PDA

View Full Version : TV ad slamming GOP-endorsed Senate candidate is 1st of season




tangent4ronpaul
08-06-2012, 06:11 AM
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/165086576.html?refer=y

A Republican U.S. Senate candidate's new cable television ad slams GOP-endorsed candidate Kurt Bills for his association with libertarian Republican Ron Paul.

The ad is the first aired in the U.S. Senate race that features Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar's quest for re-election. Neither Klobuchar, who leads in polls and fundraising, nor Bills have run any television ads yet.

Even the ad from Republican primary candidate David Carlson will not have a wide viewing. Carlson said he spent a few thousand dollars to run it in the western and southwestern suburbs. But it could make a mark on Bills, a Paul supporter who has struggled in his quest to unseat Klobuchar, in a low-turnout August primary. Bills said the ad was "kind of disturbing" and "disheartening."

"I am David Carlson and I approved this message because you have the right to know," he says in the ad as a photo of him with presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney appears on screen. A female narrator then takes over: "What would America have looked like if we had President Paul and Senator Bills?"

The ad hypothesizes that Paul's idea of "states' rights first" would mean there would be no civil war to free the slaves, women and minorities would have no right to vote, schools would not be integrated and African-American veterans could be forced to leave restaurants. It also lifts a former Paul staffer's claim that Paul said "saving the Jews was none of our business" in World War II. Those accusations about Paul have long rattled in political circles.

Bills, a freshman state representative, has not publicly supported any of the more extreme ideas pinned on Paul. Asked about it on Sunday, Bills said "this is Kurt Bills running and not Ron Paul" and emphasized that as a public school teacher he welcomes all students.

The ad, Bills said, "says more about the person who put it out than about me."

:rolleyes:

-t

LibertyEagle
08-06-2012, 06:21 AM
That ad is just so stupid. Yeah, Ron Paul would jump in a time tunnel and undo the Civil War. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Ronulus
08-06-2012, 07:25 AM
and the GOP and Democrats aren't in bed together?

green73
08-08-2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9B0giJLlEU

Feeding the Abscess
08-08-2012, 03:56 PM
Ron did say that it wasn't proper to enter WW2 for the Jews, and he said this on the record. It was the editorial board interview with an Iowan paper in November of last year.

pcosmar
08-08-2012, 04:17 PM
Ron did say that it wasn't proper to enter WW2 for the Jews, and he said this on the record. It was the editorial board interview with an Iowan paper in November of last year.

Post it,, I do not believe it for a second.
That sounds like someone putting words in his mouth.

WW!! was unnecessary,, Hell we should have stayed OUT of WWI,,and there would have never been a WWII.

We did not enter the war "for the Jews" in any event..

I call Bullshit.

rpwi
08-08-2012, 04:18 PM
What's wrong with having no Civil War? ~600k people died and honest scholars who have studied the issue (like Thomas James DiLorenzo) make a terrific case that the war didn't even need to be fought.

1000-points-of-fright
08-08-2012, 04:23 PM
Fail. US didn't enter WWII to save the Jews. The Civil War wasn't started to free the slaves.

Sola_Fide
08-08-2012, 04:52 PM
Haha...we live in the age of stupidity....

Feeding the Abscess
08-08-2012, 05:02 PM
Post it,, I do not believe it for a second.
That sounds like someone putting words in his mouth.

WW!! was unnecessary,, Hell we should have stayed OUT of WWI,,and there would have never been a WWII.

We did not enter the war "for the Jews" in any event..

I call Bullshit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyqmtBq3YI

29:20 mark

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
08-08-2012, 05:03 PM
and the GOP and Democrats aren't in bed together?

lol. Man, they're fucking the shit out of each other. lol (and I mean that in a great sex kinda way...)

Agorism
08-08-2012, 05:09 PM
That was way more absurd than I was expecting.

LatinsforPaul
08-08-2012, 05:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGyqmtBq3YI

29:20 mark

Not even close. You might be fishing?

jbauer
08-08-2012, 05:32 PM
Heck, Paul said if it wasn't a threat and we hadn't declared war then it wasn't our buisiness. If you wanted to personaly support it go for it.

BUT WE DECLARED WAR, it was a legal war, it was a national security threat. We kicked but, took names but forgot about the last part of get the hell out of there.

jbauer
08-08-2012, 05:33 PM
Either way my guess is there is already an injunction filed so he can't play the commerial anymore. I would assume he'll get his arse sued.

jbauer
08-08-2012, 05:36 PM
fyi, there's 2 comments on this in the article. If that's all the traction its getting its probably best to leave it alone. Talking about it gets it on redit and drudge.

pcosmar
08-08-2012, 05:57 PM
29:20 mark
And he said what?
"The people that committed the holocaust declared war on us."

and you translate that into????

He did not say we entered the war for the Jews.
I listened several times,,
It's just not there.

Feeding the Abscess
08-08-2012, 06:03 PM
And he said what?
"The people that committed the holocaust declared war on us."

and you translate that into????

He did not say we entered the war for the Jews.
I listened several times,,
It's just not there.

Never said he said we did. I did type my initial post a little clumsily, in review. I could have said something like "he doesn't think it would have been worthy to start a war over the holocaust" or something similar, and less confusion would have resulted. What he said there, in saying that it is wrong to compel others to support a moral imperative, is that it would have been wrong to enter Germany to stop the Holocaust.

LatinsforPaul
08-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Never said he said we did. I did type my initial post a little clumsily, in review. I could have said something like "he doesn't think it would have been worthy to start a war over the holocaust" or something similar, and less confusion would have resulted. What he said there, in saying that it is wrong to compel others to support a moral imperative, is that it would have been wrong to enter Germany to stop the Holocaust.

Now that I totally agree with.