Article: Obama has slight edge against Romney

marine1 said:
I will just say one thing, his agenda against Israel and pro Arab makes me mad.
That is probably the most annoying thing.

I wont go into all the other things that he has done, probably the same or worse than Bush in terms of laws in the US.
Click to expand...

Pro arab WTF? Anti israel?

You need a tinfoil hat, explain to me how he is pro arab
 
marine1 said:
I will just say one thing, his agenda against Israel and pro Arab makes me mad.
That is probably the most annoying thing.

I wont go into all the other things that he has done, probably the same or worse than Bush in terms of laws in the US.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? How is he anti-Israel? He attempted to get the Arab world not to hate the US. How is that a bad thing?
 
From one of your articles, marine1:

The Biblical prophecies are consistent on the fate of those nations who act against Israel. Zechariah 12:9 quotes our Lord: “I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Israel.” That destruction will be based on actions rather than words. The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to point out that citing sources that are driven by belief in Biblical prophecy is not particularly compelling? In fact it verges on the absurd.

***

I don't pay all that much attention to foreign policy stuff, but as far as I can tell, Obama is bombing the **** out of many Muslim nations, and it seems to the reason for this butt-hurt notion that he is anti-Israel is because he has not gone straight to war with Iran.

Partisan madness - People like you are so blinded by your love of one side and your hatred of the other that you don't seem vaguely able to make rational decisions.

And don't call me an Obama fanboy - I've made my feelings known about him, many times on the forum already, and I am no fan.
 
LOL all those drones strikes against arab, yea very pro arab that is.

War with iran, very pro arab as well.
 
zippy said:
I think Romney will be more entertaining. Imagine, a muppet(Romney), clown(Boris Johnson), toff(David Cameron). Something laugh about, which is about all the value politicians add to society.
Click to expand...
You forgot Merkel; destroyer Europe.
 
When it comes to praising President Obama’s foreign policy skill and Toughness (in the neocon sense of that term: i.e., a willingness to risk other people’s lives with the use of military force against foreigners), The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg has been one of the most reliable and vocal voices. Considered by Obama aides “as the ‘official therapist’ of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Goldberg has been particularly important in vouching for Obama to Israelis and American Jews on the ground that nobody will be Tougher on Iran than Obama (in return for this service, Goldberg — like all helpful journalists are — has been rewarded by the White House with substantial career-boosting access). In his Bloomberg column this morning, Goldberg argues that Israeli officials should pray for Obama’s victory in the November election, and makes this argument in support:

On the matter of Iran, however, Netanyahu would be wrong to root for Romney. Barack Obama is the one who’s more likely to confront Iran militarily, should sanctions and negotiations fail. He has committed himself to stopping Iran by any means necessary, and he has a three-year record as president to back his rhetoric. Romney has only rhetoric, and he would be hamstrung in many ways if he chose military confrontation.

He goes on to argue that despite the GOP challenger’s Tough rhetoric, “Romney would face several critical challenges in a conflict with Iran that Obama would not”; specifically:

Romney, by all accounts, is uninterested in inheriting the mantle of President George W. Bush, who invaded two Muslim countries and lost popularity and credibility as a result. Romney, despite his rhetoric, is more of a pragmatist than Bush, and far more cautious. An attack on Iran is an incautious act, one that even Bush rejected.

The unilateral use of force in the Middle East for a liberal Democrat like Obama is a credential; for a conservative Republican like Romney, it could be an albatross. I argued in a previous column that Romney is more likely than Obama to oversee a revitalized Middle East peace process. That’s because conservatives are better positioned to make peace; liberals are generally better positioned to launch preventive strikes at the nuclear programs of rogue nations. We know that U.S. voters, and world leaders, allow Obama extraordinary leeway when it comes to deadly drone strikes, precisely because of his politics, character and background. (We are talking about a man, after all, who won the Nobel Peace Prize while ordering the automated killing of suspected Muslim terrorists around the world.) Romney will get no comparative slack.

In other words, Obama will be freer to attack Iran than Romney would be because Democrats, progressives, and the “international community” (that’s neocon for: Europeans) passively accept or even cheer for violence, aggression and executive power abuses when ordered by a sophisticated, urbane, Constitutional Law Professor with Good Progressivism in his heart, and only cause a messy ruckus when done by an icky, religious, overtly nationalistic Republican.
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/most_likely_to_attack_iran/

*edit*

Marine1, read this article, it makes a pretty good point, I think.
 
Last edited:
zippy said:
Yeah, he is good at getting American business moving. Offshore. Lol. Obviously non-Americans are gonna love him, and Americans with shares in offshore companies. You have to be a bit retarded to vote for someone who is gonna move your job to China. But them most right-wing Americans are a bit inbred and thick.
Click to expand...

Is Obama's administration not doing the same thing?
 
I would also prefer someone else other than Obama... BUT... I don't want Romney to get in... he's a nutcase. So I guess it will have to be Obama for a second term. The Democrats don't have much luck in the second term department though.
 
R13... said:
Lol. You expect him to actually be objective? You're too hopeful copa, too hopeful. Marine1 holds beliefs, he's not one to be objective.
Click to expand...

lol, you are one to talk! :D Objective? I don't think you know what that word means! ;)
 
Romney is totally divorced from reality. With his billions, he has no inkling of how ordinary people live. He seemed taken aback that someone not of robust means would want a helping hand from the govt.
 
Garyvdh said:
lol, you are one to talk! :D Objective? I don't think you know what that word means! ;)
Click to expand...

If I asked you to show how I behave like mindless (like you anytime the ANC, Apple/android/MC is mentioned or marine1 about anything from drugs to 'Arabs') you'd duck off about being too lazy to search,won't you Gary?
 
marine1 said:
The most retarded thing I have heard.
Everyone on this forum holds beliefs
Click to expand...

I don't believe in anything supernatural, not because I actively assert that such beliefs are not true but because I just don't find the evidence compelling enough. What beliefs do I have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X