Santorum Crushed in New Ad (Finally, the Truth is Out)

[KSoze]

Awesome. If they want to play nasty with Paul, then this is what he should be doing. We saw what sitting on the sidelines getting your butt kicked did for Newt in Iowa.

 

[SillyWabbit]

If Reagan was resurrected he'd be found unacceptable.

If Jesus himself came back, this bunch would tell him to take a bath, cut his hair and get a job.

and call him a fag--with a wink in their eye.

 

[WatertheTree]

Rick Santorum's wife, Karen, had a 2nd trimester abortion in October of 1996.

I dunno if there is any truth to that but it sure would be funny.

 

[FactFinder]

Santorum Crushed in New Ad (Finally, the Truth is Out)

In the lesser of 2 evils between Romney and Santorum. Santorum wins hands down. But you Reps have plenty of dirty laundry, heh?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube

Utter bullshit, yet further evidence that the only people crazier than Ron Paul are Ron Paul supporters.

What did he say that's bull shit? Ron Paul is one of the few in this race that would seriously cut government and give the states back their power. The other is maybe Perry.

I like Santorum on social issues, but he seems a little like George Bush otherwise. Has my vote, but theres nothing bullshit about Ron Paul.

I'm with Paul until he starts with the truther crap and foreign policy.. then, to me at least, he sounds like an utter loon. And when his supporters call in on radio shows, they all sound batshit crazy.... to me.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Santorum Crushed in New Ad (Finally, the Truth is Out)

In the lesser of 2 evils between Romney and Santorum. Santorum wins hands down. But you Reps have plenty of dirty laundry, heh?

And Dems don't? Most al of them, be it (D) or (R) seem to have their share of dirty laundry. Hell, the grand Pooh Pahs of the Dem's were an ex Klansman and a drunk who left a girl to drown in a car.

 

[Paulie]

Wow. NASTY ad . . .

What's so nasty about it?

It presents facts about the guy that would be at odds with what a conservative would want, that the MSM won't report on.

Most voters don't actually research candidates enough to these things about them, because they let the media sway their opinions.

Ads like this are needed.

You have to ask yourself...why aren't the other candidates doing it to Paul? He's pretty much got himself locked into #2 behind Romney from here on out, especially as Perry and Gingrich fade, so why aren't they going after him?

 

[Dot Com]

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube

Dr. Pauls ads are the most effective IMHO. He also called Santorum(R) a liberal on CSpan because of his spending

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube​

 

[Paulie]

Utter bullshit, yet further evidence that the only people crazier than Ron Paul are Ron Paul supporters.

What did he say that's bull shit? Ron Paul is one of the few in this race that would seriously cut government and give the states back their power. The other is maybe Perry.

I like Santorum on social issues, but he seems a little like George Bush otherwise. Has my vote, but theres nothing bullshit about Ron Paul.

I'm with Paul until he starts with the truther crap and foreign policy.. then, to me at least, he sounds like an utter loon. And when his supporters call in on radio shows, they all sound batshit crazy.... to me.

What "truther crap"?

 

[Conservative]

Wow. NASTY ad . . .

What's so nasty about it?

It presents facts about the guy that would be at odds with what a conservative would want, that the MSM won't report on.

Most voters don't actually research candidates enough to these things about them, because they let the media sway their opinions.

Ads like this are needed.

You have to ask yourself...why aren't the other candidates doing it to Paul? He's pretty much got himself locked into #2 behind Romney from here on out, especially as Perry and Gingrich fade, so why aren't they going after him?

the lobbyist 'facts' were debunked earlier in the thread. The rest is likely just as much crap.

Maybe Paul should practice what you preach, and actually research before he approves an ad.

 

[Paulie]

Wow. NASTY ad . . .

What's so nasty about it?

It presents facts about the guy that would be at odds with what a conservative would want, that the MSM won't report on.

Most voters don't actually research candidates enough to these things about them, because they let the media sway their opinions.

Ads like this are needed.

You have to ask yourself...why aren't the other candidates doing it to Paul? He's pretty much got himself locked into #2 behind Romney from here on out, especially as Perry and Gingrich fade, so why aren't they going after him?

the lobbyist 'facts' were debunked earlier in the thread. The rest is likely just as much crap.

Maybe Paul should practice what you preach, and actually research before he approves an ad.

I didn't see you debunk anything. You questioned whether or not he received the most lobbyist cash.

I don't know if he received "the most", but what I do know is that the guy has some seriously questionable ties to lobbying projects and has a horrible record of growing government. Everything else in the ad is easily verifiable. His record SUCKS.

I don't see this guy as a friend to the people, or "main street" as it's come to be known, at all.

 

[Conservative]

What's so nasty about it?

It presents facts about the guy that would be at odds with what a conservative would want, that the MSM won't report on.

Most voters don't actually research candidates enough to these things about them, because they let the media sway their opinions.

Ads like this are needed.

You have to ask yourself...why aren't the other candidates doing it to Paul? He's pretty much got himself locked into #2 behind Romney from here on out, especially as Perry and Gingrich fade, so why aren't they going after him?

the lobbyist 'facts' were debunked earlier in the thread. The rest is likely just as much crap.

Maybe Paul should practice what you preach, and actually research before he approves an ad.

I didn't see you debunk anything. You questioned whether or not he received the most lobbyist cash.

I don't know if he received "the most", but what I do know is that the guy has some seriously questionable ties to lobbying projects and has a horrible record of growing government. Everything else in the ad is easily verifiable. His record SUCKS.

I don't see this guy as a friend to the people, or "main street" as it's come to be known, at all.

Re read the posts. They cited proof did not even MENTION lobbyist cash. How can you put out an ad claiming something, citing a source for your claim, and have the source not even MENTION your claim?

That's the definition of a lie. Unless Paul can offer proof, it's a lie.

And if everything in the ad is easily verifiable, how was I so easily able to disprove the point I chose to concentrate on?

 

[Paulie]

According to the Opensecrets website, Paul is right:

Lobbyists: Top Recipients | OpenSecrets

#1 out of the top 20, and a significant gap between him and #2.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm with Paul until he starts with the truther crap and foreign policy.. then, to me at least, he sounds like an utter loon. And when his supporters call in on radio shows, they all sound batshit crazy.... to me.

Just remember, likes attract. You are drawn to people who you are like.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube

Dr. Pauls ads are the most effective IMHO. He also called Santorum(R) a liberal on CSpan because of his spending

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube​

And what about Ron Paul's spending?

And no, voting against the bills he inserts pork into doesnt mean he isnt responsible for the spending. It just means his a lying hypocrite.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube

Dr. Pauls ads are the most effective IMHO. He also called Santorum(R) a liberal on CSpan because of his spending

Ron Paul Ad - Betrayal - YouTube​

And what about Ron Paul's spending?

And no, voting against the bills he inserts pork into doesnt mean he isnt responsible for the spending. It just means his a lying hypocrite.

Didn't you and I already talk about this?

Earmarks are not increased spending. The money is already spent after the appropriations bill is passed. The only question is where is it spent.

Do you want Obama to have it all to use for his liberal regulatory agendas, or a conservative congressman representing his district?

Take your pick.

 

[Conservative]

According to the Opensecrets website, Paul is right:

Lobbyists: Top Recipients | OpenSecrets

#1 out of the top 20, and a significant gap between him and #2.

Why wasn't THAT used as source material in the ad, instead of something that did not prove the assertion?

Fine, he took the most lobbyist money in 2006... 6 years ago. Check out the 2008 numbers, or 2010.

Point being, not that it's a good thing, but they ALL take lobbyist money. Even Ron paul has taken lobbyist money (small amounts, true).

Better yet, here's Obama number from 2008...
Obama, Barack (D) Senate $650,813

 

[Paulie]

According to the Opensecrets website, Paul is right:

Lobbyists: Top Recipients | OpenSecrets

#1 out of the top 20, and a significant gap between him and #2.

Why wasn't THAT used as source material in the ad, instead of something that did not prove the assertion?

Fine, he took the most lobbyist money in 2006... 6 years ago. Check out the 2008 numbers, or 2010.

Point being, not that it's a good thing, but they ALL take lobbyist money. Even Ron paul has taken lobbyist money (small amounts, true).

First of all, Santorum was voted out in 2006.

Second of all, now YOU just made a claim and didn't even bother to cite a source at all, while you're complaining about someone not correctly citing a source for a claim.

 

[Paulie]

Conservative, you're right.

Paul did receive "some" lobbying cash.

According to the Sunlight Foundation, for the year 2010, he received a WHOPPING $352.

Lobbyists pay millions to honor Congress, executive branch - Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

Like him or not, after 30 years of federal government service, he can't be bought.

 

[Conservative]

According to the Opensecrets website, Paul is right:

Lobbyists: Top Recipients | OpenSecrets

#1 out of the top 20, and a significant gap between him and #2.

Why wasn't THAT used as source material in the ad, instead of something that did not prove the assertion?

Fine, he took the most lobbyist money in 2006... 6 years ago. Check out the 2008 numbers, or 2010.

Point being, not that it's a good thing, but they ALL take lobbyist money. Even Ron paul has taken lobbyist money (small amounts, true).

First of all, Santorum was voted out in 2006.

Second of all, now YOU just made a claim and didn't even bother to cite a source at all, while you're complaining about someone not correctly citing a source for a claim.

Ron Paul Paid $352 By Lobbyists, Boehner Paid $202,165, Pelosi Paid $695,282 | Libertarian News