Why President Obama Will Lose in a Landslide

[Tawnos]

Afghanistan was neccessary also, but since the dimocrat president has take charge it seems to be an exersize in how not to kill the enemy and put soldiers at greater risk. Of course the moonabt messiah did point out he was "uncomfortable" with victory, so no suprise he's effectively thwarting any chance of it.

Summing up "PFW doesn't get it" in one paragraph. The world is infinitely more complicated than the simplistic view you espouse. Victory is a concept that implies defeating an opponent, and leaves one group the "winner" and the other the "loser." That is not, and can not, be the goal in Afghanistan. The right thing to do there is much more complicated than simply "winning" or being "victorious." It is a process of increasing Afghan self-sufficiency while discouraging a backslide into theocratic rule.

Of course, there's always Reagan's take on it (I mean, if Obama is the "moonbat messiah" as your favorite turn of phrase claims, then what's Reagan?):

As for who will win this election... At this point I'd put money on Obama. Romney really doesn't stand a chance, because swing voters are tending towards Obama or a third party (Gary Johnson, etc). Romney isn't a good alternative to the status quo, he's the status quo with more bad stuff added to the mix (increased military spending, more criminalization of personal choices, etc).

 

[Shoobee]

Summing up "PFW doesn't get it" in one paragraph. The world is infinitely more complicated than the simplistic view you espouse. Victory is a concept that implies defeating an opponent, and leaves one group the "winner" and the other the "loser." That is not, and can not, be the goal in Afghanistan. The right thing to do there is much more complicated than simply "winning" or being "victorious." It is a process of increasing Afghan self-sufficiency while discouraging a backslide into theocratic rule.

Of course, there's always Reagan's take on it (I mean, if Obama is the "moonbat messiah" as your favorite turn of phrase claims, then what's Reagan?):

As for who will win this election... At this point I'd put money on Obama. Romney really doesn't stand a chance, because swing voters are tending towards Obama or a third party (Gary Johnson, etc). Romney isn't a good alternative to the status quo, he's the status quo with more bad stuff added to the mix (increased military spending, more criminalization of personal choices, etc).

Excellent reply. Thanks Tawnos.

To be elected you need to look good and give great speeches. Romney is and does neither. Those are little things but they translate into votes from the body politic.

I am surprised the RNC will be running Romney. There has never been a bigger liar in the whole history of America, not even Richard Nixon would have been comfortable with some of Romney's lies.

I guess the RNC figures this race against Obama is hopeless anyway so better to give Romney his chance at it and hope he does not come back the next time to muck up the 2016 elections again, when Jeb and Chris will each be running, most likely.

I guess Jeb and Chris also figure this race against Obama would be hopeless for them as well, especially when they can wait and then run against Hillary instead.

Obama has become very popular among the common people (anyone who does not make $20 million and pay only 15% taxes thereon, or who is not employed by the NRA, or who does not need a tax cut for the rich).

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Obama has become very popular among the common people (anyone who does not make $20 million and pay only 15% taxes thereon, or who is not employed by the NRA, or who does not need a tax cut for the rich).

Oh yeah, he's popular with the common folk alright . Just not in a flattering way! :lol:

 

[PrayingForWar]

Wow... just wow....

Coming from a pseudointellectual leftist clown I shouldn't be suprised that you didn't know:

Meanwhile southern Afghanistan was neither under the control of foreign-backed militias nor the government in Kabul, but was ruled by local leaders such as Gul Agha Sherzai and their militias. In 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force.[SUP][45][/SUP] Mullah Omar started his movement with fewer than 50 armed madrassah students in his hometown of Kandahar.[SUP][45][/SUP]

A full 6 years after Reagan said flattering things about a group of Mujahedeen that were killing commies for us, is when the Taliban was created. The Mujahedeen were not motivated to establish a tyrannical theocracy. They were resisting an invading army that killed EVERYONE in sight, not just the resistance. Was that stupid picture huffingandbitchington post or media matters propaganda?

Seriously, a President who was no more of a seer than you obviously said nice things about a bunch of rock farmers with strong religious convictions, none of whom may have ever had any connection to the ethnic Pastuns let alone the rise of the Talibs 27 years ago has any relevance? At least Reagan wasn't uncomfortable with the defeat of our enemies, clearly it is something you are still uncomfortable with. Sure victory means "increasing Afghan self-sufficiency while discouraging a backslide into theocratic rule", will we discourage a backslide by establishing an ROE that makes it nearly impossible to engage hostile forces who's agenda is restablishing the theocracy? Lay off the bath salts.

Hitler gave great speeches too apparently, and he bloviated about "the common man" and demonized rich people just like the moonbat messiah, hence your attraction to him I suppose. Either way, when obooba gets off the teleprompter he's a babbling fool who can barely complete a simple sentence without several "uhhh..."s. The more I hear from contemptible trolls like you two jackasses the more I'm convinced obozo is going to get hammered so bad Jimmy Carter will die with a smile on his face.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It's funny the leftwards do not want to talk about Obama assisting in putting AQ in power in Libya? What the heck was it any of our business? The intentional killing of children. All to put our enemy in power, while taking out a man who decided to help us by providing intel about terrorists. We will pay for this moonbat in charge for decades.

 

[Tawnos]

*Wiggles a single finger.*

Dawww, isn't PFW cute when he rants incoherently and tries to insult others!

 

[rodbender]

Anyway, for this election, I think the big-government, pro-policing the world, pro-preemptive war, pro-Federal Reserve, pro-Goldman Sachs, pro-TARP, pro-Patriot Act, pro-NDAA indefinite detention gun-grabber is going to win.

I'm sure he will. You just described Obama and Romney.