Ron Paul's Multimillion Dollar Ad Blitz

The Ron Paul campaign is hitting the airwaves with a multimillion-dollar ad buy in several early voting states to promote the Republican presidential candidate and his economic plan. Two spots will air for two weeks in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, according to the campaign.

A 30-second ad, titled "Plan," introduces voters to Paul's proposal to balance the budget and cut $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency by abolishing five federal agencies, ending U.S. involvement in foreign wars, tightening the Federal Reserve and cutting taxes. The ad calls him "a visionary who predicted the financial crisis."

[youtube]EIAVKUqeuQw[/youtube]

“No other Republican candidate’s economic plan matches that of Dr. Paul’s, so in turn we thought it only right to follow with a worthy campaign advertising effort,” said campaign Chairman Jesse Benton in a statement.

The second ad, “Consistent,” paints the Obama administration as a failure and hits Paul's fellow Republican opponents Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Herman Cain for expressing early support for TARP -- the government’s controversial bank bailout that began under the Bush administration. Cain and Romney have since opposed to the way TARP funding was handed out. The Paul ad portrays the Texas congressman as the lone opposition to the program. “I’ve been talking about these issues for a long, long time -- we are bankrupt and we must decide which way we are going to go,” Paul says in the spot.

[youtube]B7RaYbToq7Q[/youtube]

The campaign will also run radio versions of these ads in the early states to "complement the broadcast push with substantial voter outreach on the same topics," according to a statement.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...l_hits_early_states_with_ad_blitz_111752.html

 

woohoo Ronny P. for prez !

 

I posted this thread just for your benefit.

 

thank you sir, hopefully he say's a few things you agree with*

 

No, I don't agree with almost all of his policies.

He wants to axe the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, in addition to two other ones.

His policies are too draconian. As I said, I posted it just for you to look at, not because I agree with him.

 

Unlike a lot of politicians, there are some ideas which can be agreed upon with this person. I personally find Paul to be too idealistic and blinded by his libertarian ideology. However, I DO agree with him on certain social issues like legalizing marijuana for general use as well as legalizing prostitution.

However, I'm against the idea of 100% deregulation. That would only make things worse and put the already disadvantage at a bigger one. He takes a fantasy route and assume that everything will take care of themselves. Not in a society where businesses are about maximizing profit and actually hold a lot of sway with their contributions.

For any of this to work, there would have to be an extreme altering of a lot of the laws and codes and moreover, the citizens to actually be able to govern themselves. Seems more like anarchy than libertarianism there.

 

You do know ron Paul is a racist don't you??

Hell you don't care...lol

 

Yes, I'm fully aware that Ron Paul does exemplify racist tendencies. He's no stranger to Don Black after all. I still won't support him even if he wasn't. It's all do to his conservative-libertarian philosophy.

 

such strong credence in rumors. I'm sure there were people who claimed Malcolm X as a racist.

 

These aren't simply rumors. Politicians like to keep certain things in the closet in order to keep from being scrutinized. And as of late, his voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1965 further demonstrates that. You can't hide it by nitpicking on something so trivial like "you can't tell who businesses can or cannot hire".

 

Supporting the idea that Freedom of choice means TOTAL freedom of choice does not make one a racist. but I can see how this might scare certain stereotypical blacks and blacks in areas of racially segregated mentalities.

If other cultures were to deny blacks of opportunities would that not give them incentive to create their own ?

Positive change happens when people are forced no ?

 

Are you that dense? If a hospital or restaurant blatantly discriminates based on certain physiological features, that maybe a freedom to choose, but it's also discriminatory. How can you deny this fact?

And to answer your pseudo-intellectual question, America has been slow with the times and it took legislation to get our point across, especially since this particular democratic system is too engorged into the status quo.

Lie in delusion, or you're willing to simply imply it's a choice when in fact total freedom doesn't exist nor it will ever exist, even in a libertarian society. One person's individual right would be overridden by another. This would take us back to 1980s attitudes on social life.

 

When did I deny ?

 

Reading your post here...

...contradictory much?

 

oh i see, if someone says its ok for a business owner to have complete freedom on how they run their business that person must be a racist.

p.s.

"physiological" an adjective of physiology means the study of how living organisms function.

 

You're trying too hard to come off as being smart. For the record, physiological as in:

: differing in, involving, or affecting physiological factors <a physiological strain of bacteria>

Example: Skin color or the general idea of ethnic identities which are commonly found.

And you're also dodging the entire thing. Again and I'll lay it out where it's EASY for even someone like you to comprehend.

"In my business, everyone here is allowed to check in except for those of African origin, homosexual, transsexual, etc."

You're quick to twist things around like a confused mentally handicapped stepchild. You're too guilty of that.

 

the issue here is, your afraid of not being accepted and I don't even take acceptance into account.

I think my experience with different cultures has been a lot more positive than yours.

and try as hard you want your use of "physiological" is incorrect.

 

It has nothing to do with fear, little man. It's just the reality of the world. I've been around places as well, minus outside the US, but my experiences have generally been positive as well. The difference however, is that I'm fully aware of my surroundings and understand that society isn't ready for total freedom. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for any form of government.

Understand or do I have to spoon feed you in Simple English?

And lastly, I've correctly used the term. You're just too quick to pick the first definition you see and apply it to your already broken logic. And yet, you dodged the overall response from before, so why should I respond to a blind Ron Paul worshiper any further?

 

let's not take things out of context. we're talking about businesses.

Which response ?

 

I'm not taking anything out of context, kiddo. You did. You want to go in circles with me, but you're only coming off as a fool.