Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (516043)	10/23/2012 10:53:51 AM
From: t4texas	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794221

kenya is way too dangerous for obama. also i thought romney's debate stance last night was rope-a-dope like. i use "like," because a win would be cumulative of all three debates. romney appears to have decided to disagree in a few areas, e.g., give russia backbone not a flexible spine, israel, pakistan, china, BUT he stayed away from showing radical differences concerning egypt, libya. he chided obama on the 2009 iran uprising in which obama did less than nothing, and he emphasized he would have acted with stronger sanctions than obama has done so far. i think romney's tacit action to "help" pakistan is to get with india to "help" pakistan straighten-up and fly right. i think romney did not want to show hawkishness, because he thinks he has the momentum on the economy and is winning there. he did not want to give obama a sound bite over the next few weeks to make voters think of another war or attack in the middle east. he also knew he was up against monday night football and the national league pennant playoff game 7 for viewers. krauthammer's analysis will help romney a lot imo. there are so many areas on foreign policy where obama could be attacked, but that would have just degenerated into a shouting match similar to the 2nd debate.