Las Vegas Odds Makers Say Ron Paul DEFEATS Hillary
RON PAUL DEFEATS HILLARY
unless they know it's a sure deal.
-------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/030807Republicans.htm
Ron Paul Leads Republicans in Web Traffic by a Whopping 45%
Christopher Costigan
Gambling911.com
Friday Aug 3, 2007
If web traffic has any relevance in determining which candidate
becomes the next US President, Ron Paul has just won....by a long
shot.
A recent review by ClickZ.com has the Texas Republican representative
with 45.38% of the overall market share, followed by Mitt Romney at a
distant 13.93%. Ron Paul gained 6 percentage points over the previous
week. Both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain lost around 4 percentage
points.
Among the Democrats, Barack Obama continues to be a strong front
runner, though he lost 6 percentage points following the CNN/YouTube
Debate while Hillary Clinton at 24.14% gained nearly 5 percentage
points.
Interestingly, Ron Paul has taken the lead from Obama among all web
searches (Democrat and Republican) this week.
So who are the bottom feeders in both parties?
Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd barely have 2% of the overall market
among Democrats while Tommy Thompson and Jim Gillmore lag far behind
on the Republican side.
Web traffic also suggests that Mike Gravel was helped the most by the
recent CNN/YouTube Debate. His web market share jumped from 1.50% to
8.15% following the debate.
Red
If Hillary does win in 08 does this mean Republicans don't own those
Diebold machines anymore?
Gooserider
"RON PAUL DEFEATS HILLARY" <ronpauldef...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1186150853.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The odds makers in Vegas don't bet BILLIONS of dollars on something
> unless they know it's a sure deal.
I don't believe that the elites understand how absolutely hated Hillary is,
so I think ANY Republican can beat her---especially Ron Paul. His message of
limited government, no IRS, immediate removal of troops from Iraq and
Afghanistan, and his history of consistant principalled political stands
looks fantastic next to her.
Gooserider
"Red" <RedRed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1186184454.9...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
It is quite bogus that the Iowa GOP is going to use Diebold machines for the
Straw Poll, despite their being decertified in two other states.
patmp...@gmail.com
> "RON PAUL DEFEATS HILLARY" <ronpauldefeatshill...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1186150853.4...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The odds makers in Vegas don't bet BILLIONS of dollars on something
> > unless they know it's a sure deal.
>
> I don't believe that the elites understand how absolutely hated Hillary is,
> so I think ANY Republican can beat her---especially Ron Paul. His message of
> limited government, no IRS, immediate removal of troops from Iraq and
> Afghanistan, and his history of consistant principalled political stands
> looks fantastic next to her.
Yep. I'm a leftist, but I would be overjoyed to have the opportunity
for vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton.
AKA
<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186564781....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why? What issues does Ron Paul stand for that interests you. Forget Hillary
but she will continue to get support from the Bush financial machine.
me
<ronpauldefeatshill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The odds makers in Vegas don't bet BILLIONS of dollars on something
> unless they know it's a sure deal.
Odds makers don't "bet" anything. Odds makers position the odds
to try to ensure that there are as many winners and losers. They
also try to ensure they get as many bets as possible. The whole point
of odds is to encourage people to bet on long shots. Being
the 100 - 1 candidate isn't a good thing.
Oh, and your quoted story isn't about odds makers, it's about
"web traffic", which is less a measure of support than curiosity.
I've visited Paul's website, and have no intention of supporting him
at all.
patmp...@gmail.com
<nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In messagenews:rlgui.1229$3x....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net, AKA sprach
> forth the following:
>
> >> Yep. I'm a leftist, but I would be overjoyed to have the opportunity
> >> for vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton.
>
> > Why? What issues does Ron Paul stand for that interests you.
>
> war, at a minimum. Leftists who dig even deeper have already discounted
> Hitlery, B. Hussein Osama, and the Faggot.
That's right. I won't vote for the nomination of a pro-war candidate.
So Hussein is out. Basically I don't see voting for anybody that far
right of Dwight Eisenhower.
As for Ron Paul he is anti-war and anti-Israel and a true anti-
government conservative, as opposed to all the phoney anti's we've had
since Reagan. His nuttier ideas have no chance of being implemented,
so I don't worry about that. He is honest and has principles. I don't
see him breaking the law.
Gooserider
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns99865042C1...@66.250.146.128...
> In message news:rlgui.1229$3x....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net, AKA sprach
> forth the following:
>
>>> Yep. I'm a leftist, but I would be overjoyed to have the opportunity
>>> for vote for Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton.
>>
>> Why? What issues does Ron Paul stand for that interests you.
>
> war, at a minimum. Leftists who dig even deeper have already discounted
> Hitlery, B. Hussein Osama, and the Faggot.
That's true. Ron Paul's stand on civil liberties should appeal to EVERYBODY.
He's a true libertarian, so that means live and let live.
patmp...@gmail.com
<nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In messagenews:1186576529.4...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> sprach forth the following:
>
> > As for Ron Paul he is anti-war and anti-Israel
>
> intervention in the Middle East hurts both us AND Israel. Here is an
> excerpt from an excellent recent interview by Human Events:
>
> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21840&page=1
>
> HE: I want to get into your feelings on -- your views on Israel, which is
> what drives the Islamo-terrorists crazy, the existence of Israel. Would we
> just abandon Israel?
>
> RP: No, I think we should treat them like everybody else. And, I think... I
> think our policies toward Israel are setting the stage for the destruction
> of Israel, because Israel has sold out their national sovereignty to us. If
> they feel as if their borders are infringed or if they want to move their
> borders, uh...
>
> HE: But if they are attacked, would we defend them? Should we defend them?
>
> RP: I'll get to that.
>
> HE: Okay.
>
> RP: But we have to... They have to get permission from us. When Israel
> attacked the nuclear site in Iraq in the early 1980s, you can go back and
> find out that I was one of the very few that defended Israel, because they
> were condemned at that time.
>
> HE: Right.
>
> RP: So when they sell out their sovereignty to us, they cannot defend
> themselves as they see fit with their borders, or attack. And also, when
> they want to develop peace agreements with their neighbors, we impede it.
> They want to talk the Syrians, right now, and we say, you're not allied. A
> large faction wants to deal with the, uh, United... the United Arab Front.
> And they won't talk to them. So the Israelis would have a have much greater
> incentive if we weren't there... Israel has 300 nuclear weapons and they can
> take care of themselves. Matter of fact, in the Persian War, if Israel and
> maybe some friendly Arab allies who didn't want to see Saddam Hussein
> spread, I think they could've taken care of Saddam Hussein back in the
> early 1990s instead of that stuff that we got into now for 17 years. So I
> would treat Israel like all friends and treat them respectfully, and
> friends, and trade with them. But we don't have the moral right to commit a
> whole generation to go and die, for any country. I mean, one generation
> can't condemn the next generation, through a treaty, to go to war
> automatically without the declaration of Congress.
OK. But doesn't Paul want to cut off that 3 billion a year in foreign
aid to Israel? I've always heard that Israel could not maintain its
oppressive policies without that money.
Basically he seems to be saying that the US should be adopting a
position of neutrality towards Israel, which would be a major decrease
in support for that country. I'm all in favor of that.
patmp...@gmail.com
<nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In messagenews:1186627468.4...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
> sprach forth the following:
>
Right. Foreign aid is usually a bribe that the US government pretends
is humanitarian. I've heard complaints recently about the US being
outbribed by the Chinese as they now have so many dollars.
However in the case of Israel I'm sure the money is for killing
people.
cocoa
Too bad too.
AKA
<patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186672671.4...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Bush is requesting approval for an additional 30 billion arms deal for
Israel, 20 billion for Saudi Arabia, 40 billion for Lebanon and 13 billion
for Egypt. The White House cabal is clearly insane and at a loss for any
coherent resolution in the mideast.