BBC poll: Rest of world favours Obama

[Kane]

Glad to see all the liberal radio shows got the fax today with all the Democrat Party talking points ...Senator Whoswhatsit -abortion cliche insert here- said who gives a rip?
The message is VOTE FOR SYRIAN MASS MURDERER OBOMBER, hold your nose and throw YOUR PROGRESSIVE/ANTIWAR tags out the window cause Thom Hartman, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Norman Goldman, and Mike Malloy are government hacks with no morals ... saying

VOTE FOR MURDER

LONG LIVE HYPOCRISY

LONG LIVE THE PARTY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[johnny_rebson]

This doesn't surprise me, the rest of the world wants an American president who won't send troops to invade other countries.

 

[Tucker Case]

The Eastern Front was Hitlers' decision - and would have succeeded absent US support for the Soviet Union in the renewal of 1942. Which means that that those resources that would have been redevoted to the Western front wouldn't have been brought to bear until 1943; at which point we are well past Eagle Day and the failure of Operation Sea Lion. Great Britain ensured that she would not be successfully invaded in the air and sea battles of 1940 and 1941; well before the US or the USSR would have made a difference (as neither of them were then combatants).

You aren't taking the USSR out of the equation, though, which is why your analysis that the US could have done it without the USSR's help is false. Every argument you present is predicated on the idea that Germany WINS the Eastern front, not that the Eastern front didn't even happen. Even if Germany WINS the Eastern front, it occurs with heavy, heavy losses.

In order to have an intellectually honest assessment, you have to analyze it as though the non-aggression pact is never broken. This is because even if the USSR lost the Eastern front, they still would have helped the US and GB immensely in the process.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Precisely. We would just argue that much of the world considers those two things to be synonymous.

Not really.

You think Obamas weak, the world... and certainly in this case the poll which is just of ordinary citizens of each country certainly the idea of America being weak or strong doesn't much enter into their thought process when thinking about who's the better president.

But let's take for a second the idea that the Embassies were protested/attacked because Obama was "weak".

Let's just for the hell of it say that that's the case... that happened overseas and that supposedly makes Obama weak, if people feared him more... it wouldn't have happened.

So if we accept that argument... just for the hell of it.

That means that because under George W. Bushs leadership, the financial and military centre of the United States were directly attacked and one of them destroyed killing thousands of American citizens on their own soil... he was the weakest president in modern history.

And might I remind you more embassy attacks took place Under GWB than Obama.

OR

Under Reagan the barracks in Lebanon being attacked... If only they had feared him...

Yep cpwill, it's a stupid argument to make.

Extremely stupid and it started at the begining of Obamas presidency, tapered off after he was blowing the **** out of everything in sight and then came back again after the Embassy crisis... it's not a real argument and once again you show your partisan colors.

 

[Navy Pride]

He did not apologize to anyone. Repeat the same lie often enough...

You need to quit drinking the Obama Koolaid my left wing friend.

 

[cpwill]

You aren't taking the USSR out of the equation, though, which is why your analysis that the US could have done it without the USSR's help is false. Every argument you present is predicated on the idea that Germany WINS the Eastern front, not that the Eastern front didn't even happen. Even if Germany WINS the Eastern front, it occurs with heavy, heavy losses.

In order to have an intellectually honest assessment, you have to analyze it as though the non-aggression pact is never broken. This is because even if the USSR lost the Eastern front, they still would have helped the US and GB immensely in the process.

That is not correct for two reasons:

1. Germany attacked the Soviet Union, not the other way around. The most likely scenario for the USSR failing to "do the heavy lifting" (as you put it), is thus their collapse. Nor would this imply the same heavy heavy losses that you suggest - losses on all sides accelerated and the last two years of the war were the bloodiest. A collapse in early 1942 would have imposed much less than the costs you are implying on the German and other axis forces.

2. Germany attacked the Soviet Union in mid summer of 1941. The Battle of Britain (which successfully determined that there would be no invasion) was won in 1940. So in fact my assessment took both into account and you aren't paying close enough attention to the dates.

 

[cpwill]

Not really.

You think Obamas weak, the world... and certainly in this case the poll which is just of ordinary citizens of each country certainly the idea of America being weak or strong doesn't much enter into their thought process when thinking about who's the better president.

But let's take for a second the idea that the Embassies were protested/attacked because Obama was "weak".

Let's just for the hell of it say that that's the case... that happened overseas and that supposedly makes Obama weak, if people feared him more... it wouldn't have happened.

So if we accept that argument... just for the hell of it.

That means that because under George W. Bushs leadership, the financial and military centre of the United States were directly attacked and one of them destroyed killing thousands of American citizens on their own soil... he was the weakest president in modern history.

not at all. terrorism is the weapon of the weak. invading two countries half a world away and completely annihilating any organized resistance is the weapon of the strong.

but, regardless of your nonsense there, the fact remains that it is in most of the rest of the worlds' best interest not to have an America that is actively pursuing its interests, because it makes it more likely that they will be able to successfully pursue theirs. this isn't exactly rocket surgery .

 

[zimmer]

Or equally, why do your allies and friends favour Obama?

Ignorance. One sided journalism that makes MSNBC look objective.

Have you watched Canadian Television? A country that allowed al Jazeera to broadcast long before it gave FOXNEWS a license?
Have you watched EU TV?
I have... in fact I have watched 10 times more TV from these countries as I have US TV... and only in the last weeks have I watched an hour or so of FOXNEWS a day.
EU TV is especially irritating.

Let me give you one example. I have spent about half my life on the other side of the pond (occupational hazard), and I enjoy discussing politics with EU Socialist know-it-alls. For about 10-years I asked people why Clinton was impeached. In ten years I only got one correct answer. ONE! He lied under oath in an attempt to deny someone their day in court.

Take the above and extrapolate it to the issues of the day and their nuclear powered MSNBC point of view and you understand why they are drones for Obama.

These folks don't have talk radio, they don't have a Drudge Report, Free Republic, Townhall, Human Events or a host of other Conservative outlets... and 99% of their media drones the same crap. It's disgusting because it's not an information service but a propaganda service.

Let me give you another example. In 2000, some months after Bush was elected the Euro news for that country came out with a story that Judicial Watch filed a court case against Bush/Cheney. I was driving (recall exactly what street I was on waiting for a light to change), and said to my passenger... that's odd... Judicial watch had filed one case after another against Clinton for years and we never heard a peep! Not a peep! Now they file one against Bush/Cheney and it makes national news!!!

Now you have an idea why many would vote Obama.
Pure ignorance. As the old Bo knows ads go... They know Socialism. That's it. They have zero idea of the philosophy that drives Conservatism or the Tea Party... Zero. They've never been exposed to it. It's as foreign to them as Weiss Wurst is to Mexicans.

 

[Jetboogieman]

not at all. terrorism is the weapon of the weak.

Well we can agree on that.

invading two countries half a world away and completely annihilating any organized resistance is the weapon of the strong.

Well... that really depends on your point of view.

Afghanistan... yeah sure they were harbouring Al Qaeda and we had to go in there and **** their **** up. However the amount of time, nation building, treasure and lives that's we've sacrifices over there was unnecessary and a waste of the United States and her allies resources that could have been used at home.

Iraq... yeah not so much. A war of choice, a war that shouldn't have happened, a war that cost tremendous lives and treasure...

That's not a sign of strength, it was a sign of misjudgement, a sign of stupidity, perhaps not in Afghanistan but DEFINITELY in Iraq because if you guys are going to continue to skewer Obama on what he did... or didn't know about what happened in Libya, I would hope that you would have the same questions about WMD's in Iraq after it turned out there was none and then it ended up costing the lives of 4500 American soldiers...

but, regardless of your nonsense there, the fact remains that it is in most of the rest of the worlds' best interest not to have an America that is actively pursuing its interests, because it makes it more likely that they will be able to successfully pursue theirs. this isn't exactly rocket surgery .

Talking of nonsense do you really think asking the average citizen (something you ignored in your response) do you really think they take into account American weakness or Strength... their own national interests (which most of the time they don't know in its entirety) when assessing which guy would be a better president?

You could be better than this.

You have the brains.

But you choose not to be because your partisan goggles don't allow you to be.

 

[mak2]

They must hate us because we are free. Well pretty much. most of the time, at least for now.

OK folks, back to topic.

why does the rest of the world favor obama?

misery loves company?
they like weak american presidents?
they want the US economy to fail?
they want our wealth?

Think about it, why do our enemies and competitors favor obama?

 

[Trruth]

Yes i think they prefer Obama to avoid world war III.
Obama should refuse the Russian and Chinese Veto for the war against Syria,he should show them that he is strong by rejecting their Veto.
Obama should show to the world that he is strong by sending his troops to Iran to protect Israel.
Obama should destroy North Korea.

Give a chance to Romney to enjoy world war III.

 

[zimmer]

Yes i think they prefer Obama to avoid world war III.
Obama should refuse the Russian and Chinese Veto for the war against Syria,he should show them that he is strong by rejecting their Veto.
Obama should show to the world that he is strong by sending his troops to Iran to protect Israel.
Obama should destroy North Korea.

Give a chance to Romney to enjoy world war III.

Tell us... why does the rest of the world... and Commi-Libs like you (can tell and you've only posted twice) support Obama.

 

[Jarhead]

The majority of the people in europe prefer President Obama for one reason........He thinks like they do.

He believes in redistribution of wealth and while he may not be a "socialist" he is without a doubt a progressive and there is not a lot of difference in the two. It is his believe that Government is the answer to all questions. That it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone is taken care of and they have everything they need. Even if that means taking from those who have actually worked for what they have and giving to those who either cannot or will not work.

He believes that if the US Military is cut the people of the world will see this as a good thing and will quit pushing us and will no longer see us as a "threat" and that we, the US are the main roadblock to complete world peace. He and they, believe that the US is the big bully and that by diminishing the ability to project our forces, all of the world will feel more at ease.

 

[zimmer]

...support for Obama has more to do with European distaste for Middle America, characterised by “angry” Tea Party activists...

It’s this arrogance and snobbery (and ignorance*) that drives European thinking about the US...

Obama represents opposition to this Jesusland version of the US, and, according to the media narrative, is representative of another sort of America... Europeans like Obama because of how he makes them feel about themselves; by contrast, for many Americans he seems like something of an empty shell, weak, bored, condescending and driving the country further into debt.

Luckily for them it’s up to Americans to decide the next election, and the views of Europe’s liberal opinion-formers don’t amount to a hill of beans. I just hope that, come the early hours of November 7, the BBC has plenty of counselors on standby.

Note to European liberals

*added by Zimmer.

Sums up my posts earlier.
The BBC won't be the only ones needing counselors, Commi-Lib America will too as they sink in to a pit of near suicidal depression. That's what happens when you're at 40,000 feet the Kool-Aid runs out... and gravity kicks in... WHAMO!

 

[Trruth]

Tell us... why does the rest of the world... and Commi-Libs like you (can tell and you've only posted twice) support Obama.

Very simple,because he is very smart and wise.

 

[Bobcat]

Very simple,because he is very smart and wise.

:lamo thats some funny ****, you better try a little harder if you want to continue to post here, that kind of obama worship will get you destroyed verbally.

our enemies and competitors like obama because he is weak and they know that he will kowtow to them just like he bowed to the saudi king.

 

[Trruth]

:lamo thats some funny ****, you better try a little harder if you want to continue to post here, that kind of obama worship will get you destroyed verbally.

our enemies and competitors like obama because he is weak and they know that he will kowtow to them just like he bowed to the saudi king.

:lamo Obama was afraid from the saudi king,don't tell me that he was afraid from Ben Laden too.:lamo

 

[Bobcat]

:lamo Obama was afraid from the saudi king,don't tell me that he was afraid from Ben Laden too.:lamo

what does "afraid from" mean?

 

[tres borrachos]

They love a guy who loves debt. It makes their own guys who love debt look less idiotic.

 

[tres borrachos]

:lamo Obama was afraid from the saudi king,don't tell me that he was afraid from Ben Laden too.:lamo

Who is Ben Laden? Your barber?

 

[Tucker Case]

That is not correct for two reasons:

1. Germany attacked the Soviet Union, not the other way around. The most likely scenario for the USSR failing to "do the heavy lifting" (as you put it), is thus their collapse. Nor would this imply the same heavy heavy losses that you suggest - losses on all sides accelerated and the last two years of the war were the bloodiest. A collapse in early 1942 would have imposed much less than the costs you are implying on the German and other axis forces.

As we should have learned from Iraq, holding a territory is often costlier than taking it. Heavy losses would have been incurred and resources would have been depleted.

2. Germany attacked the Soviet Union in mid summer of 1941. The Battle of Britain (which successfully determined that there would be no invasion) was won in 1940. So in fact my assessment took both into account and you aren't paying close enough attention to the dates.

Your assessment utterly fails to take into account what would have happened if the plan to attack Russia had been scrapped instead of the plan to invade Britain. You cite the US advances in tech while totally ignoring the German advances in tech, as well. Air superiority could have been achieved later in the war if NOT for the losses incurred on the Eastern front. Remove that factor from the equation, and you're looking at a very different war.

 

[wolfman24]

Couldn't one argue that, what is better for the United States is to be better in the eyes of the World? :shrug:

This is arrogent horse****.

 

[wolfman24]

America is arrogant, as a whole. That's not opinion, it's fact. We go it alone. We think we're #1 in pretty much everything. We're woefully ignorant of international affairs. We say things like "If not for us, they'd be speaking German right now" while being clueless about the Eastern front.

We're arrogant. They COULD like Obama because he's so arrogant that he feels perfectly comfortable in admitting it. :2razz:

Can I get an AMEN to that brothers and sisters Ammmeennn

 

[wolfman24]

Yes, when your allies are pissed at you because you've been acting like an arrogant prick, I think it helps to acknowledge that you've been an arrogant prick and that you're committed to taking corrective action.

I mean really, is this how people behave in their own lives? If you've been an ass and you know you've been an ass and your significant other knows you've been an ass, does it make things better or worse for you to refuse to ever admit that you've been an ass?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it must be a horse. thats alot of the "logic" I see being posted here.
When I am in Germany visiting my relation and we go shopping, the most arrogant people there are by far Americans. They expect everyone to speak English and get real mad if they don't calling the people Stupid morons. They expect American food, beer and rules. ITs like someone else said, we expect them to be us becuase we think we are superior based on our military and economic power.

 

[Bobcat]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it must be a horse. thats alot of the "logic" I see being posted here.
When I am in Germany visiting my relation and we go shopping, the most arrogant people there are by far Americans. They expect everyone to speak English and get real mad if they don't calling the people Stupid morons. They expect American food, beer and rules. ITs like someone else said, we expect them to be us becuase we think we are superior based on our military and economic power.

not all americans are that way. that kind of generalization is always wrong. But I guess you are OK with the Mexican flag being flown over schools in the USA.