Obama vs. Perry: Who Would You Vote For?

I never heard Bush blame Clinton...

I think some people are swinging from Obama's nut sack in here...

I am with Budman I will take Perry over Obama any day....Perry is not gonna run until 2016.

I never heard Bush blame Clinton... Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

Nobody said that, bubba. I was talking about 8 years of whining on this (and the preceding) board by a number of the members still active here; not to mention a few discussions on the radio to that effect.

Bush wouldn't blame anything on anybody, nor would he accept responsibility for anything or anybody. He was a one-man gang and only did what God told him to do!

"Swinging on Obama's nutsack?" Hysterical!

People on this board and ASPD placing blame is expected but for the POTUS to get up and whine about how it's not his fault it's Bush's doing is pretty childish. You're the President of the United States for christ sake. Try to act a little bit presidential.

You mean those ships with illegal arms? That land was not Palestinian pre-1967 to the beginning of time, the land referred to was controlled not by the Palestinians but by Jordan ( West Bank), Gaza Strip ( Egypt). The Palestinians may have lived there but they were in Jordanian land. So Israel took it for Jordan, not the Palestinians. They also took it as a result of war, not expansionism, their women and children were being murdered. The settlements aren't illegal, people live in peace in them, they can be halted but why? So another terrorist on the other side of the fence can launch another rocket in to southern Israel or across the Lebanese border?

The US has supported both sides, not just one. One side continues to launch rockets over the borders in to villages and smuggles arms in via tunnels. They don't want peace, they want Israel pushed in to the sea. They still refuse the right of Israel to exist and call for death to the Jews ( and Americans) yet we should concede to them land? Shrink the borders and hand land over to people that still call for destruction. Hamas needs to go first, Fatah needs to denounce Hamas, Abbas needs to separate from Hamas before any deal can be struck, land involved or not.

Prior US Administration have not failed, the Palestinian leaders have failed their own people and the people harbor terrorists within their own border and turn a blind eye, very much like Nazi Germany. When the Palestinians learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews they might actually get a shot at a state. But once again, it was Jordan's land pre-1967. The pseudo-government the Palestinians formed in 1948 was never recognized as independent, in 1959 Nassar ' annulled' it, but refused to grant citizenship to Palestinians. By the way, Jordan didn't want the Palestinian people either, the other Arab countries in 1967 wanted the land back for Arabs, not Palestinians. And 0% of Jerusalem shall revert back, never will..

Obama first needs to call for the Palestinians to settle down...The issue goes beyond settlements, that is just $$ and relocation, the bigger problem is the rocket launches and innocent murders of women and children just over and within the borders of Israel and once that stops perhaps peace can be talked about. Simply put, Israel should not nor will it sit down for peace talks with a people who refuse to denounce Hammas who still calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, still does deals with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria that also call for the destruction of the Jewish state, launch rockets, smuggle arms in, the list goes on and on. The Palestinians don't deserve another inch of land, at least not yet. Not until they can prove they can live in peace, recognize Israel's right to exist and disband Hammas in the land they do have now. They can't even govern themselves in the land they have now, their own government is split, one of them a known terror group also elected by the very people that would run, operate and manage this ' statehood.'

God forbid they get an airport ( the US or the UN would have to operate any airport or water control plants in any Palestinian state for obvious reasons); imagine Travis County and Williamson County at war and the fear the people of Austin would have over a Williamson County controlled airport in Georgetown just miles north of the peaceful people and Wilco having control over any water that flows in to Austin. By the way, Georgetown Airport is further from Austin than a Palestinian Airport would be from sleeping children.

Same thing over there, the PLO has already tried to in the past poison Israel's water and if they had an airport right on the border, well they won't. That is one thing Obama as fickle as he is wouldn't concede to a terror run government.

God forbid it ever happens, but another ' 9/11' would wake Americans up to what is really going on over there and make them understand. In Israel 9/11 is known as 24/7/365. And for that reason, there can be no retraction to the pre-1967 borders.

I've been to Israel, I've seen the border and looked in to the neighbors territories, you can see miles of buffer zones, fences etc. Terrorists would have opportunity if returned to the pre 1967 borders to launch their bullets towards women and children miles and miles closer than now and literally hit Haifa, Te Aviv, cities in the Golan Heights with much ease. They could also ' sneak' in much easier to conduct terror on Israel's streets and they would. The answer is ' no.'

No this doesn't really have anything to do with Obama vs Perry because Perry does not hold any office now nor is he running so any thoughts of how he would handle this is pure speculation, what is not speculation is that the 4%-5% of the Broward County/Miami-Dade Jewish voters are enough to easily swing Florida red, the more Obama spews nonsense towards the Israelis the more votes he is going to lose in the other swing states, but with Florida now in the bag ( economy in shambles too, foreclosures going up), all any Republican needs to do is wrap up Ohio, PA would guarantee it and if one of those falls to the Blues than Virginia and New Jersey should push Obama out the door back to Chicago. Whether it is Perry or not, Florida is now where the election will be won or lose.

Obama is well aware he can't lose the Jewish vote, for this reason all of the above won't matter as the Palestinians now head to the UN for a resolution but I'm 99.9% sure the US with their security counsel vote will veto whatever garbage is presented, it will stink so bad in lower Manhatten when they give their proposal that the landfills in New Jersey will smell like roses... Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

It's true that the Palestinians would push Israel into the sea if they could, and frankly I think they have a point.

The US State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Counsel, the CIA, etc. were all opposed to the creation of Israel.

Israel has no right to exist. It came into being because Truman instructed the US Representative at the UN to recognize Israel, and then REFUSED TO GIVE THE ISRAELIS ANY ARMS WHEN THEY WERE ATTACKED FROM ALL SIDES.

Truman created Israel for domestic political reasons in an election year, but was hoping the Arab armies would crush it. What Truman didn't count on was that the second country to recognize Israel at the UN, the USSR, would send the Israelis shiploads of weapons to defeat the Arabs.

It was Stalin who saved Israel in 1948 by sending several shiploads of weapons which were used to win the war of independence.

No one else would send even one bullet to the Israelis because no one else, the US included, believed that an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine could be justified by any principle of law.

As for today Israel has plenty of nuclear weapons and no one can ever defeat Israel with conventional military forces. Their argument about defensive borders is a canard....what they really have always sought is MORE LAND FOR EXPANSION. Anyone looking at their settlements policies in occupied lands can see what they're doing. Their purpose has always been to take lands belonging to others...period. They want the land. They've taken it. Who's to stop them? This isn't about right or wrong. It's about what they want.

Israel can be defeated militarily though, but only by unconventional means such as through penetration and sabotage, and this may happen.

Egypt will open Gaza on Saturday, and there will be a steady stream of arms flowing in from there. Egyptian military officers previously restrained by Mubarak are now free to aid Hamas [albeit secretly]. Hamas and Fatah will both ramp up the violence. The Hamas/Fatah alliance is here to stay because Fatah couldn't produce a settlement.
Every Arab country which goes "democratic" will be responsive to the Arab consensus to oppose Israel.

Prepare for interesting times.

ps...As I've said before I've been to Israel many times, and still have friends there. I like the Israelis I met there, but there's nothing I can do about the dark side of their country. Netanyahu is a far-right politician and doesn't represent the many peace-seeking Israelis trapped in this mess. The answer is not two states - it's a single state that doesn't make second class citizens out of anyone just because they're not any particular religion.

It's true that the Palestinians would push Israel into the sea if they could, and frankly I think they have a point. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Now THAT comes as a tremendous shock!

LMAO @ hatemongers!

People on this board and ASPD placing blame is expected but for the POTUS to get up and whine about how it's not his fault it's Bush's doing is pretty childish. You're the President of the United States for christ sake. Try to act a little bit presidential. Originally Posted by Budman

I agree! In order to "act a little presidential" Obama must strut his stuff across the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, wearing an Aviator's flight suit.

Yep, that ought to do it!

Bigtex,
You're right. I'm sure the crew of the carrier would much rather see Obama strutting around the deck in his mom jeans. Maybe he can teach them how to throw a baseball.

just sayin'

Maybe he can teach them how to throw a baseball. Originally Posted by Budman/

If throwin' a baseball was in the job description, I might be sitting in the Oval Office. I was a pretty damn good pitcher, back in the day!

Just sayin'!

Unfortunately, the Prez has a much better jump shot than I!

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...=breaking_news

I would vote for anyone over Obama. This clown will go down in history as the worst POTUS. That's saying something when you beat Jimmy Carter for the title. Originally Posted by Budman

Wrong as usual. 14th best so far...I'd expect to see him in the top ten if not for the pile of shite George Jr. left behind, #34 incidentally and Carter is middle in the middle . Worst President to date...Johnson at #43.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States

Bringing bullshit to a debate is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Glad you found that, F-Sharp. Interesting read, indeed.

Sometimes people forget that Congress has a little bit to do with what does and doesn't happen in Washington.

Obstructionist politics has marred many historical views of presidencies.

Carter in particular. He was a freaking genius and one of the most compassionate leaders we've ever had. Of course the second he stepped foot in Washington, he had his ass fed to him by the Beltway insiders.

I think he shat himself.

Which Johnson are you talking about F-Sharp (which, by the way, is the same as G-flat)? LBJ is ranked by the poll included in your link as 14th, tied with Obama and Monroe (not Marley or Maxeen, btw). ANDREW Johnson, who was impeachedm is ranked by that aggregate ranking system at 41. Warren G. Harding was ranked lowest.

Interestingly, GW Bush is ranked the lowest of any U.S. president since Harding. I'm shocked he's considered that highly. Obviously, he had a few friends on the survey panels!

Reagan -- the GOP's "savior" and originator, arguably, of today's fucked up economy -- was ranked behind LBJ and Obama, at 17th.

Oddly, the last president rated in the top quartile of the poll was Eisenhower, who was president before, I'm guessing MOST ECCIE members were born.

Obstructionist politics has marred many historical views of presidencies. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Indeed. Kinda like, now?

Carter in particular. He was a freaking genius and one of the most compassionate leaders we've ever had. Of course the second he stepped foot in Washington, he had his ass fed to him by the Beltway insiders. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yup. Carter is probably the most compassionate and all around nicest one I've seen in my lifetime. They tried to do the same shit to Clinton, and he kicked their ass until the very end. His little head got the best of him in the end.

Which Johnson are you talking about F-Sharp (which, by the way, is the same as G-flat)? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I dare say they might have updated it since I posted! But yeah, Andrew Johnson and Harding take up space at the bottom.

Interestingly, GW Bush is ranked the lowest of any president since Harding.

I'm shocked he's considered that highly. Obviously, he had a few friends on the survey panels! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Interesting, and well-deserved in my opinion. Worst President by far in my opinon, in my lifetime anyways. I'm also shocked Reagan is ranked so highly. I'll give him START1 and Perestroika, but economically he was a blunder of staggering proportions. The end of true fiscal conservativism as we knew it, and the beginning of the end for the GOP...er I guess we're supposed to call them Tea Baggers now? I'm soooo confused =P

Oddly, the last president rated in the top quartile of the poll was Eisenhower, who was president before, I'm guessing MOST ECCIE members were born. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Most? Maybe; but not all.

Most? Maybe; but not all. Originally Posted by Carl

You might want to stick me in Pre-Ike category, as well!

I think that makes THREE of us!