Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

[kimosabi]

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."


Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners.

But a closer look at the reports (http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates)reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community.


http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609

[BugHunt]

Ill bet his "anti-american agenda" sticks in the maw of the right wing victims around here ;)

[Lov3ll]

Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy and opposes foreign aid as doing more harm than good. He is the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[19][20] Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force which resulted in the War in Afghanistan in 2001

Maybe the military is sick of saving every one p-)?

[California Joe]

It's because military types are, above all, practical and Ron Paul is the only candidate I've seen that isn't some pandering pole smoker. He actually says what he means.

[Bert]

I guess servicemen aren't too thrilled to replace the title of 'US soldier' with 'World soldier', not to mention that they too pay taxes to support a behemoth federal government at home and abroad. Ron Paul's message of freedom and small government appeals to everyone.

[nagant_m44]

too bad the media will not even say his name anymore... He would make a better president than anyone else out there.

[California Joe]

He doesn't have a shot in hell of winning but I like his style.

[nagant_m44]

He doesn't have a shot in hell of winning but I like his style.

he does have a better shot than mccain... but that isn't saying much

[el borracho]

A lot of people seem astonished when they hear that troops don't necessarily support Bush. We owe allegiance to him as the commander-in-chief, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to vote for him or personally support his policies. He may say he "supports the troops" but most of the administration's actions over the last six years have been to the contrary.

[shocker1]

Ill bet his "anti-american agenda" sticks in the maw of the right wing victims around here ;)
I think the left nuts will have more issue.
Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government,low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

He is a conservative that voted against the war. Without Iraq the left would not like this man. I like him because unlike Bush he is a Conservative. Have not seen any other Republicans like him .
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Lokos]

In my mind, Ron Paul is a true American - and the sort of man that made that country great. I truly regret the fact that he has such a painfully insignificant base of support for Presidency.

Lokos

[ElHombre]

I think the left nuts will have more issue.

Nope. It's always good to see an actual principled pol at work. Paul's problem is that, well... he's an old-fashioned conservative in a party which modified its 'conservative' principles quite a number of decades back.

He is a conservative that voted against the war. Without Iraq the left would not like this man. I like him because unlike Bush he is a Conservative.
Have not seen any other Republicans like him.

Errr... sorry, Bush is a modern-day conservative. That's why all of you conservatives voted for him. Twice.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't find it surprising that Paul is receiving more donations than the other Rs. He's the only R candidate who thinks that troops should be more than a political backdrop. ('Mission Accomplished', anyone?) I'm just surprised it's taken this long for an R to retrieve his testicles from wherever Rove placed them.

[shocker1]

Nope. It's always good to see an actual principled pol at work. Paul's problem is that, well... he's an old-fashioned conservative in a party which modified its 'conservative' principles quite a number of decades back.



Errr... sorry, Bush is a modern-day conservative. That's why all of you conservatives voted for him. Twice.

Anyway, back on topic. I don't find it surprising that Paul is receiving more donations than the other Rs. He's the only R candidate who thinks that troops should be more than a political backdrop. ('Mission Accomplished', anyone?) I'm just surprised it's taken this long for an R to retrieve his testicles from wherever Rove placed them.
All those insults and political hog wash is enough to choke a chicken. Been done to death, old , give it up , broken record, part of the problem are descriptions of the poison in our politics.

Bush is no Conservative, he used social issues to push his global vision of whatever. Granted I myself voted for him both times. Maybe the Democrats should drop the militant lesbian movements and pink moms know better or whatever they are called and be Democrats. I have yet to see any thing worth buying from their camp. The issues Democrats support are on another planet from me. Some even disgust me and anger me in to voting a straight ticket. Though I did vote for 3 local Ind that lost, county stuff.

So here we are with what we have and the only man speaking truth is the under dog. Unless you and your bunch in the Burning Bush Club put your energy into electing real people. Not media honey pots that could care less about us. Same goes for me and my fellow Republicans or Conservervatards as you like to say. See I can handle the mud but it is making the nations wheels slip towards the ditch.

[ElHombre]

I have yet to see any thing worth buying from their camp. The issues Democrats support are on another planet from me. Some even disgust me and anger me in to voting a straight ticket.

Let's put that to the test. I'll pick a Dem position at random and let's see if you'll support it. How about... putting a check on Bush's 'strategy' on Iraq? None of the Rs in Congress have even the remotest interest in reining in the Unitary Executive, so this can easily be considered a Dem issue all the way. :lol:

[shocker1]

Let's put that to the test. I'll pick a Dem position at random and let's see if you'll support it. How about... putting a check on Bush's 'strategy' on Iraq? None of the Rs in Congress have even the remotest interest in reining in the Unitary Executive, so this can easily be considered a Dem issue all the way. :lol:
If it were Emperor Bush laying out battle plans, gathering and organizing intel, planning each mission then yes. We both know that thousands of people and top brass in the military plan these things. Work hard at doing their job. It is a shame it is just political footballs for DC. The President says I want this the military makes a POA and goes. Congress has ways to control the war, the do not have the nads to do it.

The power structure is fine, why give the next President a slap in the face?

reining in the Unitary Executive

That's rich there. They can make life total hell for a President but are helpless to control a war they voted for.

[Shellshock1918]

Errr... sorry, Bush is a modern-day conservative. That's why all of you conservatives voted for him. Twice.
I think you mean, neo-conservative. Neo-cons are not real conservatives, they are liberals that like to cut taxes here and there.

Real conservatives had to vote for him twice because they were duped into believing that Bush was the best man to lead the country and that we needed to continue down this broken foreign policy. The neo-cons manipulated the base to believe that is un-American to question the war or the President's actions.

Run Ron, Run. The country needs you.

[Buckeye67]

Actually we voted for him twice because he was better than the douchebags that were running against him.

We'd vote for Vlad the Impaler before we'd vote for Algore or John Kerry.

[shocker1]

That is what I am saying. they meaning the Dems should get off their ass, stop bashing a President that has just about finished his term. Stop bashing anybody really and come up with someone to vote for.

Please no more Move On star child Candidates. Only left wing looneys like those people. That is why you fail. The only reason Dems gained last election was people used the ballot to speak to Bush. Had nothing to do with the grand issues the Dems proudly display.

[Lov3ll]

Actually we voted for him twice because he was better than the douchebags that were running against him.

We'd vote for Vlad the Impaler before we'd vote for Algore or John Kerry.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Gore win :D

[Ratamacue]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Gore win :DOnly if you have no understanding of the American electoral process.

[Buckeye67]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Al Gore win :D

If by "win" you mean failed to be elected President, then yes - he "won".

Let's have a look though, just to be sure:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/chronological.html

Hmmm... Al Gore... Al Gore...

Nope, no "Al Gore" on the list of US Presidents. So I guess he didn't win ****.

[Rictor]

Well, this neatly puts the lie to Bush's "we have to stay so the soldier's death will not have been in vain" crap. The very people Bush claims to speak for are voting with their wallets and doing so for a clearly anti-war and anti-interventionist candidate.

[ElHombre]

Actually we voted for him twice because he was better than the douchebags that were running against him.

We'd vote for Vlad the Impaler before we'd vote for Algore or John Kerry.

And look at the results we've gotten. The Worst President Ever got a chance to continue proving how bad he is.

[nagant_m44]

And look at the results we've gotten. The Worst President Ever got a chance to continue proving how bad he is.

why do you think hes the worst president ever? Saying that shows you knowledge of US history...

[Will938]

And look at the results we've gotten. The Worst President Ever got a chance to continue proving how bad he is.

He's actually ranked somewhere in the middle, right under Clinton.

I maintain that I'd still rather have Bush than Gore or Kerry. What are your thoughts on Ron Paul, Thompson, Hillary, and Obama?

[ElHombre]

What are your thoughts on Ron Paul, Thompson, Hillary, and Obama?

I haven't paid too much attention thus far, but...

Paul: A decent candidate who will eventually be buried by the R base for the fact that he's not nearly insane enough.

Thompson: Just what the country needs, another Hollywood celeberity. Let's see how long he can keep sitting on the fence.

Clinton: Her election will mean that every President since I started voting will be either a Clinton or Bush and I'm not into dynasties. Other than that, a solid, if uninspiring, choice which would have the entertaining benefit of sending untold numbers of conservatives into apolexy (just think of Bill O'Reilly alone... :lol:). I'm wary of her stubborn streak, her inability to admit error about her Iraq vote is just plain dumb.

Obama: Solid and inspiring. But I am still wondering if he realizes what he would be up against. His ideas about national unity are very inspiring but run into the problem that conservatives in this country (at least as represented by the Rs) have demonstrated that they're only interested in power for themselves at the expense of Americans.

[Shellshock1918]

Obama is the biggest bag of hype I've ever seen. The people that want him president must get mind control injections every morning because he ISN'T ARTICULATE(yes I said it!), he isn't EXPERIENCED and he is a big government liberal!

[INAT]

I haven't paid too much attention thus far, but...

Paul: A decent candidate who will eventually be buried by the R base for the fact that he's not nearly insane enough.

Thompson: Just what the country needs, another Hollywood celeberity. Let's see how long he can keep sitting on the fence.

Clinton: Her election will mean that every President since I started voting will be either a Clinton or Bush and I'm not into dynasties. Other than that, a solid, if uninspiring, choice which would have the entertaining benefit of sending untold numbers of conservatives into apolexy (just think of Bill O'Reilly alone... :lol:). I'm wary of her stubborn streak, her inability to admit error about her Iraq vote is just plain dumb.

Obama: Solid and inspiring. But I am still wondering if he realizes what he would be up against. His ideas about national unity are very inspiring but run into the problem that conservatives in this country (at least as represented by the Rs) have demonstrated that they're only interested in power for themselves at the expense of Americans.


Very well spoken Mr Hombre (or can I call you El are we on a first name basis?) But both Dem and Rep IMO no longer work for the people but
for faceless nameless greed and power.Ron Paul does not have a very good chance but that is becuase he seems to have the peoples interests at heart along with Kucinich who has 0% of winning anything major............Time for revolution has the world tried Communism becuase it really does sound good I know its new but i have heard good things or what is this Fascism thing i have been hearing about.:)

[DB-ERAUPilot]

I haven't paid too much attention thus far, but...

Paul: A decent candidate who will eventually be buried by the R base for the fact that he's not nearly insane enough.

Thompson: Just what the country needs, another Hollywood celeberity. Let's see how long he can keep sitting on the fence.

Clinton: Her election will mean that every President since I started voting will be either a Clinton or Bush and I'm not into dynasties. Other than that, a solid, if uninspiring, choice which would have the entertaining benefit of sending untold numbers of conservatives into apolexy (just think of Bill O'Reilly alone... :lol:). I'm wary of her stubborn streak, her inability to admit error about her Iraq vote is just plain dumb.

Obama: Solid and inspiring. But I am still wondering if he realizes what he would be up against. His ideas about national unity are very inspiring but run into the problem that conservatives in this country (at least as represented by the Rs) have demonstrated that they're only interested in power for themselves at the expense of Americans.


agreed on all points, yeah Hillary's inability to admit mistakes reminds me of the current chimp occupying the office now :-( Right now, I'm pulling for Obama but that could change, the more I learn about Ron Paul, the more he seems like a viable candidate, but like you said he seems to exercise too much common sense to be their nominee, they'll most likely go with a guiliani :roll:

[INAT]

Obama is the biggest bag of hype I've ever seen. The people that want him president must get mind control injections every morning because he ISN'T ARTICULATE(yes I said it!), he isn't EXPERIENCED and he is a big government liberal!


Hmm except for liberal you could be describing Feurer Bush.And FOX news injecting mind control

[Shellshock1918]

Hmm except for liberal you could be describing Feurer Bush.And FOX news injecting mind control


What makes you think I like Bush?

oh and neo-cons are liberal twats.


Ron Paul for President!

[budgie]

Ill bet his "anti-american agenda" sticks in the maw of the right wing victims around here ;)

What should bother them more is that the troops seem to prefer a candidate who will make bringing them home a priority. Perhaps the "support the troops" crowd at home don't have such a handle on what it is the troops really want after all...

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.


He is a conservative that voted against the war. Without Iraq the left would not like this man. I like him because unlike Bush he is a Conservative. Have not seen any other Republicans like him .
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

If the first sentence is true why does Paul oppose income tax and Jus Soli citizenship, which are both authorized in the constitution?

[Will Clark]

Megaraptor;3026350']If the first sentence is true why does Paul oppose income tax and Jus Soli citizenship, which are both authorized in the constitution?

Just because the constitution provides for them doesn't mean he has to like them. So what if the constitution says the feds can collect income tax, it doesn't say they have to. So what if the constitution says anyone born here is a citizen, it doesn't mean an amendment can't be made to change that. And while he will accept and follow these things now, at the same time he can always rally to amend them out of the constitution.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Just because the constitution provides for them doesn't mean he has to like them. So what if the constitution says the feds can collect income tax, it doesn't say they have to. So what if the constitution says anyone born here is a citizen, it doesn't mean an amendment can't be made to change that. And while he will accept and follow these things now, at the same time he can always rally to amend them out of the constitution.

Sure he can disagree with the constitution, just don't claim he's a "strict constitutionalist" when he's picking and choosing which parts of the constitution he thinks should be applied.

[shocker1]

I suggest you do some research on this subject. Ask yourself, can a Constitutional amendment go against the core meaning of the Constitution? The period of 1913-1941 is very interesting when it comes to power shuffles, civil liberties, states rights and changes in our financial system. The SCOTUS has ruled several times pro and con on income taxes. Many have won jury trail against the IRS. The subject of your labor being taxable is debated by scholars and many compare your labor to your own thoughts. Are they taxable? According to the 16th amendment Congress basically said to hell with apportionment or source, we will take what we want. There by according to valid opinions goes against Article 1 sec 9. So his view is valid IMO, that amendment can be construed to tax the carbon you exhale. That is next you know, you have to breath to function while you make money. I would like to hear Hank's opinion on this subject.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[hank]

Well I will give it. It has been the law in this country for many many years that income tax is constitutional and frankly to suggest otherwise is, at this point, ludicrous. And I totally did just say ludicrous.

Yeah, you can't just add an amendment that contradicts the body of the constitution. That is my arguments against the anti-slavery amendments. i argue it was always unconstitional based on the body and the BoR.

Same with income tax. The Fed Govt can levy an income tax. Get over it.

I think you'd be surprised how few successful challenges ot fed IT there have been. Certainly not in more that 50 years has there been one.

hank

[shocker1]

I think there is too much to debate hank to say get over it. The taking of money from people to Government should be debated every year. Never cease, always on top of the agenda so as to at least feel like things are accountable which IMO are not. I think the 16th gives way to much power to tax and would have made his Royal highness proud.

Any rate I make too much I will get hit somewhere, If the IRS is abolished I am sure I will pick up the tab along with you too.

[hank]

I mean, this argument about IT was relevant in the 1920's maybe. But not now. Questioning the authority to tax is ridiculous. Questioning the amount or how its spent is always relevant. But the ship has sailed on whether the fed govt can tax income. Of course they can.

That is all I am saying. I think fed taxes are out of control. Constitutional? Yes. Too much? Absolutely.

I'd love to see many a fed govt agency shut down as constitutional. But that doesn't impact the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

Make sense?

hank

[shocker1]

It does make sense and I think the debate should center on the power the 16th handed out and the definition of income. From what I have read that is where most of the contention is. When I read the 16th it really alarms me at how short it is, with no sections of definitions, limits, checks or anything. It justs reads like a royal decree and my gut says the founders would not like it at all. I mean we Revolted over much less.

[hank]

That is how the con is. Everyone acts like it is a statute. Its not and never was. Its not rules, its a guide. Read the 4th A and think about getting stopped by the LEO. Its just not all there. Taxation is the same way. We have no choice but to make it up a little as we go. That is the very reason teh New Deal was such a big deal. To say the the New Deal brought the cat out of the bag is a huge understatement.

I love it when people decry the "slippery slope" argument. Slippery slope has killed states rights. Its just that simple.

hank

[shocker1]

I got interested in the monetary history of our country back in college. The crash of 29 was of particular interest and the mechanics of what precipitated that resemble today. You had a few hold all the major shares in the market and the public in the 20's was investing in stocks like we do. It was the in thing but when the major holders decided to go cash heavy and sell off. This caused a price crash in the stocks, this destroyed pensions, real estate prices, small businesses and allowed those cash heavy manipulators to buy up things pennies on the dollar. IMO it was all done on purpose to sell the Central banking idea and script currency. An idea Congress and Presidents for 100 years prior fought to prevent. All in all something looks mighty fishy to me. Norman Dodd is an interesting figure to study when investigating this issue. His experiences and investigation are very alarming.

[hank]

That and Old Joe Kennedy decided to manipulate the market. Another story for another day.

hank

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I suggest you do some research on this subject. Ask yourself, can a Constitutional amendment go against the core meaning of the Constitution?...There by according to valid opinions goes against Article 1 sec 9.

Umm yes...that's why it's called an amendment...

[shocker1]

Megaraptor;3026511']Umm yes...that's why it's called an amendment...
UMM yes and you could not buy a bottle of sour mash without the Feds taking your shack and choppin up the old man in the hills still. The only reason he was in the hills is because he was laid off from the JD distillery. That was all Constitutional, does not mean it is in the spirit of the core principles of the Constitution. Not a very good counter point from your post.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

UMM yes and you could not buy a bottle of sour mash without the Feds taking your shack and choppin up the old man in the hills still. The only reason he was in the hills is because he was laid off from the JD distillery. That was all Constitutional, does not mean it is in the spirit of the core principles of the Constitution. Not a very good counter point from your post.

The law of the land is governed by the letter of the Constitution, not its "core principles."

[hank]

I think Shocker's point is that if an Amendment were to conflict with the body then all bets are off and SCOTUS would interpret. Its not as simple as an Amendment overrules the body in cases of conflict.

hank

[hank]

Megaraptor;3026596']The law of the land is governed by the letter of the Constitution, not its "core principles."

Also, no Court has ever followed the "letter" of the Constitution. Read it sometime. It is nebulous to the point of absurdity. Much room for interpretation.

hank