PDA

View Full Version : Second Draft of USA Today Ad




Pages : [1] 2

Bryan
11-14-2007, 08:33 AM
This is the second draft of the ad being commissioned by llepard. Obviously the final result will be just one pic. Post your thoughts.

Detailed view - top half:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8800/ad2topdg1.jpg
Lower half:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3100/ad2bottomzv2.jpg

Full view:
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1838/ad2fulldb1.jpg

Joey Wahoo
11-14-2007, 08:36 AM
Outstanding.

I'd change "legions of illegal immigrants" to "millions of illegal immigrants"

RPFTW!
11-14-2007, 08:37 AM
I think its great!

happyphilter
11-14-2007, 08:38 AM
ahhh! im so excited! it looks GREAT!

spacebetween
11-14-2007, 08:38 AM
The very last checkmark point in the bottom lefthand corner of the ad doesn't have its own line.

SgtBulldog
11-14-2007, 08:38 AM
Looks great! Changes really made a difference.

dsentell
11-14-2007, 08:39 AM
Fabulous!

nathanielyao
11-14-2007, 08:40 AM
Cool!

iskimtsnow
11-14-2007, 08:41 AM
Awesome!!!!!!!!
I think that is a perfect distillation of all the ideas brought up yesterday!!!!!

BlutStein
11-14-2007, 08:42 AM
This is simply amazing. Bravo!

ItDoesNotStopWithRonPaul
11-14-2007, 08:43 AM
Sweet ad. Most of the reasonable criticisms from the first ad seem fixed. I like that there is a lot of detail. Anyone willing to donate their money is going to be willing to read for 5 min and then research online.

Joey Wahoo
11-14-2007, 08:43 AM
I love the ad. But here's another suggestion:

I'd replace "Is opposed to a preemptive attack. advocates a humble, noninterventionist foreign policy", with simply

"Favors a nononterventionist foreign policy and will keep us out of expensive, no-win wars."

NinjaPirate
11-14-2007, 08:43 AM
cooooool. :D

drain
11-14-2007, 08:46 AM
looks great.

-adrian

BrianH
11-14-2007, 08:46 AM
So glad you changed "abolish the IRS" to "phase out the IRS". This sounds more a careful and considered approach and not quite so alarming as many might at first find it.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 08:47 AM
It's beautiful!

I myself miss that line though about "eternal vigilance".

...warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. While you (maybe "we" would be better) were distracted, the government stole your liberty and bankrupted your nation. Ron Paul would restore the vision of the Founders of this great nation.

Oh, and on that comment about donations and active military personnel. Hasn't he also received the most money from veterans?

kylejack
11-14-2007, 08:47 AM
The statement that Ron Paul never accepts money from special interest groups or lobbyists is false. He never lets it sway his vote, but he DOES accept money from any special interest group that wants to give it. Other than that, its looking good.

torchbearer
11-14-2007, 08:48 AM
In "We The People" above rons picture... the word "The" looks lifted out of place. Could you raise that entire line so that it would be level?

Mark Rushmore
11-14-2007, 08:48 AM
Maybe "begin a free and prosperous nation" rather than "set up a free and.."? It has a much smoother flow and historical feel.

10thAmendmentMan
11-14-2007, 08:49 AM
That is a very strong ad. The only critique I have is that it might not be the best idea to give the "RonPaulForums.com" address on there as... umm.... we might scare some people off if they haven't already made up their minds.

Libertarian
11-14-2007, 08:49 AM
Amazing work...It's perfect.

ronpaulhawaii
11-14-2007, 08:50 AM
Fantastic. The original was good, the changes are better. Thanks to all who are helping this effort. And my hat is off to llepard for the outlay of a fortune. I trust that everyone will tell everyone to buy USA Today on these days and we set another record...

m - who is glad to be out of the desert - only 67 mile to go today - lol - and towns all along the path - TG

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 08:50 AM
We're nitpicking you now, llepard. It's great!

Thank you so much for doing this and for being so willing to consider the comments we made.

mmarcman22
11-14-2007, 08:51 AM
There is an error though! On the bottom right side under the second checkmark, you need a space between "or special"

ShowMeLiberty
11-14-2007, 08:51 AM
Perfect! Wow - it is just... perfect!

bolidew
11-14-2007, 08:53 AM
The line
"Ron Paul supporters donated over $8 million in the first 40 days of the 4th quarter"
is redundant (and inaccurate).
One-day record already emphasize his fundraising attractiveness.

Instead, it would be better to just remove that line and use bigger fonts for "Ron Paul for President".

VRP08
11-14-2007, 08:53 AM
It is perfect!!! I love it! Again, THANK YOU!

troyd1
11-14-2007, 08:57 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but the add itself should get play in the media and will be shown over and over. Huge exposure!

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 08:59 AM
Oh, here's a big one. At least to me. PLEASE do not reference Ron Paul Forums on this ad.

Do we want people coming here who don't know squat about Ron Paul? You know as well as I do, that this is not the place for people just trying to find out more about his stances.

PLEASE do not do this.

Ozwest
11-14-2007, 08:59 AM
In "We The People" above rons picture... the word "The" looks lifted out of place. Could you raise that entire line so that it would be level?

Might be personal preferance torchbearer, but I like the way the word "The" contours above his head, especially as it is centered to the page.

dante
11-14-2007, 09:01 AM
Personally I don't think its wise to have the Ronpaulstopdreaming.com url on the ad. Everytime I read that I think its a hit piece on ron paul. AND actually i'm not sure for that matter that these forums or daily paul are the best place for someone to go to first.

Why don't we just give them the Ron Paul website and his toll free phone number that way they can call the campaign headquarters after reading this ad while driving around in their car to thanksgiving
1-877-Ron Paul

RPinSEAZ
11-14-2007, 09:01 AM
Can anyone mirror this off of imageshack? Imageshack is blocked from work.

dante
11-14-2007, 09:02 AM
The Toll Free Phone Number is 1-877-Ron Paul
it is NOT 1-877Ron2008

georgem
11-14-2007, 09:02 AM
bryan or Llepard,

do we need to get permission to use this ad?

I'd like to print out a few hundred and leave a stack of them at the front counter of my business.

I assume its not copyrighted and that the designer would like his or her work spread even further, however, I just wanted to ask?

RPinSEAZ
11-14-2007, 09:02 AM
Why don't we just give them the Ron Paul website and his toll free phone number that way they can call the campaign headquarters after reading this ad while driving around in their car to thanksgiving
1-877-Ron Paul

QFT

kylejack
11-14-2007, 09:02 AM
Personally I don't think its wise to have the Ronpaulstopdreaming.com url on the ad. Everytime I read that I think its a hit piece on ron paul. AND actually i'm not sure for that matter that these forums or daily paul are the best place for someone to go to first.

Why don't we just give them the Ron Paul website and his toll free phone number that way they can call the campaign headquarters after reading this ad while driving around in their car to thanksgiving
1-877-Ron Paul

Replace with ronpaulishope.com?

manny
11-14-2007, 09:03 AM
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful! The only thing I feel like changing is the post I made in the "running-mate" thread - forget Sarah Palin - I say Llepard for VP! :)

On a serious note - I really think these mods made are just about perfect. You have managed to remove all the little things that could confuse or scare people but the message is there 100%. I think the fact that there's lots of text and detail is important too. It should make those curious read it like an article. It also shows how enthusiastic his supporters are. A big problem we face is that every candidate says some nice things - but we all know from the record that RP is honest and will actually do them. And I get the feeling this enthusiasm shines through in this ad.

Llepard it has been said so many times but thank you so much.

(Another thing - will this ad then be able to be used by others in eg local newspapers or other national ones with a chip-in? Just wondering with all the complicated rules. But some local papers are fairly cheap to get a page and this could perhaps be used elsewhere??)

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 09:04 AM
Nevermind, would throw the whole thing off.

THANK YOU LLEPARD!

richardh
11-14-2007, 09:07 AM
llepard, thanks for what you're doing for all of us.

The only thing I didn't love about the first ad was the "We The Founders" references. IMHO, this one is perfect.

Mark Rushmore
11-14-2007, 09:07 AM
Can anyone mirror this off of imageshack? Imageshack is blocked from work.

Check PM.

c0unterph0bia
11-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Very Professional

manny
11-14-2007, 09:09 AM
And about the debate over which websites to include I think his official one and the ronpaullibrary are the essentials. Other than that it's a personal preference. Giving the official site is important since it contains the basics - remember this is aimed at people who know nothing/little about RP - and links to the youtube page, meetup page/forum, eventful, shows donations etc.

(Only other thing - do the guys running ronpaullibrary.org and ronpaulstopdreaming.com (well I mean the re-directing thing on the latter) know their address is going nationwide in case they need to change anything to cope with extra traffic?)

I can't stop looking at the ad and smiling :)

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 09:10 AM
Oh, here's a big one. At least to me. PLEASE do not reference Ron Paul Forums on this ad.

Do we want people coming here who don't know squat about Ron Paul? You know as well as I do, that this is not the place for people just trying to find out more about his stances.

PLEASE do not do this.

I agree with this.

A side note: It is very clear that the media is lurking here. So remember that when you are typing.

adwads
11-14-2007, 09:11 AM
Great Ad! Make sure you check the phone number of where to donate. Instead of keep us out of entangling alliances I would say, as suggested above, keep us out of no-win wars or something like that.

Johnnybags
11-14-2007, 09:12 AM
when they interview you, lol. I volunteer as your press release writer. No words can describe the effort you are making so I will not try. Maybe Superstupendous, an new word.

HankScorpio
11-14-2007, 09:13 AM
I would organize the bullet points on the bottom let of the ad. First list Paul's voting record and then follow with his plans for change. Right now everything is jumbled and doesn't flow.

Conza88
11-14-2007, 09:15 AM
When Ron Paul supporters raised $4.3 million in one day (more than any other GOP candidate) that got their attention.

Now its time to WIN!

Help us make December 16th the largest ever, one-day fund-raiser for any political candidate in history.


Perfect in general!!! AWESOME! - we are all nit picking now I think, besides a few valid stuff like not having rp forums up there. Also correct the few mistakes, phone no. etc

But as for this section I quoted; I think the sentence needs work. (It's in black background, so its more prominent) You need to remove the "When", plus who is "their" attention? - to;

Ron Paul supporters recently raised $4.3 million in one day. More than any other GOP candidate in history! The mainstream media is beginning to pay attention.

Now, it's time to WIN!

Help us make December 16th, in commemoration of the Boston Tea Party, the largest ever, one-day fund-raiser for any political candidate in history.... etc :D

Better sentence structure I think... didn't flow well. Plus Dec the 16th, is automatically associated with the Boston tea party? I added the words in there, to make it more obvious as TO WHY the 16th...

Conza88
11-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Great Ad! Make sure you check the phone number of where to donate. Instead of keep us out of entangling alliances I would say, as suggested above, keep us out of no-win wars or something like that.

So... do win wars? Thats not RP... he's against entangling alliances, its perfect imo.

rrcamp
11-14-2007, 09:16 AM
Amazing. I can never thank you guys enough!!!!!!!!!

Ozwest
11-14-2007, 09:19 AM
The B&W format works perfectly with the pencil-like drawings of the Founding Forefathers, and the oval sphere at the top part of the page match well with frames surrounding the Colonialists... Although the bottom half of the page is more conventional and modern, it blends with the top half, and is pleasing to the eye... Congratulations on not only producing an informative and thought-provoking advertisement for the campaign, but also a memorable piece of political art.

MadOdorMachine
11-14-2007, 09:19 AM
That's leaps and bounds better than the original. Good job!

DrNoZone
11-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Wow, I'm so impressed! The changes made make a HUGE difference. I'm so glad that llepard and those responsible listened to the constructive criticism.

deedles
11-14-2007, 09:21 AM
I wish I could see it:(

Blocked at work, too.

Mark Rushmore
11-14-2007, 09:23 AM
I wish I could see it:(

Blocked at work, too.

Check PM.

Janet0116
11-14-2007, 09:23 AM
Amazing, wonderful, I LOVE IT! Thank you so much for doing this, you are a true patriot! :)

troyd1
11-14-2007, 09:25 AM
My 2 cents.
"Ron Paul will bring the troops him now" is not accurate and scares the hell out of a lot of people. For one, he will not do this until he is elected and now means today. Also he did not say the first day in office he will bring the troops home, he said he will remove the troops as soon as possible in an orderly fashion. We cannot just pull out in one day which that conveys.

something like:
"When elected, Ron Paul will judiciously bring the troops home in an expedient manner"

In the dangers of overspending section it says we are $9 trillion in debt. I think there should also be a statement about what our government owes in unpaid ssi, pension and whatever other commitments. I think the last I seen was like $25 trillion.

On the illegal immigrant line I too agree millions would be better than legions.

"Now we are servants" should probably read "We are now servants"

Under "IF not now, When?" or somewhere there should be the phrase "Join us and take back our country!"

Also as far as looks, the text should be justify(block) aligned. It makes it look much cleaner. If anyone is not familiar with this in word it is the justify that is even on both side.

Overall this is incredible.

JJ2K1
11-14-2007, 09:28 AM
I see a lot of open room to make "For these reasons we the people support Ron Paul for President" bigger. I say try to fill in the paper as much as you can. Bottom and Top look good though.

Mark Rushmore
11-14-2007, 09:28 AM
"Now we are servants" should probably read "We are now servants".

Either one I think should be change the "to" following it to "of", the repetition of "to" "to" coming so soon is awkward.

"servants of a government to which"

rather than:
"servants to a government to which"

deedles
11-14-2007, 09:29 AM
The ad is beautiful. Changes made all the difference between good and great!

(Still think the founders pics should face each other towards the center of the page.)

llepard, you are a patriot. What a wonderful thing this is.

Thank you!

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 09:30 AM
This is an awesome ad! My only suggestion is a visual one. Change the placement of the oval pics and it will give it a lot more balance and a more unified feel. I know this has been suggested in the other thread, but here's an example just so you can see the difference:

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop.jpg

castor
11-14-2007, 09:31 AM
That is a lot better. But does anyone else think that "Ron Paul" should be bigger? I mean the main goal is to increase name recognition right? Would making his name larger than all the other text make it pop and stand out, or do you think it would it be obnoxious?

JuniorNJ
11-14-2007, 09:31 AM
This is an awesome ad! My only suggestion is a visual one. Change the placement of the oval pics and it will give it a lot more balance and a more unified feel. I know this has been suggested in the other thread, but here's an example just so you can see the difference:

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop.jpg



Absolutely! A nice small touch that makes all the difference. I second this motion.

DrNoZone
11-14-2007, 09:32 AM
This is an awesome ad! My only suggestion is a visual one. Change the placement of the oval pics and it will give it a lot more balance and a more unified feel. I know this has been suggested in the other thread, but here's an example just so you can see the difference:

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop.jpg

I second this.

Dlynne
11-14-2007, 09:33 AM
Terrific.

traitorist
11-14-2007, 09:34 AM
i agree with the redesign of the pics on top.

torchbearer
11-14-2007, 09:35 AM
i agree with the redesign of the pics on top.

+4

madRazor
11-14-2007, 09:35 AM
As great as the first one was, this is a huge improvement. My turn to chime in with some humble suggestions...

Since there is room on the line, I would like to see
"Has NEVER voted to raise taxes or for an unbalanced budget."
changed to
"Has NEVER voted to raise taxes and has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget."

And since you're using caps in the section, I kind of like "Voted AGAINST the Real ID and the Patriot Act."

I suggest replacing "legions of illegal immigrants" with something like "millions of" or "waves of"...

Can't really decide about this one... I agree that the $8 Million statement is not entirely necessary. Doesn't $4+ Million in one day sound better than 8+ in 40 days? There would be room for a larger "Ron Paul for President"... Though I do like the "find out why" part...

Anyway, it looks awesome!!!! Thanks again!!!

max
11-14-2007, 09:36 AM
Well, it's not my money...but as the original author of the piece, I'm disappointed that certain timid naysayers influenced the watering down important points.

1. The Founders should be speaking to the American people. That's the whole creative aspect of the message....we messed up and they are holding us accountable. The people who claim that is "presumptuous" know nothing about marketing. The mesage is not as powerful because it's no longer "coming from the founders"...That was the whole point

2. Removing the part about political parties was a HUGE mistake. The vast majority of Americans are Independents...and an even bigger majority are just turned off. Even among Democrats and Republicans...approval ratings for both GOP and the Dem Congress are at an all time high. This point separated RP from the 2 party monster.

3. Removing the media line...another error.... You people are dreaming if you think this media honeymoon is going to last. They still think RP is just an exciting novelty act. When he truly becomes a threat...you will see attacks like you've never seen before. This was a good chance to prepare people for the attacks.

But some of you are so damn afraid of the media that it's pathetic..."chicken revolutionaries"

My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with it because the naysayers are generally unimaginative downers who will demorlaize u and water down your original concept.

same gang that tried to kill Hamedah's Muslim ad.
same gang that complained about V day.

also...TAKE THESE FORUMS OUT OF THE AD!.....You treally want the average american exposed to nuts like me?...lol

torchbearer
11-14-2007, 09:36 AM
Deadlines friday right?

torchbearer
11-14-2007, 09:37 AM
Well, it's not my money...but as the original author of the piece, I'm disappointed that certain timid naysayers influenced water down important points.

1. The Founders should be speaking to the American people. That's the whole creative aspect of the message....we messed up and they are holding us accountable. The people who claim that is "presumptuous" know nothing about marketing. The mesage is not as powerful because it's no longer "coming from the founders"...That was the whole point

2. Removing the part about political parties was a HUGE mistake. The vast majority of Americans are Independents...and an even bigger majority are just turned of. Even among Democrats and Republicans...approval ratings for both GOP and the Dem Congress are at an all time high. This point separated RP from the 2 party monster.

3. Removing the media line...another error.... You people are dreaming if you think this media honeymoon is going to last. They still think RP is just an exciting novelty act. When he truly becomes a threat...you will see attacks like you've never seen before. This was a good chance to prepare people for the attacks.

But some of you are so damn afraid of the media that it's pathetic..."chicken revolutionaries"

My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with because the naysayers are downers.

same gang that tried to kill Hamedah's Muslim ad.
same gang that complained about V day.

also...TAKE THESE FORUMS OUT OF THE AD!.....You treally want the average american exposed to nuts like me?...lol

Same here.

troyd1
11-14-2007, 09:44 AM
I agree with the picture change!

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 09:50 AM
Well, it's not my money...but as the original author of the piece, I'm disappointed that certain timid naysayers influenced the watering down important points.

1. The Founders should be speaking to the American people. That's the whole creative aspect of the message....we messed up and they are holding us accountable. The people who claim that is "presumptuous" know nothing about marketing. The mesage is not as powerful because it's no longer "coming from the founders"...That was the whole point

2. Removing the part about political parties was a HUGE mistake. The vast majority of Americans are Independents...and an even bigger majority are just turned off. Even among Democrats and Republicans...approval ratings for both GOP and the Dem Congress are at an all time high. This point separated RP from the 2 party monster.

3. Removing the media line...another error.... You people are dreaming if you think this media honeymoon is going to last. They still think RP is just an exciting novelty act. When he truly becomes a threat...you will see attacks like you've never seen before. This was a good chance to prepare people for the attacks.

But some of you are so damn afraid of the media that it's pathetic..."chicken revolutionaries"

My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with it because the naysayers are generally unimaginative downers who will demorlaize u and water down your original concept.

same gang that tried to kill Hamedah's Muslim ad.
same gang that complained about V day.

also...TAKE THESE FORUMS OUT OF THE AD!.....You treally want the average american exposed to nuts like me?...lol

I agree. Max created the ad, has more experience with it than anybody, and has heard more feedback on it than anybody. There will never be a full agreement of how a project like this should look with so many "cooks in the kitchen", but Max's opinion should be weighed heavily.

ronpaulitician
11-14-2007, 09:51 AM
Agree with the picture change.

Agree with most of max's sentiments.

The whole "warned against political parties" thing might turn out as somewhat of a prophecy when Paul decides to run as an independent. (And, now that he's doing so well, I think we'd be able to convince him to do just that if he comes in a close second or third in the primaries.)

hillertexas
11-14-2007, 09:56 AM
maybe a "www" in front of the websites at the bottom...help out the less computer savy.

Great 2nd draft!

klamath
11-14-2007, 09:59 AM
I think it is a great ad! I Do agree that we don't want newbies getting exposed to RP's ideas on this forum! This is the grassroots headquarters and to the outsiders they can't see the whole history of this forum and what drives threads. Send them to RP08 and the RPlibary. Remember the official campaign website is where people have to go to donate.....

Ah just thought of something, would putting RP's official website be considered cooperating with the campaign and negate nonaffilated status?

parke
11-14-2007, 10:00 AM
I love it.

raystone
11-14-2007, 10:03 AM
That is a very strong ad. The only critique I have is that it might not be the best idea to give the "RonPaulForums.com" address on there as... umm.... we might scare some people off if they haven't already made up their minds.



Agreed....other sites listed are good/great, however, the most professionally framed information is on Ronpaul2008. readers should be directed there

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:03 AM
i agree with the redesign of the pics on top.

Yes, it would give it more balance, but do you really think Benjamin Franklin should be up at the top with Washington, and Jefferson put off to the side?

I'm just sayin', sometimes there are more important things than the way the pictures are balanced.

Drknows
11-14-2007, 10:06 AM
Well i must say i agree with everyone including max. I like the idea it mentions Ron Paul in a positive light.

We all have our own thoughts on what it should look like but Its llepard's money and he should have final say.

Personally if it was my ad i would just put a huge picture of the Ron Paul supporter holding the sign that says" i just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul". jk :D

lisajames96
11-14-2007, 10:13 AM
Awesome! Can't wait to see it on the newsstand. I told people here at work to check it out, and asked the cashier in our cafeteria to make sure they come in that tuesday and wednesday. I have personally never bought a newspaper in my life.:o
With inflation, I thought they would cost more, but it's only $.75. I might buy a few and place them strategically around the cafe tables. People like free newspapers and will read them when laying around too.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 10:15 AM
I personally agreed with the idea of having the Founders being the speakers, since it does make a more profound statement. It may seems presumptuous, but advertisements tend to be presumptuous and sometimes that's their biggest hook. Without them as the dominant speakers the actual strength of the ad becomes weak.

I also think the Tea Party block is now much too wordy. The old version was fine the way it was.

I think one additional warning would also be important, though perhaps one that's simple a re-wording of the media version that focuses more on flip-flopping politicians. I think attacking the media in a newspaper ad about policy is silly.

Other than that I think the changes are great.

troyd1
11-14-2007, 10:23 AM
The pictures can be put in any order that they need to be and still have them facing each other, you just need to do a mirror image in any editing software, it is simple.

smither
11-14-2007, 10:30 AM
I am considering doing this in our local paper - much more affordable! Is the original, editable document available anywhere?

Thanks!

slantedview
11-14-2007, 10:31 AM
This is so good. I have no critique to ad to what's been said.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:31 AM
Awesome! Can't wait to see it on the newsstand. I told people here at work to check it out, and asked the cashier in our cafeteria to make sure they come in that tuesday and wednesday. I have personally never bought a newspaper in my life.:o
With inflation, I thought they would cost more, but it's only $.75. I might buy a few and place them strategically around the cafe tables. People like free newspapers and will read them when laying around too.

Good idea. :D I can't wait to get one too.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:33 AM
..

thomj76
11-14-2007, 10:33 AM
The phone number is 1 877 Ron 2008. The line about never accepts money from special interest groups is not accurate. If someone does a FEC search it shows that he has received money from special interest groups, though in extremely small amounts.
In the top line, humbly I recommend asking a question.

'They warned us it was our responsibility to keep it that way. Have we strayed from their wise counsel?'

Then, 1st Warning, 'Ron Paul will bring our troops home in an orderly fashion, and strive to keep us out of entangling alliances'

3rd Warning, 'Ron Paul will stop spending beyond our means, restore fiscal sanity and balance the Federal Budget.'


Congressman Ron Paul...

Year after Year is voted "Taxpayer's Friend" by the National Taxpayers Union, and has never voted for an unbalanced budget

Will protect Social Security for seniors while allowing young people to transition out.

Will stop spending US Taxpayers dollars to build and police nations.

Voted to go after terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Stood against the UN Authorization of Force regarding Iraq, instead making appeal that if we went to war in Iraq, it should be a formal declaration of war, and not another extended War Powers Act Operation.

source: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

"I donít believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we donít need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be Ďfrivolous.í

***************

I like the ad a lot. If we have people reading down to the bottom, lets try to clarify that Ron Paul is not weak on National Defense, he just wants to follow it according to the US Constitution. The small amount of time in going into Afghanistan demonstrates a situation where the "War Powers Act" is applicable, where as the Iraq situation, with months, if not years of preparation falls squarely into a "formal Declaration of War area"

I also like this quote from Ronald Reagan, though am not sure if it has a place in here.

'Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows full well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.'

-Ronald Reagan-


As the primaries get closer, in closed states (such as Florida) we have to tailor the message to appeal to Republicans.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I hope that they will be of benefit...I'm sure I will have more :)

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 10:34 AM
The revision is great in its current form with the exception of a few copy errors mentioned.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:36 AM
My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with it because the naysayers are generally unimaginative downers who will demorlaize u and water down your original concept.

That would certainly work in the case of Llepard, as he's paying for the ad all by himself.

For others though, who are trying to get others to pay for the ad, not so well. ;)

hillertexas
11-14-2007, 10:38 AM
"Personally I don't think its wise to have the Ronpaulstopdreaming.com url on the ad. Everytime I read that I think its a hit piece on ron paul. AND actually i'm not sure for that matter that these forums or daily paul are the best place for someone to go to first. "

I agree...I waited for the longest time to even watch "Ron Paul stop dreaming" because I though it was anti-Ron

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:39 AM
The phone number is 1 800 Ron 2008.

Actually, NO, this is not a valid number for the campaign.

The numbers that work are:

1-877-RON2008 and 1-877-RON-PAUL.

.... and I have verified these with the campaign.

Zimmychonga
11-14-2007, 10:40 AM
Should his picture be at least as big as the founding fathers' pictures?

DJ RP
11-14-2007, 10:40 AM
Amazing Ad! I really like it! I second changing 'legions' to 'millions' re illegal immigrants.

also, bottom right section "or special interests", the 'or' and the 'special' look like one word, maybe increase the character spacing there.

A small thing but I guess that means the ad is almost perfect!

Thanks for all your hard work guys

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 10:42 AM
That would certainly work in the case of Llepard, as he's paying for the ad all by himself.

For others though, who are trying to get others to pay for the ad, not so well. ;)

+ Llepard specifically asked for constructive criticism....

I assure all of you, before any major company takes out a high profile ad they show it to focus groups, have people play devils advocate, make lots of revisions etc...

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes, it would give it more balance, but do you really think Benjamin Franklin should be up at the top with Washington, and Jefferson put off to the side?

I'm just sayin', sometimes there are more important things than the way the pictures are balanced.

In an ad, balance can be really important. As it currently is, Franklin's pic directs the eye off the page to the right, and Washington and Jefferson's pics direct the eye off to the left.

If I, personally, was doing this from scratch, first of all I'd use a pic of Jefferson where he was looking you in the eye, like this one:

http://www.boilingfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Thomas%20Jefferson%203.jpg

Then I'd switch around the pics of Jefferson and Washington.
Then I'd mirror the pic of Franklin so he was facing to the left.
So from left to right it would be Madison, Jefferson, Washington, then Franklin, and they'd all be facing the center.

When they're all facing the center, the eye is directed to the text, "An Open Letter To The American People". If people are flipping pages, and don't read that opening line, they will completely ignore the rest of the ad. It has to catch people's attention and get them to start reading it at first glance.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 10:45 AM
I think the Founder should be the ones to endorse Ron Paul. I think that is a very nice hook to the ad that really gives it punch.

ButchHowdy
11-14-2007, 10:46 AM
Confession: I have been a voter since 1988 and never knew the existence of, nor the importance of a primary election until this past summer.


Comment: This very expensive ad is not telling me that I need to get off my azz and vote in the primary within 5 - 8 weeks.

Mav
11-14-2007, 10:48 AM
As a conservative independent who is relatively new to Ron Paul, I would HIGHLY encourage you to eliminate the word SLAVES.

You may be right but it is highly offensive.... especially when you're calling my children slaves.

Please take this criticism as constructive. As I said, you may be right... but your average American will be disgusted by the suggestion that his children are slaves.

You're not being literal, I know. But to me, it sounds like an INSULT. And you won't win ANY support by insulting people, especially their children!!!!!

hillertexas
11-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Llepard,

I think you should make it even more obvious that you, a concerned American, did this with your own money. I think that it would be effective to include the exact $ amount you paid...if you are comfortable with that. Someone posted something like "I paid $$$$ to be able to tell you this..." as an idea. I think the info about you should be at the top. Small, but at the top so the viewers know from the beginning that this is coming from a fellow citizen. I think that is the most incredible part and should be shared with the readers. I don't think it would read as "egotistical". I think it would read as "credible".

Also maybe emphasize the statement about voting in the primaries more.

My 2 cents.

Federalist
11-14-2007, 10:51 AM
Don't use "Americans First". This will link us to historical groups like the nativists and I don't think Ron Paul is a nativist.

We have no problem with legal immigration but with illegal immigration.

Instead say something like Ron Paul will put "all lawful American residents first."

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 10:52 AM
In an ad, balance can be really important. As it currently is, Franklin's pic directs the eye off the page to the right, and Washington and Jefferson's pics direct the eye off to the left.

If I, personally, was doing this from scratch, first of all I'd use a pic of Jefferson where he was looking you in the eye, like this one:

http://www.boilingfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Thomas%20Jefferson%203.jpg

Then I'd switch around the pics of Jefferson and Washington.
Then I'd mirror the pic of Franklin so he was facing to the left.
So from left to right it would be Madison, Jefferson, Washington, then Franklin, and they'd all be facing the center.

When they're all facing the center, the eye is directed to the text, "An Open Letter To The American People". If people are flipping pages, and don't read that opening line, they will completely ignore the rest of the ad. It has to catch people's attention and get them to start reading it at first glance.

Well, that seems like a great idea, if Linda can do it.

kylejack
11-14-2007, 10:53 AM
Should his picture be at least as big as the founding fathers' pictures?

Yes. More Ron.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 10:54 AM
I think the Founder should be the ones to endorse Ron Paul. I think that is a very nice hook to the ad that really gives it punch.

They are dead, they can't endorse anyone. To people who know about Ron Paul it makes perfect sense that the founders would, if alive endorse him. But to many people this ad may serve as sort of an introduction to Paul, and saying that the founders endorse someone, especially in NH, may put them off a little. Plus, having them say Ron Paul would do this or Ron Paul would do that is putting words in their mouths which it seems many people on here are uncomfortable with. So if some people on here are uncomfortable with it, people who haven't heard of Paul probably won't like it either. By changing the wording slightly it is just as effective and avoids putting words in the founders mouths. It has the same info and states what the founders warned about. There is no impact lost....


But ultimatly it is Llepard's decision.

Energy
11-14-2007, 10:55 AM
Confession: I have been a voter since 1988 and never knew the existence of, nor the importance of a primary election until this past summer.


Comment: This very expensive ad is not telling me that I need to get off my azz and vote in the primary within 5 - 8 weeks.

This is a very good point. Could use a prominent call-to-action for this, like "This is your NEXT step........ or else our only hope is lost FOREVER"... with a link to ronpaul2008.com/states or whatever makes sense.

A lot of people have the impression that they just have to go out and vote one time next year in November, thinking somehow the candidates magically get whittled down to two choices :eek:

I agree with having Founders facing toward center, preferably with eyes looking at reader (photoshop it if necessary). Ninja Homer's suggestion is good. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=410077&postcount=95)

kylejack
11-14-2007, 10:56 AM
The statement that Ron Paul never accepts money from special interest groups or lobbyists is false. He never lets it sway his vote, but he DOES accept money from any special interest group that wants to give it. Other than that, its looking good.

Bumping this suggestion.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 10:57 AM
Llepard,

I think you should make it even more obvious that you, a concerned American, did this with your own money. I think that it would be effective to include the exact $ amount you paid...if you are comfortable with that. Someone posted something like "I paid $$$$ to be able to tell you this..." as an idea. I think the info about you should be at the top. Small, but at the top so the viewers know from the beginning that this is coming from a fellow citizen. I think that is the most incredible part and should be shared with the readers. I don't think it would read as "egotistical". I think it would read as "credible".

Also maybe emphasize the statement about voting in the primaries more.

My 2 cents.

It is not considered appropriate to tell others what you have paid to place an advertisement because it can take away from the publishers negotiating power.

Just like if you were a general contractor, you wouldn't go telling people all the prices that you get from your suppliers.

InTheoryTV
11-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Looks good. This is interesting grass roots work here folks.


I agree the eyes of the founders should be directed at the center of the page.

I do like the change from the original text that said We the Founders to the new text. I haven't been following this till today and after reading the 2nd revision over the first, that is my impression. I think with the eyes we communicate the message of what they said, and not put try to speak for them. That is how my mind works. Great ad idea though Max.

My thoughts as to the last point about Ron Paul ending the redistribution of wealth is that I heard him speak recently and Ron Paul said that he would not immediately end Social Security or other programs. That he understood that some people have become dependent upon them and that we would be able to pay for the programs with the savings we get from bringing home our troops from around the world and that he would like to offer young people a way out of these programs.

Falseflagop
11-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Place a line that says!!

"The Only STatesman running not a politician!


Otherwise go with it! Awesome job!

Mav
11-14-2007, 11:09 AM
I'm telling you ... calling my children "debt slaves" is a HUGE mistake.

amakris
11-14-2007, 11:11 AM
*Agree with comment "not taking money from lobbyists" as false. He has said he'll take it but it won't affect his vote.

*Agree with comment not to put ronpaulforums.com on there.

*There's two check marks per line in lower left.

*The information in the lower right should be ordered differently. 12345 should be changed to 12453. People's attention follows a "V" pattern (pay attention at beginning and close). You don't want "#1 in military donations" to be buried in the center. Put the 4,000 babies detail in the middle.

amakris
11-14-2007, 11:12 AM
Yes, and lose the "debt slaves." That's considered "fringy" language.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 11:15 AM
I'm telling you ... calling my children "debt slaves" is a HUGE mistake.

I don't particularly care for that wording either. It is pretty "fringy".

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Don't water it down any more, keep some of the punch as that's what's needed. "Debt slaves" is a great term and should be kept. Period. I really think it should go back to the Founders being the speakers, since that has far more impact than the changes made.

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 11:17 AM
I agree - keep the term "debt slaves" as it is an accurate depiction of what is going down.

amakris
11-14-2007, 11:18 AM
You may want to e-mail a copy to whomever runs the phones at 1-877-Ron2008. If a newspaper reader calls that number and references the ad and wants clarification, you want our volunteers to not sound like idiots (ie "What does the ad say, exactly? Huh?")

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 11:19 AM
I think "watering it down" is a loaded term. I don't think that editing the ad to increase its appeal while minimizing negative impressions is a bad thing.

spiteface
11-14-2007, 11:21 AM
My apologies if it's already been suggested, but I'm buried in work at the moment and don't have time to read the whole thread. I think all the portraits at the top should face the center. This is a basic design element for most ads, page layouts I've picked up from being married to someone who did that kind of work for a living. You're awesome llepard!

amakris
11-14-2007, 11:22 AM
I agree - keep the term "debt slaves" as it is an accurate depiction of what is going down.

It's not an engineering specification. It's an advertisement. Language matters.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:23 AM
I think watering it down is the perfect way of putting it because people are trying to water it down. Taking out the whole idea of it being from the perspective of the Founders was just part of it.

You can't try to make everyone happy with an advertisement because then it won't work. The idea of the Founders endorsing Ron Paul is just a great hook and I think will draw more attention than the way it's worded now.

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 11:24 AM
It's not an engineering specification. It's an advertisement. Language matters.

Yes, it does.

Exactly why "debt slaves" should stay.

tanstaafl
11-14-2007, 11:26 AM
Great ad in general; my personal thanks to those making it happen. I have some suggestions which I believe will make it even more impactful:

(1) shrink founders images (they don't need to be huge as the faces are so familiar they jump off the page) and enlarge Paul's image.
(2) where appropriate, include actual quotes from the founders - many people seem to have forgotten the words...but can be reminded, for example, "We've given you a Republic - if you can keep it."; "Anyone who would trade a little liberty...";"That government governs best which governs least"; etc. Any candidate can SAY they favor what the Founders advised - but only one dares to actually quote them!!!
(3) I like Paul's "Let it not be said that we did nothing" quote but, in any case, I would like to see at least some of his most powerful words under his name.
(4) IMO, but backed from talking to hard-core Republicans, Ron Paul is seen as being WEAK ON NATIONAL DEFENSE. This is a misperception which is holding him back significantly and desperately needs to be addressed. I STRONGLY ADVISE a bullet point emphasizing that his plan to actually make the military STRONGER by *conserving* (a great word, imo) and *consolidating* and being much more *strategic* with resources. A nation stretched to the limit, with military hardware in poor repair, only able to fight by borrowing from the Chinese is NOT a strong military!!!!
(5) I agree that ronpaulforums is not the optimal place to send those newly exploring Ron Paul. Probably the section(s) of ronpaul2008 with his bullet points, speeches, and focussed video links is best?

Those are my main suggestions; I hope you have time to consider them - especially my point on how Paul is being pigeon holed as favoring a *weaker* military instead of a more concentrated one!

Once again, great job and much appreciated!!

Mav
11-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Don't water it down any more, keep some of the punch as that's what's needed. "Debt slaves" is a great term and should be kept. Period. I really think it should go back to the Founders being the speakers, since that has far more impact than the changes made.

The fact that you agree with it isn't the problem. The problem is the term is HIGHLY offensive to a large number of people, especially when it's used on the context of an insult directed toward my children!!!

This is really the same as the Russo issue we discussed in the Teaparty website. I really like the Russo film. But it is a conspiracy / truth film and it took the focus off Ron Paul's message.

Ron Paul doesn't call our children DEBT SLAVES. We might love it, but to most people it's an insult, it's offensive, it's unprofessional and it's highly inappropriate.

aroberso
11-14-2007, 11:30 AM
The statement that Ron Paul never accepts money from special interest groups or lobbyists is false. He never lets it sway his vote, but he DOES accept money from any special interest group that wants to give it. Other than that, its looking good.

Could it be quantified that he has accepted the LEAST money from lobbyists? I suspect that to be the case, since they supposedly don't even knock on his door.

Mark
11-14-2007, 11:31 AM
.

I saw where some couldn't see the 2nd ad draft at work ect, so,
I did the web page thing again.

This time with the original on top, followed by the second draft below,
to facilitate comparisons.


http://www.revmark.org/forumfiles/ad2.htm

.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:31 AM
The fact that you agree with it isn't the problem. The problem is the term is HIGHLY offensive to a large number of people, especially when it's used on the context of an insult directed toward my children!!!

It's not being used as an insult though, but an attack on the system itself. In that way it NEEDS to stay. You are overreacting just like people overreacted to the Guy Fawkes matter.

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 11:32 AM
...

Mav
11-14-2007, 11:32 AM
I agree - keep the term "debt slaves" as it is an accurate depiction of what is going down.

It may be accurate. But there are FAR more productive ways to say it. Using an inflamatory reference like "DEBT SLAVES" may sound wonderful on a Ron Paul message board. But most people will be offended - or worse.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:34 AM
It shouldn't really be changed at all, it's fine the way it is and people have to stop acting like they know what's based, it's obviously not their money and some ads just don't work.

That's why I like having the Founder saying these things because it's like they're pissed off and dressing down the current government for what they're doing to their citizens.

Mav
11-14-2007, 11:37 AM
It's not being used as an insult though, but an attack on the system itself. In that way it NEEDS to stay. You are overreacting just like people overreacted to the Guy Fawkes matter.

WOW!!! That is EXACTLY my point. I am overreacting just like everyone overreacted to the Guy Fawkes matter.

I'm telling you large portion of $22million people will ALSO overreact to having their children called DEBT SLAVES.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But it's going to happen if the reference stays. I suggest eliminating the term SLAVES all together.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 11:40 AM
It's not being used as an insult though, but an attack on the system itself. In that way it NEEDS to stay. You are overreacting just like people overreacted to the Guy Fawkes matter.

The people who were against the Guy Fawkes association were right. The association with V and Guy Fawkes was mentioned negatively in just about every article on the 5th. It just wasn't as bad as many thought it was going to be, but they were there none the less. But just look at Glen Beck video from the other day, he was basically saying that Ron Paul supporters have the potential to be domestic terrorists. Obviously his logic is flawed, but Ron Paul supporters did give him the ammunition to make that attack.

wfd40
11-14-2007, 11:40 AM
Well, it's not my money...but as the original author of the piece, I'm disappointed that certain timid naysayers influenced the watering down important points.

1. The Founders should be speaking to the American people. That's the whole creative aspect of the message....we messed up and they are holding us accountable. The people who claim that is "presumptuous" know nothing about marketing. The mesage is not as powerful because it's no longer "coming from the founders"...That was the whole point

2. Removing the part about political parties was a HUGE mistake. The vast majority of Americans are Independents...and an even bigger majority are just turned off. Even among Democrats and Republicans...approval ratings for both GOP and the Dem Congress are at an all time high. This point separated RP from the 2 party monster.

3. Removing the media line...another error.... You people are dreaming if you think this media honeymoon is going to last. They still think RP is just an exciting novelty act. When he truly becomes a threat...you will see attacks like you've never seen before. This was a good chance to prepare people for the attacks.

But some of you are so damn afraid of the media that it's pathetic..."chicken revolutionaries"

My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with it because the naysayers are generally unimaginative downers who will demorlaize u and water down your original concept.

same gang that tried to kill Hamedah's Muslim ad.
same gang that complained about V day.

also...TAKE THESE FORUMS OUT OF THE AD!.....You treally want the average american exposed to nuts like me?...lol

Not only are you spot on about the problems of "group think"... but also - and I think more importantly - this add needs to be a bit "in the publics face"... otherwise, there won't be any "controversy"

Remember guys, not only do we want this to really hit home with the millions of USAToday readers.. but also - and again, more importantly - we want this to create some controversy that the MSM picks up...

Our positions (and that of the founding fathers) are SOUND... this isn't a "general BETRAYOUS" type smear.. this is about CORE AMERICAN VALUES. Good luck trying to smear those ideas.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:41 AM
No, no, no more BS talk of it being "too negative" it's fine the way it is, leave it alone!

It's already been watered down enough. People are always going to find something to nitpick and if llepard tries to make everyone happy it will never get finished. It's already strayed far enough from the original punch, it doesn't need to be made any more wish-washy just because YOU get offended by it.

It will not be an issue and you're just being too much of an alarmist to be reasonable about this.


The people who were against the Guy Fawkes association were right.

No, they were WRONG. Glen Beck is the only one who has made an issue of it and no one else even gives a damn about Guy Fawkes. Only a few people might get annoyed at the term "Debt slaves", but most of them would get offended at something else in the ad that needs to stay. You can't try to make everyone happy with what you say because then you'll never be able to say anything.

Arklatex
11-14-2007, 11:42 AM
I really like it, add a feather pen to it, laid to the right of Mr. Paul's face and maybe have a couple of ink blotches.

I'd like that look!

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 11:43 AM
Here's an example with a different pic of Jefferson where he's looking you in the eye, the places of Jefferson and Washington are swapped, and Franklin is mirrored so he's facing the center. This is just an example. Obviously, it would have to be re-worked on the original.

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop2.jpg

wfd40
11-14-2007, 11:44 AM
It may be accurate. But there are FAR more productive ways to say it. Using an inflamatory reference like "DEBT SLAVES" may sound wonderful on a Ron Paul message board. But most people will be offended - or worse.

dude, seriously.. its the truth isn't it???

When the MSM picks up that rather "infamatory" observation.. someone is going to get the chance to explain what they meant by it... and guess what, the explanation HOLDS WATER..

So, quiet down.

DEBT SLAVES STAYS..

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 11:47 AM
This ad is fantastic! I was highly critical of the first draft because I believe that it is strongly immoral to put words in the mouths of other people,especially those that are dead. This 2nd draft has addressed that and made a ton of minor improvements that have made the ad absolutely terrific.

I disagree with the objections to "debt slaves". It's a blatantly true statement that some people might be shocked to read, but it's a statement that cannot be refuted. Sometimes things need to be explained in a way that changes yur prespective and that ad does just that. It was Ron Paul's thoughtful explaination of the immorality of the income tax that got me to support that poistion. People need their eyes opened.

This ad is terrific!

ronpaulyourmom
11-14-2007, 11:48 AM
I think this new version is a huge step in the right direction, good job.

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 11:48 AM
Here's an example with a different pic of Jefferson where he's looking you in the eye, the places of Jefferson and Washington are swapped, and Franklin is mirrored so he's facing the center. This is just an example. Obviously, it would have to be re-worked on the original.

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop2.jpg

I support this minor change! It really does make the ad more effective.

truthbetold
11-14-2007, 11:49 AM
It is Beautiful! Great use of whitespace in checkpoint layout.

The suggestion of changing legions to millions of illegal aliens should be implemented. millions is FACTUAL and legions is a word used for allegory or a fairy tale. It dimineshes the "integrity" of the statement. Legions sounds like rhetoric, millions if a FACT.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 11:51 AM
I was highly critical of the first draft because I believe that it is strongly immoral to put words in the mouths of other people,especially those that are dead.

It was a stupid suggestion to change that and shouldn't have been listened to. I can guarantee that hardly anyone would even care and it would make the ad more effective. Now people are trying to water it down even more to the point where it becomes so "blah" no one is going to feel persuaded in any fashion and it won't be that memorable.

This wishy-washy desire to satisfy everyone is exactly what I don't like about most politicians.

xcalybur
11-14-2007, 11:51 AM
I don't have the original photoshop files, so I worked a little this morning off of the jpg that was at the front of this thread. Just some stuff that I thought would look good.

http://lh3.google.com/xcalybur/Rzs1GdxC1gI/AAAAAAAAC5Y/S7-0MkaKAI0/s800/newspaper_ad.jpg

You can go here and see the blow up version: Link to Picasaweb (http://picasaweb.google.com/xcalybur/CandidateSupport/photo#5132754585504634370) There is a small magnifying glass near the top right that you can see the original size.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 11:53 AM
WOW!!!
I'm telling you large portion of $22million people will ALSO overreact to having their children called DEBT SLAVES.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But it's going to happen if the reference stays. I suggest eliminating the term SLAVES all together.

I firmly disagree. People should be upset about it. They should be darn upset. But, not because their children were CALLED debt slaves, but because they allowed them by their inaction TO BECOME debt slaves.

My vote is for it to stay.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 11:54 AM
Here's an example with a different pic of Jefferson where he's looking you in the eye, the places of Jefferson and Washington are swapped, and Franklin is mirrored so he's facing the center. This is just an example. Obviously, it would have to be re-worked on the original.

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newtop2.jpg

You're right. This does look much better.

Arklatex
11-14-2007, 11:56 AM
Not only are you spot on about the problems of "group think"... but also - and I think more importantly - this add needs to be a bit "in the publics face"... otherwise, there won't be any "controversy"

Remember guys, not only do we want this to really hit home with the millions of USAToday readers.. but also - and again, more importantly - we want this to create some controversy that the MSM picks up...

Our positions (and that of the founding fathers) are SOUND... this isn't a "general BETRAYOUS" type smear.. this is about CORE AMERICAN VALUES. Good luck trying to smear those ideas.

I believe WFD has a point , I liked the part that blamed the two political parties. However I do like this version because it's a little less wordy in the bold text.

But add a feather pen and ink blotches!!!! :D

tanstaafl
11-14-2007, 11:58 AM
I think the 4.3M raised on 11/5 is MUCH more impressive when it mentions the approximately 35,000 individual contributors. Most people in the US have NO idea how money is typically raised but presume it mostly comes from a handful of multimillionaires and lobbyists. Without "35,000" (use actual figure) being mentioned, are unlikely to appreciate the unique *grassroots* nature of this accomplishment.

Paulitician
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Ron Paul's picture should be bigger! Why is it so tiny? People will hardly get to see who this mysterious Ron Paul is. With that said, it's an improvement of the first draft. Maybe all that white open space seems bland? Have you thought about adding a very faint background of some sort? I'm still concerned about the links at the bottom. I would keep it simple, and only include the website and the telephone number. Maybe include RonPaulLibrary as it is a good resource, but a blog and a video? Most people don't have the time for it. It's a turn off to see so many links.

specsaregood
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Yes, it does.

Exactly why "debt slaves" should stay.

True.

I've heard more than a couple "consumer credit counseling" ads that use the word slave to describe people's credit problems.

If this enrages people it will be because it is tough medicine. People need to realize that the government's debt is THEIR debt and THEIR childrens' debt. That their complicity (by doing nothing) in letting our government accrue this debt falls on their shoulders and eventually their children. It NEEDS to stay.

Edit: if anything the term will spark editorials where they point out that this is in fact true!

Energy
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
Great ad in general; my personal thanks to those making it happen. I have some suggestions which I believe will make it even more impactful:

(1) shrink founders images (they don't need to be huge as the faces are so familiar they jump off the page) and enlarge Paul's image.

(2) where appropriate, include actual quotes from the founders - many people seem to have forgotten the words...but can be reminded, for example, "We've given you a Republic - if you can keep it."; "Anyone who would trade a little liberty...";"That government governs best which governs least"; etc. Any candidate can SAY they favor what the Founders advised - but only one dares to actually quote them!!!

(3) I like Paul's "Let it not be said that we did nothing" quote but, in any case, I would like to see at least some of his most powerful words under his name.

(4) IMO, but backed from talking to hard-core Republicans, Ron Paul is seen as being WEAK ON NATIONAL DEFENSE. This is a misperception which is holding him back significantly and desperately needs to be addressed. I STRONGLY ADVISE a bullet point emphasizing that his plan to actually make the military STRONGER by *conserving* (a great word, imo) and *consolidating* and being much more *strategic* with resources. [/B] A nation stretched to the limit, with military hardware in poor repair, only able to fight by borrowing from the Chinese is NOT a strong military!!!!

(5) I agree that ronpaulforums is not the optimal place to send those newly exploring Ron Paul. Probably the section(s) of ronpaul2008 with his bullet points, speeches, and focussed video links is best?

(6)I think the 4.3M raised on 11/5 is MUCH more impressive when it mentions the approximately 35,000 individual contributors. Most people in the US have NO idea how money is typically raised but presume it mostly comes from a handful of multimillionaires and lobbyists. Without "35,000" (use actual figure) being mentioned, are unlikely to appreciate the unique *grassroots* nature of this accomplishment.

Those are my main suggestions; I hope you have time to consider them - especially my point on how Paul is being pigeon holed as favoring a *weaker* military instead of a more concentrated one!

Once again, great job and much appreciated!!

+1


And "debt slaves" is tough love.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 11:59 AM
I can guarantee that hardly anyone would even care and it would make the ad more effective.

If about half of the people in this thread care, how can you guarantee that the people of NH wouldn't?

(referring to the ad speaking from the founders POV)

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 12:02 PM
It was a stupid suggestion to change that and shouldn't have been listened to. I can guarantee that hardly anyone would even care and it would make the ad more effective. Now people are trying to water it down even more to the point where it becomes so "blah" no one is going to feel persuaded in any fashion and it won't be that memorable.

This wishy-washy desire to satisfy everyone is exactly what I don't like about most politicians.

It wasn't a stupid sugesstion, it was a question of morality. People have for too long now made mockeries of the Founders, using them to promote sales for President's Day and other forms of gimmicks. Ron Paul has reverence for the Founders. Speaking for the Founders is not only immoral, it shows disrespect for them. No person in their right mind would run an ad with Ronald Reagan making the absurd claim that he supports a Presidential candidate. The only reason that people found the 1st draft acceptable was because of a long history in this country of having no respect for our Founders.

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 12:02 PM
You're right. This does look much better.

That version grabbed me right away, no kidding.

I can FEEL their disapproval.

I think this is DEFINITELY the way to go.

GRAB Americans. Make them think.

It is a good thing.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:02 PM
The first version was much better. I don't like this version. It seems watered down.

James R
11-14-2007, 12:03 PM
I believe the the bottom section has a bad flow to it. Here are changes I think improve the design. I also made slight changes in the paragraph headers that I put an astrisk(*) next to. The only change I forgot to include was putting "RON PAUL" in all caps like you did on your version. I like that idea.

http://www.ronpaulaction.com/img/newimproved.gif
I think this is eliminates the cluttered look. Anyone agree with that?

kylejack
11-14-2007, 12:03 PM
Could it be quantified that he has accepted the LEAST money from lobbyists? I suspect that to be the case, since they supposedly don't even knock on his door.
Maybe. It definitely needs to be changed, though.

Look here:

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00005906

His proportion of individual to PAC is very strong, but he has no problem taking money from PACs that don't know or don't care that he doesn't take bribes.

Suzu
11-14-2007, 12:04 PM
And since you're using caps in the section, I kind of like "Voted AGAINST the Real ID and the Patriot Act."


Technically speaking, Patriot needs to be in all capitals, as it is an acronym for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".

In other words, there is no such thing as the "Patriot Act", but there IS a PATRIOT Act.

dc74rp
11-14-2007, 12:05 PM
Right On!

I didn't do a side by side comparison, but right away I was much more impressed with this one. I wasn't complaining about the original, but I can definately see how the incorporation of alot of the suggestions have greatly improved it.

Thanks so much for the work on the ad!

And thanks so much again for funding the ad!

Edit: Some of the further refinements, such as the graphics posted, could make it even better.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:06 PM
I don't think those kinds of changes are needed. I think the best changes would be:

1. Adjusting the images of the Founders like people have suggested.

2. Getting back to the Founders supporting Ron Paul for President and giving out warnings. The whole point is that the Founders would be pissed at the government today and Ron Paul is the only one who would go back to the fundamentals. Taking it away as the Founders saying it waters down the message.

3. Making the Tea Party mention less wordy. Take out "supporters" and the mention of "more than any GOP candidate" because it really takes away from the prominence of the Tea Party mention. You don't need to say the "largest ever" since "Largest in history" gets the point across. I honestly think the original version was fine and looked much better.

4. Putting in just one more warning to make the middle a little more meaty.

5. I think changing legions to millions or some other word is good because "legions" is just an odd word for that place. I think putting "deliberately" back is important and I don't think it's objectionable because a lot of people believe the government is on some level intentionally ignoring illegal immigration because it's good for business.

Basically I think other than the fews thing I think should have stayed I'm happy with all the other changes. I do think there should some minor adjustments that I mentioned, but otherwise it's fine.

wfd40
11-14-2007, 12:09 PM
My only real critique...

Does a more "EPIC" picture/headshot of Dr. Paul exist?? Aren't we trying to draw a parallel between him and the founding fathers??

The one currently being used is not even in my top 10 =/

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 12:10 PM
No, they were WRONG. Glen Beck is the only one who has made an issue of it and no one else even gives a damn about Guy Fawkes.


Simply put "Ron Paul" & "Guy Fawkes" using the quotes into Google news search and look at how many stories make the association out to be a negative. Glen Beck was hardly the only one to use the association to attack Paul supporters.

If anything it is just a lesson that we shouldn't give the media any ammunition to use against us.

kylejack
11-14-2007, 12:10 PM
My only real critique...

Does a more "EPIC" picture/headshot of Dr. Paul exist?? Aren't we trying to draw a parallel between him and the founding fathers??

The one currently being used is not even in my top 10 =/

Sounds like a good idea. Something where he's looking serious. Any way we could put in "Champion of the Constitution" somewhere?

kylejack
11-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Simply put "Ron Paul" & "Guy Fawkes" using the quotes into Google news search and look at how many stories make the association out to be a negative. Glen Beck was hardly the only one to use the association to attack Paul supporters.

If anything it is just a lesson that we shouldn't give the media any ammunition to use against us.

Unless it has the potential to raise us a ton of money. Then we should weigh effectiveness against fallout.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:12 PM
Ridiculous


If about half of the people in this thread care, how can you guarantee that the people of NH wouldn't?

People here are going with what they think people will react to, which is stupid. They were wrong about November 5th. People are far more tolerant than people on this forum may think.

Pete Kay


It wasn't a stupid sugesstion, it was a question of morality. People have for too long now made mockeries of the Founders, using them to promote sales for President's Day and other forms of gimmicks. Ron Paul has reverence for the Founders. Speaking for the Founders is not only immoral, it shows disrespect for them. No person in their right mind would run an ad with Ronald Reagan making the absurd claim that he supports a Presidential candidate. The only reason that people found the 1st draft acceptable was because of a long history in this country of having no respect for our Founders.

Ron Paul cites the words of the Founders all the time, their words are constantly misused by other people.

No one is going to actually believe that the Founders are speaking to them or that the person running the ad presumes to know. People are smart enough to get that it's a message about the state of our affairs, the state of our country, and the state of our lives.

Ridiculous


Simply put "Ron Paul" & "Guy Fawkes" using the quotes into Google news search and look at how many stories make the association out to be a negative. Glen Beck was hardly the only one to use the association to attack Paul supporters.

Your username is fitting because it fits what you say. I saw a few blogs and Anti-Paul people using it, but you watch most of the media coverage and it didn't treat it like a negative. Hell, many don't even mention Guy Fawkes or had it as a minor footnote. Most who used the association were against Paul from the beginning.

Period. There was no media assault on the "Guy Fawkes" reference and I think what Glen Beck said is going to blow up in his face.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:12 PM
The new version of the add is sugar coating our message.

1) It uses the term phase out the IRS instead of eliminate. I don't want the IRS phased out. I want it ELIMINATED, PERIOD! Ron Paul does want to ELIMINATE the IRS as quickly as possible. I tremendously doubt he would set up a new government program to slowly eliminate the IRS. He will strive to eliminate it as quickly as possible.

2) It no longer mentions plans for a draft. Folks, if we go to war with Iran the only way the military will have enough troops is to have a draft! The draft is in the works! There are also plans for mandatory service in the military for EVERYONE!

3) It removes the term "unconstitutional spending." That is DISGUSTING! The whole issue about government spending is that it needs to ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION! If it ABIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION government spending would be very limited indeed! Ron Paul is all about the constitution and removing the phrase "unconstitutional spending" is crazy!

In addition to the above a lot of other stuff has been removed too!

I realize keeping it shorter might be a good thing, but the above three items are simply unacceptable in my opinion.

Of course the person paying for this ad can have it say whatever he wants! It's all up to him! But I wonder why THIS version is so different than HIS ORIGINAL version?

Has someone been whispering in his ear that it needs to be watered down and that the message of the first one was too strong?

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 12:12 PM
It wasn't a stupid sugesstion, it was a question of morality. People have for too long now made mockeries of the Founders, using them to promote sales for President's Day and other forms of gimmicks. Ron Paul has reverence for the Founders. Speaking for the Founders is not only immoral, it shows disrespect for them. No person in their right mind would run an ad with Ronald Reagan making the absurd claim that he supports a Presidential candidate. The only reason that people found the 1st draft acceptable was because of a long history in this country of having no respect for our Founders.

+1

tanstaafl
11-14-2007, 12:14 PM
I firmly disagree. People should be upset about it. They should be darn upset. But, not because their children were CALLED debt slaves, but because they allowed them by their inaction TO BECOME debt slaves.

My vote is for it to stay.
---

I agree in general with being factual but BLUNT. The point about the value of strategic controversy is very important. This ad's power can be magnified enormously if it gets some notoriety. Most of the people in the US are still wandering around in a daze but will instantly identify with "debt slaves" when they see it.

BTW, studies have firmly established that BAD press is MUCH better, in general, than no press. After the passage of time, almost everyone pretty well forgets the specifics and even the context of where they heard a name/product mentioned: they only remember that it is familiar. I'm not trying to say we should court bad press, only that it is considerably preferable to no press. Controversy which can be defended with facts and an organized response is net positive by a huge margin, especially when name recognition is still being established.

Nefertiti
11-14-2007, 12:15 PM
Since this seems to be the active thread on this ad, I just wanted to point out some capitalization and punctuation issues that need to be corrected that I posted here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=410439#post410439

Suzu
11-14-2007, 12:16 PM
Here's another hint: Saying "Patriot Act" instead of "PATRIOT Act" is needlessly sloppy. Of course most people will never notice the difference, but if you're going to spend all this money, why not be accurate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:17 PM
Simply put "Ron Paul" & "Guy Fawkes" using the quotes into Google news search and look at how many stories make the association out to be a negative. Glen Beck was hardly the only one to use the association to attack Paul supporters.

If anything it is just a lesson that we shouldn't give the media any ammunition to use against us.

I think it gained us much more support than it caused problems! The "V" connection was a hook that gained us a lot of support! Only the crazy media pundits turned it into a bad thing.

Tidewise
11-14-2007, 12:18 PM
Llepard - you are a true patriot. Just run the ad as is - you will never satisfy all the people on RPF. THE AD IS BEAUTIFUL.

And I have news for all those who oppose the term "DEBT SLAVE" - you are a debt slave. Your children are debt slaves. Nine trillion dollars worth of debt and counting...

What we are running into here is a conflict between the Ron Paul early adoptors and those who are more mainstream. It is the revolutionary fervor that is capturing the attention of the nation. Keep the revolution alive.

Everything in moderation - even moderation itself.

SeanEdwards
11-14-2007, 12:19 PM
That's hot.

I want to die and be reincarnated as a woman so I can have Lepard's babies.

truthbetold
11-14-2007, 12:19 PM
Excellent point about naysayers. Because we are so diverse people should ignor naysayers and run with their idea and only accept input from those who are CONSTRUCTIVE in the goal.

I think having a big day for everyone to get out and spread the word in person is on Dec 5 , celebration of the end of phrohibion. Meetups should hit the bars, pubs, ect politics just like in the days of Sam Adams.

Dec 5 is the night to share Ron Paul with the common man over a beer and get many new recruit them for the RLoveUtion!

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:19 PM
---

I agree in general with being factual but BLUNT. The point about the value of strategic controversy is very important. This ad's power can be magnified enormously if it gets some notoriety. Most of the people in the US are still wandering around in a daze but will instantly identify with "debt slaves" when they see it.

BTW, studies have firmly established that BAD press is MUCH better, in general, than no press. After the passage of time, almost everyone pretty well forgets the specifics and even the context of where they heard a name/product mentioned: they only remember that it is familiar. I'm not trying to say we should court bad press, only that it is considerably preferable to no press. Controversy which can be defended with facts and an organized response is net positive by a huge margin, especially when name recognition is still being established.

The new version is VERY watered down. I think the message has been sugar coated in the new version. I wonder who has been telling the person who wrote the original that boldly stating Ron Paul's message is a bad thing and we need to make a whisper out of it.

Someone is terrified of offending people with the message of liberty.

Mav
11-14-2007, 12:19 PM
No, no, no more BS talk of it being "too negative" it's fine the way it is, leave it alone!

It's already been watered down enough. People are always going to find something to nitpick and if llepard tries to make everyone happy it will never get finished. It's already strayed far enough from the original punch, it doesn't need to be made any more wish-washy just because YOU get offended by it.

It will not be an issue and you're just being too much of an alarmist to be reasonable about this.



No, they were WRONG. Glen Beck is the only one who has made an issue of it and no one else even gives a damn about Guy Fawkes. Only a few people might get annoyed at the term "Debt slaves", but most of them would get offended at something else in the ad that needs to stay. You can't try to make everyone happy with what you say because then you'll never be able to say anything.

You don't win supporters by saying "YOU'RE WRONG" or "YOU'RE OVER REACTING"

The goal of a campaign like this should be to get people to RON Paul's website so hey can investigate the issues for themselves. YOu're not going to "convert" anyone with a one-page advertisment.

If you alienate people before they have a chance to go to ROn Paul's website you are losing potential supporters by the DROVES.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:20 PM
Llepard - you are a true patriot. Just run the ad as is - you will never satisfy all the people on RPF. THE AD IS BEAUTIFUL.

And I have news for all those who oppose the term "DEBT SLAVE" - you are a debt slave. Your children are debt slaves. Nine trillion dollars worth of debt and counting...

What we are running into here is a conflict between the Ron Paul early adoptors and those who are more mainstream. It is the revolutionary fervor that is capturing the attention of the nation. Keep the revolution alive.

Everything in moderation - even moderation itself.

The term "debt slave" and many other terms should have been included. This new version has removed words such as "eliminate" the IRS and many other STRONG words.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:21 PM
3) It removes the term "unconstitutional spending." That is DISGUSTING! The whole issue about government spending is that it needs to ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION! If it ABIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION government spending would be very limited indeed! Ron Paul is all about the constitution and removing the phrase "unconstitutional spending" is crazy!

Man, I didn't even realize some of the good stuff thrown out like this:

"Ron Paul would return to a constitutionally limited government"

What was wrong with that for it to be left out, I don't care who suggest changing it, that was completely pointless to change is honestly much better than what it was replace with. I also liked the "eternal vigilance" warning. I think that has to be put back in, because it worked. I also agree that unconstitutional spending should be put back.

Before anyone says anything I'd remind you that a lot of works have things taken away but put back because they worked. I think putting back that this is in the words of the Founders themselves is more effective than how it is right now.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:22 PM
You don't win supporters by saying "YOU'RE WRONG" or "YOU'RE OVER REACTING"

The goal of a campaign like this should be to get people to RON Paul's website so hey can investigate the issues for themselves. YOu're not going to "convert" anyone with a one-page advertisment.

If you alienate people before they have a chance to go to ROn Paul's website you are losing potential supporters by the DROVES.

The fact of the matter is that the FIRST version was the BLUNT TRUTH!

Telling people the BLUNT TRUTH is more important than anything else. Any time you sugar coat your message you are simply doing nothing but political pandering.

The FIRST version of this ad was awesome! I almost jumped out of my chair!

This version makes me think, "How is this guy any different than the other candidates? They have said similar things too!"

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 12:23 PM
Ron Paul cites the words of the Founders all the time, their words are constantly misused by other people.

No one is going to actually believe that the Founders are speaking to them or that the person running the ad presumes to know. People are smart enough to get that it's a message about the state of our affairs, the state of our country, and the state of our lives.



You are exactly right. No one would believe that and that is why the ad is more powerful now. It juxataposes the ideas of the Founders with Ron Paul's positions. That makes sense.

The earlier version was taking a more creative approach by speaking for the Founders instead of just letting the Founders speak for themselves. This is fine for a creative excercise, but for a serious political ad, it isn't fitting or proper to conjur up the ghosts of the Founding Fathers and make the claim that they support Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Fan
11-14-2007, 12:23 PM
The people who are say that this ad is offensive are the ones who said that November 5th wouldn't be a success and that it would be Ron Paul's "Dean Scream moment." Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people who advised that November the 5th was a good idea? This ad needs to run. Minor changes in grammar and words might be ok, but the overall idea is brilliant and should be treated as such.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:24 PM
Man, I didn't even realize some of the good stuff thrown out like this:

"Ron Paul would return to a constitutionally limited government"

What was wrong with that for it to be left out, I don't care who suggest changing it, that was completely pointless to change is honestly much better than what it was replace with. I also liked the "eternal vigilance" warning. I think that has to be put back in, because it worked. I also agree that unconstitutional spending should be put back.

Before anyone says anything I'd remind you that a lot of works have things taken away but put back because they worked. I think putting back that this is in the words of the Founders themselves is more effective than how it is right now.

Naraku,

Someone went in and gutted the ad of the TRUTH! They went in and toned everything down because they were probably TERRIFIED they would "offend" someone.

The fact of the matter is that the message of liberty CAN be offensive to those who do not understand it! But you know what? A good DOSE OF TRUTH can WAKE PEOPLE UP!

This new ad is so toned down it will have little or no impact on people.

SgtBulldog
11-14-2007, 12:24 PM
I think a good rule to follow is, "What would Ron say?"

Listening to his speeches, I've never heard him be mean-spirited or overly harsh. He speaks the truth, but maintains a positive and welcoming attitude. I think it would be wise to emulate that and I believe this draft accomplishes that well.

deedles
11-14-2007, 12:24 PM
Debt slave is accurate. We are debt slaves. It's just that no one is used to such real language anymore in the realm of politics.

And we love Ron Paul exactly because he uses that kind of language.

truthbetold
11-14-2007, 12:26 PM
I firmly disagree. People should be upset about it. They should be darn upset. But, not because their children were CALLED debt slaves, but because they allowed them by their inaction TO BECOME debt slaves.

My vote is for it to stay.


I didn't see the first draft to comment on this. My 2 cents I like it in the Slaves Comment. The guy puting out the $ put it in and it is how he feels. It is how I feel and it resenates the truth. Slaves is a powerful word. Yes there will be a reaction.

Just be prepared for it. I think the man paying for the add should put it in how he wants and whatever the final product is I'm very excited about the add.

IF there is backlash it will get media coverage and a discussion. Because we really ARE DEBT SLAVES AS ARE OUR CHILDREN. IN YOUR FACE TRUTH IS NEEDED IN A INTERVENTION. AMERICA IS A DEBT CRACK ADDICT AND NEEDS SOME HARD FACTS!

kylejack
11-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Debt slave is accurate. We are debt slaves. It's just that no one is used to such real language anymore in the realm of politics.

And we love Ron Paul exactly because he uses that kind of language.

Ron Paul tempers his language. He says we're going broke and says he would phase out the IRS and other government agencies. He does not say we're slaves, though I'm sure he believes it.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:26 PM
You don't win supporters by saying "YOU'RE WRONG" or "YOU'RE OVER REACTING"

True, but I presume you are already a supporter. I'm saying you're overreacting in assuming people will turn this whole thing down because of that word.

It's an ad, most people don't read ads unless they catch their attention and even then they usually don't read every last word like all of us are. It's all about presentation and having some fire in the belly for an ad is exactly what's needed for presentation.


The goal of a campaign like this should be to get people to RON Paul's website so hey can investigate the issues for themselves. YOu're not going to "convert" anyone with a one-page advertisment.

If you alienate people before they have a chance to go to ROn Paul's website you are losing potential supporters by the DROVES.

I'm all for not alienating people, but sometimes it cannot be helped because the views you have are not accepted by those people. If you try to make everyone happy you'll end up being wish-washy and bland, which is exactly the reason I, and most people, don't like most politicians and why they'd support Ron Paul.

I support Ron Paul mainly because he's not wishy-washy and only say what is politically expedient.


You are exactly right. No one would believe that and that is why the ad is more powerful now.

No, the ad is weaker now because whether you believe Ron Paul would get their support or not, we can be pretty damn certain they'd be pissed out how the government looks right now and THAT'S the point. The point isn't, "Ron Paul would be endorsed by George Washington," but that "George Washington would be pissed at how the country is and Ron Paul's the only one who wants to get back to the Constitution."

Having the Founders deliver a fiery message to the readers of the ad about the state of our government is powerful. People will get that the point of it is that if the Founders were still around they would be saying these things about our current government.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:27 PM
The people who are say that this ad is offensive are the ones who said that November 5th wouldn't be a success and that it would be Ron Paul's "Dean Scream moment." Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people who advised that November the 5th was a good idea? This ad needs to run. Minor changes in grammar and words might be ok, but the overall idea is brilliant and should be treated as such.

I agree. We have a bunch of terrified republicrats on here that are THEMSELVES scared of the TRUE MEANING OF LIBERTY!

I find it AWFUL that they gutted this ad. The first version was fantastic! There was NO NEED for it to be modified.

adam1mc
11-14-2007, 12:27 PM
On the lower half of the graphic, why is "Will restore our constitutional rights" on the same line as "Will restore habeas corpus"

Shouldn't it be on a line all on it's own?

deedles
11-14-2007, 12:28 PM
The people who are say that this ad is offensive are the ones who said that November 5th wouldn't be a success and that it would be Ron Paul's "Dean Scream moment." Why believe them? They've been wrong on everything they've said. So why not ask the people who advised that November the 5th was a good idea?

Man, does that ever sound familiar... ;)

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:29 PM
I didn't see the first draft to comment on this. My 2 cents I like it in the Slaves Comment. The guy puting out the $ put it in and it is how he feels. It is how I feel and it resenates the truth. Slaves is a powerful word. Yes there will be a reaction.

Just be prepared for it. I think the man paying for the add should put it in how he wants and whatever the final product is I'm very excited about the add.

IF there is backlash it will get media coverage and a discussion. Because we really ARE DEBT SLAVES AS ARE OUR CHILDREN. IN YOUR FACE TRUTH IS NEEDED IN A INTERVENTION. AMERICA IS A DEBT CRACK ADDICT AND NEEDS SOME HARD FACTS!

The first version was WHAT THE MAN PAYING FOR THIS AD TRULY BELIEVED!

I want to know who is manipulating him into gutting his ad?

He is paying for it! Why is someone urging him to sugar coat everything?

I think there are republicrats in our midst that are a little scared themselves of the TRUE and FULL meaning of liberty.

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 12:31 PM
I believe the the bottom section has a bad flow to it. Here are changes I think improve the design. I also made slight changes in the paragraph headers that I put an astrisk(*) next to. The only change I forgot to include was putting "RON PAUL" in all caps like you did on your version. I like that idea.

http://www.ronpaulaction.com/img/newimproved.gif
I think this is eliminates the cluttered look. Anyone agree with that?

I agree with this small change. It has a better left to right flow making it easier to read.

I also agree with Max's suggestion of leaving off the ronpaulforums from the ad. We are die hard, overly passionate supporters here. A lot of people will come here and think we are crazy. This forum is full of inside jokes and references the average person will not understand.

Jmaths117
11-14-2007, 12:31 PM
Excellent! Thanks For Taking Our Advice!

Mav
11-14-2007, 12:31 PM
And I have news for all those who oppose the term "DEBT SLAVE" - you are a debt slave. Your children are debt slaves. Nine trillion dollars worth of debt and counting...

This will be my last post on this topic. All I will say is Google the word slave and read about it. This is what people with THINK about when they read the word:

From Wikipedia:

Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labour.


Even more compelling, Google the word slave. And the select Google Images. When people read the word slave, certain mental images come to mind.

I hate to post these terrible images .. but THIS is what people think about when they hear the word "SLAVE"

From Google images:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=slave&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:nuuVu1vBZzs2qM:http://z.about.com/d/africanhistory/1/7/y/I/SlaveBoys.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RgevuiAwDhHGnM:http://z.about.com/d/africanhistory

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:RlCMJBFoW8GB3M:http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/slavery/slave-ship-2.jpg

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 12:33 PM
xcalybur,

I'm sorry, but I don't like those changes you made to the layout of the ad, at all. The picture of Ron was much better in the center. The ad looks very unbalanced in the version that you edited.

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 12:34 PM
That does not change my view - "debt slave" should stay.

It's LLepard's decision to make.

Thanks again, LLepard. :)

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:35 PM
We are debt slaves! It is the truth!

I think people are trying to find a way to complain about every STRONG and BOLD term used in the first ad! The fact of the matter is that if the ad is to make an IMPACT we cannot sugar coat our message just because a few people are "terrified" they might offend someone.

I say that we all request that the FIRST ad be used!

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 12:35 PM
I believe the the bottom section has a bad flow to it. Here are changes I think improve the design. I also made slight changes in the paragraph headers that I put an astrisk(*) next to. The only change I forgot to include was putting "RON PAUL" in all caps like you did on your version. I like that idea.

http://www.ronpaulaction.com/img/newimproved.gif
I think this is eliminates the cluttered look. Anyone agree with that?

Nope. I like the way the bottom is laid out now, much better.

troyd1
11-14-2007, 12:36 PM
This is perfect!
Here's an example with a different pic of Jefferson where he's looking you in the eye, the places of Jefferson and Washington are swapped, and Franklin is mirrored so he's facing the center. This is just an example. Obviously, it would have to be re-worked on the original.

To Have A Hero

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:37 PM
Everyone,

Who here agrees with me that the first ad was MUCH BETTER than the second?

Who here agrees with me that the second draft is GUTTED and watered down to make it sound more "politically correct"?

If you agree with me I urge you to please make your opinion known on this forum and request that the first ad be utilized.

LibertyEagle
11-14-2007, 12:37 PM
llepard, you always know when to stop asking for suggestions. When people start asking you to change it back to the way it was before you even started making changes. ;)

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 12:37 PM
The first version was WHAT THE MAN PAYING FOR THIS AD TRULY BELIEVED!

I want to know who is manipulating him into gutting his ad?

He is paying for it! Why is someone urging him to sugar coat everything?

I think there are republicrats in our midst that are a little scared themselves of the TRUE and FULL meaning of liberty.

No one is manipulating anyone. The person who paid for the ad can do what he wishes. He asked for constructive criticism and he received it.

I'm not big on the term debt slaves, but I don't think it is a big deal.
However, I think that the change from the ad being in the POV of the founders was a good one.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:37 PM
There was NO NEED for it to be modified.

I disagree, while I think many changes were too much, I also think some changes were need and some still are needed. For aesthetic purposes some changes have been needed and to make it more cohesive for a political advertisement for Republican running in the presidential primary.

I do agree that the message has been watered down.


I agree with this small change. It has a better left to right flow making it easier to read.

People don't read ads left to right and I guess this shows you just don't understand aesthetics and how to make a good ad. The way that bottom area is set up is fine aside from reducing the clutter in the Tea Party area.


I also agree with Max's suggestion of leaving off the ronpaulforums from the ad.

From what I can tell the mention of RonPaulForums is just crediting Max with the concept. In that way I think he should suggest what to put there instead unless he doesn't care if he's credited.


When people start asking you to change it back to the way it was before you even started making changes.

I suggested to keep the things before they were changed and now I think they should be changed back. Like I said, it's not uncommon for in the exchange of ideas for some ideas that were ruled out to be brought back in for being more effective. I think the things I have said should have stayed are those kind of things.

Swmorgan77
11-14-2007, 12:38 PM
Looks great!

Pete Kay
11-14-2007, 12:39 PM
No, the ad is weaker now because whether you believe Ron Paul would get their support or not, we can be pretty damn certain they'd be pissed out how the government looks right now and THAT'S the point. The point isn't, "Ron Paul would be endorsed by George Washington," but that "George Washington would be pissed at how the country is and Ron Paul's the only one who wants to get back to the Constitution."

Having the Founders deliver a fiery message to the readers of the ad about the state of our government is powerful. People will get that the point of it is that if the Founders were still around they would be saying these things about our current government.

I understand the concept and I appreciate your viewpoint, but I said before that I was very offended by the first ad. I know and you know that the Founders probably would support Ron Paul, but no one has the right to speak for another person especially posthumously. It's just immoral. Imagine if Rudy Giullaini made the claim that the Founders supported him? This is where the immorality comes in. We have to hold rigid principles, not double standards.

Anyway, enough back and forth. Those are my beliefs coming from a position of morality and respect for the Founders. You may see things differently and that's okay. That's the beauty of the Ron Paul campaign. It brings us together. I respect you and you respect me.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:40 PM
I think those people who are giving him so called, "constructive criticism" are terrified of the true message of liberty.

I also wonder how much PRESSURE they put on him to make all these changes? In my opinion, the first version was FANTASTIC. This second version makes it seem like Ron Paul is no different than any other politician.

chrismatthews
11-14-2007, 12:40 PM
Well, it's not my money...but as the original author of the piece, I'm disappointed that certain timid naysayers influenced the watering down important points.

1. The Founders should be speaking to the American people. That's the whole creative aspect of the message....we messed up and they are holding us accountable. The people who claim that is "presumptuous" know nothing about marketing. The mesage is not as powerful because it's no longer "coming from the founders"...That was the whole point

2. Removing the part about political parties was a HUGE mistake. The vast majority of Americans are Independents...and an even bigger majority are just turned off. Even among Democrats and Republicans...approval ratings for both GOP and the Dem Congress are at an all time high. This point separated RP from the 2 party monster.

3. Removing the media line...another error.... You people are dreaming if you think this media honeymoon is going to last. They still think RP is just an exciting novelty act. When he truly becomes a threat...you will see attacks like you've never seen before. This was a good chance to prepare people for the attacks.

But some of you are so damn afraid of the media that it's pathetic..."chicken revolutionaries"

My advice to anyone who think they have a good idea...dont even post it in these forums...just run with it because the naysayers are generally unimaginative downers who will demorlaize u and water down your original concept.

same gang that tried to kill Hamedah's Muslim ad.
same gang that complained about V day.

also...TAKE THESE FORUMS OUT OF THE AD!.....You treally want the average american exposed to nuts like me?...lol


This entire grassroots movement, and the campaign as well owe you a great deal.

I take issue with some of your analysis.

The party part: There's a good portion of people that will listen to your message if you allow them to, but the moment you attack something they self-identify with they start reading to overcome as opposed to reading with an open mind.

You're absolutely correct that removing the party chastisment waters down the message, but it also broadens it by quite a bit.

I suggested it be removed and i stand by my suggestion.






The media part: While we sort of relish our underdog status, and rightfully understand the media is essentially a cheerleader for a few predetermined candidates(e.g. the Fox News/Guiliani scandal that broke last night), that type of understanding is a personal journey.

You have to really be concerned and understand an issue, then watch the media's bumblings to effectively draw that conclusion.

We're not going to convince Joe Public on an ad in USA Today. Again I think that its inclusion narrowed the message and preached to the choir. The goal is to expand the "congregation"

So i respectfully disagree with you.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:41 PM
However, I think that the change from the ad being in the POV of the founders was a good one

That's just it though, you lose an important part of the message and the hook of the advertisement. The average individiual will not see it as presumptuous, but simply pointing out that our current government has strayed far from its roots. Anyone who would read the original ad would know that it was making a statement about the problem with our current government.

That's the message and most people will get the message.

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 12:42 PM
You are exactly right. No one would believe that and that is why the ad is more powerful now. It juxataposes the ideas of the Founders with Ron Paul's positions. That makes sense.

The earlier version was taking a more creative approach by speaking for the Founders instead of just letting the Founders speak for themselves. This is fine for a creative excercise, but for a serious political ad, it isn't fitting or proper to conjur up the ghosts of the Founding Fathers and make the claim that they support Ron Paul.

+1

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:44 PM
+1

Quite frankly, the issue is NOT about the founders.

The issue is that the message of liberty and freedom is watered down in this second version! It is watered down and sugar coated big time!

I think people are using the issue about the founders as an excuse to support the gutting of this ad.

chrismatthews
11-14-2007, 12:45 PM
As a conservative independent who is relatively new to Ron Paul, I would HIGHLY encourage you to eliminate the word SLAVES.

You may be right but it is highly offensive.... especially when you're calling my children slaves.

Please take this criticism as constructive. As I said, you may be right... but your average American will be disgusted by the suggestion that his children are slaves.

You're not being literal, I know. But to me, it sounds like an INSULT. And you won't win ANY support by insulting people, especially their children!!!!!


Respectfully disagree, "slaves" is provocative and a bit over the top. Just like Paul's campaign.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:46 PM
The sad thing is everything provocative and bold about the ad has been removed.

SeanEdwards
11-14-2007, 12:47 PM
That's just it though, you lose an important part of the message and the hook of the advertisement. The average individiual will not see it as presumptuous, but simply pointing out that our current government has strayed far from its roots. Anyone who would read the original ad would know that it was making a statement about the problem with our current government.


It's presumptuous to speak on behalf of the dead. Every individual knows this. Even the 'average' ones.

The ad needs to say that Paul supports the founders, not that the founders support Paul. The current draft is a big improvement.

kevinblack
11-14-2007, 12:49 PM
The changes are great! I am in awe of the person driving this effort in particular and to everybody involved in the Ron Paul campaign in general.

I want to appologize for my rough comments on the first draft of this version but I forgot that I was not talking to a bunch of friends that I work with every day. My intentions where good and seeing this new draft makes my heart sing.

Amazing work!

Politeia
11-14-2007, 12:50 PM
Yes, it would give it more balance, but do you really think Benjamin Franklin should be up at the top with Washington, and Jefferson put off to the side?

Agreed; being in graphic design myself I do appreciate the point about all the photos should look toward the center (the words), but Jefferson (to whom Ron Paul is most often compared) should be on top with Washington (the father of our country). Edit: Ninja Homer's rework looks good.

And I agree that Ron Paul's picture would be better larger -- same size as the Founders above would be appropriate, and provide a subliminal visual linkage -- since the point of the ad is to associate Ron Paul with the Founders.

The "We The People" about Ron Paul's picture jars because the capital T in The overwhelms the eye; actually it should be a lower-case "the" anyway (the article is not usually capitalized in such phrases, even when used as titles -- see the original in the Ron Paul Forums graphic at the top of this page). "We the People" connects "We" and "People" without "the" getting in the way.


Technically speaking, Patriot needs to be in all capitals, as it is an acronym for "Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". In other words, there is no such thing as the "Patriot Act", but there IS a PATRIOT Act.

Thanks for catching this; this commonly repeated mistake annoys me too. And doing it correctly -- PATRIOT Act -- has more punch anyway.

As for whether to "eliminate" the IRS -- didn't Dr. Paul himself, in one of the first couple "debates", simply answer "Immediately!" in response to a question of when he would end the income tax? Ron Paul is the quintessential Nice Guy, but he knows where he stands, and he's getting tougher -- see today's Rolling Stone interview, where he actually calls some of his opponents "chickenhawks" (surprised me, I hope RS isn't jerking us around).


I hate to post these terrible images .. but THIS is what people think about when they hear the word "SLAVE".

Yes, and that's exactly the point. To paraphrase Mao, "A rEVOLution is not a dinner party." This is an effort to wake up a lot of people who've been asleep all their lives, whose parents and grandparents were also asleep. A very light tap on the shoulder and timid whisper isn't going to do the job.

As for the overall tone of the ad, I have to say I agree with Max in seeing nothing wrong with making the Founders the actual speakers, admonishing us, their descendants, for having dropped the ball big time. It's called literary license, no harm is done, and it makes for a powerful presentation. Same with other language that some have problems with, like "debt slaves".

I think a lot of what's behind the amazing surge of interest in Ron Paul is the astonishment and relief of many people who've been waiting all their lives to hear someone speak the truth, and never even knew they were starving until they heard Ron Paul. This whole "don't speak the truth, you might hurt someone's feelings" idea, cleverly manipulated by the Controllers, is exactly what's gotten us into this mess. If the American people really don't want the truth, why waste any more time trying to give it to them?

Remember, there were no lies in the original ad. That in itself sets it apart from all other contemporary political advertising.

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." --Thomas Paine

"If you do not say a thing in an irritating way you may as well not say it at all, because people will not trouble themselves about anything that does not trouble them." --George Bernard Shaw

Oh, and of course:

"Let us speak the truth." -- George W. Bush, Berlin, Germany, 23 May 2002

All that said, once again, it's LLepard's ad and I support him doing it any way he wants. Including not pleasing every last nit-picker here.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:51 PM
It's presumptuous to speak on behalf of the dead. Every individual knows this. Even the 'average' ones.

The ad needs to say that Paul supports the founders, not that the founders support Paul. The current draft is a big improvement.

If you think the current draft is a big improvement then I'm shocked beyond measure.

The first ad was MUCH better! It was bold and daring!

The second version has been sugar coated big time!

kahless
11-14-2007, 12:51 PM
I thought the first Ad was perfect as is.

Not sure why the first top bullets were reversed and the wording changed. The foreign entanglements line I think in the original Ad captured the feelings across the political spectrum. Although accurate now it comes across to me as something written by the DNC or specifically catering to those on the left.

chrismatthews
11-14-2007, 12:52 PM
Maybe. It definitely needs to be changed, though.

Look here:

http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00005906

His proportion of individual to PAC is very strong, but he has no problem taking money from PACs that don't know or don't care that he doesn't take bribes.


Not to mention that some of us have started PACS to support him.

Paulitician
11-14-2007, 12:53 PM
If you think the current draft is a big improvement then I'm shocked beyond measure.

The first ad was MUCH better! It was bold and daring!

The second version has been sugar coated big time!
I'm sure 9/11 conpsiracy theorists are bold and daring too...

James R
11-14-2007, 12:53 PM
The new version of the add is sugar coating our message.

1) It uses the term phase out the IRS instead of eliminate. I don't want the IRS phased out. I want it ELIMINATED, PERIOD! Ron Paul does want to ELIMINATE the IRS as quickly as possible. I tremendously doubt he would set up a new government program to slowly eliminate the IRS. He will strive to eliminate it as quickly as possible.

2) It no longer mentions plans for a draft. Folks, if we go to war with Iran the only way the military will have enough troops is to have a draft! The draft is in the works! There are also plans for mandatory service in the military for EVERYONE!

3) It removes the term "unconstitutional spending." That is DISGUSTING! The whole issue about government spending is that it needs to ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION! If it ABIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION government spending would be very limited indeed! Ron Paul is all about the constitution and removing the phrase "unconstitutional spending" is crazy!

In addition to the above a lot of other stuff has been removed too!

I realize keeping it shorter might be a good thing, but the above three items are simply unacceptable in my opinion.

Of course the person paying for this ad can have it say whatever he wants! It's all up to him! But I wonder why THIS version is so different than HIS ORIGINAL version?

Has someone been whispering in his ear that it needs to be watered down and that the message of the first one was too strong?

1) Few Americans believe the IRS can be simply eliminated. They can likely think it can be phased out.

2) Few if any Americans believe their will be a draft or that there is support in congress for a draft. I'm in the group thinking there is no support for a draft.

3) I don't know of any specifically unconstitutional spending off hand. Neither do 99.9% of USA Today readers, so that statement will simply confuse them.

All the revisions made were good ones in my book.

SoloJlink
11-14-2007, 12:54 PM
hmm this draft looks awesome,,, at least everyone in the states will look at his plans and goals...

"SHOW THE WORLD"!!

go Ron Paul ;)

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:54 PM
I thought the first Ad was perfect as is.

Not sure why the first top bullets were reversed and the wording changed. The foreign entanglements line I think in the original Ad captured the feelings across the political spectrum. Although accurate now it comes across to me as something written by the DNC or specifically catering to those on the left.

I also thought the first ad was perfect. It was fantastic! It was bold and daring!

If certain people think the problem with the first ad is that words are being put into the founders mouths then the founders should be removed from the ad, but NOT THE CONTENT!

The content of the first ad was PERFECT!

We should remove the founders before we remove the content of the first ad! Of course I don't think we should remove anything at all.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 12:56 PM
It's presumptuous to speak on behalf of the dead. Every individual knows this. Even the 'average' ones.

Oh please, how many people have said, "The Founders would not be happy with this country today"? That's what the original ad really said and most people would understand that.

The whole supporting Ron Paul for President thing is more cute than anything. It's not intended to be taking literally on any level and most people are smart enough to get that.

The problem here is everyone assuming that someone who doesn't know Ron Paul will read everything in this ad.We're all analyzing this ad top to bottom because we are Ron Paul supporters, but not everyone is and most will not read the whole ad, but just the most prominent parts. For that reason it should be kept as simple, but at the same time as aesthetically pleasing, as possible. Taking out warnings, but adding words to the Tea Party is hurting the whole brunt of the ad and very few people are going to react to the ad having the Founder support Ron Paul for president because it is is an AD! Most people understand that it is an advertisement and not meant to be taken seriously.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:58 PM
1) Few Americans believe the IRS can be simply eliminated. They can likely think it can be phased out.

2) Few if any Americans believe their will be a draft or that there is support in congress for a draft. I'm in the group thinking there is no support for a draft.

3) I don't know of any specifically unconstitutional spending off hand. Neither do 99.9% of USA Today readers, so that statement will simply confuse them.

All the revisions made were good ones in my book.

1) People need to realize the IRS can be simply eliminated. People have been brainwashed by the government to believe there is no way to eliminate it. We need to tell them the TRUTH that it can be eliminated QUICKLY.

2) If we go to war with Iran there will indeed be a draft. It will be the only way for the military to have enough troops.

3) There is TONS of unconstitution spending! Tons! Don't you realize that the 10th amendment states that ANYTHING that is not specified by the constitution must be done by the states? This means that tons and tons of federal programs are unconstitutional! The alphabet agencies are also unconstitutional! This includes the FBI, DEA, FDA, EPA, and many others!

How can you say you don't know of any unconstitutional spending!? There are tons and tons of examples of how the federal government is involved in something it should not be in!

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 12:59 PM
I'm sure 9/11 conpsiracy theorists are bold and daring too...

Yep! And they are CORRECT! If you do your research you will see they are spot on!

The fact of the matter is this article is now a sugar coated blob of goo that means nothing.

Politeia
11-14-2007, 01:02 PM
I don't know of any specifically unconstitutional spending off hand.

??? (mind definitely boggled)

How about trillions of "dollars" on undeclared wars since 1949? See the Ron Paul Library for a few other niggling examples.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 01:02 PM
Yes, it has to be a little bold and over-the-top because otherwise no one's going to really pay attention to it.

I think some changes should be made to make it more cohesive and relevant as well as more aesthetically pleasing, but that it mostly should have stayed the same.

chrismatthews
11-14-2007, 01:05 PM
Yep! And they are CORRECT! If you do your research you will see they are spot on!

The fact of the matter is this article is now a sugar coated blob of goo that means nothing.


It's still pretty bold. The key is to hit the sweet spot between bold and broad. When about half of this board thinks its too weak and the other half think it's too strong then we're just about right.

I'd say make the graphical changes suggested on the header, no one cares which profile is on top, just make it visually integral and send in the proof.

James R
11-14-2007, 01:07 PM
1) People need to realize the IRS can be simply eliminated. People have been brainwashed by the government to believe there is no way to eliminate it. We need to tell them the TRUTH that it can be eliminated QUICKLY.

2) If we go to war with Iran there will indeed be a draft. It will be the only way for the military to have enough troops.

3) There is TONS of unconstitution spending! Tons! Don't you realize that the 10th amendment states that ANYTHING that is not specified by the constitution must be done by the states? This means that tons and tons of federal programs are unconstitutional! The alphabet agencies are also unconstitutional! This includes the FBI, DEA, FDA, EPA, and many others!

How can you say you don't know of any unconstitutional spending!? There are tons and tons of examples of how the federal government is involved in something it should not be in!

I like sentence #3 paragraph #1, and would put it right into the ad. But just "unconsitutional spending" will draw a blank. I like sentence #2, and would put it directly into the ad, but simply "avoid the draft" draws a blank from people. I like sentence #1, and would put it directly into the ad. But again, simply "eliminate the IRS" is a 3-word phrase that requires an explanation. "Phase out the IRS" requires no explanation. Even Bush informally said he thought a sales tax instead of an income tax would be something to consider.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 01:07 PM
I agree with toning down the words, but not with getting rid of the Founders speaking because I think that's the part that makes it strongest, but is also not the kind of thing that going to make people cringe. Honestly, more are likely to cringe over the U.N. and NAFTA mention, than the Founders being the speakers of the main ad.

MsDoodahs
11-14-2007, 01:07 PM
The key is to hit the sweet spot between bold and broad. When about half of this board thinks its too weak and the other half think it's too strong then we're just about right.



:)

Sey.Naci
11-14-2007, 01:09 PM
Should his picture be at least as big as the founding fathers' pictures?
Agree.

Ninja Homer
11-14-2007, 01:10 PM
I did a little rearranging on the bottom to make Ron Paul's picture bigger. Pretend "We the People" is straightened out. I would use the same frame around Ron Paul's picture that is being used around the founder pictures.

http://kelsonmedia.com/ronpaul/newbottom.jpg

Naraku
11-14-2007, 01:10 PM
I think making Ron Paul's picture much bigger is going to be distracting and actually more offensive than anything else. Ron Paul is not bigger than the Founders.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 01:11 PM
The fact of the matter is that if we tone down our message one tiny bit then we don't deserve to be heard at all.

Speaking the truth and getting out our UNFILTERED message is what is most important. If we sugar coat our beliefs to gain support then we are no different than the Republicans and Democrats who will change their words and message every time the political wind shifts!

InTheoryTV
11-14-2007, 01:12 PM
Menthol Patch - you have made your point. Now it seems that you are just ranting. You asked for others to jump in and say if they don't like the changes, and let them.

Otherwise it seems to me that you are taking some of these changes personally and are an affront to your ego.

As someone who looked at the 2nd draft first and then the 1st one second, I got the impression that the Founders in the 2nd ad would disapprove of what is going on. I then read the 1st draft and the wording as to the Founders actually speaking seemed strange and out of time and I didn't care for someone trying to speak for someone. That is my opinion.

I like the November 5th fundraiser. I like the term debt slave. Now I read some people saying that people giving their time and suggestions are part of a naysayers group. Well maybe some are and some are not. We are SHARING here. To those trying to divide this place and label others because of opinions, I ask you to stop. Saying that people that have a different view are now in some different group is not going to help the cause of Dr. Paul winning. If you are getting mad, take a walk and get some fresh air.

SeanEdwards
11-14-2007, 01:12 PM
Oh please, how many people have said, "The Founders would not be happy with this country today"?

Are you seriously saying you see no difference between "The founders would..." and "We the founders support Ron Paul"?

I don't have an opinion about the other content changes that people are crying about, but refraining from using the founders of this country as sock puppets was a very positive change.

Energy
11-14-2007, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by Zimmychonga View Post
Should his picture be at least as big as the founding fathers' pictures?

Agree.

+1

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 01:16 PM
Menthol Patch - you have made your point. Now it seems that you are just ranting. You asked for others to jump in and say if they don't like the changes, and let them.

Otherwise it seems to me that you are taking some of these changes personally and are an affront to your ego.

As someone who looked at the 2nd draft first and then the 1st one second, I got the impression that the Founders in the 2nd ad would disapprove of what is going on. I then read the 1st draft and the wording as to the Founders actually speaking seemed strange and out of time and I didn't care for someone trying to speak for someone. That is my opinion.

I like the November 5th fundraiser. I like the term debt slave. Now I read some people saying that people giving their time and suggestions are part of a naysayers group. Well maybe some are and some are not. We are SHARING here. To those trying to divide this place and label others because of opinions, I ask you to stop. Saying that people that have a different view are now in some different group is not going to help the cause of Dr. Paul winning. If you are getting mad, take a walk and get some fresh air.

I am not going to stop and I will continue speaking and talking to people in this thread.

I'm simply standing up against an ad being GUTTED of everything that made it MEANINGFUL.

If people don't like that the founders did not actually say the exact words of the ad then the FOUNDERS need to be removed and not the CONTENT of the ad!

Ridiculous
11-14-2007, 01:17 PM
refraining from using the founders of this country as sock puppets was a very positive change.

+1

Naraku
11-14-2007, 01:17 PM
Are you seriously saying you see no difference between "The founders would..." and "We the founders support Ron Paul"?

There is no real difference. They're not speaking for the Founders, it's an AD. It's fake, and most people get that. I'm honestly more insulted that you think people are that stupid.


I don't have an opinion about the other content changes that people are crying about, but refraining from using the founders of this country as sock puppets was a very positive change.

They weren't being used as sock puppets. You see, you are also overreacting in assuming how people will perceive this and this happened with November 5th. You're assuming what a large amount of people will think and you are honestly just wrong.

trispear
11-14-2007, 01:19 PM
In "We The People" above rons picture... the word "The" looks lifted out of place. Could you raise that entire line so that it would be level?

I second this, the curved "The" in "We The People" looks okay and destroys the nostalgic effect. Raise the whole line.

Where is the first version guys? A lot of you say it was better and I'm interested in seeing it. Perhaps I'll try to run it in my local paper.

And.... original concept by Max? Good job Max! I don't want to bash someone, if this is the same Max I'm thinking of -- no offense -- but you post really controversial topics^_^;;;;;;; More power to you in that case -- but to make sure the focus stays on Ron Paul - perhaps you should reference Max just by his full name or just first name and last initial?

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 01:19 PM
The first ad was not using the founders as sock puppets. It was using them to spread the message of freedom and liberty.

If people don't like that the founders did not actually say those words then the FOUNDERS need to be removed from the ad. However, the CONTENT does not need to be removed or toned down! The content of the first ad was FANTASTIC! It was bold and totally truthful!

The fact of the matter is I think that some people are using the issue that the founders did not actually say those words as an excuse to tone down the ad and gut it of the most meaningful parts.

I'm shocked that there are so many on this forum that are terrified of someone being (gasp) offended by the TRUTH being told to them!

James R
11-14-2007, 01:23 PM
I did a little rearranging on the bottom to make Ron Paul's picture bigger. Pretend "We the People" is straightened out. I would use the same frame around Ron Paul's picture that is being used around the founder pictures.

For some reason that is just not as pleasing to my eye. I do want a bigger picture, but maybe there is some other way.

SeanEdwards
11-14-2007, 01:23 PM
There is no real difference. They're not speaking for the Founders, it's an AD. It's fake, and most people get that. I'm honestly more insulted that you think people are that stupid.



They weren't being used as sock puppets. You see, you are also overreacting in assuming how people will perceive this and this happened with November 5th. You're assuming what a large amount of people will think and you are honestly just wrong.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong some more.

I'm very pleased that you don't have any authority to impose your wishes on the person paying for this ad.

If you want to treat the founders like muppets, then I encourage you to pay for your own ad.

xcalybur
11-14-2007, 01:24 PM
Valid criticism Liberty. I appreciate it. I like it in the middle as well, but wanted to make his portrait bigger.

max
11-14-2007, 01:25 PM
They are dead, they can't endorse anyone. To people who know about Ron Paul it makes perfect sense that the founders would, if alive endorse him. But to many people this ad may serve as sort of an introduction to Paul, and saying that the founders endorse someone, especially in NH, may put them off a little.

i would have hope that after making such a big fuss about Guy Fawkes money bomb you'd have become a bit bolder by now..

Controlled audacity is what wins wars ...not defensive posturing

Allan Bartlett
11-14-2007, 01:25 PM
is this in PDF?

Politeia
11-14-2007, 01:28 PM
I second this, the curved "The" in "We The People" looks okay and destroys the nostalgic effect. Raise the whole line.

Again, see my post a couple pages ago: Capitalizing "The" is incorrect usage anyway (look at any book title with "the" in the middle), and that's what makes it look funny. See the original in the upper left corner of this web page: "We the People of the United States...."

Decapitalizing the article will fix this problem, whether the line is curved or straight:

We the People

Sey.Naci
11-14-2007, 01:28 PM
It ["debt slaves"] is not being used as an insult though, but an attack on the system itself. In that way it NEEDS to stay.How a phrasing is intended is different from how it is perceived. People here are saying they'd feel insulted reading that. If they do, it's very likely a good number of readers who've never heard of RP would feel insulted by it too.

Menthol Patch
11-14-2007, 01:30 PM
You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong some more.

I'm very pleased that you don't have any authority to impose your wishes on the person paying for this ad.

If you want to treat the founders like muppets, then I encourage you to pay for your own ad.

Quite frankly, no one was treating the founders like muppets. You are the one slandering them by referring to them as muppets. That's right, YOU!

By the way, the first draft of the ad was apparently written up by the person paying for the ad! It was wonderful, bold, daring, and TRUTHFUL! It did not hold back and was EXCITING!

That's right. The person who PAID for the ad was responsible for the AWESOMENESS of the first draft!

It seems that AFTER he requested criticism the compromising politicians on this forum that are scared of offending anyone somehow convinced him into gutting everything meaningful out of the ad. I have no idea how that could have happened, but I'm terrified that there are people on this forum willing to compromise the message of liberty.

I would even support the FOUNDERS being removed from the ad all together! If people are so offended that the founders never said those words I'm stunned no one suggested the idea of removing them all together!

To be blunt, we should not change the content from the first ad. Removing the founders all together is a much better alternative than gutting everything significant from the content.

Naraku
11-14-2007, 01:30 PM
You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong some more.

If you were talking to yourself that would at least be one thing you're right about.


If you want to treat the founders like muppets, then I encourage you to pay for your own ad.

It's not treating the Founders like muppets, though. It's a message conveyed in a way that people can easily understand. The message becomes muddled and confusing with all the changes and parts of the ad have become irrelevant or idiotic by taking out the Founders speaking.

As Menthol said, you might as well take them out of the ad period if you're going to change so much of it.

The whole point is it's like them actually speaking to the reader, no one is going to think it's actually the Founders speaking to them and most won't care because it's an AD. Really it's an AD, most won't care about the Founder issue like you do and those are the people who don't really know about Ron Paul and need to be reached. A gimmick like this is perfect. If it were used in some other way I would agree to it being in bad taste, but here I think it was used effectively.


If they do, it's very likely a good number of readers who've never heard of RP would feel insulted by it too.

Wrong, it's not likely and it WON'T be an issue.

SeanEdwards
11-14-2007, 01:30 PM
i would have hope that after making such a big fuss about Guy Fawkes money bomb you'd have become a bit bolder by now..

Controlled audacity is what wins wars ...not defensive posturing

Turning George Washington into a ventriloquist dummy is not audacious. It's insulting and juvenile.

The current version communicates exactly the same sentiment: Ron Paul's philosophy of governance is that of the founders, without the insulting artifice of making the dead speak.