Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
The good news is that no Americans will die from this.
I hope that conservatives don't sway Obama with their desire for more dead Americans. I don't think they will but you never know
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Huh?????????????
Well then why didn't you step up and tell all the dummies that before the election?
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
I bet he's regrets his 'campaign promises' now doesn't he? The best way not to be labeled a liar is not to lie, not to make promises you won't keep. That's the whole problem. Pigeonholing him in with a long line of wartime presidents is a way to defend him from his errant words, shielding him from the lies he spouted to the masses eager for change. That within itself is no way to argue either.
But since you insist the past is relevant, I will note the double standard that Democrats employed when they assailed Bush as if he were the only President to ever start a war in the Middle East; forgetting this long line of wartime presidents. They most certainly thought Bush existed in a vacuum then. Why don't you remember that?
The past is irrelevant here because his actions are affecting our future.
Remember, Democrats voted for that war, too.
It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.
Remember, Democrats voted for that war, too.
Yea. I also remember cons telling democrats they hate soldiers and they hate Americans for not supporting that war.
Thank goodness that our President has a Democratic base to answer to instead of a republican one.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
Newsflash: Every single President since FDR has been a "war time" President.
Non sequitur. If I want a history lesson, you'll be the first guy I'll ask.
And newsflash, nobody cares about the past. We're talking present here. He was supposed to be the one who ended war. He made that clear. So, such a contradiction will not go unnoticed. Being in a long list of wartime presidents does not erase the irony of Obama's words. He wanted to buck the trend, but became part of it.
No one takes campaign promises seriously, and no one actually thought Obama was going to "end war".
Pretending that Obama exists in a vacuum - that we've never had a President before him - is a really stupid way to frame an argument. No matter how much you don't "care" about it, the past is completely relevant here.
So. . . . then. . . .
The Nobel peace prize was for what? His good looks?
Fine, I'll agree. As long as he give the award back. He's a war mongering globalist, just like the rest of them.
Obama's Democratic base is going to rip him apart for this bombing campaign. In that respect, yes, he will be answering to his base. This election will show you why. I remember Democrats painting Bush as Hitler... but hey, he only had to answer to his Republican base.
It just now hit me that in a roundabout way, Doc, you are defending him.
I guess you could look at it that way, but it's more of an aversion to bullshit than anything like support.
I don't agree with what he's doing in terms of Iraq, Syria and ISIS at all.
