Romney takes hit over Palestine gaffe

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 

So your saying that Israel should not return fire when rockets land in their cites?




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kocag
 


That is exactly what he is saying. He is a muslim extremist apologist. Based on his post history I imagine he would be happy if more Israels died from the bombings.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Must be hard for you trying to defend a Meathead like Mitt.

You know he will say something equally stupid tomorrow.

And you have to deflect and defend statements that even you know are stupid.

I'm part of the 53% so work for me, I'm out.


Why do I need to defend him? I do not need to defend him any more than a person saying 2+2=4. Truth is self evident.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


There was no "gaffe." The media downplays every idiotic action or words by a politician as a "gaffe." He just doesn't like or respect the palestinians (or maybe just poor people) and wants to help move Israel's war into motion. After all, he has a lot of Israeli money lining his pockets.

I hate the gaffes and gotcha question. Remember Palin? Every question she didn't know the answer to was a "gotcha question." Like somehow it's unfair that she is asked questions (often ones she should have to know the answer to) without knowing it was going to be asked. It's not fair if they aren't prepped. If they say something they mean or that is hateful and the people catch it it's a "gaffe."



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Kocag
 


You mean should they do air raids over civilians after terrorists run up to their border and fire rockets in? No, I don't think that works. The end up killing so many more civilians (the rocket attacks rarely if ever hit anyone). That's the thing about fighting terrorists, you are attacking everyone because of something a few people are doing.

Not to mention Israel treats the palestinians pretty unfairly (ironic given the history of the jews). If you pin people down some of them are going to lash out. Israel's answer is to fly jets over and bomb everyone. It's not the Israeli's fault though, they have a corrupt and terrible government.

Remember when Ariel Sharon started talking about making peace in 2006 and then went into that coma he is still in?
edit on 19-9-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Kocag
 


You mean should they do air raids over civilians after terrorists run up to their border and fire rockets in? No, I don't think that works. The end up killing so many more civilians (the rocket attacks rarely if ever hit anyone). That's the thing about fighting terrorists, you are attacking everyone because of something a few people are doing.

Not to mention Israel treats the palestinians pretty unfairly (ironic given the history of the jews). If you pin people down some of them are going to lash out. Israel's answer is to fly jets over and bomb everyone. It's not the Israeli's fault though, they have a corrupt and terrible government.

Remember when Ariel Sharon started talking about making peace in 2006 and then went into that coma he is still in?
edit on 19-9-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


You mean the civilians who hide and cover for the terrorists? It's like complaining civilians working in a weapons factory were killed while bombing the factory.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Get real. You right now are saying that every person in Palestine harbors and collaborates with terrorists.
That is an incredibly ignorant statement.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Another "gaffe," which is really just ignorance, from the same speech, Romney illustrates that he doesn't know what a dirty bomb is.

He said:

If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb." I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.


In an attempt to fear monger over Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program. The thing is. they don't need fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Any nuclear material, like waste from medical material or power plants can be used in a dirty bomb which means if they had intentions to do what he says they could have for the last 30 or so years. They wouldn't need a weapons program (or any nuclear facilities at all) to do such a thing.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Context 411: Advanced Studies in Comprehension.

Yes...and I'm sure nobody would really get that worked up if it was ONLY an issue of grammatical semantics. Unfortunately, the "corporations are people" argument is utilized to bribe politicians, circumvent criminal liability, and extend the Bill of Rights to parties that were not granted those rights thereby circumventing the US Constitution itself.

Thus, irrespective of the correct verb "are" being used in it's correct conjugative form in respect to the pluralized form of the noun "person"... the statement itself carries far more meaning and affects our civilization in a severely detrimental manner....and that's why it's an idiotic statement.

You might also want to sit on some of my classes that I teach to my grad students such as "Corruption 622: Politicians Think You are Too Dumb to Understand How You Are Being Screwed...And In Many Cases They Are Right".

I think it would be a real eye opener for you.


Lets go over this again.
The judges did not give the corporations the right to speak because they are individual people. The corporation it's self, doesn’t have a right to speak. The people in the corporations have a right to speak through the corporation.

The people are still the ones who have a right to speak. But they can speak through any means they want to. If they want to organize into a corporation to speak as a group, then they have that right to do so. If the people that are already organized in a corporation want to speak, then they can. It is their right.

If you restrict the right of the corporation to speak, then you restrict the right of the people in those corporation to speak as a group.

Remember, we have a right to peaceably assemble, and voice our opinions. The constitution doesn’t dictate which ways we may assemble. We can do it as a crowd in the street. We can do it as a non for profit organization. We can do it as a corporation.

No mater how we assemble, we still have the right to assemble as a group and to voice our opinion as a group, when we are in that group.

When I pointed that out last time, you came back with the statement that he was calling the corporation it’s self a person. When I pointed out that he was not, then you went back to saying the government is giving entities the right to free speech that the constitution never intended for them to have. Then I once again point out that they are not giving the corporation the right to speak, but they are making sure the “right to speak” of the people in that corporation are protected when they speak as a group, “through the corporation”.

Once again, I am sure you understand that, but you will continue to pick nits that don’t exist, to try to prove a point that doesn’t exist. All in an effort to push your agenda.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)


To my knowledge no one has ever, even once, tried telling a corporation that they were not allowed to make a public statement or a press release.

Bribing politicians is not "speech".



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kocag
reply to post by milominderbinder
 

So your saying that Israel should not return fire when rockets land in their cites?


Correct.

I'm also saying that they should dissolve their government and turn the land they unlawfully stole back over to the Palestinians under the threat of massive and severe US military action, should the Israeli's fail to comply.

Preferably by next week.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Kocag
 


That is exactly what he is saying. He is a muslim extremist apologist. Based on his post history I imagine he would be happy if more Israels died from the bombings.


No. I actually just wish the Israeli's would take responsibility for their actions and be held to the same standards which we hold every other country in the region.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by daaskapital



Displaying little nuance about the attitude of different factions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, he showed disdain for the Palestinian cause and indicated he would not make a serious Middle East peace bid as president.



"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Mr Romney said.


Well, what have we here? Another video leaked of Romney, this time stating that there is not point in pursuing Middle East Peace. Furthermore, he is still displaying his wholehearted support for Israel.

This is a serious question. After these videos (which prove Romney will be destructive as POTUS) why would anyone still vote for him?

I'm expecting the knockout punch to come soon


[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/us-election/romney-takes-hit-over-palestine-gaffe/story-fn95xh4y-1226476997131]www.theaustralian.com.au[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)


My question, is he wrong? I think this is exactly what we need. Someone who says listen, you guys refuse to come to the table with clean hands. When you are ready to talk, we'll talk. Until then I have better things to do. Romney, once again, is completely right. You seem to be saying you don't want a politician who speaks his mind and tells the truth, you want someone to lie to you and tell you there are rainbows just up ahead.


Yes...Mitt Romney is absolutely, categorically, WRONG.

Bringing Peace to the Middle East is easy. You start by dissolving the nation of Israel since it's the center of all the conflict.

It's only "not possible" because our politicians do not have the balls to do what is right and instead opt to simply take bribes from the Israeli's.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Israel since the down of time has been in conflict with their neighbors,they never pacifist,and the reason among many others is ambition,and power,having 3 religions in that territory doesnt help,diplomats comes and goes and that doesnt help either,so what is really the solution to bring peace to the region???...Romney??hes a Ceo ,no experience on politics and very desconected person from his own country............so ,clearly Israel dont like OBAMA ,because the statements he presents are not PRO - ISRAEL.......



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Again, not a "gaffe", obviously.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rocha123
 


They are both idiots.

What it comes down for me is, which is fits my morals and is a christian. Which is Romney, though he is Mormon, which is ... weird, however, I'll take a Mormon over someone who believes Allah is Yahweh and celebrates Ramadan.

Romney, Foreign Affairs idiot. He believes middle class is 250,000 $, however, due to inflation, it may just be what middle class SHOULD be at, which it isnt.

Obama believes we didn't build that, and spending will get us out of debt. Yeah, spending money that we don't own, but is borrowed.

---

So, again, both of them are idiots. It comes down to Morals and Religion.

Obama = New Ager (Allah is a name of a god, but it is not Yahweh, Obama believes all paths lead to heaven.) Loves abortion. Would not want his daughter ' burdened ' with a child.

Romney = Weird Christian and dislikes abortion.

Voting for Romney.
edit on 19-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kocag
reply to post by milominderbinder
 

So your saying that Israel should not return fire when rockets land in their cites?


And what is the cause of the rockets landing in their cities? Have you ever stopped to think why? It's because of Israels ethnic cleansing and theft of land. They have leveled over 200 Palestinian villages to build their illegal settlements on that is the cause for the rockets.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


This is the part that bothers me; Source article; www.theaustralian.com.au...


"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Mr Romney said.

"You move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognise that this is going to remain an unsolved problem -- and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."


Talk about being a man with a plan???? No wonder you can't get him to give any specifics, he doesn't have any! Just punt the ball down-field and hope that someone on your team picks it up and runs with it, now that's what I call a plan.


Romney doesn't know what to do until someone else tells him what to do, period. Bush puppet on steroids!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Romney should have a translator, before he says anything he should whisper it into the translator's ear so it comes out stupid free.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by 11235813213455
This the world that we live in.

Telling the truth is no longer a virtue.... It's a gaffe.


It is a gaffe, because the video was not meant to be made public. So your saying that Romney is telling the truth when he states that the US shouldn't be pursuing Middle Eastern peace? Yes, what he is saying about Israel may be true (the patrolling off the borders and general controlling off the independent nation). It is what Israel does, they tend to be an arrogant and controlling nation.

Still, what President states that they wouldn't try and pursue ME peace? I mean, if he wins, he will hav a crap load to deal with over there...


The one who actually WANTS peace will say that. It's time to make the Palestinians choose. Do you want peace or not. If you don't, I am not wasting my time. The REAL problem here is why we want our politicians to lie to us. I would love for a President to say exactly what Romney said, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. If you want rainbows shining out your ass vote Obama. If you want truth that can actually maybe make a difference, Romney appears to be the only one saying the things that NEED to be said.


Really? The Palestinians? Why don't we give that ultimatum to the Israeli's? How about "Dissolve your illegally formed government by next week Wed. or the United States will start carpet bombing your civilians just like we did to the Iraqi's and Afghani's?

Why should Israel get the special treatment here?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Is this Romney person a Jew?
seems like he must be the way he is going on.

By that i mean he seems really pro Israel
edit on 19-9-2012 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join