PDA

View Full Version : We Need to Put Pressure on HQ to Take the Federal Matching Funds




michaelwise
01-29-2008, 09:54 PM
I don't give a shit about the principle involved if any. The media blackout leaves us no other alternative. If we put massive pressure on HQ to take the federal matching funds, I believe HQ would do so.

UtahApocalypse
01-29-2008, 09:55 PM
No No No No !!!!

ronpaulfan
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
No

newmedia4ron
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
here we go again:rolleyes:

why not everybody donate $100 on feb 1st

Benaiah
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
no

UtahApocalypse
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
I don't give a shit about the principle involved if any. The media blackout leaves us no other alternative. If we put massive pressure on HQ to take the federal matching funds, I believe HQ would do so.

When you don't care about the principles, you have no principles at all. that's exactly how the GOP got where it is today.

bgoldwater
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
That would be completely against principle.

skgai
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
No! Without principles, you stand for nothing.

virginiakid
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
Yeah bad bad bad idea. That is a sure death sentence.

yongrel
01-29-2008, 09:56 PM
NO!

F*** NO!

wfd40
01-29-2008, 09:57 PM
here we go again:rolleyes:

why not everybody donate $100 on feb 1st

because they wont because we haven't done very well yet....

I know, truth sucks

virginiakid
01-29-2008, 09:58 PM
nay I add, why don't you think none of the other candidates take it? You take it, it appears that your candidacy isn't doing so well. Even though it is, it would appear otherwise and therefore would be a sure death sentence.

TER
01-29-2008, 10:00 PM
Absolutely no!

ArrestPoliticians
01-29-2008, 10:00 PM
Why is it immoral to use legal means to defeat the enemy? You guys sound like the whiny British complaining about Mel Gibson's guerrilla tactics in "The Patriot".

AlexMerced
01-29-2008, 10:02 PM
again, we need to focus on the long term of the movement, if we sacrifice long term sustainability of movement for short terms gains... we will lose the war

We can still win the battle either way

yongrel
01-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Why is it immoral to use legal means to defeat the enemy? You guys sound like the whiny British complaining about Mel Gibson's guerrilla tactics in "The Patriot".

You're asking a man who didn't let his own children take federal college aid to take millions of dollars from the taxpayers? Pfft.

ArrestPoliticians
01-29-2008, 10:02 PM
nay I add, why don't you think none of the other candidates take it? You take it, it appears that your candidacy isn't doing so well. Even though it is, it would appear otherwise and therefore would be a sure death sentence.

Let me give you an example of why you are right: John Mccain :eek:

TER
01-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Then which principle will you erase after that?

fuzzybekool
01-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Hell No !

ArrestPoliticians
01-29-2008, 10:03 PM
You're asking a man who didn't let his own children take federal college aid to take millions of dollars from the taxpayers? Pfft.

Its the responsibility of the federal government to ensure fair national elections, is it not? This is a good way of doing just that.

InLoveWithRon
01-29-2008, 10:03 PM
The media would rip Paul to pieces every hour of every day if that were to happen..

He would be ruined.. Stupid idea.

virginiakid
01-29-2008, 10:03 PM
Personally I am not against it, but the perception would not be good. When John Edwards took the matching funds there was a big debate as to why he took the matching funds and whether or not his campaign would survive. They will so the same with RP but worse.

amonasro
01-29-2008, 10:03 PM
Why is it immoral to use legal means to defeat the enemy? You guys sound like the whiny British complaining about Mel Gibson's guerrilla tactics in "The Patriot".

Because the legal means suck. It limits the amount we can spend in each state, and there are other limiting rules that go along with it.

It's not free money.

If it were such a great thing why aren't the other broke candidates doing it?

spudea
01-29-2008, 10:04 PM
What is so bad about federal matching funds? Ron Paul needs all the help he can get to fight the establishment.

ArrestPoliticians
01-29-2008, 10:04 PM
John Mccain did it.

Buffalo Bruce
01-29-2008, 10:04 PM
Chinese loans? No, thanks.

michaelwise
01-29-2008, 10:04 PM
The funds are given voluntarily, that's why it is OK. We are going to continue to be ignored by the MSM, and because of this we will not win. Wit the extra money we could at least reach more people and get our message heard by more people than we would otherwise.

virginiakid
01-29-2008, 10:05 PM
John McCain may have taken matching funds ( I guess he did according to your post) but he is also a darling of the media.

Ilhaguru
01-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Have other candidates taken them out yet?

DealzOnWheelz
01-29-2008, 10:07 PM
it's not just extra money

you guys are acting like its free trade its not its the equivalant to NAFTA its managed trade.


You are heavily restricted in how much you can take in campaign contributions and how and where you spend it

IT WILL DESTROY THE CAMPAIGN

chelu
01-29-2008, 10:08 PM
whoopie-doo if McCain did it. yea just what we're striving for, "to be like McCain". aren't the matching funds even capped at $10 million? Put all the pressure you want on HQ to take the funds, just don't use this "we" crap because only the fringe of supporters would see this as a good idea.

DealzOnWheelz
01-29-2008, 10:08 PM
And If It Was So Good Hillary Would Have Taken Them To Make Her $100million = $200 Million

Trust Me Its Not Good

Liberty_is_NORML
01-29-2008, 10:14 PM
I'm torn...

If we are willing to take money from some less than desirables I don't see why see why we shouldn't take that damn money from the government to further this message.

I think it is that important. There may NEVER be another freedom candidate like Dr. Paul.

But yeah, no way we really could do it and not bastardize everything we stand for.

ronpaulfan
01-29-2008, 10:17 PM
BETTER IDEA:

LET'S FORCE DR PAUL TO SUPPORT BUSH AND THE IRAQ WAR TO GET VOTES!!!


Fail

RobS
01-29-2008, 10:21 PM
People are missing the point. There is no principled reason to not take the funds. The funds are given by people voluntarily, you have to check the box to put money into the matching funds pool.

The problem with matching funds is all of the restrictions that are then put on the campaign. There are then limits to how much you can spend per capita and all sorts of fun government rules.

DealzOnWheelz
01-29-2008, 10:27 PM
People are missing the point. There is no principled reason to not take the funds. The funds are given by people voluntarily, you have to check the box to put money into the matching funds pool.

The problem with matching funds is all of the restrictions that are then put on the campaign. There are then limits to how much you can spend per capita and all sorts of fun government rules.




+1776

amonasro
01-29-2008, 10:31 PM
There are then limits to how much you can spend per capita and all sorts of fun government rules.

Gotta love fun government rules. :rolleyes:

robert4rp08
01-29-2008, 10:49 PM
I understand the principle perspective. It used to be mine also.... but recall a quote by Ron Paul... roughly, "Sometimes you have to work with the system even if you disagree with it." For example, Dr. Paul opposes the income tax, but does he file? Of course, but he's fighting it from the "inside."

Take the matching funds. Buy national Ad time. Win the White House. Give the money back to the people as President.

But yeah... Dr. Paul will make the right decision, and trust in that. He's a smart cookie.

robert4rp08
01-29-2008, 10:50 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about the regulations that go along with matching funds. Good point!

kirkblitz
01-29-2008, 10:50 PM
he still wont get air time in the media but to say hes taking the funds and betraying himself