New Ron Paul Campaign Ad Destroys Newt!

Wow! You said it. Paul's ad is dynamite. And as a result, poor old Newt is up to 52% on townhall, a gain of 29.4%, compared to Paul, who has surged (backwards) down to 11.9%, a loss of 4.5%, about a third. I think we need another dynamite Ron Paul ad to push Newt up another 29%. Go Paul!

Originally posted by romanmel
Best proof of job situation here in the Indy area is this...The Indianapolis Star used to have two sections in the Sunday newspaper devoted to jobs, now three pages of truck driver and health care professional ads.
Sad.

While I agree that there are not as many jobs as their could be, the above is not evidence of this.

The above is evidence of the decline of physical newspapers.

"Used to be" is no more. Most papers have a great many jobs listed online - usually in partnership with a job search website - and don't waste their print on want ads anymore. In addition, employers don't waste their money on advertising in newspapers that nobody is buying.

Harte

reply to post by schuyler


To clarify, this ad was originally meant for the internet, has not been on for televised broadcast in key states yet, hence no polls would be affected by this ad, why don't you consider that aspect?

Since when did national polls matter? did it matter for McCain when he was third in polling in 2008 and then swept the frontrunners for the GOP nomination? If you want to look for the amount of support Ron Paul has, look nowhere else but Iowa where he is 22% with republican voters 25% with mixed voters and 38% with independent voters.

Schuyler, you troll and troll and troll, even after the mod specifically asked for it to stop, you know what you did. Karma will have its way with you.

But you won't answer this because you tend to drop troll bombs and never return to the scene of the crime.

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Seabag, we all watched the debates... you are just repeating waht they said.

I mean at least have your own idea, how can you call other people sheep, when you just repeat what the candidates say... I mean seriously....

It was almost word for word.... wow.. ever hear the word hypocrite

Who am I repeating word for word?

Why don’t you stop criticizing the way I say things and address the issue? I’m stating what I believe. I’m not repeating anyone word for word. The fact is, Ron Paul wants to do what the Obama administration tried to do….drag terrorists into the courtroom. I disagree with that. Terrorists should be killed or taken to military tribunal if captured. It is the job of the military to handle foriegn enemies, not Johnny Cochran.

Originally posted by StarPeace
LOL REALLY?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAaa....

man you followers of something. You are just like the Obama followers before he was elected..
Keep drinking that koolaid.

Ron Paul is not a salesman? Like the rest? WOW...

OH and Mr. "Mr. Prophet" Paul is down to 8%.. Seem like the American people outside of this site and his little fan site are picking anyone except Ron Paul...



You can raise all the money in world (LOL Money Bomb), but if the American people don't want ya they just don't like ya .

Newt Gingrich really? Oh man.......

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

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

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

I agree with you in that every man alive is just the lesser evil. But when you compare RP to all the other bozos that are running, he starts looking pretty good. You don't have to be like a obot to think that.

Yer thats guys a puppet,just following the money like most of them.

But really,its people that follow these stupid "races" is what keeps them alive...

They have made it into a "media sport".Except all the points on the board are fixed.

The longer you listen to these guys,the longer it goes on.

Cheers

reply to post by seabag


Yes, and my response to you is. Where is the proof?

You came in this thread saying how the ad was out of context and proceeded to attack Paul's foreign policy, to no avail, I might add.

You said terrorists or enemy combatants of former American citizenry lose all of their rights under the Constitution but where is the proof, recorded in public court that he was guilty? How can you say somebody is treasonous without proof or conviction? We're not JUST talking about Al Awlaki, we're talking about ANYBODY that the government chooses to deem terrorist or enemy combatant.

Like I said in my earlier post, two lawyers determined his fate. LAWYERS & NOT witnesses, per article 3 of the Constitution.

Where is the absolute proof? If the military, cia, dod, pentagon or anybody had the proof, they wouldn't need lawyers to decide, they would be able to convict him in a speedy trial but that wasn't necessary, not even for his teenage son.

What happened to your nuclear Iran argument? Since you didn't rebut my Iran explanation, your silence is acquiescence and you know you were wrong. If you, an active military service person, can be absolutely wrong about an entire sovereign and foreign nations' missile capabilities, I don't trust your knowledge on the Constitution either.

I don't need to comment...RON PAUL 2012!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by maddog99

 

The video shows a bunch of crap. Don’t listen to the so-called journalists, listen to what Newt said and look up his explanation.

Newt has admitted he was wrong about global warming and has proclaimed he doesn’t believe in it. Obama believes in GW. Romney is like Newt – said he belived now he’s doesn’t.

The “right wing social engineering” comment about Medicare was explained. He says he didn’t mean Paul Ryan’s plan was “right wing social engineering” but that he didn’t support drastic, immediate changes in a program that affects so many Americans.

As far as Fanny and Freddie; Newt was a paid advisor to Fanny and Freddie, not a lobbyist. He told them how to get out of trouble and they didn’t follow his advice – they did the exact opposite. Fanny and Freddie have cost the U.S. $317 billion. Newt’s cut to advise them was 0.0005% of what they have cost the country in fraud and abuse. Maybe they brought Newt in just so they could use these cute sound bites for his future presidential bid???

This is a campaign smear tactic by Ron Paul. I understand he’s desperate. With numbers as low as his I’d expect these out of context attacks.

Newt Newt Newt - is he a personal friend of yours..?

reply to post by maddog99
I watched the vid a couple of times and I saw nothing that has not been said already a dozen times.None of what Paul put in this vid had any context and was just cheep sound bite shots.

I really thought Paul was better then this..........................I guess I was hoping he was not just another cheep shot clone politician.........wrong again.

reply to post by maddog99


The only thing I want to see from candidates is their stance on issues. I hate politicians who stoop to character assassination instead of discussing issues. Paul was on my list. I'm not so sure if he is going this route. Only childish, immature people like this sort of campaigning and they deserve what they get.

I'm also bothered by him refusing to say if he will go third party. He can't win the nomination, so to me that means he is. If he does, Obama wins and I'm sure he knows that. So if he does do it, is he actually in Obama's pocket.

Sorry but I don't trust any of them, no matter what they say. I'd be a fool if I did and I'll never understand groupies who never can answer serious questions about their candidates.

Watch this guy, his past history is not exactly squeaky clean.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by StarPeace

 

I disagreed with seabag earlier in this thread, did I call him a troll? did I even infer that he was trolling? nah.

Oh PLEASEEE. Most of your posts on this site are:

1.) Spamming Ron Paul videos.
2.) Trashing other Candidates
3.) Trashing other people views if they don't agree with you or Paul.

You sir are the troll.
Hell on on any other site people would consider you a spammer.

You are one of the reasons why this site needs a ignore feature.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by maddog99

 

The only thing I want to see from candidates is their stance on issues. I hate politicians who stoop to character assassination instead of discussing issues. Paul was on my list. I'm not so sure if he is going this route. Only childish, immature people like this sort of campaigning and they deserve what they get.

I'm also bothered by him refusing to say if he will go third party. He can't win the nomination, so to me that means he is. If he does, Obama wins and I'm sure he knows that. So if he does do it, is he actually in Obama's pocket.

Sorry but I don't trust any of them, no matter what they say. I'd be a fool if I did and I'll never understand groupies who never can answer serious questions about their candidates.

Watch this guy, his past history is not exactly squeaky clean.

Well, where did RP attack his character? He attacked him on his obvious less than admirable political carreer and how he's a carreer flip-flopper.
Do we forget so easily how unfair the GOP as well as the MSM has been to Dr. Paul?

And who cares if he won't answer on the third party question? If he said yes, that could kill him in the polls and destroy any chance at the Republican nomination. Pretty damn smart of the man if you ask me.

Sorry I can't answer any of your serious questions. Maybe if you read through this thread you could have found a few.

And please show all of us groupies RP's less than sqeaky clean past. And you can save the lies from the anti-Paul web sites. We've laughed at it before.

Ron Paul has a good chance of winning, we only need people to stop listening to the media and study the politions. Ron Paul is and always will be the man we need in office.

I like that vid it shows just how Newt got to where he is.I still find it hard to believe that such a loathsome creature is a former Speaker of The House.Not much better then Nancy Pelsoi and Reed.