Comments on: Ron Paul Raises $6M In 24 Hours

Campaign's "Money Bomb" Raises Money On The 234th Anniversary Of The Boston Tea Party

[v0ila]

lest we forget the Ron Paul actually broke the record for most money raised in one day, previously John Kerry held the record with 5.7 mil, now RON PAUL OWNS THE RECORD!

Thats right, a grass roots organization, a man who was told he doesn''t stand a chance, now holds the record for most money raised for his campaign in one day. =)

[cfin5]

*****VIRUS ALERT!!!*****......If you guys receive an e-mail that says MERRY CHRISTMAS do not open it! Even if it is sent by someone you know. Confirmed by SNOPES. Microsoft is saying that it is the worst one ever. It WILL burn your hard drive. Opens up with an "open log fire".......I''''m not an expert on this stuff, but a fella that I know is sent this warning to me and I believe him. Be careful!!!

[gunownerdan]

Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a rock-solid record of protecting the Constitution.

[vptimmy-2009]

It would be nice to see the mainstream media to do their own twist on this story besides using the ap template. Someone needs to grow a spine.

[vptimmy-2009]

It would be nice to see the mainstream media to do their own twist on this story besides using the ap template. Someone needs to grow a spine.

[cfin5]

Posted by johnny343sc at 11:07 AM : Dec 17, 2007---------------Nah, I say that it is the RNC that left (split) the voters with their deceit. Same way the DNC is treating their constituents. Ron''s the only answer to that problem with the voting record to prove it. Doesn''t matter whose vote it splits as the rest are the same,......CFR heel clickers they are indeed!

[l8c6]

It''s all about controlling the content by private special interests.

[l8c6]

Network neutrality regulations are opposed by free market advocacy groups as well as minority advocacy groups such as the National Black Chamber of Commerce and LULAC, which receive financial support from telecommunications companies. The Communications Workers of America, the largest union representing installers and maintainers of telecommunications infrastructure, opposes the regulations.

Advocates of "non-neutrality" regulation (or allowance) point to advantages with respect to rationing what perhaps will be scarce bandwidth. Indeed, the topic was opened because of what may be a substantial increase in bandwidth consumption as multi-media uses of the Internet expand. Carriers want content providers who support bandwidth-intensive multi-media Internet traffic to pay the carriers a premium to support further network investments.
A Wall Street Journal op-ed described the amount of data produced globally in exabytes, calling the potential bandwidth crunch the "exaflood" [14].
At times Internet traffic has already caused Internet services to fail (see congestion collapse and slashdot effect). In such cases, high latency connections result in interruption of services. An environment in which a content provider can provide a guaranteed quality of service to all customers could allow independent content providers to compete with traditional content providers in areas such as television and music broadcast, telephony, and video on demand.

[l8c6]

Advocates offer three principal definitions of Network Neutrality:
Absolute Non-Discrimination: Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[2]
Cardozo Law School professor Susan Crawford: insists that a neutral Internet must forward packets on a first-come, first served basis, without regard for Quality of Service considerations.

[l8c6]

The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate in various forums. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality rules have warned of the danger that broadband providers will use their power over the "last mile" to block applications they oppose, and also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors. Neutrality proponents also claim that telecom companies seek to impose the tiered service model more for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than for any demand for their content or services.[4]

[l8c6]

dont listen to these people spewing lies about Ron Paul and net neutrality, these people are very confused. Listen to Ron Paul oppose Net neutrality because this bill would have regulated the internet, not kept it neutral as the title may have you think. do research people, its not hard...http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Mz9pD
GHBTo

Posted by unity3111

Removing citizen limits on private corporations who are determining the speed and flow of the internet means they will advance their private causes and do as has happened to the airwaves...flood the media with right wing fascism in the form of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and a battery of demons unleashed. The web will be destroyed by a foolish citizenry that does not recognize that global corporations do not hold the common good of the citizenry in mind. The bottom line is a ruthless quest to increase the bottom line of profit through snake oil marketing scams. An intellectual dishonesty has become part of a growing culture of corruption. Minds have been perverted by the ideology of business idolatry.

[l8c6]

Consumers buy goods from an available system. It has changed through the ages. People used to shop from one farmer to the next. They might do the same more today if that option existed to a larger degree than it does. Consolidation of corporate wealth does not offer the consumer choice. That is a myth to think that we are offered choices and a functioning free for large corporate wealth generates competition. A board game of monopoly destroys competition in the end. Choices perceived by the populace are often a marketed myth. Shopping malls today are filled with a variety of specialty stores. Behind the facade of what appears to be several competitors are 2 or 3 large companies.

[unity3111]

dont listen to these people spewing lies about Ron Paul and net neutrality, these people are very confused. Listen to Ron Paul oppose Net neutrality because this bill would have regulated the internet, not kept it neutral as the title may have you think. do research people, its not hard...http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Mz9pDGHBTo

[l8c6]

"The lobbyists are in Washington to buy the politicians because the government has been weakened"

I''''m sorry, but I''''m completely missing your logic. If the government is weakened, what purpose would corporate lobbying serve? Government should be powerless to assist in corporate hegemony. Let business live or die according to the will of the consumer.

Posted by videogeek1

Government is weakened by having corporate insiders in high office and lobbying those who are not corporate insiders. I said weakened not obliterated. When the corporate lobbyists are no longer present of their own will you''ll know your government has been obliterated.

I think you''re faith in consumerism is a common distortion that superficially sounds logical but is far from it. Besides, how sick that living is perceived to be built around the market place and consumerism in our material planned obsolescent wasteful system. I mean, someone needs to put down their coffee and recognize how perverse that really is.

[king77shaw]

does Ron Paul support a new 9/11 investigation? he should, because of footage like this;

here%u2019s an independent photographer who shot close up footage of the Pentagon on 9/11 %u2013 watch it and hear what he has to say %u2013 then ask yourself %u201Cwhere%u2019s the plane?%u201D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYWIT9TSJPE

more damning Pentagon evidence here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAwtmun_aj8&feature=related

and here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=869bO4jI1po&feature=related

[antoniof123]

If this were the 2000 elections it would make a difference to me but now the Republican party as wasted its best and they have nothing left.

[videogeek1]

"The lobbyists are in Washington to buy the politicians because the government has been weakened"

I''m sorry, but I''m completely missing your logic. If the government is weakened, what purpose would corporate lobbying serve? Government should be powerless to assist in corporate hegemony. Let business live or die according to the will of the consumer.

[clestes-2009]

You go Ron!! You are the ONLY candidate that actually knows ANYTHING about the Constitution, except maybe John Edwards, and best of all, neither of you owes big business anything.

It is time to put someone in the whitehouse who is NOT beholden to the Israeli lobby, defense contractors, big oil or anyone else EXCEPT the American people!!

[danitexas]

Bought by big money interests???

Are you kidding me? Have you even researched Ron Paul? Lobbyists don''t even knock on his door.

Might want to fact check before you post.

[l8c6]

this guy is gaining traction .....

good time for an outsider

wish him luck!


Posted by neoconRcrazy


OUTSIDER? How do you figure? He''s been in Washington a mighty long time there bud denying the need for a tax payer salary cause he''s bought by big money interests.

The rhetoric flows. He''s against net neutrality and not one person in here can address the implications of this.