Obama Vs Romney

Hande hoche!

stevedublin wrote: »

Ronaldo Reagan

Bush Senior.

Gyalist

super_furry wrote: »

Wouldn't mind getting a few quid on Paul Ryan being the next president of the US at the right odds. A ticket with him and Condelizza Rice as the VP would be an easy sell.

No chance. He couldn't even carry his own state - Wisconsin.

The states that know Romney (Michigan & Massachusetts) and Ryan (Wisconsin) best all voted against them.

hooradiation

super_furry wrote: »

Wouldn't mind getting a few quid on Paul Ryan being the next president of the US at the right odds. A ticket with him and Condelizza Rice as the VP would be an easy sell.

Provided Ryan learns how numbers work and someone can tempt Condelizza Rice away from being a professor and back into the joyless shitstorm that is campaigning for presidency while simultaniously making everyone forget how much of a part she was of the Bush II: Electric boogaloo administration....sure.

Basically, just set your money on fire.

Bannasidhe

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Perhaps they could blackmail Daniel Day Lewis.

I demand to see his birth cert!

Bannasidhe

Having great fun watch Faux News trying to work out what could have possibly gone wrong and made people vote for Barry- apparently it's all the stroppy wimmenz, Blacks voting for him coz he are black too and non-Cuban Hispanics (Laatinoz) fault - oh and Sandy.

Minorities have takken over our Father's country says the aptly named Dick Morris.

hooradiation

I don't know what's made me happier, Todd "legitimate rape" Akin getting smacked in the ass by the door or Donald Trump going full retard.
I'm in my happy place either way.

K-9

ascanbe wrote: »

Dependent on how others voted..
And you, no doubt, gave your NO.1 to a FG candidate, or whoever, who is in no way different.

Nope, gave my No.1 to a Green candidate and then voted tactically. PR is great like that.

WoollyRedHat

Barack makes history as he becomes the first black president to be elected twice.

Funglegunk

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Barack makes history as he becomes the first black president to be elected twice.

He's also the first president with the surname 'Obama' to be elected twice!

TwoShedsJackson

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Having great fun watch Faux News trying to work out what could have possibly gone wrong and made people vote for Barry- apparently it's all the stroppy wimmenz, Blacks voting for him coz he are black too and non-Cuban Hispanics (Laatinoz) fault - oh and Sandy.

Minorities have takken over our Father's country says the aptly named Dick Morris.

Actually they explain it here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/

Yes, biased media was to blame. Bear in mind this is Fox News, of all people, complaining about media bias.

Min

Obama's drone wars will continue.

Bad news for a lot of civilians, given Obama greatly increased the use of drones compared to Bush.

America gets away with murder.

hooradiation

Min wrote: »

Obama's drone wars will continue.

Bad news for a lot of civilians, given Obama greatly increased the use of drones compared to Bush.

America gets away with murder.

In what bizzarro-universe would Mr Obama losing the election lead to fewer US drone strikes?

Pudsy33

Min wrote: »

Obama's drone wars will continue.

Bad news for a lot of civilians, given Obama greatly increased the use of drones compared to Bush.

America gets away with murder.

Bush started the conflicts they're currently in. Obama has withdrawn troops. To you think Romney would have stopped these drone attacks?

Autonomous Cowherd

Well, I am just so relieved I had two bowls of Rice Krispies while listening to Morning Ireland today.....what a Holiday Hoobilation!!



Now away from the confetti clouds of ticker tape and star- spangled rosettes and back to our own Shower of Shambolics....The Grand Vizier Inda ''Reversing Home help Cuts Is Not Possible''......

(sigh)

K-9

hooradiation wrote: »

In what bizzarro-universe would Mr Obama losing the election lead to fewer US drone strikes?

Romneys extra $2 Trillion on the military budget was going to buy bayonets and horses.

Min

hooradiation wrote: »

In what bizzarro-universe would Mr Obama losing the election lead to fewer US drone strikes?

If Romney went back to the level Bush used it would be major progress.

People have this stupid love for Obama, he is nothing but a common murderer who decides every Tuesday who must die. It is crimes against humanity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths

A vitally important and thoroughly documented new report on the impact of Obama's drone campaign has just been released by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. Entitled "Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan", the report details the terrorizing effects of Obama's drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from administration officials about that campaign. The study's purpose was to conduct an "independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians".

I think you should read that study. If you live in the area of Pakistan where driones hover overhead 24 hours a day you are terrorised, everyone from children up live in terror of some target getting to close to them and the reality a loved one could be killed for that.
It is like walking about a street in Dublin and some militant the US wants dead happens to being walking close to you and then the drone hits the target and you are dead.
This is waht Obama the terrorist has taken to new levels. A terrorist as many reports have shown the people live in terror from the direct orders given by Obama.

dizzywizlw

If we walked around the streets of Dublin firing AKs in the air knowing we could be mistaken for the RA...

Maybe you should blame the ISI for creating the problem in the first place instead of Obama and his death machines.

Min

dizzywizlw wrote: »

If we walked around the streets of Dublin firing AKs in the air knowing we could be mistaken for the RA...

Maybe you should blame the ISI for creating the problem in the first place instead of Obama and his death machines.

If you read the report and the summary in the Guardian it says:

All the way back in 2004, the Rumsfeld Pentagon commissioned a study to determine the causes of anti-US terrorism, and even it concluded: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies." Running around the world beating your chest, bellowing "we're at war!", and bombing multiple Muslim countries does not keep one safe. It manifestly does the opposite, since it ensures that even the most rational people will calculate that targeting Americans with violence in response is just and necessary to deter further aggression.

also

Democrats spent several days at their convention two weeks ago wildly cheering and chanting whenever President Obama's use of violence and force was heralded. They're celebrating a leader who is terrorizing several parts of the Muslim world, repeatedly killing children, targeting rescuers and mourners, and entrenching the authority to exert the most extreme powers in full secrecy and without any accountability -- all while he increases, not decreases, the likelihood of future attacks. This new Stanford/NYU report is but the latest in a long line of evidence proving all of that.

People who look to America for leadership and for what is right are highly deluded or else choose to not see or look for the reality.

Gyalist

Friends in Dade County, Florida said they were eventually able to vote after midnight as the queues were so long. The attempts to suppress the Democratic vote in Florida really backfired on Republicans as it made them even more determined to vote. Many people who voted for the first time in 2008 weren't going to sit idly by and have their right to vote taken away. The same in Broward County. My friends in the Lauderhill area were really determined to vote.

My twin brother worked yesterday in OH for the Democratic GOTV. He lives in Wisconsin but when they realised last week that WI was safe he volunteered to go to OH. He says that people were really determined to get to the polls there too. The talk of an "enthusiasm gap" this year was just spin by the media to help to facilitate a lower turnout which would have helped the Republicans.

Bannasidhe

Min wrote: »

If you read the report and the summary in the Guardian it says:



also



People who look to America for leadership and for what is right are highly deluded or else choose to not see or look for the reality.

It's a pity Dubya didn't take notice of that report isn't it and instead decided to Run around the world beating his chest, bellowing "we're at war!

dizzywizlw

Causes of the Terrorism the US is fighting are linked as much to isolation and perception of social injustice as to actual foreign policy.

hooradiation

Min wrote: »

If Romney went back to the level Bush used it would be major progress.

Important word highlighted.
That's a big if.

And actually, it shows the kind of selective reading you need to hold these kinds of views.

Yes Obama uses drones to kill people, and those hellfire missiles have probably killed about 1,000 civilians during the course of his presidency despite the post-hoc labeling of many of these civilians as "assumed terrorists."
Killing 1,000 civilians over four years is terrible and unjustifiable.
It's also roughly equivalent to the number of civilians killed in one week when US forces attacked the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004.

During the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, about 7,000 civilians were killed by US forces. Tens of thousands of civilians died by US forces throughout the occupation.
When the Pakistani Army invaded northwest Pakistan—the scene of most of the CIA's drone strikes—about 40,000 civilians were killed.
So yes, Obama is responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. But he is also responsible for shifting civilian deaths at US hands to "hundreds"—from "tens of thousands." He is responsible for changing the rules of engagement in Afghanistan so that when they attacked places like Marjah and Kandahar, only 15 civilians ended up being killed—instead of 800 or 1000 in places like Fallujah. He is responsible for changing the Afghanistan war strategy so that the share of total civilian deaths at the hands of NATO dropped from 50% before he came into office to 10%.

War sucks, people die and that's terrible. But unless numbers scare and infuriate you the use of drones is not this amazing, rampant, unchecked evil.

Min wrote: »

People have this stupid love for Obama, he is nothing but a common murderer who decides every Tuesday who must die. It is crimes against humanity.

Nope, not even close.
Just because your outraged about something doesn't make whatever hyperbole you fling about true.
No matter how hard you wish it.

Min wrote: »

I think you should read that study.

What is it that makes you think that people who disagree with you simply mustn't have access to the wonderful information you have.

Min wrote: »

If you live in the area of Pakistan where driones hover overhead 24 hours a day you are terrorised, everyone from children up live in terror of some target getting to close to them and the reality a loved one could be killed for that.
It is like walking about a street in Dublin and some militant the US wants dead happens to being walking close to you and then the drone hits the target and you are dead.
This is waht Obama the terrorist has taken to new levels. A terrorist as many reports have shown the people live in terror from the direct orders given by Obama.

Wait, so all of pakistan is constantly covered by drones 24/7
That's an amazing number of drones!
Almost impossible, even.

Min

Published: Apr. 14, 2011- The Irish Sun
A total of 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks in the country 2010, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said in its annual report Thursday.

More than 1,000 civilians in four years.

The United Nations announced it will investigate civilian deaths caused by US unmanned aerial drone strikes in the War on Terror, with one top UN official calling some drone strikes in Pakistan possible war crimes. The UN announcement comes a day after a US drone attack killed at least one Pakistani civilian in North Waziristan. The Guardian reports that the UN will set up a dedicated investigations unit in Geneva, Switzerland early in 2013 to probe the legality of drone strikes that kill civilians in so-called "targeted" attacks against suspected Islamic militants.

UN special rapporteur Ben Emmerson QC, who along with UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Christof Heyns will be leading the probe, announced the forthcoming investigation in an address at Harvard Law School. Emmerson slammed American torture, specifically waterboarding, and extraordinary rendition-- the practice of apprehending suspected terrorists and sending them to other countries, many of which employ torture, for interrogation-- during his speech. Emmerson said the UN will also investigate "other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted." These presumably include President Barack Obama's once-secret "kill list" of suspected terrorists, a list which includes American citizens targeted for extrajudicial assassination without the constitutionally guaranteed due process of law. It is unclear whether or not the investigation will probe the Obama administration's redefinition of the term 'militant' to include all military-aged males in a strike zone. The US assertion that it can use military force against al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups anywhere in the world because the War on Terror is inherently an international conflict is invalid, Emmerson said. "The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations," he said in his Harvard speech. "The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US," Emmerson added. "The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone program of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."

Emmerson then mentioned the possibly criminal damage inflicted by so-called "double-tap" strikes, in which US drones deliberately target rescue and emergency workers responding to earlier strikes as well as the funerals of suspected terrorists killed by US and allied forces. "[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns... has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view," Emmerson told his Harvard audience.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/335402#ixzz2BXXRMUXI

The UN intend investigating the US over it drone attacks with one UN official describing the drone attacks as war crimes, but that organisation is a joke and you just have to be on the security council or be a friend of a country on the security to get away with murder.

People should take off their Obama tinted glasses and look at the crimes the US continue to commit, if a Republican president was doing this, the same people would be protesting the man when he visited abroad, not like simpletons waving minature American flags when he did come here.

dizzywizlw

Only States can be at war, Only states can commit War Crimes, Pakistan and the US are not at war.

War on Terror is not a legal war...

Min

hooradiation wrote: »

Wait, so all of pakistan is constantly covered by drones 24/7
That's an amazing number of drones!
Almost impossible, even.

The report says

"Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over north wester Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning.
Their presence terrorises men, women and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.

You do know there are plans for 30,000 drones to hover above the skies of the US for surveillance purposes?
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Use-of-drones-in-community-policing-unchartered-3981675.php

irishfeen

Dear god Fox News is still attacking Obama, he has won the election couldn't they just get over their agenda and congratulate him, they would come out of it alot better.

Funglegunk

Min wrote: »

People should take off their Obama tinted glasses and look at the crimes the US continue to commit, if a Republican president was doing this, the same people would be protesting the man when he visited abroad, not like simpletons waving minature American flags when he did come here.

I think the reason people cut Obama slack in this regard is because he has made his intention to end the war in Afghanistan very clear. Mitt Romney, I believe, said a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 would be 'a tragedy', has pledged an extra $2 trillion in funding to the Pentagon that was not even requested and is making bellicose statements about a war with Iran. That is the choice that people are making here.

Min

dizzywizlw wrote: »

Only States can be at war, Only states can commit War Crimes, Pakistan and the US are not at war.

War on Terror is not a legal war...

I don't think sending drones into independent countries and to kill civilians is legal.
Obama doesn't care, like the Germans in the 1930's he can talk and fool a lot of people.

Funglegunk

Min wrote: »

Obama doesn't care, like the Germans in the 1930's he can talk and fool a lot of people.

I see you've now Godwinned the thread. Great.

Min

Funglegunk wrote: »

I think the reason people cut Obama slack in this regard is because he has made his intention to end the war in Afghanistan very clear. Mitt Romney, I believe, said a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 would be 'a tragedy', has pledged an extra $2 trillion in funding to the Pentagon that was not even requested and is making bellicose statements about a war with Iran. That is the choice that people are making here.

It doesn't matter who leads the US, they only differ on social policy, and the economy is gone down the debt swanny.

Obama will attack Iran.
Here is what a democrat told CNN:

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday that President Barack Obama is “far more likely” to launch a military attack on Iran than his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.
The suggestion that Obama would be more hawkish than a President Mitt Romney on the issue of Iran and its nuclear program might seem far-fetched to some given recent events, including reported White House difficulties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Schumer insists Obama would take a stronger position with Iran in a second term, while Romney would have his hands full dealing with domestic issues.
“Here’s what I’d say — the two biggest threats to Israel, the two most existential threats, if you will, are, one, a nuclear Iran, and two, rockets raining in from Lebanon launched by Hezbollah,” Schumer said. “And I would say on those two issues this president has been better than any other. He has launched sanctions against Iran that are tough and having an effect.
“He has made it clear that he will not support a nuclear Iran. He has made clear that the policy of containment is not a good policy. And I’ll tell you this on Iran, and I’ve said this to a couple of Romney supporters who agree, that if the sanctions fail, and military action is warranted, a re-elected President Obama is far more likely to launch that kind of military action, probably in concert with Israel, than would Mitt Romney. Because Mitt Romney will be new, he’ll have a whole domestic agenda.”
Schumer added that Obama has given him his personal assurance that he would protect Israel from not only Iran, but the terrorist group Hezbollah as well.
“And I’ve talked to the president on Iran,” Schumer continued. “He’s resolute about not having a nuclear Iran. On Hezbollah, Netanyahu himself, the prime minister admits, that nobody has done more for Iron Dome than this administration. Israel has even tweaked it a little bit so it’s even stronger. And the percentage of Hezbollah rockets that might be launched from Lebanon, if there was a military action or Iran decided to let Hezbollah loose in any other way, the number of rockets that would get through would be much, much smaller than it would have been in the past. So I think on these two issues, the president is very strong and I think that Mitt Romney is mistaken.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/schumer-a-re-elected-obama-far-more-likely-than-romney-to-launch-military-attack-on-iran/#ixzz2BXdhwKVX