• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Americans really wish they had elected Mitt Romney instead of Obama

Started by Quick Karl, July 27, 2014, 05:11:44 PM

Quick Karl

" Americans really wish they had elected Mitt Romney instead of Obama " Anti-Americans, however, are perfectly happy with him...

http://theweek.com/article/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

They must have started conducting more scientific polling methods...

Quote from: Quick Karl on July 27, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
" Americans really wish they had elected Mitt Romney instead of Obama " Anti-Americans, however, are perfectly happy with him...

http://theweek.com/article/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

They must have started conducting more scientific polling methods...

Q. What's the difference between a large redneck hillbilly nose-picker and a large pizza?

A.  A pizza can feed a family of four.

onan

Quote from: Quick Karl on July 27, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
" Americans really wish they had elected Mitt Romney instead of Obama " Anti-Americans, however, are perfectly happy with him...

http://theweek.com/article/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

They must have started conducting more scientific polling methods...

I thought the 55 to 42 percent choice of Hillary over Mitt was enlightening.

Quick Karl

Quote from: onan on July 27, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
I thought the 55 to 42 percent choice of Hillary over Mitt was enlightening.

People are stupid. Isn't Obama proof enough of that?

Quote from: onan on July 27, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
I thought the 55 to 42 percent choice of Hillary over Mitt was enlightening.
An even bigger margin than the "whopping" 9 percent Mitt over Obama numbers.  The truth is, the Democrats could run the re-animated corpse of George McGovern, and still trounce whoever the GOP/Tea Party runs.  The increasingly divisive, xenophobic and anti-American policies and viewpoints of the right no longer resonate with middle America - who are increasingly diverse, educated on the issues, and who love their country too much to turn it over to the religious extremists and angry, old white men that form 95% of the right wing establishment.  No amount of Koch brother or NRA funding can change that.

Quote from: Quick Karl on July 27, 2014, 05:24:02 PM
People are stupid. Isn't Obama proof enough of that?

No, but your continued infection of this site certainly is.


Quote from: RealCool Daddio on July 27, 2014, 07:05:51 PM
An even bigger margin than the "whopping" 9 percent Mitt over Obama numbers.  The truth is, the Democrats could run the re-animated corpse of George McGovern, and still trounce whoever the GOP/Tea Party runs...

Like he said, people are stupid. 

Or more likely, greedy.  It depends on what new handouts the takers think McGovern's corpse would give them


Quote from: RealCool Daddio on July 27, 2014, 07:05:51 PM
...  The increasingly divisive, xenophobic and anti-American policies and viewpoints of the right no longer resonate with middle America - who are increasingly diverse, educated on the issues, and who love their country too much to turn it over to the religious extremists and angry, old white men that form 95% of the right wing establishment.  No amount of Koch brother or NRA funding can change that.

Right now we have the leadership of the Republican Party (such as it is) doing nothing, standing for nothing, and representing no one.  And doing everything they can think of to piss off the base of their Party.  The last Conservative President was Ronald Reagan.  Reagan was probably the last Republican in Washington DC of any prominence able to speak in complete sentences. 

Big Media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 'Progressive' Democrats, and shills for them at every chance

Yet the R's are poised to trounce the D's in the upcoming elections.  Not just in the Senate race, but at all levels across the country.

Considering your reading of the current situation, that's pretty weird, eh?




b_dubb

Quote from: Quick Karl on July 27, 2014, 05:24:02 PM
People are stupid. Isn't Obama proof enough of that?
W certainly was. We continue to suffer because of his incompetence. The Middle East is collapsing and Afghanistan is seeing resurgence of the Taliban.

Bush II administration - worst thing to ever happen to this country

jazmunda

Quote from: onan on July 27, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
I thought the 55 to 42 percent choice of Hillary over Mitt was enlightening.

As a non-American I would prefer Hillary over Obama.

I think Romney was the wrong choice to go up against Obama. Not sure who would have been a better choice but he seemed to lose the election rather than Obama winning it.

If you would like a foreigner's unsolicited point of view, I think John Kerry is a piss weak Secretary of State and is now seen as a joke within the international community. Hillary has more balls than him. No really I would check both of their drawers if I was you. Obviously I can't as I'm a stinking foreigner.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: jazmunda on July 28, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
As a non-American I would prefer Hillary over Obama.

I think Romney was the wrong choice to go up against Obama. Not sure who would have been a better choice but he seemed to lose the election rather than Obama winning it.

If you would like a foreigner's unsolicited point of view, I think John Kerry is a piss weak Secretary of State and is now seen as a joke within the international community. Hillary has more balls than him. No really I would check both of their drawers if I was you. Obviously I can't as I'm a stinking foreigner.

Worse. You're in the Commonwealth.


Quote from: b_dubb on July 27, 2014, 11:54:16 PM
W certainly was. We continue to suffer because of his incompetence. The Middle East is collapsing and Afghanistan is seeing resurgence of the Taliban.

Bush II administration - worst thing to ever happen to this country


Yes, Bush II was the worst Administration in history - until Obama came along.

Bush II foolishly and unnecessarily set those two wars in motion, destabilizing the region.  But by running for the Presidency, Obama was implying he could do better.  He did worse.  Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East are significantly worse off now than they were when Bush II left office.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: jazmunda on July 28, 2014, 01:01:01 AM
Cough cough

http://www.bbc.com/sport/commonwealth-games/2014/medals/countries

You got lucky! C'mon we only have 50 odd million in England to choose elite athletes from; whereas Australia has, erm....

You got lucky okay?

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 01:07:55 AM

Yes, Bush II was the worst Administration in history - until Obama came along.

Bush II foolishly and unnecessarily set those two wars in motion, destabilizing the region.  But by running for the Presidency, Obama was implying he could do better.  He did worse.  Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East are significantly worse off now than they were when Bush II left office.


That is directly as a consequence of the two illegal wars; not because Obama took office. If you drop a cauldron of boiling oil off the parapet you're never going to stop it hitting the ground and those stood on it, no matter who you are. 

Quote from: b_dubb on July 28, 2014, 01:10:39 AM
Head in the sand PB. This is just sad.


Well ok, what are the top handful of ways the Middle East is better off now than when Obama took office?

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 01:15:56 AM

Well ok, what are the top handful of ways the Middle East is better off now than when Obama took office?

It probably isn't; but that isn't because of Obama's influence one way or the other. How many different factions, tribes, countries, districts and cultural differences do you think make up the Middle East? To the nearest thousand?

b_dubb

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 01:15:56 AM

Well ok, what are the top handful of ways the Middle East is better off now than when Obama took office?
Obama didn't invade Iraq under false pretenses. Lay blame at W's feet and wake up.

That's what I thought.



When Bush II left office, the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were stable and strengthening.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq was on the run.

6 years later, and Obama slept (read:  golfed and partied) through the 'Arab Spring' (which actually started in Iran), Libya is no longer stable, Egypt was nearly lost to the terrorist Moslem Brotherhood (who are friends with and encouraged by Obama), Syria is in ruins (again, with the Jihadis encouraged and assisted by Obama).  Al-Qaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIS - and has seized huge amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria and are threatening Jordan and the Kurds.  Christians throughout the region are on the run and are being murdered.

The Egyptians and Saudis have turned to Russia for weapons and support.  Iraq has turned to Iran for help - all Obama had to do in Iraq was get a Status of Forces Agreement, and he couldn't even get that done. 

Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai and the other emirites are wondering whether they can count on us, as is Israel (as are the rest of our allies around the world).  Gaza has started a new war, with Hezbollah threatening to join them.  Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan are no better off than they were before.  Turkey - a NATO member - has become more radicalized.  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is strengthening.

Quite the record for just 6 years.  Much of it due to neglect if not outright siding with the enemy


Our involvement in the Middle East is essential, at least diplomatically.  We are, or were, the only country all parties trusted, and the only country that has influence with Israel.  Bush II bungled it badly during his time, he was an absolute disaster. 

But that does not mean Obama can ignore that part of the world, neglect it, support our enemies and undercut our friends, then escape blame for his failures.  The guy's been President for 6 (six) years - he can't just keep blaming Bush for everything.  He ought to be a man and take some responsibility for something at least once before he leaves office.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 01:45:37 AM
That's what I thought.



When Bush II left office, the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were stable and strengthening.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq was on the run.

Small point: NATO troops were there keeping the very fragile (and in some cases none existent) peace.

Quote
6 years later, and Obama slept (read:  golfed and partied) through the 'Arab Spring' (which actually started in Iran), Libya is no longer stable, Egypt was nearly lost to the terrorist Moslem Brotherhood (who are friends with and encouraged by Obama), Syria is in ruins (again, with the Jihadis encouraged and assisted by Obama).  Al-Qaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIS - and has seized huge amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria and are threatening Jordan and the Kurds.  Christians throughout the region are on the run and are being murdered.

The Egyptians and Saudis have turned to Russia for weapons and support.  Iraq has turned to Iran for help - all Obama had to do in Iraq was get a Status of Forces Agreement, and he couldn't even get that done. 

Countries like Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai and the other emirites are wondering whether they can count on us, as is Israel (as are the rest of our allies around the world).  Gaza has started a new war, with Hezbollah threatening to join them.  Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan are no better off than they were before.  Turkey - a NATO member - has become more radicalized.

Quite the record for just 6 years.  Much of it due to neglect if not outright siding with the enemy

Do you think then that the US Presidency should be a dictatorship that oversees the rest of the world? It seems you believe that the countries (and all the factions within same) will or should in some way bow down to whatever the west want them to do. The Israel/ Palestinian  conflict will never be resolved in my son's lifetime, long after Obama is pushing up the daises. The rest of the instability is a direct result of the false war on Iraq and Afghanistan, based on lies. That one was Bush, Rumsfeld's and Cheney's.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2014, 01:59:01 AM
... Do you think then that the US Presidency should be a dictatorship that oversees the rest of the world? It seems you believe that the countries (and all the factions within same) will or should in some way bow down to whatever the west want them to do. The Israel/ Palestinian  conflict will never be resolved in my son's lifetime, long after Obama is pushing up the daises...

I think we should use our good offices to do what we can to help keep the peace.  War, disruption, all the carnage - it's better to defer as much of that as possible as far down the road as possible. 


Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2014, 01:59:01 AM
... The rest of the instability is a direct result of the false war on Iraq and Afghanistan...


Syria, Egypt, Libya?  And now Hamas?  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb? 

Those events had not started, and those groups were either quiet (Hamas) or on the run (AQITM) when W left office.  They have little if anything to do with the events in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq / ISIS would not have happened if Saddam were still in office, but they were also on the run when Bush II left office.


Is it really in our best interests for Egypt and the Saudis to turn to Russia?  Do we really want Iraq to turn to Iran?  Is the fact that our allies in the region and around the world are wondering if they should cut their own deals with our rivals and enemies in our best interests?

This dumb bastard in the White House is a disgrace and a disaster.  His worldview is distorted and wrong - and dangerous.

Catsmile

Bush II, rang the bell of war twice.
Now it falls on Obama to unring those bells?

Bush let the bull loose in the china shop, Obama has to clean up the carnage, ill will, and put out the fires.
Now the republicans want a black man to clean up after them, typical. (Sorry couldn't let that joke slide.)
Maybe thats why the republicans ran such weak candidates the last 2 elections cycles, because they didn't want to be in the driver seat of Bushes aftermath. Nor did the voters, it seems.

Honestly who has the easier job? The guy letting the bull loose, or the guy cleaning up after the bulls rampage?
Please enlighten us. How could anyone fix Bushes crony welfare cluster fuck?
And more/better leadership isn't an answer, nor is libz bad conz good.
Nor is saying some form of, "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade."
It's really hard to make lemonade when you are handed turds.

Obama could have done a better job in my opinion, but hindsight is 20/20.
I could groan for pages about how poor any president has done in my lifetime from the comfort of my chair, hindsight being 20/20. 

Doing "better" is a mighty big order for any DumbOhCrap, or RepugNaCunt.
Be specific how anyone would do better, not just generalities.
And just because you say an idea on paper should work better, does not mean it will turn out better in the real world. Hell, if it were that easy we could have written ourselves into utopia thousands of years ago.   

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 02:15:58 AM
I think we should use our good offices to do what we can to help keep the peace.  War, disruption, all the carnage - it's better to defer as much of that as possible as far down the road as possible. 



Syria, Egypt, Libya?  And now Hamas?  ISIS?  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb? 

Those either had not started, or were quiet and on the run when W left office.  They have little if anything to do with the events in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Take Northern Ireland. When did that conflict begin and end? Did it start during Wilson's Premiership? Churchill's? Anthony Eden? Heaths? Macmillan? Or way way back? When did it end? Blair's (Almost entirely because of Mo Mowlem), Before that? John Major? Since? Cameron? ...

The Middle East is that times a million or more. Things weren't 'quiet' on any permanent level; they were just dormant waiting for the opportunity, from chaos comes order, a vacuum has to be filled. Old scores were going to be settled, new scores waiting to be established. Removing SH and destroying any security that was there (The police and army were made unemployed after the invasion) who, understandably pissed off but well trained by western governments, found a new way to express their expertise. They didn't invent IED's..we did; we showed them how to do it against the Soviets, is it any surprise the worm turned when we march in 'spreading frdm'?

Quote
Is it really in our best interests for Egypt and the Saudis to turn to Russia?  Do we really want Iraq to turn to Iran?  Is the fact that our allies in the region and around the world are wondering if they should cut their own deals with our rivals and enemies in our best interests?

This dumb bastard in the White House is a disgrace and a disaster.  His worldview is distorted and wrong - and dangerous.

Frankly no-one in his position can do much. His power is limited. Or do you suggest spending more money you don't have to inflict more misery on countries most can't find in an atlas? I would suggest his overall grasp of the world and it's politics outstrips yours by quite a considerable margin. He has the means to know.

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2014, 02:41:16 AM
... The Middle East is that times a million or more. Things weren't 'quiet' on any permanent level; they were just dormant waiting for the opportunity, from chaos comes order, a vacuum has to be filled. Old scores were going to be settled, new scores waiting to be established. Removing SH and destroying any security that was there (The police and army were made unemployed after the invasion) who, understandably pissed off but well trained by western governments, found a new way to express their expertise. They didn't invent IED's..we did; we showed them how to do it against the Soviets, is it any surprise the worm turned when we march in 'spreading frdm'?...

Indeed.  That's why it's important to stay on top of things instead of neglecting them. 

How many of those British PMs decided to simply ignore N Ireland during their terms?  How many helped the enemy and ignored your friends in that conflict?


Quote from: Yorkshire pud on July 28, 2014, 02:41:16 AM
... I would suggest his overall grasp of the world and it's politics outstrips yours by quite a considerable margin. He has the means to know.

I agree he gets better daily briefings than I do.  I would also suggest he hates the US, is on friendly terms with Islamic Jihad, his world view is wrong and dangerous, and he is doing everything he can to weaken us and our allies. 

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Paper*Boy on July 28, 2014, 02:55:42 AM
Indeed.  That's why it's important to stay on top of things instead of neglecting them. 

How many of those British PMs decided to simply ignore N Ireland during their terms?  How many helped the enemy and ignored your friends in that conflict?

We didn't need any PM's helping the enemy; that came from the US, and continues.

Quote
I agree he gets better daily briefings than I do.  I would also suggest he hates the US, is on friendly terms with Islamic Jihad, his world view is wrong and dangerous, and he is doing everything he can to weaken us and our allies.

He doesn't hate the US. What evidence have you to to show any of the rest of your diatribe is even close to being true?

But back to my earlier question; what would you do? Spend money you haven't got on wars that are unpopular that will 'free' no-one?



Quick Karl

Quote from: b_dubb on July 28, 2014, 01:10:39 AM
Head in the sand PB. This is just sad.

Head up your ass b_dumb - that just stinks to high heaven...

Juan

Quote from: jazmunda on July 28, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
If you would like a foreigner's unsolicited point of view, I think John Kerry is a piss weak Secretary of State and is now seen as a joke within the international community. Hillary has more balls than him. No really I would check both of their drawers if I was you. Obviously I can't as I'm a stinking foreigner.
Thank you for a foreigner's unsolicited point of view.  My view of John Kerry is that he is simply a not particularly intelligent pompous ass who used two wives to inflate his wealth and social standing.  A lot of fun was made of him during the 2004 election when he said he was for a multi-billion dollar bill before he was against it.  The statement epitomized his stance - trying to have one foot in each side of any issue.  If I were a foreign leader, and he came to me with his arrogant, lecturing tone, I'd put him in irons and cast him into the dungeon. 
I think Hillary is an intelligent woman with a lot of courage, but I don't think she has much political sense.  Bill provided that - in face, Bill (and perhaps Eisenhower) was the most intelligent president of my lifetime - too bad he wasted it getting caught by non-sex blow jobs.

Quote from: Quick Karl on July 27, 2014, 05:11:44 PM
" Americans really wish they had elected Mitt Romney instead of Obama " Anti-Americans, however, are perfectly happy with him...

http://theweek.com/article/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

They must have started conducting more scientific polling methods...


Maybe there`s hope for the sheep... er..American people, after all.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod