New Ron Paul Campaign Ad Destroys Newt!

Originally posted by maddog99
Looks like Politico is already reporting on the ad:

Ron Paul campaign video torches Newt Gingrich

I'm very curious to see if any of the MSM outlets start reporting on it also. I'm waiting to hear Newt's rebuttal if any!

No one is going to bother with a rebuttal with one of the current Republican bottom feaders. I know its harsh but true.

reply to post by seabag


Has he also said he was wrong when he wrote the forwards to Alvin and Heidi Toffler books with their 3rd waves. I them when they came out. I lived through Gingrich the first time I have no desire to repeat the diaster. Personally I believe he is the last chance the Globalists and the Banking cartels have to throw at the people. If people fall for this guy with all the baggage he is carrying. I will lose what little faith I had in the American people.

reply to post by maddog99

So, what you're saying is every time Newt or any other politician gets caught flip-flopping or being part of the fraud and abuse that's cost us, the taxpaying Americans billions of dollars, we should believe their excuses?

Not at all. I have some of the same concerns with regard to the global warming attack. 

Look, they are all scary as hell to me. Its always gonna come down to which one you can most agree with. 

Romney - Bilderberg, Ties to Wall St, pro choice, etc

Cain - Questionable ethics (yet to be determined but enough BS to kill his campaign), ties to FED Reserve. 

Huntsman - Liberal RINO

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%

Bachman - experience????

Obama - WOW....too many negatives to list

I guess I should also believe that Newt never lead the campaign against Clinton to oust him for inappropriate behavior while he was cheating on his wife? Or, the fact that he dumped her while she was in her hospital bed? Now that would be smear tactics.

Two wrongs make a right?? 

Ha, rofl. Ronnie comes out swinging. And it's about credibility, not about some trite personal issue. Too bad Newt has none, while Ron has it in spades. A bit of a twist from the Paul campaign, and probably with about as much teeth as you will ever see. Not the usual, but maybe his campaign does need a little more bite to it like this.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by maddog99

 

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%

So far off? or so on point? 70% seems about right on the percentage of the American population that doesn't know anything about, well, anything.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by maddog99

 

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%

So, listening to his security advisors then going to Congress for approval on declaration of war is scary?
I think the POTUS having the power to wage war wherever and whenever he sees fit scares the hell out of me and anyone who can realize this is turning into a military dictatorship.

Do you realize RP gets more donations from your brothers and sisters in the armed forces than any other candidate...combined? Yea, they're scared as hell too!

Two wrongs make a right??

Not sure what you mean by this but Newt was the pot calling the kettle black. Both him and Clinton are slimey but I have a bigger problem with the man looking to throw the first stone!

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I think it is because they cannot let Newt ride the media wave to the first primaries on January 3rd. Cain's media rise lasted about a month and if Newt can hold onto the establishment voter base long enough before a major scandal breaks him, he might take enough of Iowa to make Ron's win (or not win) to make it more of a Romeny v Gingrich race rather than a Paul v Romney race. It all comes down to Iowa and the Ron Paul campaign has been working extremely hard on that state, without the help of the media and it has been paying off.

We must take Iowa and bring Gingrich down before January 3rd.

I'd love to see Ron Paul debate obamabet obama walks away.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ha, rofl. Ronnie comes out swinging. And it's about credibility, not about some trite personal issue. Too bad Newt has none, while Ron has it in spades. A bit of a twist from the Paul campaign, and probably with about as much teeth as you will ever see. Not the usual, but maybe his campaign does need a little more bite to it like this.

Ya, his campaign needs something.

Not sure there's enough bite in that add to overcome all that he lacks though.

Originally posted by maddog99

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%
So, listening to his security advisors then going to Congress for approval on declaration of war is scary?
I think the POTUS having the power to wage war wherever and whenever he sees fit scares the hell out of me and anyone who can realize this is turning into a military dictatorship.

Do you realize RP gets more donations from your brothers and sisters in the armed forces than any other candidate...combined? Yea, they're scared as hell too!

No, what's scary is his willingness to allow the terrorist nation of Iran to become a nuclear power and his desire to disengage from the world. Also his desire to give terrorists constitutional rights and civilian trials.

As far as his military support, that's about 1% of the population. It's gonna take more than that.

Thats good work Ron Paul. It shows why not to vote for Gringt Newt. But he needs to say why vote for Ron Paul.

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by maddog99

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%
So, listening to his security advisors then going to Congress for approval on declaration of war is scary?
I think the POTUS having the power to wage war wherever and whenever he sees fit scares the hell out of me and anyone who can realize this is turning into a military dictatorship.

Do you realize RP gets more donations from your brothers and sisters in the armed forces than any other candidate...combined? Yea, they're scared as hell too!

No, what's scary is his willingness to allow the terrorist nation of Iran to become a nuclear power and his desire to disengage from the world. Also his desire to give terrorists constitutional rights and civilian trials.

As far as his military support, that's about 1% of the population. It's gonna take more than that.

First of all, Article 3 of the Constitution states no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or the confession in open court, the supposed 'panel' that determined Al Awlaki could be killed were lawyers, only two of them. Should lawyers be able to determine who is and isn't a terrorist? Was the second isolated drone bombing that killed his 16 year old son, justified? was it again determined by a panel of two lawyers that weren't witnesses?

It isn't the fact that Ron Paul wants to let terrorists live, he doesn't want to set a precedence for Americans to be randomly determined as terrorists, assassinated or jailed for the rest of their lives with no due process. Hell, just in these last couple of days, the US Senate is determining if people that have 7 days worth of food storage and weather proof guns can be deemed terrorists. Suddenly, anybody that is a survivalist could be targeted as a terrorist and assassinated, you REALLY want that precedence to be set? And you're a member of the Oath Keepers? wow...



On Iran:

I have a former military friend that explains Iran very simply:

Having been a PATRIOT missile defense systems operator and someone whose trained exclusively against Iran for 2 years, I want to reiterate the most important facts in regards to Iran's ACTUAL capabilities:

1) They have absolutely no missile that can reach America. None. It is a complete non-issue.
2) Their missile arsenal predominately consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-5 missiles, Scud-B and Scud-C. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental).
3) We have sold PATRIOT missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.
4) In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.
5) We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. Further, any missiles that do launch would then immediately identify launch locations we miss, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.
6) Every nuclear payload launched from Iran has a 9/10 probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself.

Ultimately, the conclusion is that it's a complete non-issue, unless Iran wants to destroy itself with no guarantee of a mutual-assured destruction of Israel. It would be complete suicide with no achievement.

And what do you deem disengaging from the world? you mean pulling troops and cutting military spending so we can wrap up this $15 trillion debt crisis? Is free market trade and open cultural exchange disengaging from the rest of the world? Where do you get your information from, soldier?

reply to post by maddog99


Damn you all for making me take an intrest in American Politics
You should be ashamed of yourselves

Good on Paul, he has managed to expose Newt without it being a smear campaign.
You guys have a winner here.
Damn,... I'm still doing it.

At this rate i'm gonna know more about American politics then i do about Australian!

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by maddog99

Paul - So far off on national security that he scares 70%
So, listening to his security advisors then going to Congress for approval on declaration of war is scary?
I think the POTUS having the power to wage war wherever and whenever he sees fit scares the hell out of me and anyone who can realize this is turning into a military dictatorship.

Do you realize RP gets more donations from your brothers and sisters in the armed forces than any other candidate...combined? Yea, they're scared as hell too!

No, what's scary is his willingness to allow the terrorist nation of Iran to become a nuclear power and his desire to disengage from the world. Also his desire to give terrorists constitutional rights and civilian trials.

As far as his military support, that's about 1% of the population. It's gonna take more than that.

First of all, Article 3 of the Constitution states no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act or the confession in open court, the supposed 'panel' that determined Al Awlaki could be killed were lawyers, only two of them. Should lawyers be able to determine who is and isn't a terrorist? Was the second isolated drone bombing that killed his 16 year old son, justified? was it again determined by a panel of two lawyers that weren't witnesses?

It isn't the fact that Ron Paul wants to let terrorists live, he doesn't want to set a precedence for Americans to be randomly determined as terrorists, assassinated or jailed for the rest of their lives with no due process. Hell, just in these last couple of days, the US Senate is determining if people that have 7 days worth of food storage and weather proof guns can be deemed terrorists. Suddenly, anybody that is a survivalist could be targeted as a terrorist and assassinated, you REALLY want that precedence to be set? And you're a member of the Oath Keepers? wow...



On Iran:

I have a former military friend that explains Iran very simply:

Having been a PATRIOT missile defense systems operator and someone whose trained exclusively against Iran for 2 years, I want to reiterate the most important facts in regards to Iran's ACTUAL capabilities:

1) They have absolutely no missile that can reach America. None. It is a complete non-issue.
2) Their missile arsenal predominately consists of Shahab-1 through Shahab-5 missiles, Scud-B and Scud-C. Most of these are IRBMs (Intermediate Range) and none are ICBMs (Inter-Continental).
3) We have sold PATRIOT missile defense systems to Taiwan, Egypt, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.
4) In order for Iran to launch any nuclear payload at Israel, they would have to first defeat the missile defense systems in Iraq, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel. Just look at line of sight from Iran to Israel and you'll see it's a foolish argument. Since there is no way for Iran to defeat these systems, their only option would be to overwhelm them. In order to do that, they'd likely have to launch their entire arsenal of missiles, which is essentially impossible due to the amount of logistics that would involve, without clearly setting of early warning WORLDWIDE.
5) We have great early warning systems that would allow us to send in our Air Force to take out most launch locations, prior to launch. Further, any missiles that do launch would then immediately identify launch locations we miss, so it is unlikely they could fire more than one volly from each location. This means that logistically, they not only have to beat our early warning systems, but they'd also have to launch from multiple thousands of locations.
6) Every nuclear payload launched from Iran has a 9/10 probability of being shot down over their own country and would cause widespread nuclear fallout for IRAN itself.

Ultimately, the conclusion is that it's a complete non-issue, unless Iran wants to destroy itself with no guarantee of a mutual-assured destruction of Israel. It would be complete suicide with no achievement.

And what do you deem disengaging from the world? you mean pulling troops and cutting military spending so we can wrap up this $15 trillion debt crisis? Is free market trade and open cultural exchange disengaging from the rest of the world? Where do you get your information from, soldier?

edit on 1-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

And to add...

Aren't we all just a bit brainwashed with all the terrorist propaganda?
How many proven terrorist threats have been thwarted in the U.S. by law enforcement since 9/11?...and be careful, that's a loaded question!

Here's something else to ponder...


Sorry, I'll take my chances with FREEDOM

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Thats good work Ron Paul. It shows why not to vote for Gringt Newt. But he needs to say why vote for Ron Paul.

He always does which is why this new ad is raising eyebrows. Not the usual gentleman we're used to. But if it's going to help get him nominated, no better scoundrel to attack.

GO RP! Hopefully they'll find a way to cut it down short enough to make a tv commercial, but still leave the strongest points. Nice to see Ron showing some teeth.

reply to post by seabag


People like you concern me. I see your all proud of being a marine and all, but you do realize our military hasn't fought an actual legitimate war since ww2? Everything after that has just been about protecting corporate interests at the behest of the american tax payer. Congrats! I see your one of the people that supports america policing the world even though we cant afford it. Woohoo status quo!! We've probably created more terrorists in the middle east than we killed since we've been over there.Whole generations of children will grow up with our current actions as the model for their mindset on the West. You dont earn friendship down the barrel of a gun. If our country is going to reach out then we should do it positively, not by blowing people up.

And oh no, we are giving people constitutional rights? Damnit man, isnt it your to job to uphold and defend the constituion on the US, Mr. "Oath Keeper"?

Id say your just as confused as mitt or newt!

reply to post by maddog99
As people of conscience look more to the facts and less to what they want to believe or what the crowd they are in wants to believe, the more corrupt and dishonest all of these Presidential Candidates are...all except one Ron Paul. If we have any chance of saving our country and turning things around, Ron Paul is it.

www.ronpaulforcongress.com...

Calm down kids.
He still only has 9-13% of support and who knows much of that is people from this site and his fan site flooding polls.

He's still not going to win.
Just over a month till real voting begins.

When he starts losing those early states, and you kids realize that random straw polls with random CITIES don't speak for entire states, and your "savior" will NOT become president.

It will be a great day when your CULT goes away.

To think this is the final time anyone has to deal with the Ron Paul hype and internet spam.