I Told You S0: Newt 33% / Romney 31% / Paul 15% - Rasmussen Report

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Can you please tell us all why we should be going into Iran, other than the reasons you have heard on Fox? With your fuzzy logic we should also be going into North Korea and Pakistan........while we are at it why don't we go into China and then Russia just for good measure!




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Yup looks like they work, thanks. Ended up missing half the debate on monday because the fox live stream crashed...maybe they did it on purpose.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
oh good an other see what i say do not see what they say folly from what Saudi Arabia says will happen, they will make one too , www.cbsnews.com... I think I could go on, not one, but the west and US say "no noway nohow will Iran have one" the rest say "if they have will shall have" or so what let them have it.

edit on 19-1-2012 by bekod because: editting



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by HallamFoe
 
well that depends was it Ron's turn? if so then yep they pulled the plug, if not then it was an oops, and your welcome



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I think I understand the OP. OP puts Israel first, so any candidate that does NOT put Israel first, is a target.
Israel cares nothing for Americans. Israel will kill Americans, and they have.
So all of this is about the fact that Ron Paul does not suck off of the Israeli teet, and will likely cut the massive amount of money that the U.S. sends to Israel, if he were elected.
Little wonder the entire establishment that is owned by Israel, is against him.
As for Rasmussen polls, they were way off predicting Iowa and New Hampshire. I see nothing has changed.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Of course now the ex-wife interview is set to air on Newt and rumors are that may end his run..

You ever notice how whenever someone becomes a really serious thread to Romney something happens to derail them?

Interesting....



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Seeing as how these polls have been wrong for the last two primaries, I dont care much for these either, I believe its inevitable Ron Paul will take atleast second place. I remember they made Romney out to be the clear leader in Iowa and he tied with Santorum, who came out of nowhere. The same for Huntsman, who polled low yet pulled off a strong third in NH. I just see these polls as an excuse to point at for the MSM, to say Ron Paul isnt doing well but look at these other guys! One good thing I can say though is I believe Romney is losing support, they may be using Newt as a shield but I think it will backfire in the long run.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
Newt is not the choice of the establishment. He doesn't have the funds necessary to go the distance. His staff has fallen apart countless times. He is a shield to protect Romney for as long as possible. Same with Santorum.

This race is and always has been between Ron Paul and Mitt "Obamney"...


Agreed, and he has a great deal of really dirty laundry that is yet to be exposed. I think it will soon be discovered that Newt has taken millions in bribes for political favors. And Ron Paul will destroy Mitt Romney. I dare say Ron Paul has a lot of dirt an any candidate you can name, and on most Congressmen and Senators.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


i love how it's such a shame to be providing our citizen with welfare, but perfectly justifiable to be waging these senseless trillion dollar wars that only benefit a a few private industries.


The war in Iraq is over.

Now Americans are focused on The Food Stamp President -- Obama the job destroyer.

Killing the Keystone Pipeline was a fatal mistake. It WILL be brought up tonight
on the CNN debate. Newt will knock it out of the ballpark.



Not likely, Newt is so out of touch with reality he thinks he can have casual sex with whomever he wants while being married. He thinks he can divorce his former wife who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis without the public taking notice. Newt is less of a human than the scum I just scraped off my boot.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Ron Paul wants to wait for the nuke to go off in one of our major cities and THEN go get who
did it!

Bad idea.

Being an isolationist is a recipe for disaster.



Nuke us or crash planes into our towers. We just might do that to ourselves if no one else will. It's good politics, right? Then we can go invade anyone we want. Last time scored a two-fer - Afghanistan AND Iraq. Doesn't even matter if the OS's perps were from another country.

I don't think that is part of Paul's playbook.

edit on 19-1-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


You guys are getting just as bad as the media on these threads. Honestly, what's the difference?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneymei love how it's such a shame to be providing our citizen with welfare, but perfectly justifiable to be waging these senseless trillion dollar wars that only benefit a a few private industries.

Wealth redistribution is marxism and if you don't like that, there are plenty communist countries in the world that would love to accommodate you.

War creates jobs and keeps millions of middle class professionals employed. It is profitable and can lead a nation with the right leader to true prosperity. How come the pacifists on this site can't understand such a simple concept?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Newt is a liberal fascist who believes in anthropogenic climate change and subscribes to other core liberal/socialist ideas. Any "conservative" who votes for this liberal buffoon needs to change their political affiliation, for they are surely not conservatives.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by biggmoneymei love how it's such a shame to be providing our citizen with welfare, but perfectly justifiable to be waging these senseless trillion dollar wars that only benefit a a few private industries.

Wealth redistribution is marxism and if you don't like that, there are plenty communist countries in the world that would love to accommodate you.

War creates jobs and keeps millions of middle class professionals employed. It is profitable and can lead a nation with the right leader to true prosperity. How come the pacifists on this site can't understand such a simple concept?


Oh, you're right. A war economy is much more appealing. The schoolyard bully always had more lunch money than the rest of the kids, by lunch time.

There are different ways to redistribute wealth.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by biggmoneymei love how it's such a shame to be providing our citizen with welfare, but perfectly justifiable to be waging these senseless trillion dollar wars that only benefit a a few private industries.

Wealth redistribution is marxism and if you don't like that, there are plenty communist countries in the world that would love to accommodate you.

War creates jobs and keeps millions of middle class professionals employed. It is profitable and can lead a nation with the right leader to true prosperity. How come the pacifists on this site can't understand such a simple concept?


Hahaha! Good one. I thought you were serious for a second there until I thought about it.

There's no way a person would be so evil that they would endorse state-instituted murder of the citizens of other sovereign nation just because they can't see past their denseness to realize there are better way to make money than straight-up nation mugging.

I'm glad that people like the one you were parodying don't really exist. We'd be in all kinds of wars if they did. Wait a second...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
If your believe what that organization says, then you are just as much a sheep as the majority of the sheeple.

Here's is an excerpt from wikipedia about Rasmussen:

"FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[9] The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[10] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections."

So, if you believe Rasmussen, then you are a true MSM believer.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by HallamFoe
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 




The rest of the world would cheer us on if we grabbed the nukes away from Iran.


What nukes? If you went to war with Iran the world would hate the US even more...and the UK also, as we would probably get dragged into it. Again.

Ron Paul Revolution 2012!



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


I totally agree with what you say about how the MIC needs to end, hell US is stupidly fighting a war that they can't win, and yet they don't want to give up power. For if they do, our enemies will show up at our door because we are weak. I say Hell, This has to stop at the top, if you can call the POUS the top of the chain in this country.

If Ron Paul doesn't win, its going to be the end of us and lets face it, MSM will not show him as a strong suit until he is the last one standing or after the election day. As soon as RP takes office someone will try and kill him because of his views.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Why would you vote for Newt the man had 84 ethics charges brought against him. I could see 1 but 84. Something is not right common republican voters.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tachyeon
Why would you vote for Newt the man had 84 ethics charges brought against him. I could see 1 but 84. Something is not right common republican voters.


Almost every single ethics charge was bogus.


Have you ever heard of the term -- piling on --???





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join