Ron Paul supporters planning to send a message with historic Tea Party Money Bom

[Elwar]

http://www.prlog.org/10654528-ron-paul-supporters-planning-to-send-message-with-historic-tea-party-money-bomb.html

PR Log (Press Release) – May 07, 2010 – Ron Paul continues to shine in the national spotlight that was denied him in the 2008 presidential elections, much to the chagrin of the establishment Republican Party. The first proof of Ron Paul's support came with his winning the CPAC poll in 2010 followed by a virtual tie at the SRLC in late March, 2010. In a Rasmussen poll, he was dead even in a hypothetical 2012 race against president Barack Obama. Ron Paul has become a household name and enjoys regular support from the Tea Party movement which grew from seeds planted and nurtured by his supporters in 2008.

With so much support there have been many questions as to a possible run in 2012 to take on Barack Obama, keeping him from a second term. With this in mind, his supporters have pulled out a tried and true weapon from their arsenal; the moneybomb. A nod to the anniversary of the December 16th moneybomb that brought in over $6 million in one day for Ron Paul in 2007 on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, his supporters are preparing for another December 16th moneybomb. This time to help kick off his run for president in 2012.

The website, TheRonPaulTeaParty.com, calls for 100,000 people to pledge $100 each in order to give Ron Paul $10 million to kick off his presidential campaign. And it seems that there is a lot of support out there. With just over a week of pledges, the site shows just over $100,000 pledged to what could be Ron Paul's biggest moneybomb yet and another record breaking single day donation for a presidential candidate.

With the amount of dissatisfaction of what's going on in Washington, this may be the start of something that cannot be stopped until Ron Paul is in the White House, steering our country back to fiscal sanity and a better, brighter future.

# # #


About The Ron Paul Tea Party:
On December 16, 1773 the Boston Tea Party helped to ignite the American Revolution by dumping tea into the Boston harbor.
On December 16, 2007 the Ron Paul Tea Party helped to ignite the Tea Party movement by dumping $6 million into the Ron Paul campaign in one day.
This December 16, Ron Paul supporters will again create history. The goal: 100,000 people donating $100 each to give Ron Paul $10 million to kick off a 2012 presidential run.

[Derek]

He is not the way to go.

[Pictor Ignotus]

whoa... big deja vu

[perdedor]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

[Senator Libertas]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

[perdedor]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

Trust me, pal. If there was one person not named Sarah Palin that I would like the GOP to put up against Obama, it would be Ron Paul. I can only imagine how it would look when the Civil Rights Bill issue is raised (because, relevant or not, it would be) and Paul has to stand 10 feet away from the first black President and say he still opposes its passage. I say bring it on.

[Derek]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

Trust me, pal. If there was one person not named Sarah Palin that I would like the GOP to put up against Obama, it would be Ron Paul. I can only imagine how it would look when the Civil Rights Bill issue is raised (because, relevant or not, it would be) and Paul has to stand 10 feet away from the first black President and say he still opposes its passage. I say bring it on.

Ah, so you're one of those liberals too. The kind who hides behind civil rights in order to get votes. I should've known. Mhm, using minorities and exploiting them for political purposes has been the democrats' ways since 1964. Too bad the bill wouldn't have passed without support from the GOP. People like Al Gore's dad were firmly against it. If you ask me it was just another way for the democrats to expand the federal government in the name of a noble cause. This time they hid behind civil rigths just like when it comes to education, they hide behind school children to expand the government in the name of helping kids. Those type of liberals make me sick.

[memphis]

He's at 1% of his goal. Oh noes!

[cope1989]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

Trust me, pal. If there was one person not named Sarah Palin that I would like the GOP to put up against Obama, it would be Ron Paul. I can only imagine how it would look when the Civil Rights Bill issue is raised (because, relevant or not, it would be) and Paul has to stand 10 feet away from the first black President and say he still opposes its passage. I say bring it on.

Ah, so you're one of those liberals too. The kind who hides behind civil rights in order to get votes. I should've known. Mhm, using minorities and exploiting them for political purposes has been the democrats' ways since 1964. Too bad the bill wouldn't have passed without support from the GOP. People like Al Gore's dad were firmly against it. If you ask me it was just another way for the democrats to expand the federal government in the name of a noble cause. This time they hid behind civil rigths just like when it comes to education, they hide behind school children to expand the government in the name of helping kids. Those type of liberals make me sick.

How cynical and downright evil you sound. To even imply that liberals stand behind noble causes like civil rights and education simply to fulfill some evil plot to increase the power of the federal government is downright awful. The civil rights act was passed because african americans were living as second class citizens ten years after separate but equal was declared unconstitutional. And if you think I'm being too idealistic, just realize that most Americans, liberal and conservative, would cringe upon hearing Ron Paul declare his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act and then try to explain why. That's what would realistically happen, let's get real.
Oh, and p.s, don't think that any Republican elected into office in 2012 or 2016 would even come close to granting the current wishes of small government that the tea baggers think they want now. How quickly we forget the "small government" mentality of George W. Bush and the Republicans who passed the patriot act and took us into two hugely expensive wars. These teapartiers who are crying for small government were the same ones crying for the federal government to make gay marriage unconstitutional a few years ago and didn't say a word when Dubya drove us into debt. Criticizing "big government" will be convenient for these people until a white conservative is back in the white house again.
-I'm not saying they're all like this, but a lot are.

[pbrower2a]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

Trust me, pal. If there was one person not named Sarah Palin that I would like the GOP to put up against Obama, it would be Ron Paul. I can only imagine how it would look when the Civil Rights Bill issue is raised (because, relevant or not, it would be) and Paul has to stand 10 feet away from the first black President and say he still opposes its passage. I say bring it on.

Ah, so you're one of those liberals too. The kind who hides behind civil rights in order to get votes. I should've known. Mhm, using minorities and exploiting them for political purposes has been the democrats' ways since 1964. Too bad the bill wouldn't have passed without support from the GOP. People like Al Gore's dad were firmly against it. If you ask me it was just another way for the democrats to expand the federal government in the name of a noble cause. This time they hid behind civil rigths just like when it comes to education, they hide behind school children to expand the government in the name of helping kids. Those type of liberals make me sick.

You seem to hold that responsible government exists only to decide certain things -- everything except economic matters (appropriately left to the "experts" who own the assets). Tough! At that libertarianism is anti-democratic. I am not discussing a compromise of the power of a legislature to do horrible things to people just because a majority wants those horrible things done. Written constitutions exist in part to keep a 51% majority from dispossessing, enslaving, or exterminating the other 49%; such limitations on government power that prevent the mistreatment of religious, ethnic, and class minorities or the powerless are completely proper.

America is better -- much better -- because the amendment that outlaws poll taxes intended to disenfranchise the poor, Supreme Court decisions beginning with Brown v. Board of Education and of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oppression of blacks, contrary to racist myth, is not good for most white people; it is good only for those who can derive profit from the stultification of others' lives. Cheap labor interests, slumlords, and shyster operators? I can live without them.

So far I can imagine history judging President Barack Obama as one of the best Presidents that we have ever had aside from Washington, Lincoln, and FDR because of his effectiveness in getting landmark legislation passed, restoring integrity in government, and putting an end to a dangerous economic meltdown,  solving an international mess not of his making, and having no scandals erupt on his watch. That said, some quirk of law could have prevented him from becoming President.  If the Constitution ensured that only white people or people whose parents were both US citizens could become President, then we would have someone else. If only white people could vote in Federal elections, then we would not have him.  Maybe we would have someone like Sarah Palin, stooge of Big Oil, as President following George Worthless Bush and accept that as a norm.

An activist government that does more good than harm is better than a do-nothing government that lets social evil fester (like Tsarist Russia) until it forces people to rise against it to get some human dignity back, let alone an activist government that does pure evil (like the old Soviet Union for most of its existence).  Sure, it is possible to see Josef Stalin as the definitive evil, but I see the Romanov court that made Stalin possible through its own ineptitude as evil for what it made possible.

George Worthless Bush left America a mess. The people around him tried to establish a dictatorship -- think of the "permanent Republican majority" that Karl Rove tried to establish, a majority that would impose the agenda of Protestant fundamentalism in public schools, would have supported the further degradation of working people, would have enhanced the power of investors and executives over workers, and would have allowed further exactions of wealth from a middle class that had created and saved wealth until America would become a place much like those that many of our immigrant ancestors came from  -- places in which the Little Man had no chance... Imperial Russia, police-state principalities of Germany,  semi-feudal southern Italy, and Mexico around 1900.  With an unelected party Boss dictating things as in a Commie dictatorship we might have a political system much like China -- sure, one can make money from private enterprise... especially if one is in very good standing with the government.

[Derek]

whoa... big deja vu

I agree.

Ron Paul, 35 delegates - 1.6% of the total. Face facts, it's never going to happen.

You sound worried.

Trust me, pal. If there was one person not named Sarah Palin that I would like the GOP to put up against Obama, it would be Ron Paul. I can only imagine how it would look when the Civil Rights Bill issue is raised (because, relevant or not, it would be) and Paul has to stand 10 feet away from the first black President and say he still opposes its passage. I say bring it on.

Ah, so you're one of those liberals too. The kind who hides behind civil rights in order to get votes. I should've known. Mhm, using minorities and exploiting them for political purposes has been the democrats' ways since 1964. Too bad the bill wouldn't have passed without support from the GOP. People like Al Gore's dad were firmly against it. If you ask me it was just another way for the democrats to expand the federal government in the name of a noble cause. This time they hid behind civil rigths just like when it comes to education, they hide behind school children to expand the government in the name of helping kids. Those type of liberals make me sick.

You seem to hold that responsible government exists only to decide certain things -- everything except economic matters (appropriately left to the "experts" who own the assets). Tough! At that libertarianism is anti-democratic. I am not discussing a compromise of the power of a legislature to do horrible things to people just because a majority wants those horrible things done. Written constitutions exist in part to keep a 51% majority from dispossessing, enslaving, or exterminating the other 49%; such limitations on government power that prevent the mistreatment of religious, ethnic, and class minorities or the powerless are completely proper.

America is better -- much better -- because the amendment that outlaws poll taxes intended to disenfranchise the poor, Supreme Court decisions beginning with Brown v. Board of Education and of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Oppression of blacks, contrary to racist myth, is not good for most white people; it is good only for those who can derive profit from the stultification of others' lives. Cheap labor interests, slumlords, and shyster operators? I can live without them.

So far I can imagine history judging President Barack Obama as one of the best Presidents that we have ever had aside from Washington, Lincoln, and FDR because of his effectiveness in getting landmark legislation passed, restoring integrity in government, and putting an end to a dangerous economic meltdown,  solving an international mess not of his making, and having no scandals erupt on his watch. That said, some quirk of law could have prevented him from becoming President.  If the Constitution ensured that only white people or people whose parents were both US citizens could become President, then we would have someone else. If only white people could vote in Federal elections, then we would not have him.  Maybe we would have someone like Sarah Palin, stooge of Big Oil, as President following George Worthless Bush and accept that as a norm.

An activist government that does more good than harm is better than a do-nothing government that lets social evil fester (like Tsarist Russia) until it forces people to rise against it to get some human dignity back, let alone an activist government that does pure evil (like the old Soviet Union for most of its existence).  Sure, it is possible to see Josef Stalin as the definitive evil, but I see the Romanov court that made Stalin possible through its own ineptitude as evil for what it made possible.

George Worthless Bush left America a mess. The people around him tried to establish a dictatorship -- think of the "permanent Republican majority" that Karl Rove tried to establish, a majority that would impose the agenda of Protestant fundamentalism in public schools, would have supported the further degradation of working people, would have enhanced the power of investors and executives over workers, and would have allowed further exactions of wealth from a middle class that had created and saved wealth until America would become a place much like those that many of our immigrant ancestors came from  -- places in which the Little Man had no chance... Imperial Russia, police-state principalities of Germany,  semi-feudal southern Italy, and Mexico around 1900.  With an unelected party Boss dictating things as in a Commie dictatorship we might have a political system much like China -- sure, one can make money from private enterprise... especially if one is in very good standing with the government.

Seem? Great investigation. No I do not believe the government should be able to decide other matters as well as who gets to live and die regarding our medical system, the schools, the Patriot Act is iffy. So after all your investigation to conclude how I see, that's where I do stand. As for you 51% words, The electoral college prevents that from happening and does not allow the majority to become a mob.

[cpeeks]

I mean get real if the GOP had the same standards for delegates that the dems had Ron Paul would have had hundreds of delegates, but the GOP is winner take all. DUH!!

[Free Palestine]

I mean get real if the GOP had the same standards for delegates that the dems had Ron Paul would have had hundreds of delegates, but the GOP is winner take all. DUH!!

Ron Paul actually did very well in the caucuses.  He was only a few points behind McCain.  But, I'm not too familiar with how the whole caucus thing works.

[Derek]

I mean get real if the GOP had the same standards for delegates that the dems had Ron Paul would have had hundreds of delegates, but the GOP is winner take all. DUH!!

I thought the democrats liked the winner take all method. They sure seemed to want it in 2000 with Al Gore.

[Derek]

I mean get real if the GOP had the same standards for delegates that the dems had Ron Paul would have had hundreds of delegates, but the GOP is winner take all. DUH!!

Ron Paul actually did very well in the caucuses.  He was only a few points behind McCain.  But, I'm not too familiar with how the whole caucus thing works.

Caucuses are different from primaries. In a caucus such as Nevada for example, you can lose the popular vote but still win the caucuses. A primary is where the winner receives the delegates of the state. The GOP does a winner take all. The democrats divide the delegates up how they think they ought to be divided. Then at the convention, they get into a smoke filled room and decide whether or not you the voters made a good choice. If they feel your votes were for the right candidate then the candidate with the most delegates and caucuses wins. If they feel that someone else is in the best interest of their party, then they over rule your decision as if they know more than you.

[President Marokai]

I mean get real if the GOP had the same standards for delegates that the dems had Ron Paul would have had hundreds of delegates, but the GOP is winner take all. DUH!!

Ron Paul actually did very well in the caucuses.  He was only a few points behind McCain.  But, I'm not too familiar with how the whole caucus thing works.

It relies more heavily on activist turnout as opposed to broad popular support, thus he always did better in them. I think I responded to a jbrase post awhile back posting some primary vs. caucus numbers that his popular support was usually a third of what his caucus numbers tended to end up being in some states.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

No matter how many straw polls he wins (which DON'T matter - trust me - I've been there for straw polls - they're all bought and paid for) or how much money he raises, he won't win the nomination.

[Farage]

No matter how many straw polls he wins (which DON'T matter - trust me - I've been there for straw polls - they're all bought and paid for) or how much money he raises, he won't win the nomination.