Wednesday, June 13, 2012
While Obama can certainly win there are Problems
Not the least of which are Syria and those nat'l security leaks. There's a reason many are accusing the White House itself of taking a leak, all the leaks are positive in Obama's favor and help burnish his image. Who knew he was engaging in cyberattacks against Iran and every Tuesday shuffles a deck of terrorist playing cards and decides who's gonna get droned that day? but I don't hear the liberals complaining because hey it was quick and they weren't waterboarded like under Bush. The atrocities continue in Syria on an almost daily basis. Bashar al-Assad needs to go, everyone on the Planet except Russia and China seem to agree but Syria is fast becoming Obama's Rwanda. Then there's Barbara Walters who helped get Assad's former press aide and political adviser/spinmeister into Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs because young 22-year old and Playboy material Sheherazad Jaafari helped land her the big interview with Assad, that's not Obama's fault of course but Walters has always annoyed me. I thought she had a View to do but whatever. Apparently Putin's Russia is sending the former ophthalmologist and current psycho leader of Syria attack helicopters and we're learning all about Assad's militia the Shabiha, a pack of low-IQ killers on steroids doing his really dirty work like massacreing women and children in the villages. So who's supplying the 'roids? The leaks, Assad and the Economy not necessarily in that order but ya just know some highbrow moderator at one of the first prestigious presidential debates is gonna ask him about fat kids and soda:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maybe Obama an Assad should settle this with a one on one Basketball game. Or better yet a Beer summit.
ReplyDeleteDude... i like the basketball idea... a nice round of horse maybe?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, it's a mess over there, but why is it our fight? let the Arab league take responsibility and send their own troops and planes... why is it always us?
ReplyDeleteAre these issues always left up to us?
And if so, why?
Are we really saying that another country always has a right to enter another with military action if they do agree with how they are treating their citizens?
Would we affirm the right of other countries to invoke that right here in the US?
Or are we the only country that gets to invoke that right because we are the biggest badass on the block?
It isn't our fight, period, enough if enough.
ReplyDeleteIt's not Bush's war anymore, now it's Obama's.
And if you noticed, you don't see the daily barrage from the Liberal media showing the caskets of the dead soldiers anymore. The blame Bush first crowd went away once BO entered the White House. And we don't see Cindy Sheehan picketing the President any longer either, or Code pink and Move on. com, or the filty jokes about Bush by Woopie Goldberg and Joy Behar etc, etc, and etc!? I. Maybe they'll return when Romney is in office.
"And we don't see Cindy Sheehan picketing the President any longer either" ....
ReplyDeleteOn October 5, 2009, Sheehan was arrested with 60 others at the White House protesting President Obama's continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On December 10, 2009, Sheehan protested on the streets of Oslo, Norway, as President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize.
On March 20, 2010, Sheehan was again arrested in front of the White House, along with seven others...
..happens when some moms lose their
sons KIA.
"Maybe they'll return when Romney is in office." No, pacifists just don't like war. Romney? The guy
that got 4 deferments while I was on active duty? *&%#*@
It's all about the oil, of course, no matter who is in office, it's just that the MSM only notices these things when a Republican is in office.
ReplyDeleteHa ha, ha at what BB said
ReplyDelete"pacifists just don't like war. Romney? The guy
ReplyDeletethat got 4 deferments while I was on active duty? *&%#*@"
And how about Socialists, how do they serve,
While I was on active duty? Humm?
I think we serve our country first by believing in it. And that leaves Obama OUT!
Let me get this straight. The U.S. and Israel can invade/attack anyone they want to at anytime and claim they were "preemptive invasions/attacks" for national security or kill terrorists and that is OK but Iran has to prove something that is obvious to anyone with a brain?
ReplyDeleteSo the USA is allowed nukes but no one else.is? Get over it!
Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commentator Saad-allah Zarey claims four Iranian missiles fired at the warmongers known as Israel could cause one million Israeli casualties. He went on to describe Israel as so small and vulnerable, that even 100 Israeli bombs would not substantially damage Iran which is 80 times larger in area, and he stressed that in a missile war Israel would not have enough time to rally its defenses...
Why Obama will win, and why Romney will not.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama took a big risk a year ago when he authorized the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. It paid off, accomplishing the mission central to American foreign policy since Sept. 11, 2001. He repeatedly pointed to that achievement in marking its anniversary early this month while reminding Americans that Romney, campaigning four years ago, said "it's not worth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." President Obama has also succeeded in ending the Iraq war and getting relations back on track with a broad swath of countries that considered the American invasion unjustified. And he has set a timetable for getting the U.S. out of what has become a quagmire in Afghanistan.
As far as the national unemployment rate being at 8.1or 8.2 percent, it's really ONLY slightly below what it was in February 2009 after Obama's first full month in office and considerably below the 10 percent peak it reached in October 2009. People are spending more. American automakers are posting big profits. The market for new homes is finally showing signs of life. And stock prices are back just about where they were before the recession began. There's still a long way to go, but most economists give Obama's stimulus spending a share of the credit for turning the corner, and the Federal Reserve is projecting joblessness will fall below 8 percent by year's end — still historically high, but moving in the right direction.
I will vote for Obama everyday of the week to avoid one of those other rightwing/big business nut-jobs from getting the White House.
Now lets look at the facts.
1. Obama is the incumbent and the incumbent always has the advantage..
2. The economy is improving and this will help Obama
3. Americans like Obama and they don't like Romney.
4. Romney was very unpopular as the Governor of Mass..
5. Romney is so unpopular that a right wing third party could split the vote
6. Foreign policy won't help the Republicans
7. Foreign policy will help Obama
8. Obama is presidential
9. The Republican Party is unpopular
10. The Republican Party is unpopular and it
looks like four more years of President Obama. Get used to it!
President Obama will win re-election and it probably will not be as close as many people believe. The GOP is about who they hate, who they can demonize, about what social programs they can defund, this party resembles more a death cult than a major political party. The only question that I have is will Clinton leave her job as Secretary in Obama;s 2nd term to run for president in 2016.
Which reminds me, Whatever happened to that Ron Paul Fanatic Soapy?
ReplyDeleteHas he given up on his fool of a choice Ron Paul and ran away with his tail between his legs?
And who really gives a crap, pass the popcorn, please... Another loser has bitten the dust.
Soapy has better things to do with his time. Soapy is engaging in Human Action. Soapy is living and using each minute of every day to make a better world to live in.
ReplyDeleteSoapy has better things to do with his time!
ReplyDeleteLike what chefing and masturblogging,?
Why do so many people hate Israel and blame it for all the problems in the middle-east?
ReplyDeleteIn 1947, the beloved United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. In 1948 the state of Israel came into being and since that day Israel has had to fight for its life every single day including major conflicts in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 against overwhelming odds. The Jews have been persecuted since the beginning of recorded history. Why aren't more people concerned about the poor downtrodden Jews? Is it because they have managed to: 1) survive, and, 2) flourish? When rockets hit Palestinian territory, many rockets, bombs, suicide bombers, and mortars have already hit Israel. When Palestinians die, many Jews have already died. The whole question appears upside down and backwards to me. People should be hating the Palestinian's not the Israeli's.
Perfessor BB always here to correct us. Applying liberal standards here maybe Cindy Sheehan's a racist. Dave if Jews were being rounded up today in some country and put to death would you still say we shouldn't intervene militarily? Apparently pollwise many Jews are still for Obama but I'm not sure why.
ReplyDeleteEzzZee and Dave let's not argue the point but I've come up with another analogy. Jobs are slowly going up, ok, the economy is ever so slowly getting healthier, ok so let's say I'm planning a trip from Yonkers where I live to Albany. Without googling this I'm guessing it's several hundred miles and this would never happen because people would blow their horns no end but in my fictitious example I plan on driving my car to Albany tomorrow only I'm gonna go no more than 10MPH the whole way. So far nobody wants to go with me and dunno how long it'll take but every minute we'll be making progress and that's the main thing. I know Dave'll come along for the ride but how 'bout the rest of you?
ReplyDeleteZ-man, it'd be a great ride, but you can actually go the speed limit and still have the horns from everyone blowing at you.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I'd go, for the conversation... it'd be wonderful...
On the other issue, we'd have to look at it.
In the Germany example, which you are recalling, that was one people group exterminating another. This is not that. This is one people group killing themselves.
So for instance, if the Australian people decided to systematically kill all of the Aborigine people, I might indeed argue for intervention.
But... if the Argentinian people just wanted to kill Argentinian people, perhaps that is not something with which we need to involve ourselves.
What we need to do is outline a principle and then apply it so that nations can know where we stand and what to expect.
I would argue for a much more limited role for our military overseas except, possibly in areas where one people is intent on exterminating another.
We need some consistency, and a principle that when applied by other countries, we will not cry foul and say we are the only ones that get to apply that principle.
Here's an example of what I mean...
The US currently believes we have the right to use deadly force and attack another nation if we believe they are a grave and gathering threat to our security. We no longer believe it is best to wait for that threat to materialize and become active.
Would we support other countries using that same principle around the world, or is it just a good principle when we choose to use it?
I gather that Obama thought it was much more important to get rid of Khadafy rather than Assad. Similar situations, total inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteZ-man, probably because Khadafy had been a thorn in our sides for years and the Arab League was publicly supporting what we were doing, something that has not happened yet in Syria.
ReplyDeleteI think Lockerbie was a big, a huge factor and so Khadafy paid his karmic debt. Khadafy even looked whacky, Assad doesn't add to that are we really gonna stop those Russian warships from going to Tartous? Sit'chation is trickier:)
ReplyDelete