The revolution continues...

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
I just GOts to cOmmeNt

i didn;t read ANY of this threAd
[what an awful way to establish credibility so I woNt .. read on}->>>

OK, i LOVE the topic's title "The revolution continues... "

It *reminds* me of when the Russian Revolution STARTED [1917] and a palace Guard ran breathlessly into the Royal presence and exclaimed,
"My Czar, the Peasants are REVOLTING!!"

Well, his Czarina answered for him:

"My Czar, Nikkie, the peasants aren't just 'revolting' - they are downright *DISGUSTING* and we need to do something about them !!



Somehow my story seems appropriate ,, this IS P&N and the moonbeam is oft want to do similar as an analogy

rose.gif

Forgive me, for i know not what i am doing .. but as one mad shooting fiery arrows in all directions, and at random - i exclaim in my defense:
. . . "was i not having fun?"


--------
. . . top that one, moonie :p
:sun:
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
As of April 2007, there were approximately 2,885,200 members of our military (Active + Reserve).

Between January and September of 2007, RP received $63,440 in donations from "the military."

So, as of last September, even if there were 63,440 unique contributers, at $1 each (yeah right!), the highest possible percentage of support that RP can claim is 2.2% of total military personnel.

There, have some "facts," RP-style... :roll:

/cue the crickets...

Can you provide a link for the " approximately 2,885,200 members of our military (Active + Reserve)"? I'm not saying you're pulling this out of your ass, I would just like to see your source.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse74
As of April 2007, there were approximately 2,885,200 members of our military (Active + Reserve).

Between January and September of 2007, RP received $63,440 in donations from "the military."

So, as of last September, even if there were 63,440 unique contributers, at $1 each (yeah right!), the highest possible percentage of support that RP can claim is 2.2% of total military personnel.

There, have some "facts," RP-style... :roll:

/cue the crickets...

Can you provide a link for the " approximately 2,885,200 members of our military (Active + Reserve)"? I'm not saying you're pulling this out of your ass, I would just like to see your source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...y_of_the_United_States

I'd also be glad to update the calculations if you have any more recent data for whatever RP is claiming as his total contribution from "the military." I'll even continue to use the theoretical maximum of one unique contributer for every $1 donated...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this evolved argument even necessary? I mean, McCain does have it wrapped up. :D

I simply refuse to allow anyone here to continue spreading lies about the US military, so I will continue to speak out against such ridiculous slander.

Once each of the RP supporters here admits that RP has very little -- less than 2.2%! -- support within the US military, I'll stop posting in this thread.

It's that simple. :)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this evolved argument even necessary? I mean, McCain does have it wrapped up. :D

I simply refuse to allow anyone here to continue spreading lies about the US military, so I will continue to speak out against such ridiculous slander.

Once each of the RP supporters here admits that RP has very little -- less than 2.2%! -- support within the US military, I'll stop posting in this thread.

It's that simple. :)

According to your math, how much support does John McCain have within the US military?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this evolved argument even necessary? I mean, McCain does have it wrapped up. :D

I simply refuse to allow anyone here to continue spreading lies about the US military, so I will continue to speak out against such ridiculous slander.

Once each of the RP supporters here admits that RP has very little -- less than 2.2%! -- support within the US military, I'll stop posting in this thread.

It's that simple. :)

According to your math, how much support does John McCain have within the US military?

It doesn't matter. The point is that any metric based upon dollar figure donations is worthless. Extrapolation of the results is pointless. Only intellectually bankrupt buffoons would believe otherwise.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this evolved argument even necessary? I mean, McCain does have it wrapped up. :D

I simply refuse to allow anyone here to continue spreading lies about the US military, so I will continue to speak out against such ridiculous slander.

Once each of the RP supporters here admits that RP has very little -- less than 2.2%! -- support within the US military, I'll stop posting in this thread.

It's that simple. :)

According to your math, how much support does John McCain have within the US military?

according to just THIS math? even less than RP! :) but, the difference is that he's also not going around claiming substantial military support, as the Paulbots seem to be doing. And, if he did, I bet that it would probably be based on real numbers taken from real polls.

As it stands, there is no statistical or mathematical excuse for anyone to claim over 2.2% support for RP within the military.

Deal with it. :p
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this evolved argument even necessary? I mean, McCain does have it wrapped up. :D

I simply refuse to allow anyone here to continue spreading lies about the US military, so I will continue to speak out against such ridiculous slander.

Once each of the RP supporters here admits that RP has very little -- less than 2.2%! -- support within the US military, I'll stop posting in this thread.

It's that simple. :)

According to your math, how much support does John McCain have within the US military?

It doesn't matter. The point is that any metric based upon dollar figure donations is worthless. Extrapolation of the results is pointless. Only intellectually bankrupt buffoons would believe otherwise.

shhhh, I'm slowly trying to prove that point using their own data against them! LOL...
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
LOL, ok, well, we shall see who the military votes for in the GE. Someone who will keep them in Iraq for 100 years, or someone who says he'll bring them home in 16 months. :D

God forbid that bitch from hell bamboozles her way into the race.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
LOL, ok, well, we shall see who the military votes for in the GE. Someone who will keep them in Iraq for 100 years, or someone who says he'll bring them home in 16 months. :D

God forbid that bitch from hell bamboozles her way into the race.

I think for the most part they're discarding any obvious or legitimate points for obscure logic that only a few seem to grasp.
This idea that the vast majority of troops are gung-ho and enthusiastic to get the job done whatever "the job" is, is a Bush worthy fantasy.
I think most people who have friends/family in combat know from experience that the majority want to get the hell out and come home.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: bamacre
LOL, ok, well, we shall see who the military votes for in the GE. Someone who will keep them in Iraq for 100 years, or someone who says he'll bring them home in 16 months. :D

God forbid that bitch from hell bamboozles her way into the race.

I think for the most part they're discarding any obvious or legitimate points for obscure logic that only a few seem to grasp.
This idea that the vast majority of troops are gung-ho and enthusiastic to get the job done whatever "the job" is, is a Bush worthy fantasy.
I think most people who have friends/family in combat know from experience that the majority want to get the hell out and come home.

Yup, and I would bet that Obama gets their votes.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Here's an addition to the Nevada state convention I posted earlier in case some of you missed the story. The republican party is beside itself in Nevada because the Paulites have the majority numbers and are out-organizing the McCain camp.

RENO, Nev. (AP) - Outmaneuvered by raucous Ron Paul supporters, Nevada Republican Party leaders abruptly shut down their state convention and now must resume the event to complete a list of 31 delegates to the GOP national convention.

Outnumbered supporters of expected Republican presidential nominee John McCain faced off Saturday against well-organized Paul supporters. A large share of the more than 1,300 state convention delegates enabled Paul supporters to get a rule change positioning them for more national convention delegate slots than expected.

"I've seen factions walk out. I've never seen a party walk out," said Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign.

Delegates cheered earlier in the day as former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney urged support for McCain. Later, though, Paul got even louder applause as he delivered his message of individual freedom and fiscal responsibility.

State Sen. Bob Beers, the convention chairman, was booed loudly as he called for a recess Saturday evening. He said that the party's rental contract for a big meeting room at a Reno hotel-casino had expired and there was too much work left to complete.

State GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden said the rules change wasn't anticipated. She denied any anti-Paul bias, saying expected slates of national delegates were prepared through a fair and open process by the convention's nominations committee and the party thought the convention would accept them.

Source: Breitbart.com

I'm going to continue to update this story. It'll be interesting to see what shenanigans the republican party comes up with in order to thwart the Paul camp. Maybe they'll pull a romney and start busing everyone in. :D
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: bamacre
LOL, ok, well, we shall see who the military votes for in the GE. Someone who will keep them in Iraq for 100 years, or someone who says he'll bring them home in 16 months. :D

God forbid that bitch from hell bamboozles her way into the race.

I think for the most part they're discarding any obvious or legitimate points for obscure logic that only a few seem to grasp.
This idea that the vast majority of troops are gung-ho and enthusiastic to get the job done whatever "the job" is, is a Bush worthy fantasy.
I think most people who have friends/family in combat know from experience that the majority want to get the hell out and come home.

Yup, and I would bet that Obama gets their votes.

I'm voting for Obama myself, but it has nothing to do with his plans for Iraq. In fact, I don't think you realize this, but Obama wont be bringing the troops home anytime soon.. none of the candidates will.

That said, Perry404, it's mighty presumptuous of you to attempt to speak for a group of people whom you know little, if anything, about.

There is NO substantial support for RP in the military. Period.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: bamacre
LOL, ok, well, we shall see who the military votes for in the GE. Someone who will keep them in Iraq for 100 years, or someone who says he'll bring them home in 16 months. :D

God forbid that bitch from hell bamboozles her way into the race.

I think for the most part they're discarding any obvious or legitimate points for obscure logic that only a few seem to grasp.
This idea that the vast majority of troops are gung-ho and enthusiastic to get the job done whatever "the job" is, is a Bush worthy fantasy.
I think most people who have friends/family in combat know from experience that the majority want to get the hell out and come home.

Yup, and I would bet that Obama gets their votes.

I'm voting for Obama myself, but it has nothing to do with his plans for Iraq. In fact, I don't think you realize this, but Obama wont be bringing the troops home anytime soon.. none of the candidates will.

That said, Perry404, it's mighty presumptuous of you to attempt to speak for a group of people whom you know little, if anything, about.

There is NO substantial support for RP in the military. Period.

First Off I think it's blatantly obvious Obama won't be bringing the troops home as he continues to vote for the war. The man is a fraud.
Secondly I presume nothing. I've heard from very few military personal who don't want to see this thing end now.
At this point I don't really give much credence to what you think.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Nevada continued...

(Here is your Scoop!) What really happened at the Nevada GOP Convention....
Posted April 28th, 2008 by cbunce

Out Classed and Out of Options...

Politics is a never-ending game, which has little to no rules, and the rules that do exist can change at anytime. You can choose to start, or stop playing this game at anytime, but no matter how you play this game it comes down who has the most people who care.

On Saturday April 26th , 2008, in Reno Nevada, the Republican State convention came to order with a set agenda and rigged rules to basically give complete control of the Delegate process to the party. The original rules would have only a set list of people that could be chosen as a whole to represent the state called a slate. These slates were created by a small group of people and were never published, and even as we began the convention were not known.

This was the first attempt to keep complete control of the delegate selection process. After three hours of explaining how this was not representative of the convention as a body, the convention modified the delegate selection process to allow anyone to run for a national delegate position. Three would be chosen from each of the three Congressional District and twenty-two from the entire body by each person voting for twenty-two people.

It was lunch at that point in time, giving two hours for the next play to be planned. Upon reconvening from lunch at 2:27pm, no time was wasted to unfurl this plan, which was instead of breaking up into districts to make sure at least three from each one was elected, the party would be kind enough to move around arbitrarily alternates to delegate positions to ensure ?a fair distribution?, even better we shouldn't vote for twenty-two people at large because that would take far to much time, but instead vote for only five. Which took anybody with an eighth grade math understanding to know this was intended to divide our vote by four because in order to vote for twenty people you needed four people now instead of one. So this just was obliterated by the convention getting over a 75% rejection vote.

At this time we split into three districts and began to vote on delegates, this only took about an hour and went rather smoothly in district three and one. District two was continually delayed because of a dispute of whether a printed ballot was acceptable or a handwritten one was, somehow handwritten equals easier to handle to the those that ran the voting for district two. After this we came back and began to debate planks on the floor.

It was two hours in the making, the start of which was a person coming from the count room of the 2nd Congressional District of Nevada, which was the last of three districts to be counted. From our count observers in the rooms of Congressional District's 1 and 3, Paul Supporters had won all three delegates spots in District 3 and one Paul supporter in District 1. The counts of these districts took about 30 minutes after voting was completed. The 2nd District was taking very long to complete and no one could understand the delay of more then an hour, information from observers within its count room relayed that Paul Supporters had swept its three delegates as well. This meant that Paul Supporters took 7 out of 9 possible Congressional District delegates to the National Convention.

The person walking from the counting room took a straight line to State Chairwoman Sue Lowden, leaning over and whispering into her ear. After the person walked off Sue sat there for about 30 seconds tapping her foot and then stood up and walked over to Councilman Woodbury who was sitting in front of me, leaning over she said, "If we can break Quorum, can we invalidate this?" After saying this rather loudly and glancing at the expression on my face she quickly quieted down and I was unable to hear the rest of the conversation.

I sat in a dazed confusion for about five minutes trying to figure out what quorum was in this convention of 1347 delegates, which was 674 delegates. Soon after Chairwomen Lowden left, a John McCain staffer, Paul Johnson, came by. I had been gathering signs and information from him all day, and he believed I was a hardcore McCain supporter. He came up to me and got on one knee as if to propose his undying love. He began his conversation with, "They are trying to pull a coup, we are going to leave and quarter the convention." I responded, "Do we even have the numbers, all they need is a couple hundred to keep Quorum?" He answered back, "The powers that be have the numbers, I am just doing what I was told to do by my boss." At this moment I knew that they had lost control of the convention and were desperate. About an hour went by before they finally figured out they did not have enough people to pull off this little stunt.

I watched the party officers directly in front of me huddling up with the parliamentarian and trying to come up with something. Soon after this huddle, the party began to filibuster the convention filling it with videos and speakers over a course of 60 minutes. During this time Sue Lowden began barking at Chairman Bob Beers, and I could clearly see Chairmen Beers not agreeing with what she was telling him. First it was just her talking to him, then after going on and off stage to present the next video or speaker, three people gathered around him, by the fourth time he stepped off the stage, eight people were surrounding and pressuring him, which I can only assume was to end the convention, being that was the next thing that happened when he returned to the stage.

When he returned to the stage for the last time, Chairmen Beers ended the convention illegally calling an indefinite recess without a vote of the delegation to do so, at 6 pm. This was not before their first plan of ending the convention was attempted to be put into play by a member that was not informed calling for a Quorum which we would still have had. But Beers interrupted him saying, "I will save you some time", and called the indefinite recess. Later it was claimed to be the end of the contract of the room. But upon request from the Hotel they gladly gave us three more hours for free.

After five second of pure silence, disbelief, and confusion, a once consistently civil and controlled convention was thrown into ten minutes of anarchy, while the party vacated the room out the back doors. Bob Bears attempted to speak with an angry mob with little to no avail before leaving.
After this occurred we attempted to reconvene the meeting but fell 70 people short of a quorum.

This series of events leaves me with the understanding that the opinions and concerns of how Nevada Republicans want our government to work, do not matter. The only concern is that we fuel the inner party through our donations. Am I to understand that the people of Nevada are to have no representation and take marching orders from the Republican National Committee, that is two thousand miles away? To accept whatever they tell us, even if it is to support a man that never came to Nevada or would even agree to a conference call to discuss local positions on things such as Yucca Mountain. We know nothing about his positions that would affect the state in which we are to represent as delegates. When asked to come and talk before the January Caucasus, his Clark County staffer told us that he was not concerned with Nevada and would pick up delegates in May if he needed them. So we as a state are supposed to bow down and support a man who does not support our state?

We must complete a process of debate and discussion until we complete the National Delegate process. Being dictated to from people two thousand miles away is reminiscent of some of the central causes of the beginning of our great nation. So like a spoiled child the Nevada GOP officers, after being out played and without any other options they just kicked over the table and went home.

Richard Bunce
Las Vegas, NV
output

Source: DailyPaul
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,576
126
http://elections.foxnews.com/2...-for-ways-to-spend-it/

"HOUSTON ? U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is considering using $4 million left over from his failed presidential campaign to start a for-profit publishing company that would reflect his Libertarian-leaning views.

The move could test the limits of federal campaign finance rules.

?I?ve never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation,? campaign finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer told the Houston Chronicle.

Former candidates have leeway in how they use leftover campaign money.

?There?s a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it?s not personal use for the candidate,? said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.

...

Benton said the campaign has the names of 160,000 donors who have given an average of about $100 each. With people who signed up to receive campaign information, but have not donated money, the e-mail list grows to 400,000.

Presidential list are attractive because they include donors from across the country. Paul?s list also includes new participants into the presidential process, offering candidates a chance to expand their network to nontraditional donors.

On the market, the list of 160,000 donors would probably fetch about $135 per 1,000 names for each use, or about $21,600 a pop, estimated Kevin Shuvalov, a partner in Olsen & Shuvalov, an Austin firm that does fundraising and voter-contact mailings.

The Paul presidential campaign already has rented its list twice ? once to his Texas congressional re-election committee, which raised $1.4 million, according to CQ Moneyline, a site that tracks FEC records; and once to incumbent Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who serves with Paul on the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of Libertarian-minded lawmakers."

I thought Ron was supposed to be different.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://elections.foxnews.com/2...-for-ways-to-spend-it/

"HOUSTON ? U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is considering using $4 million left over from his failed presidential campaign to start a for-profit publishing company that would reflect his Libertarian-leaning views.

The move could test the limits of federal campaign finance rules.

?I?ve never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation,? campaign finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer told the Houston Chronicle.

Former candidates have leeway in how they use leftover campaign money.

?There?s a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it?s not personal use for the candidate,? said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.

...

Benton said the campaign has the names of 160,000 donors who have given an average of about $100 each. With people who signed up to receive campaign information, but have not donated money, the e-mail list grows to 400,000.

Presidential list are attractive because they include donors from across the country. Paul?s list also includes new participants into the presidential process, offering candidates a chance to expand their network to nontraditional donors.

On the market, the list of 160,000 donors would probably fetch about $135 per 1,000 names for each use, or about $21,600 a pop, estimated Kevin Shuvalov, a partner in Olsen & Shuvalov, an Austin firm that does fundraising and voter-contact mailings.

The Paul presidential campaign already has rented its list twice ? once to his Texas congressional re-election committee, which raised $1.4 million, according to CQ Moneyline, a site that tracks FEC records; and once to incumbent Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who serves with Paul on the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of Libertarian-minded lawmakers."

I thought Ron was supposed to be different.

That's a brilliant idea. In fact I was going to post that myself.
It's a fantastic way to build a base and I'll bet that 99% of the people who contributed to Pauls campaign are more than happy to see their funds used in such a manner.
Understand it before you judge.
Mind you this is not to profit Ron Paul.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
NM .. i was going to ask "what would 'profit" RP?" .. nothing presidential, i expect

c-ya in the AM

you hope not


rose.gif


good night

The long sobs of autumn's violins wound my heart with a monotonous languor
--violin strings around the heart .. wow!
:brokenheart:
-would that be langourstringi ?
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://elections.foxnews.com/2...-for-ways-to-spend-it/

"HOUSTON ? U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is considering using $4 million left over from his failed presidential campaign to start a for-profit publishing company that would reflect his Libertarian-leaning views.

The move could test the limits of federal campaign finance rules.

?I?ve never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation,? campaign finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer told the Houston Chronicle.

Former candidates have leeway in how they use leftover campaign money.

?There?s a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it?s not personal use for the candidate,? said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.

...

Benton said the campaign has the names of 160,000 donors who have given an average of about $100 each. With people who signed up to receive campaign information, but have not donated money, the e-mail list grows to 400,000.

Presidential list are attractive because they include donors from across the country. Paul?s list also includes new participants into the presidential process, offering candidates a chance to expand their network to nontraditional donors.

On the market, the list of 160,000 donors would probably fetch about $135 per 1,000 names for each use, or about $21,600 a pop, estimated Kevin Shuvalov, a partner in Olsen & Shuvalov, an Austin firm that does fundraising and voter-contact mailings.

The Paul presidential campaign already has rented its list twice ? once to his Texas congressional re-election committee, which raised $1.4 million, according to CQ Moneyline, a site that tracks FEC records; and once to incumbent Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who serves with Paul on the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of Libertarian-minded lawmakers."

I thought Ron was supposed to be different.

That's a brilliant idea. In fact I was going to post that myself.
It's a fantastic way to build a base and I'll bet that 99% of the people who contributed to Pauls campaign are more than happy to see their funds used in such a manner.
Understand it before you judge.
Mind you this is not to profit Ron Paul.

:confused:
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
http://elections.foxnews.com/2...-for-ways-to-spend-it/

"HOUSTON ? U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is considering using $4 million left over from his failed presidential campaign to start a for-profit publishing company that would reflect his Libertarian-leaning views.

The move could test the limits of federal campaign finance rules.

?I?ve never heard of anyone taking their campaign money and putting it into a for-profit corporation,? campaign finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer told the Houston Chronicle.

Former candidates have leeway in how they use leftover campaign money.

?There?s a provision that says you can use the funds for any lawful purpose, so long as it?s not personal use for the candidate,? said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission.

...

Benton said the campaign has the names of 160,000 donors who have given an average of about $100 each. With people who signed up to receive campaign information, but have not donated money, the e-mail list grows to 400,000.

Presidential list are attractive because they include donors from across the country. Paul?s list also includes new participants into the presidential process, offering candidates a chance to expand their network to nontraditional donors.

On the market, the list of 160,000 donors would probably fetch about $135 per 1,000 names for each use, or about $21,600 a pop, estimated Kevin Shuvalov, a partner in Olsen & Shuvalov, an Austin firm that does fundraising and voter-contact mailings.

The Paul presidential campaign already has rented its list twice ? once to his Texas congressional re-election committee, which raised $1.4 million, according to CQ Moneyline, a site that tracks FEC records; and once to incumbent Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who serves with Paul on the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of Libertarian-minded lawmakers."

I thought Ron was supposed to be different.

That's a brilliant idea. In fact I was going to post that myself.
It's a fantastic way to build a base and I'll bet that 99% of the people who contributed to Pauls campaign are more than happy to see their funds used in such a manner.
Understand it before you judge.
Mind you this is not to profit Ron Paul.
Then why make it a for-profit company. Who is it going to profit?
The donations were for Paul's campaign.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
I'd like to see another source.

Fox News isn't exactly very friendly to Paul.

Edit:

The campaign is evaluating what to do with the extra money. Benton said options include supporting like-minded candidates through Paul's Liberty PAC; donating leftover money to Paul's FREE Foundation, the 501(c)3 organization that publishes his newsletter; trying to influence public policy through a 501(c)4 nonprofit group; or creating "something inventive and entrepreneurial" like a for-profit corporation to produce publications.

The Paul presidential campaign already has rented its list twice ? once to his Texas congressional re-election committee, which raised $1.4 million, according to CQ Moneyline, a site that tracks FEC records; and once to incumbent Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who serves with Paul on the Republican Liberty Caucus, a group of Libertarian-minded lawmakers.

Benton said the campaign is being careful with its list because of the level of trust Paul has with his donors.

"If it's going to be used by others," he said, "it's going to be used by the right people.""

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5732113.html
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
LOL, funny stuff. Can't win, so instead of say, donating the money, he just puts it into a for profit entity. Who gets the profit? Probably him to some extent.

What a joke.