[Ron] PAUL’S AD PUSH

msnbc ^ | Oct 27 07 | Domenico Montanaro

[freedomdefender]

On the heels of a St. Anselm College poll showing Ron Paul in fourth place with 7 percent in New Hampshire, the candidate is starting to spend some of those millions he’s raised with radio ads and an upcoming TV ad. But Paul is also stepping up efforts in direct mail. The campaign put together a 12-page biographical pamphlet being mailed out in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire Presidential Watch blog reports, “The mailing comes at the same time that Ron Paul will spend $1 million on five New Hampshire television commercials.”

Paul has also spent $430,000 on a new radio ad, which will run in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada. The 60-second ad, an appeal to New Hampshire independents, mentions Paul’s name 11 times and focuses on conservative principles of spending, foreign policy and taxes and mentions “flip-flopping” Republicans and Bill Clinton.

[chesty_puller]

You must admit that he is awesome on 2nd Amendment rights, pro-life issues and small government.

So is David Duke.

[BlackElk]

1. Recognize the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception.

2. Insist accordingly that the unborn be treated no differently under state law than any other person per the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (i.e., if you can't murder adults or born children by burning and dismemberment, states cannot sit idly by and tolerate mass murder of the unborn that way either.

I recognize that this proposal seems unlikely and it always used to seem that way to me but I have become convinced of it and I also believe that each slaughtered infant is infinitely more precious than ANY piece of paper.

Why is it always the conservatives or others seemingly on the right who get their undies in a bunch over constitutional provisions whereas our enemies can ignore the constitution as they choose, kill 50+ million babies, create a vast unconstitutional welfare state, protect convicted murderers galore and generally do whatever they please, constitution or no constitution, while we sit around worshiping the work of the founding demigods of two + centuries ago who could not possibly have imagined the swamp that their created nation has become???

[rb22982]

You are a nut.

[rb22982]

Ron Paul says he opposes abortion but he said he would leave it up to the states, ie, he would not use the power of the presidency to abolish abortion if elected.

This is the way abortion/murder ALWAYS was and always has been until Roe vs Wade. You do realize repealing Roe vs Wade would do exactly what Ron proposes? Ron is more conservative on abortion than 99% of Republicans in office. What bill did Bush introduce to ban abortion or any house/senate leaders in the 6 years they were in charge?

[rb22982]

It ceased being a state decision in the wake of Roe v Wade, or did you perhaps sleep through 1973?

Paul has said he would have a litmus test for judges to repeal Roe vs Wade. That's more than Bush required (at least publically)

[freedomdefender]

I never said that Ron Paul was responsible for Saddam's behavior,

No, you said he didn't care about it. By that logic, you don't care about brutality in Zimbabwe or Sudan, because you're not arguing for a US invasion of either country - or of any other dictatorship (that isn't in the Middle East). You and Ron Paul agree - you both don't favor US invasions of countries just because they're dictatorships; except that you, mkjessup, become inconsistent when it comes to Middle East dictatorships. Paul has a single standard, you have a double standard. And you blast Paul as not being concerned with victims of dictatorship - but only in those dictatorships that you want to invade, not in dictatorships that you don't want to invade. It makes me a little dizzy to try to follow your reasoning, but hypocrisy and double standards always do.

[mkjessup]

It's folks like you who voted for Perot and gave us eight years of Clinton.
Whatever.

Truth hurts eh?

Have fun voting for your gun-grabbing baby killer. You'd better hope Thompson is the nominee or I'll be spending election night getting wasted and taunting you people.

Wise up and pay attention: my candidate is NOT a 'gun-grabbing baby killer', which I presume is a reference to Rudy-Tooty?

The only way I would vote for Giuliani would be if Jesus Christ Himself personally appeared in front of me and told me to do so, and I can virtually guarantee THAT ain't gonna happen.

How do you like me now eh?

[Grunthor]

So you would approve a dictatorship....so long as the dictator agreed with you?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

EEE: Your last post to me???? Is that a promise or a threat?

It's neither. I'm conceding that you're an idiot and further debate is usless.

Meanwhile you can continue to claim that paleoPaulie's absolute REFUSAL to do anything meaningful about ENDING the abortion holocaust

Go to my previous posts and click on the underline, highlighted word thingy Hint: It's called a link that'll give you all the answers.

I do not concede to Dr. Demento or his websites or his love slaves

YEAH! SMACK MY TUSH AGAIN DOCTOR PAUL! YEAH!

the right to exclusivity in defining his legacy and I won't so long as he insists on being the two-faced fraud and phony that he is.

Paid for his own medical career and he's a fraud. Ooohkay.

Delivering babies as an OB-GYN is an occupation and not a political or moral effort.

It's just lumps of tissues and cells crying non-stop waiting to be held into the Mother's arms, right? Plucking babies out of the vagina. It's the equivalent of picking oranges in the grove, I tell you!

As to Julie Annie and your prior support for it, that is as relevant as Mitt Romney's record or John Kerry's. You brought up Julie Annie in attacking MaggieM.

I didn't mean to attack her I was merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans bashing Paul but having no problem with a pro-abortionist authoritarian. MaggieM if you're reading this, my bad.

I would also remind you that if you mention me, courtesy suggests that you ping me. You have failed to do that several times lately even when directly attacking me.

Not if you're already on the existing thread. Go back and read your FR for Dummies book ("A Reference for the rest of us!")

Finally, I tried to access SOME of what you suggested and got back that it was not available on this server.

The very top link (You know, the one in big font) would've took you to Paul's online library. (Code Pink built the site. Good job they did, eh?)

1. Recognize the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception.

See HR 1094 and get educated.

2. Insist accordingly that the unborn be treated no differently under state law than any other person per the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (i.e., if you can't murder adults or born children by burning and dismemberment, states cannot sit idly by and tolerate mass murder of the unborn that way either.

That will take a Constitutional Amendment and there's no way it'll pass in today's environment.

Paul would nuke Roe vs Wade and states will be free to ban abortion without out-of-control federal judges sticking their grimy noses into it.

I recognize that this proposal seems unlikely and it always used to seem that way to me but I have become convinced of it and I also believe that each slaughtered infant is infinitely more precious than ANY piece of paper.

Dr. Paul saw an abortion. Live. Up close and personal! You can't get any more pro-life than that! Now stop engaging in this smear, it's beneath FR.

[mkjessup]

It ceased being a state decision in the wake of Roe v Wade, or did you perhaps sleep through 1973?
Paul has said he would have a litmus test for judges to repeal Roe vs Wade. That's more than Bush required (at least publically)

Unless Ron Paul had a friendly set of Senators on the Judiciary Committee, you can bet your litmus that not ONE of his picks for the SCOTUS would ever even get out of committee.

At this moment, it's

Bush - 2 (Alito and Roberts)
Paul - 0 (and it will stay zero, because he ain't gonna be the Prez!

[GaryLee1990]

This has nothing to do with Ron Paul or politics. I was posting some comments and came across your picture. Now I'm hungry...I believe it's time for dinner...maybe Red Lobster.

Gary
WatchingHillary.com

[svcw]

5 is not 12

[jmc813]

1. Recognize the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception.

Paul sponsored a bill to do exactly this. You'e just choosing to ignore this little fact. Get your shift key checked, BTW.

[jmc813]

It ceased being a state decision in the wake of Roe v Wade, or did you perhaps sleep through 1973?

If you feel like I do that abortion is murder, then it should be a state issue.

[jmc813]

The only way I would vote for Giuliani would be if Jesus Christ Himself personally appeared in front of me and told me to do so, and I can virtually guarantee THAT ain't gonna happen.

Wait a second, you just jumped down my throat for saying I'd go third-party if Rudy is nominated (post 111). I'm confused.

[mkjessup]

I never said that Ron Paul was responsible for Saddam's behavior,
No, you said he didn't care about it.

Pay attention for once will you? In post 115 I said:

"...he (IN MY OPINION) wouldn't have given a good g*d@mn about the Iraqi people as long as America could hide between our two oceans like we used to do way back in his 'good old days' that he aspires to."

I did not make a blanket statement that Ron Paul "didn't care", I said that *in my opinion* that Ron Paul is more concerned about hiding between the two oceans on either side of us to the exclusion of all else. He wants to pull out of Iraq. He doesn't care about the consequences. He doesn't see any need to take action against Iran. He doesn't care if they get a nuke, that much is evident. His words establish that. How much plainer does it have to be before it dawns on you?

By that logic, you don't care about brutality in Zimbabwe or Sudan, because you're not arguing for a US invasion of either country - or of any other dictatorship (that isn't in the Middle East). You and Ron Paul agree - you both don't favor US invasions of countries just because they're dictatorships; except that you, mkjessup, become inconsistent when it comes to Middle East dictatorships. Paul has a single standard, you have a double standard. And you blast Paul as not being concerned with victims of dictatorship - but only in those dictatorships that you want to invade, not in dictatorships that you don't want to invade.

That has got to be one of the biggest pile of pure unadultered horse manure ever posted on FR. You are spouting off infantile nonsense that has no validity in the real world. This isn't about Zimbabwe or Sudan, your invoking those nations is nothing but a diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from the fact that Ron Paul is an isolationist, if he had been President over the past six years, the world would be facing the prospect of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq, Libya (I hasten to remind you) would STILL be a potential nuclear power, there is no telling what sort of shenanigans the Syrians would have already gotten away with in partnership with North Korea, and the reason that scenario never materialized is because America stepped up and did what had to be done.

It makes me a little dizzy to try to follow your reasoning

You were dizzy long before you ever had the misfortune of crossing my path.

By all means, continue to talk nonsense.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Paul sponsored a bill to do exactly this. You'e just choosing to ignore this little fact. Get your shift key checked, BTW

It doesn't matter to them, jmc813. Because of Paul's somewhat flawed foreign policy views, then by default he's a liberal and should be smeared like Dems do to Christian conservatives. But Fred! can hold a libertarian position on abortion before going into the Senate and sponsor the legislation that restricted the free speech of the pro-life movement, and it's no big of a deal.

[rb22982]

Republicans have had the presidency for 19 out of the last 27 years and we haven’t overturned Roe vs Wade yet. You can keep thinking the establishment of Republicans will do it.

[SJackson]

So you would approve a dictatorship....so long as the dictator agreed with you?

BlackElk pretty much restated the long held Republican position in favor of a constitutional amendment protecting life. It's in the platforms. Yes, the dems are opposted, and since he hasn't supported it, it's reasonable to assume that Ron "take the kid across the state line to Planned Parenthood" Paul doesn't suupport it either.

You should read the platforms if you're going to post about Republican positions, since they're not much like Ron Paul positions, despite his attempts to somehow arrogate his 1% or 2% to being representative of the GOP.

There's nothing about dictatorship in the platform.

[mkjessup]

Wait a second, you just jumped down my throat for saying I'd go third-party if Rudy is nominated (post 111). I'm confused.

Ok, let's back up. In '92 and '96, the choices before the electorate were:

'92 - George H.W. Bush / Bill Clinton / Ross Perot

'96 - Bob Dole / Bill Clinton / Ross Perot

Now for all of their faults as RINOS, neither Bush Senior or Bob Dole were pro-abortion NARAL 'Champions of Choice' like Rudy Giuliani. Voters who chose the Texas madman Ross Perot DID in fact put Clinton in the White House not once, but twice by siphoning off enough votes to prevent a GOP victory. The issue was not abortion however.

Fast forward to the present day. We are now faced with the possibility of a GOP nominee who is no different on the issue of abortion than any potential 'Rat nominee.

If you were stating that Rudy is unacceptable to you as a presidential candidate, then we are in agreement. If the GOP nominates a pro-abortion, gun-grabbing adulterer as the standard bearer, then that will establish that the Party of Reagan has de-evolved into nothing more than 'Rat-Lite, and it will have done to conservatives what the Democrat Party did to Reagan, when he said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me".

A presidential ticket with Giuliani on it leaves conservatives no choice but to go third party because the net result of voting for Giuliani or the 'Rat nominee will be the same: continued leftist/liberal policies across the board.

Are you still confused? LOL