paul at all. So the only thing left for you to do is argue whether his being the preference of 1% of veterans has to do with his stance on foreign policy, or his lack of name recognition so far compared to people like Guiliani. There is nothing else left to debate, as my data from multiple sources backs up my arguments.
RP's site forces a donator to select their occupation. Other candidate sites do not - it is only a requirement if the donation is over $200 I believe. If you look at donations from, say July, you'll see that RP has only $100 of donations where occupation is "unknown" whereas Romney/McCain/etal have millions of dolloars of donations where occupation is "unknown" - so your more accurate claim here is "RP has the highest dollar donations from military, where occupation was known" - the qualifier being important here.
I didn't look at every campaign site, but a look at Romney and Guiliani's donation areas both show that employer and occupation is a required field. In any case, it should be fairly common sense that "Ron Paul received the most military donations" implies where occupation was known, because if we didn't know who the employer was for a particular donation, we can't count it for or against the military! I see your point, but it's all shoulda, coulda, woulda. In any case, it will be refeshing when we have quarterly filings in about a week and we can argue over a NEW set of data!
We have last quarters http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00430470/A_EMPLOYER_C00430470.html Here's mccain: NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED 2,207,402.39 http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html paul NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED 100.00 http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html clinton NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED 2,125,251.11 Improbably low, don't you agree?
So your point is...what? That other candidates aren't following FEC guidelines on donation reporting like they should? I wouldn't call it improbably low, I would expect Ron Paul to have his filings air-fucking-tight, as they appear to be; the man would probably make a damned good accountant. And like I've said way up in the thread: debate all you want that some candidates might have had some military servicemen who didn't report their employer, and that possibly that would change the outcome. No other candidate comes CLOSE percentage wise as far as military contributions, and I'm just saying it stands to reason it's because of Ron Paul's message.
Yes. I also looked at media reports who took the time to go through these numbers. They do not add up to your dishonest numbers. Let me help you out, fletch. Here's where you went wrong. You should have said "but, but, but RP has the most donations out of all Republicans." Then you could have squeezed your argument by. You got greedy though. You took the greed to far and said "of all candidates." This is dishonest. I've shown that it is, despite your denial. I've also shown that RP has virtually no Veteran support what-so-ever. The problem I see, is, that you do not care about facts, but only asserting a message. In this case, you were called on it. Instead of continuing down the line of denial and deceit, you should have said "my bad, yep, it does appear that Obama had the most donations." And to that, it would have been no big deal. We all make mistakes in furthering our agendas. The difference between you and I, is what you do with that information once you discover you've made a mistake. Once again, I remind you. Virtually every RP supporter I've seen here actively participates in threads to tear "our" country down. Ceaselessly, with no mercy and never letting up. The same crowd also seems to be pro Iran and very much anti-Israel. The same crowd also goes out of their way to demonstrate they do not want America protected. As if they want terrorists to attack us, because they believe "we" deserve it. So I ask you, given these general observations, why would "I" want to vote for your candidate, given these very identifiable patterns of his supporters? Why do I want to vote for a candidate that has issues with Jews and blacks? Why do I want to vote for a candidate who has made it abundantly clear that he will not protect America under any circumstance? Why do I want to vote for a candidate who is actively promoting a conspiracy theory about the NAU? Why do I want to vote for a candidate who has pandered to "troofers" and admitted he believes there is a conspiracy there, by suggesting we need a new investigation? Why do I want to vote for a candidate whose supporters have consistently shown disregard for facts? Let me know what you come up with.
My point is that you cannot make a coherent statement that "ron paul got the most donations from military" when you aren't sure where all the donations come from. Candidates aren't required to report employment for people who donate less than $200. Maybe they don't do that. "Airtight" has nothing to do with it. Or because of the above. Whichever helps you sleep at night.
Once again, GTech spouts off a rant of rhetoric, without using facts. GTech, use the numbers and show me Obama has more donations. You cite ABC, I cite Fox News. It's obviously a disputed fact if two different major news networks have conflicting reports, so get down into the numbers, and show me I'm wrong. But you won't. I'm basically inviting you to show me where they got the numbers, giving you the exact source you need to prove it to me, telling you how to do it, and you STILL WILL NOT. As I've said, I'll be the first to admit and apologize for my error if someone can do the math and show me my error. The bottom line is you will not, because for you, it's easier to just sit there, and let someone feed facts down your throat. You also won't do it because it's easier for you to just type a long rant rather than backing up your statements and arguments with fact. Is it fear? Are you afraid you'll be factually wrong, and I'll be factually right? Or is it laziness? Are you just too lazy to do something for your goddamned self for once? What's dishonest is you calling me a liar when you won't even step up for yourself and show me my error. From now on, I will not respond to any of your questions without you citing the source for your claim, and any additional arguments needed to justify your claim. So if you want responses to any of these questions, I'll start doing it as soon as you can show that any of these things are true.
I listed two credible sources. Why you would reduce this to dishonesty by suggesting it's rant/rhetoric without facts, is beyond me. I suppose it goes back to what I've been pointing out about RP supporters and how facts do not matter to them. Why would I want to vote for a candidate whose supporters demonstrate a clear and consistent pattern of denial and deceit? Have you written to USA Today and ABC News to tell them they are wrong?
Stop changing the subject GTech. I've presented the data, and then done my own research to prove my point. I've also invited any of you to go through the same data, and show me my error, if it exists. The fact that you refuse to go through the data to make your own determination on who is correct shows me you don't seek the truth in a matter, but just like to argue endlessly until the other side tires of you. If you can't go through the data and show me my error, then please admit I'm correct in the matter. Both our sources conflict, they both should have the same weight (major news networks), and both came to their conclusions using the same data I'm using to make my point. So before you call me a liar, and say I'm using denial and deceit to reach my ends, stop talking for once, and actually do something. I know that combing through lines and lines of data is not fun, and certainly not as much fun as just spewing biased, loaded questions (like the set above, which you've still yet to provide sources on to show they're factual). But if you can't do it, don't claim you're right on the matter.
Once again: Um, um, um. Thanks for helping me prove what I continue to say about RP supporters. You've gone out of your way to help prove me right. I appreciate that
GTech, my FoxNews source says that Ron Paul received the most donations. Why is your source more factually right than mine? Why won't you just run the numbers yourself?
I suppose Lou Dobbs at CNN is also a Troofer. The NAU is a reality, the documents are available online for the SPP. http://www.aim.org/static/5351_0_7_0_C/ Of course, GTech is all for harmonizing the US legal system with the Canadian (see video). It's also a mirage that several Congressmen have brought this up. Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT] Rep. John Boozman [R-AR] Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] Rep. David Davis [R-TN] Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA] Rep. Lincoln Davis [D-TN] Rep. John Duncan [R-TN] Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC] Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ] Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ] Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA] Rep. Samuel Graves [R-MO] Rep. Dean Heller [R-NV] Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA] Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC] Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH] Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX] Rep. James Marshall [D-GA] Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI] Rep. Charles Norwood [R-GA] Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX] Rep. Ralph Regula [R-OH] Rep. James Saxton [R-NJ] Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL] Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO] Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R-OH] Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN] Are these Congressmembers dreaming? If so, then what is HCR 40? If you don't believe it is happening, then surely you support HCR 40, because it guarantees that it should never happen.
As far as RP not protecting America, he presented Congress with a Declaration of War for Iraq. He signed off on going into Afghanistan. He introduced legislation for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and most importantly, he's a veteran who served honorably in the Air Force. These attacks are cheapshots from the delirious. And the people know, because the campaign is gaining steam. In a big, big way.
Does he believe 9/11 was an inside job, like you? Thanks! I was hoping someone would actually prove this was a conspiracy. I had no idea it would be you.
I quite enjoy it, because every time someone challenges RP, I can usually post the facts which make him look good. Btw, anyone who doesn't think the NAU is real and we're all Troofers, I would like an explanation why other candidates like Tancredo, Hunter et al have co-signed a bill to stop it? Maybe half of the candidates for the nomination are Troofers?
Btw folks, this legislation has only been received, and is now in committee. If you're serious about the sovereignty of America, and a little disturbed that the new North Carolina Driver's Licenses have the NAU logo on it, then contact your representative and put pressure on them to make sure this Bill goes through. It's not a conspiracy, and it's time for Americans to stand up for America.
Writing letters to terrorists and asking them to "please stop hurting us" is not protecting America. I smell forthcoming backpedaling. A little wd-40 might be necessary.