bud

you like polls? because the polls show that ron paul has pretty much the same chance against obama as romney. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday's New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans. Romney posts a two-point lead over Obama, 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. He leads Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent, among independent voters. Obama's lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109

of course there is an inevitable nominee. romney received 25% in iowa and as expected 40% in his neighbouring state of NH. but this is far from over. the votes from other candidates will have to go somewhere and as i mentioned, the anti-mormon voters could be the deciding factor. judging from previous posts by you and others, ron paul has done a lot better than expected.

was she stoned to death and then her head logged off?

as other candidates drop out, ron paul gets a chance to get their votes. especially from the relatively large anti-mormon voters.

suddenly wild bill is about accuracy and proof. even after making this comment: Iran would simply grab the first American they could find and stone him to death! Or lop off his head. you are an embarrassment.

my comment was a response to wild bill's comment: Iran would simply grab the first American they could find and stone him to death! Or lop off his head. he, just like you, makes comments that are untrue. are you interested in the truth or are you interested in driving home an agenda by any means possible? don't allow your jewishness get in the way of being honest.

then they stone them to death and then log their heads off and then feed on their hearts! those iranians are crazy! they will attack us all! fear! sky! falling! attack them! bomb them! i wet my pants! omg! iran! ahmadinejad! sharia! omg! iran! iranians! everyone fear!

really now? which american has been stoned to death or had his head 'logged off'? you, sharkman and a few others need to learn to stop talking out of your asses. you are an embarrassment.

really? tell that to the people who are under indefinite detention in both canada and u.s. we're not as civilized as you want to think we are.

each star marks a u.s. military base, but just so we're all clear: iran is threatening u.s.; u.s. is not threatening them. http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381155_329902997025911_247545411928337_1479852_603782959_n.jpg

you're weak and you are a liar. oh look, from the new york times: Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. if you don't want to admit it, then so be it. the information is there for those who prefer the truth over lies.

geez buddy. you're really reaching. here are more sources: Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. or Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." or the extreme right wing, pro israeli MEMRI: "'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. or Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." what about ahmadinejad himself? At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[26] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action. Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own.[27][28] Asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[27] In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied: If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29] you have two choices here; continue to repeat a lie and misinformation or show that you are an honest person and admit that ahmadinejad said "wipe the regime off the map".

the 2005 article from NYT is wrong. here is the truth: THE ACTUAL QUOTE: So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem). So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel". THE PROOF: The full quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm link

hamas is making it difficult for the warmongers. there is a good article by uri avnery which describes israel's problem with hamas and its call to end violence: The Stolen War by URI AVNERY ... But of course, the reasons for Cast Lead II are more serious. Hamas is being accepted by the international community. Their Prime Minister, Isma’il Haniyeh, is now traveling around the Arab and Muslim world, after being shut in Gaza – a kind of Strip-arrest – for four years. Now he can cross into Egypt because the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, has become a major player there. Even worse, Hamas is about to join the PLO and take part in the Palestinian government. High time to do something about it. Attack Gaza, for example. Compel Hamas to become extremist again. NOT CONTENT with stealing our war, Mash’al is carrying out a series of more sinister actions. By joining the PLO, he is committing Hamas to the Oslo agreements and all the other official deals between Israel and the PLO. He has announced that Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. He has let it be known that Hamas would not contest the Palestinian presidency this year, so that the Fatah candidate – whoever that may be – would be elected practically unopposed and be able to negotiate with Israel. All this would put the present Israeli government in a difficult position. link

cop out. when confronted with facts, try to divert attention away.

just because no one likes the iranian government, it doesn't mean that you should be spreading false information. ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe out the regime which is a reference to the zionist regime. there is a difference with what you and the other misguided people say and reality. obama is doing his best to not give into pressure of bibi/likud/aipac in regards to an attack on iran. but those election fundraisers are calling and he could have problems in the coming year. especially if ron paul, an anti-war candidate, wins the gop nomination. harper would not get into a war with iran. he'll only go as far as kissing the israeli lobby's ass.

New Hampshire newspapers endorse Ron Paul As word of Rick Santorum’s campaign cash dries up and chances at a Granite State victory are in doubt, pundits predict that Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will be battling it out in New Hampshire for the title of victor during and after Saturday’s debate. As the people weigh of the state weigh the pros and cons of the candidates for the last few days before they are left to decide, however, the media in New Hampshire is already offering up their endorsements. Paul, considered an underdog at first but has only surged leading up to the Iowa caucus, has garnered the endorsement of three key publications in the state of New Hampshire. i'm sure many who did before can no longer pretend that ron paul has no chance. link

ron paul received 10% of the votes in iowa in 2008 and 21% in 2012 while romney went from 25% in 2008 to 24% in 2012. paul's popularity has increased and this increase has been consistent. while other candidates (excluding romney) have gone up and down like yoyo's. i still think paul has a decent chance since romney (the healthcare supporting mormon) has never been able to get over 25% support.

bc2004?

did you support bombing campaigns and other military actions that resulted in the deaths of more than 3000 innocent civilians?

there is a common theme in the middle east in regards to what the majority think which is they acknowledge and despise america's meddling. this negative feeling towards america has created extremist groups like al quaeda whose tactics are not accepted by majority despite sharing the negative feelings towards 'the great satan'. kind of like how someone in the west who is against al quaeda but does not agree with the tactics used by the u.s. government which has left thousands of innocent civilians in the middle east dead.

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by DogOnPorch . View it anyway? no. --- still waiting on sharkman and jbg to respond to this: As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

nut-jobs who attack abortion clinics are not occupied and bombed by abortion doctors. your comparison is stupid. not sure why you guys are unable to admit that america's policy in the middle east, which includes its military bases, its support for israel and its supports for many dictators is the biggest reason why these extremist groups are being created. what do you think the surviving members of families of the many innocent civilians who were bombed and killed feel about the u.s.? what about the iranians who understand that if u.s. had not interfered when mossadegh became prime minister, they could be living in a democratic society? these people don't just get up one day and decide that they will randomly pick a country and call it 'great satan'.

that was an awesome post.

this is not about 'my view' or 'your view'. this is about what has been determined by an international body which majority of countries are signatories to, including israel. if you want to know what is considered israeli land and what is not, refer to UN resolution 242, 338, 446and 465 here is information on resolution 465 that clearly explains israel's violations: 5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East; 6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem; the resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none with 3 abstentions. here is canada's position on the settlements: Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.