New CNN Poll - GRIM Numbers For Mitt Romneycare And The Repubs

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 2:08 AM GMT
    http://www.politicususa.com/obama-romney-lead/

    It's clear that the Repubs are going to need as much dirty Repub Super PAC $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as they can beg borrow and steal this election year.

    Look for the Repubs to wage the slimiest down-in-the-gutter campaign in decades.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 29, 2012 11:07 AM GMT
    He has the highest DISLIKABILITY factor ever for a probable nominee at this point in the game

    Just a an aside icon_cool.gif

    Romney just got the endorsement from George HW Bush
    No that's not the War Criminal one
    That's the one who said read my lips and gave us Bill Clinton

    So now he's got HW he's got Babs .... he's got Jeb's endorsement and even Jeb's son's endorsement
    Hmmmm ......... Who's missing???/

    Ya think Romney has staffers calling that ranch in Texas for a call back ???? .... LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 1:42 PM GMT
    Quick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    Mar 29, 2012 2:17 PM GMT
    Trump, Kid Rock, Jeff Foxworthy, now Poppy Bush.
    Hang in there Willard, Dick Cheney may be next!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September, when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Keep up the wishful thinking, John. Nearly 60% of Americans have an unfavorable impression of Romney, and it just gets worse with every time he opens his mouth.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 29, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Keep up the wishful thinking, John. Nearly 60% of Americans have an unfavorable impression of Romney, and it just gets worse with every time he opens his mouth.


    That thing you call "wishful thinking" applies to both sides. Romney will be the nominee, the GOP will be rallying around him as is already evidenced by some major recent endorsements, and the race will officially be on. Anyone who gets too comfortable with Obama's chances for re-election may do so at their own peril. It's likely going to be knock-down-drag-out to the bitter end.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 4:24 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    Keep up the wishful thinking, John. Nearly 60% of Americans have an unfavorable impression of Romney, and it just gets worse with every time he opens his mouth.


    That thing you call "wishful thinking" applies to both sides. Romney will be the nominee, the GOP will be rallying around him as is already evidenced by some major recent endorsements, and the race will officially be on. Anyone who gets too comfortable with Obama's chances for re-election may do so at their own peril. It's likely going to be knock-down-drag-out to the bitter end.


    If this is true, its only because the media needs a "knock-down-drag-out to the bitter end" to boost ratings and advertiser revenue.

    Talk to any PR executive, and they'll tell you the media can spin Casey Anthony into Mother of the Year. It would be slightly more challenging for them to make Mitt Romney into somebody likeable, but its still doable.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 29, 2012 4:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ said Anyone who gets too comfortable with Obama's chances for re-election may do so at their own peril. It's likely going to be knock-down-drag-out to the bitter end.


    Yep, basically it will be most of the 49% of citizens who pay ZERO Federal income taxes - in addition to the 64% of Americans receiving direct Federal benefits - voting for Obama, and most of the people who actually pay Federal income taxes and don't receive direct Federal benefits voting for the Republican nominee.

    Because we roughly have the same amount of citizens in each group (the ones not paying Federal income taxes and receiving direct Federal benefits vs the ones paying Federal income taxes and receiving no direct Federal benefits), that is what will make it close.



    I see in your world everything is in black and white. You really think that's how the votes are divided? No well-to-do persons who pay taxes and don't receive federal benefits are left leaning? Or that there are no conservatives living on welfare and will be voting for Romney or any Republican nominee?

    Come on, southbeach. If you want to be taken seriously you will need stronger arguments.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 29, 2012 4:52 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL saidIt would be slightly more challenging for them to make Mitt Romney into somebody likeable



    The millions of people who have already voted for Mitt Romney in primaries would beg to differ. The people who voted him into office as Governor would beg to differ. The various super-pacs investing millions to elect Romney would beg to differ. This illusion that the left is trying to paint -- that nobody likes Romney -- is laughable, but not at all true. Now, whether enough people will like Romney come November to vote for him over Obama is another story -- that remains to be seen -- but it is certainly possible that a President Mitt Romney could become a reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    White4DarkerFL saidIt would be slightly more challenging for them to make Mitt Romney into somebody likeable



    The millions of people who have already voted for Mitt Romney in primaries would beg to differ. The people who voted him into office as Governor would beg to differ. The various super-pacs investing millions to elect Romney would beg to differ. This illusion that the left is trying to paint -- that nobody likes Romney -- is laughable, but not at all true. Now, whether enough people will like Romney come November to vote for him over Obama is another story -- that remains to be seen -- but it is certainly possible that a President Mitt Romney could become a reality.


    True...the left does present the case that Mitt Romney is not likeable. But you have to admit that he makes their job pretty easy. Just the sound bites..."I like firing people" and "Corporations are people, my friend." are the kind of stuff the opposition teams love to have.

    You might find this interesting to read.

    http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/01/18/americans-dont-like-romney-but-may-still-vote-for-him/
  • DalTX

    Posts: 612

    Mar 29, 2012 5:05 PM GMT
    Dear Willard,

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Love,
    Ohio Art Company
    Maker of Etch A Sketch
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Mar 29, 2012 6:38 PM GMT
    White4DarkerFL said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    White4DarkerFL saidIt would be slightly more challenging for them to make Mitt Romney into somebody likeable



    The millions of people who have already voted for Mitt Romney in primaries would beg to differ. The people who voted him into office as Governor would beg to differ. The various super-pacs investing millions to elect Romney would beg to differ. This illusion that the left is trying to paint -- that nobody likes Romney -- is laughable, but not at all true. Now, whether enough people will like Romney come November to vote for him over Obama is another story -- that remains to be seen -- but it is certainly possible that a President Mitt Romney could become a reality.


    True...the left does present the case that Mitt Romney is not likeable. But you have to admit that he makes their job pretty easy. Just the sound bites..."I like firing people" and "Corporations are people, my friend." are the kind of stuff the opposition teams love to have.

    You might find this interesting to read.

    http://elections.firedoglake.com/2012/01/18/americans-dont-like-romney-but-may-still-vote-for-him/


    Did you hear Mitt's latest joke? His father closed a Michigan factory

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/mitt-romney-wisconsin-humorous-story_n_1386383.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 7:25 PM GMT
    creature said
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ said Anyone who gets too comfortable with Obama's chances for re-election may do so at their own peril. It's likely going to be knock-down-drag-out to the bitter end.


    Yep, basically it will be most of the 49% of citizens who pay ZERO Federal income taxes - in addition to the 64% of Americans receiving direct Federal benefits - voting for Obama, and most of the people who actually pay Federal income taxes and don't receive direct Federal benefits voting for the Republican nominee.

    Because we roughly have the same amount of citizens in each group (the ones not paying Federal income taxes and receiving direct Federal benefits vs the ones paying Federal income taxes and receiving no direct Federal benefits), that is what will make it close.



    I see in your world everything is in black and white. You really think that's how the votes are divided? No well-to-do persons who pay taxes and don't receive federal benefits are left leaning? Or that there are no conservatives living on welfare and will be voting for Romney or any Republican nominee?

    Come on, southbeach. If you want to be taken seriously you will need stronger arguments.





    Indeed you're correct.

    SB's comment is patently ridiculous.

    As we see clearly in the poll - the ONLY voting group that prefers Mitt Romneycare over President Obama is the over 65 age group.
    And the over 65's are by far the largest segment of the population that pays "ZERO federal income tax".

    SB's comment is typical of non-credible factually inaccurate irrational bullshit that we hear from the incoherent Repubs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 7:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.





    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 29, 2012 8:00 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.



    Oh please....Like the Billion dollar Obama machine isn't going to play dirty. There will be enough mud flying in both directions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 8:13 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    RickRick91 said
    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.



    Oh please....Like the Billion dollar Obama machine isn't going to play dirty. There will be enough mud flying in both directions.




    It most likely won't be necessary for President Obama to go viciously negative to win.

    For Romney it will be his only option.

    But the issue of the campaign won't be just the nastiness of the Romney attacks.
    The real issue is going to be the LIES of the Romney attacks.

    Given the fact that the public already views Romney as a lying two-faced double-dealing pandering flip-flopper - the repeated instances of Romney making shit up and dishonestly distorting and exaggerating things will just backfire and reinforce the negative impression folks already have of Mitt Romneycare.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 8:29 PM GMT
    creature said...

    Come on, southbeach. If you want to be taken seriously you will need stronger arguments.


    Don't count on it. His view from up his ass is quite limited.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 8:39 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 9:41 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.





    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 9:52 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.


    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.

    OK I was polite in the reply because I wanted to acknowledge an error and not try to mitigate it by taking a shot at you in return.......but you stated I claimed to have made incorrect statements only twice. That is simply not correct. I mentioned one other time, but I did not say it was the only time. (although I don't recall any others off-hand). So why did you make that claim, either to lie yourself, or is your reading comprehension inaccurate. So let's hear it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 10:42 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.


    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.

    OK I was polite in the reply because I wanted to acknowledge an error and not try to mitigate it by taking a shot at you in return.......but you stated I claimed to have made incorrect statements only twice. That is simply not correct. I mentioned one other time, but I did not say it was the only time. (although I don't recall any others off-hand). So why did you make that claim, either to lie yourself, or is your reading comprehension inaccurate. So let's hear it.




    LOL

    I read and comprehended your comment perfectly.
    You stated very clearly above that there was "ONE other time" that you posted a false claim or false information.

    If you now want to amend that statement then feel free to do so but don't try to revise what you posted above.
    It's there for all to see that you claimed to have posted something that was false "one other time".

    I merely responded to what you yourself posted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 10:50 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.


    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.

    OK I was polite in the reply because I wanted to acknowledge an error and not try to mitigate it by taking a shot at you in return.......but you stated I claimed to have made incorrect statements only twice. That is simply not correct. I mentioned one other time, but I did not say it was the only time. (although I don't recall any others off-hand). So why did you make that claim, either to lie yourself, or is your reading comprehension inaccurate. So let's hear it.




    LOL

    I read and comprehended your comment perfectly.
    You stated very clearly above that there was "ONE other time" that you posted a false claim or false information.

    If you now want to amend that statement then feel free to do so but don't try to revise what you posted above.
    It's there for all to see that you claimed to have posted something that was false "one other time".

    I merely responded to what you yourself posted.

    Nope. I said one other time, but I never said it was the only other time. Never used the term only, so you neither read nor comprehended correctly. Intentional or not?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 29, 2012 11:06 PM GMT
    I think there are Romney staffers who are feeding little Cheney Voodoo dolls lots of salty high fat foods .... so he keel before he has a chance to endorse him

    .... Ya Think?

    and the other half is shoveling brush over the fence in Waco to keep some idiot busy icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 11:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.


    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.

    OK I was polite in the reply because I wanted to acknowledge an error and not try to mitigate it by taking a shot at you in return.......but you stated I claimed to have made incorrect statements only twice. That is simply not correct. I mentioned one other time, but I did not say it was the only time. (although I don't recall any others off-hand). So why did you make that claim, either to lie yourself, or is your reading comprehension inaccurate. So let's hear it.




    LOL

    I read and comprehended your comment perfectly.
    You stated very clearly above that there was "ONE other time" that you posted a false claim or false information.

    If you now want to amend that statement then feel free to do so but don't try to revise what you posted above.
    It's there for all to see that you claimed to have posted something that was false "one other time".

    I merely responded to what you yourself posted.

    Nope. I said one other time, but I never said it was the only other time. Never used the term only, so you neither read nor comprehended correctly. Intentional or not?




    LOL
    Nonsense.

    Your comment above stating that that you'd posted false information "one other time" on the blog threads here at RJ - was unclear.

    If you meant that that one other time was just one instance of you posting false information -and that there were other instances as well - you should've posted that.
    But you didn't.

    But now that you've clarified your earlier claim you've finally made it clear what you meant to post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 29, 2012 11:55 PM GMT
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness said
    RickRick91 said
    socalfitness saidQuick comment not for the thread participants but for any other readers:

    Primaries have a damaging effect on nominees. After the primaries are completed, that damage is generally either lessened or reversed. Note after the grueling primaries between Hillary Clinton and Obama in 2008, Obama remained behind McCain until September when the economic issue damaged the Republicans because they held the White House.

    Romney just picked up the endorsement of Marco Rubio, strongly associated with more conservatives. As this process completes, there will be broad support, ranging from Rubio and DeMint to business oriented moderates. I think we will see an intensity of positions taking direct aim at Obama's policies, performance, integrity, and political tactics.


    Your comment is a LIE.

    President Obama led McCain throughout the summer of 2008 - contrary to your bullshit claim that he trailed McCain.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109138/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-41.aspx

    The only point of the 2008 campaign that saw McCain with a real lead over Obama was a short period of time after the Repub convention when the McCain/Palin ticket experienced a brief post-convention bounce.

    Yet again you just made shit up to try to bullshit the uninformed.
    And also to try to delude yourself.
    Every time you try to get away with that on these blog threads you'll be called out on your lies and misinformation.

    But you are correct that we'll see a vile slimy down-in-the-gutter campaign from the Repubs with a dirty ugly barrage of attacks "taking direct aim" at President Obama.

    And I'm sure that the sleazy Repub campaign will play as fast and loose with the facts as you do!
    However, the Repub campaign will be called out on their lies and misinformation too.

    I made the statement based on taking the word of an analyst that I have usually found to be reliable. I made the mistake of not fact checking that and including a link as I usually do. Having checked it, I find that my statement in this thread was incorrect, and that your statement was accurate.

    I never intentionally make false statements because I know it is too easy for someone to fact check. I also never hesitate to admit making a factually false statement. It doesn't happen often. One other time I paraphrased Pelosi on the health care bill. I did state that my words were not exact, but the small change I made, not intentionally, significantly changed the meaning. Christian called me on it, I checked and responded that he was right.

    That said, I will make two points. First, I stand by my prediction of Romney's approval ratings to increase. Second, you're quite rude.


    Your claim that you've only posted factually inaccurate information twice on these blog threads is simply not true.

    In the future if you don't post anything that's false then you won't have a problem.

    If you do you'll again be held accountable.

    OK I was polite in the reply because I wanted to acknowledge an error and not try to mitigate it by taking a shot at you in return.......but you stated I claimed to have made incorrect statements only twice. That is simply not correct. I mentioned one other time, but I did not say it was the only time. (although I don't recall any others off-hand). So why did you make that claim, either to lie yourself, or is your reading comprehension inaccurate. So let's hear it.




    LOL

    I read and comprehended your comment perfectly.
    You stated very clearly above that there was "ONE other time" that you posted a false claim or false information.

    If you now want to amend that statement then feel free to do so but don't try to revise what you posted above.
    It's there for all to see that you claimed to have posted something that was false "one other time".

    I merely responded to what you yourself posted.

    Nope. I said one other time, but I never said it was the only other time. Never used the term only, so you neither read nor comprehended correctly. Intentional or not?




    LOL
    Nonsense.

    Your comment above stating that that you'd posted false information "one other time" on the blog threads here at RJ - was unclear.

    If you meant that that one other time was just one instance of you posting false information -and that there were other instances as well - you should've posted that.
    But you didn't.

    But now that you've clarified your earlier claim you've finally made it clear what you meant to post.

    Nice try twisting things. LOL