Obama slaamed it out of the park on AIPAC speech and steals another talking point from under right wing nut talking heads, it's really not fair.
OBAMA IS A CHICKENHAWK.
Am I living in bizarro world? The guy never served in a war, and he's started numerous.
That's THE DEFINITION of a chicken hawk.
Jeezus f***ing christ, people.
The only NON-chickenhawk available is Ron Paul: He's not a chicken (he actually f'ing served) and he's not a hawk (he relentlessly campaigns for peace).
Sorry but Obama hasn't started any war he brought to conclusion the Irak war and will end the afghanistan war neither of which he started.
I was wondering which wars he started also, Mio!
No, you guys are right. Obama gets the credit for ending things that were already set to end, as well as credit for killing Osama, but we won't give him any credit for starting anything, unless we decide later that it was a good thing.
Already set to end? They were already set to begin by Dubya and his cohorts even before 911. Remember the posters depicting the mobile chemical weapons labs flashed across TV and pointed to as a reason to attack Iraq? They never existed. HMMM. If you are so astute as to know when the republicans were going to end these wars, then perhaps you know who actually had these posters made up. WMD's my asp!
This is amazing.
I used to talk to my friends about how inconsistent conservatives were.
Now I'm having the full brunt of liberal idiocy thrown at me.
It's unbelievable the obvious number of hoops that these people have to jump through to claim that they're consistent.
Iraq war - still in progress.
Pakistan invasion: a war
We have troops in Syria
He involved us in Libya
Sanctions against Iran (this is a war-action)
He has started 4 wars, he hasn't stopped one yet.
He's a chickenhawk who has you beguiled by swag.
Vote for the Lion-Dove, Ron Paul.
I agree with that last sentence, and agree totally with Ron Paul's assessment of this situation with Iran.
We have Arab and Persian citizens too...do they not matter?
Somehow, we must break free of the Zionist stranglehold.
"When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes his annual state visit this week to Washington he will be surrounded by sycophants and loyal political allies prepared to respond to his every demand.
I speak not of the Prime Minister’s traveling companions from Tel Aviv, but of the welcoming community of American politicians, fawning pro-Israel US media stars, and brain-washed interfaith-obsessed religious leaders, far right and mainstream, who have willingly traded their stewardship of the American Soul for a bowl of interfaith Zionist porridge."--Gordon Duff
Talking is how Obama got the job, but in office he didn't do his job. So I guess if you want someone that talks good, then he is already in the presidency. But if you want a president that walks the talk then Obama is not the one.
It reminds me of the old Charlie the Tuna TV ads.
Every time I pass a gas station and see the new price rise - what $4.37 now, I thank Israel.
"To push the nation into war to serve a foreign state is treasonous."
Here's what Veterans Today said:
■War is off the table
■Sanctions have to be allowed to go forward
■Loose talk about war is unacceptable
■No attacks are planned or prepared for
"We thank President Obama for what seems to be “double talk” and hope we saw the signs of intellect, honor and judgement, albeit hidden, among his worlds of confusion, disinformation and dishonor."
With all that butt-kissing and fawning at King Bibis feet...
Obama might still be the person I intuit.
Cause god knows, if Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Cantor, or half the Congress was pres, we'd already be at war.
Should have seen this coming....THIS is why Obama had to kiss butt:
GOP says Obama reelection would be good for Iran's nuclear aspirations: http://mojo.ly/xY6NNj
Romney told it to an 11 yr old kid.....brainwashing starts young.
I am sorry but I have no idea what was your point.
If you don't want wars, then you have to win the wars that you get into or the next war is just a matter of time.
The US hasn't totally won a war, so there was always a next war.
Yes, there have been some military victories but they were followed by liberal politicians giving away the farm.
Gas only costs 20 cents.
A silver dime is worth $2.50.
If Israel is the group buying up oil as speculators, I agree. If not, I'd like a list of these speculators making a nice profit off the back of hard working Americans.
"There's a reason that of the 16 billionaires that have contributed to super PACs this year, 14 have given to Republicans. It is generally the party of the rich. And in a post-Citizens United world, the party of the rich has an advantage like they've never had before."
They'll come up with something.
Well we got Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan and
moving into East Africa in general.
Yeah right! We never dabbled in the politics of these countries before Obama's term, correct?
Oh, so if I murder someone in Japan, then it's ok for Obama to do so 5 years later?
This is why people don't take liberals seriously: You're secretly conservatives.
You mentioned "starting wars" and how Obama did so. I don't understand your comparing starting wars to murdering someone in Japan. What wars did Obama start?
This is why people don't take Libertarians seriously. Because you're openly Libertarian!
Quote from Randy:
"Yeah right! We never dabbled in the politics of these countries before Obama's term, correct?"
Implications: Don't blame Obama for continuing on a path previously started.
"Oh, so if I murder someone in Japan, then it's ok for Obama to do so 5 years later?"
Implication: Murder is wrong, and you can't defend it no matter. Your argument is inconsistent.
And your argument is senseless. What wars did Obama start, I'm asking you again?
You listed the Iraq War which you know Obama did not start. The rest of your list contains no war he stared either, unless you consider limited military actions as such.
No, your comparison of a murder to "wars" is inconsistent and a mistake on your part. Either suck it up and admit you misspoke or continue to justify your statement. I'm beginning to wish Paul was elected so we could see just how perfect he would be as POTUS, and so you would understand he could not do anything he wanted to as our highest ranking government official.
No chance of this happening, of course, but this is actually good for you. You will continue to tout him as the end-all possible savior of the country with no risk of it ever happening. I would love to see your excuses as to why he didn't solve all of our problems in a short time using some thus far, unexplained means not available to any previous president.
It's easy to complain when your guy will never have a chance to prove you wrong.
Bombing countries, sanctioning countries, invading countries, and imposing no fly zones are all acts of war
Article 3: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html
Deal with it.
(Edit: Oh man. You got friggin' burned.)
Acts of war or declarations of war? The two are not the same, Evan. Even if someone is attacked it doesn't mean there will be a war. And that's funny, I don't even feel warm!
Talk about burned, your vote for Paul is as good as!
This is why people don't take liberals seriously.
Liberals: "OBAMA HASN'T STARTED ANY WARS!!!"
The universe: "Yeah, actually he has. By definition of the UN"
Liberals: "BUT THEY WEREN'T DECLARED, SO IT'S OK... UNLESS IT'S BUSH"
The universe: "Talking to you is pointless."
I remember when the Democratic party was the peace party. You guys can't even maintain that principle.
Pathetic. Absolutely Pathetic.
And you are still "Paulthetic" Fine with me if we don't converse for a while, Evan. At least until the day after the next presidential election anyway. Then you may feel free to crow at will. I'll be looking forward to hearing your report on the outcome of the race. Y'all come back now, ya heah!
Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.
Obama has declared war on numerous other countries, and you're giving him a go-ahead because he's a democrat.
Bush did the same thing to 2 countries, yet your keep his feet against the fire.
You're a hypocrite.
And then, to deflect the hypocrisy, you start talking about the election, as though this is relevant.
Isn't that what addicts do? It's called "deflection".
and how many troops do we have deployed in those wars you speak of?
What a disgusting thing to say.
This is why people don't take liberals seriously.
That's really funny coming from someone who thinks Ron Paul has a chance of becoming president.
Just saw this:
"Paypal: The New Villains Of Internet Censorship" - http://bit.ly/yS3yGX -
Isn't pay-pal Paul's big billionaire donor?
ahh yes, censorship of "obscene content".....Morality Police. tsk tsk
Wow. Epic fail. I expected no less.
Pay Pal is a private system of payment, if you disagree with them you are free to use another service.
O M G.......but HOW does their censoring go along with Liberty???????
LMC, you will never understand. I've explained it to you 5 times.
I will respond one more time IF you promise to read it, take notes, and then respond on a line-per-line basis.
What is to understand?
Paul's billionaire supporter supports him because Paul allegedly stands for freedom.
But this guy is going to censor things he deems inappropriate.
How is that in line with the principle of freedom?
But you have joined the in the chorus calling for the censorship of Rush Limbaugh? Little duplicitous don't you think?
Not At All....These Libertarians are running on the principle of freedom. Obviously, there are some who don't qualify for that freedom.
I, on the otherhand, never liked the freedom Russsshhhhhhh had to demonize people. Because he bought it, and others before him have been condemned to the death heap for less.
I don't like this idea that money = freedom. And thus, only those with money are free.
You don't believe that it's duplicitous to call for the censorship of one while condemning others for wanting to do the same? Freedom of speech and expression means just that, freedom of speech and expression, not freedom of speech and expression except for those that you disagree with. You can't have it both ways. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that you have to say but I wouldn't call for you to be silenced.
Plenty of your brethren do. I regularly write and delete what I wrote, because it will be reported.
And it's Rush that has it both ways.
Howard Stern was fined out of commercial radio--because he was too offensive for some, Letterman apologized for his offensive remarks--then was called a child-molestor by Palin, Shultz was punished by a week off.
Limbaugh has been offensive since 1991, and this is the FIRST time he's been called on it.
So no--what is duplicitous to me is that it's taken so long for anything to be done about this clown.
And what about Bill Maher frequently referring to Sarah Palin by some of the most offensive language that men can use to describe women? Were you calling for him to be censored? I doubt that you were, because you agree with him. You enjoy the freedoms that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide unless they pertain to those with whom you disagree...duplicitous.
No, because Palin is just as nasty!!
What did Fluke do to Russsshhhh?? To ANYBODY?? Nothing.
She is a private citizen who was viciously and personally smeared for her political views.
It is exactly the same thing, a male commentator using vulgar language in reference to a female with which they disagree, exactly the same thing. When miss Fluke testified before a Congressional committee she opened herself up to criticism. Did Limbaugh go to far? Absolutely. Should he have apologized? Absolutely. Do his advertisers have the right to pull their funding of the show if they disagree with his views on this issue? Of course. But shutting him up because you disagree with him is a slippery slope. I'll be interested to see the reaction of you and people like you the next time a liberal uses derogatory language in reference to a female that doesn't follow you ideological lines.
Maher is the same as Limbaugh?
Don't think so....when did Maher speak in front of a freshman class of Congress?
How many times has the president or vp been on his show? I can tell you....0
And saying that Fluke deserves what she gets for testifying?...how un-American!
Talk about suppressing speech! Testify in front of Congress, and be subject to a smear campaign...
Is nothing off limits to you people?
You are trying to put words in my mouth, typical. I never said she deserved it. You people? You know nothing about me. What I do know about you is that you are a duplicitous Obama sycophant who thinks that only liberals deserve the protections afforded to all of us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You don't have to admit it, it is clearly seen through your own words in your various posts. This one being a prime example. Limbaugh and Maher are exactly the same, they are political commentators with large audiences that enjoy stirring the pot and causing trouble. This Ms. Fluke doesn't deserve anymore protection from negative comments than anyone else does, including that, your words here.."nasty" Sarah Palin.
And I imagine the $500 million deal Stern got from Sirius had a lot more to do with him jumping ship to satelite radio than being fined by the FCC.
Not true...I was a listener, Loved Howard.
He did not wan to leave commercial radio. But they made it impossible for him to be real!
He was fined for fart jokes....
No--he knew he would lose a HUGE audience, and he has.
He was hounded out by the Christian Right.
Yep. $500 million had nothing to do it. Not one thing.
I'm surprised you like Stern because he is without a doubt part of that evil 1%.
Seems like a serious question to me he has not started any war, he along with many other countries helped the Libyan rebels not a single American serviceman was killed or wounded and not a single ground troop was used. Pakistan was no invasion... Crazy. Iran is not a war it's just economic sanctions not an act of war America currently has about 15 nations under economic sanctions and will probably never got to war with any of them. He started no wars.
Note to my American friends...
focus on the NEXT Presidential election... the one coming up is all but over.
I think they've figured that out....they are focusing on CONGRESS.
And Dems should too!
Of course it is! Just look at Obama's opposition and those who support them. Most put the criminal Bush into office and are responsible for the present state of this country's economic woes and our reputation as bullies in the world. I will never forget Dubya's statement right before his re-election.
"Our economy is sound! We are not heading for a recession!" And now those same folks who bought the lie are complaining about our present situation. What a joke!
YOU JUST GOT DONE ARGUING THAT ACTS OF WAR AND DECLARATIONS OF WAR ARE DIFFERENT!!!
YET, HERE YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT BUSH'S WAR PROWESS!!
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A CLAIM, STAY CONSISTENT FOR AT LEAST ONE FULL DAY!!!
The Vast Majority Of Israelis Are Against A Unilateral Strike Against Iran http://www.businessinsider.com/the-vast … ontributor via @bi_contributors
Oh, and just a reminder: we don't have a president anymore. We have a king.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZeluKxE … e=youtu.be
What would you call a guy who wants to legislate morality?? A Priest King?
Ask Obama - he's legislating morality on birth control.
We all do this to a certain extent.
For instance, the NDAA. ALL these people were jumping on it as a way to bash Obama. "Oh, I could NEVER vote for a guy who did that!!"
....but now that Romney supports it, eh it's not such a big deal.
Same goes for Paul. All this talk of freedom and he signed the Personhood amendment? Outlaw birth-control??
Nah....we all do it.
Killing people isn't a right, and thus a freedom-lover is consistent in outlawing it.
A fertilized egg takes precedent over my daughter.....What freedom for her.
If I shoot your daughter, I won't go to jail? Because right now, if I took a fertilized egg and shot it, I wouldn't go to jail.
God it's hilarious to hear your arguments. They're always ridiculous.
You are equating a fertilized egg to a 24 yr old human being, and I"M ridiculous?
WHAT IN THE FLAMING HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!!?
YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE COMPARISON!!!!
LMC: "A fertilized egg takes precedent over my daughter.....What freedom for her."
Oh my god!! Up until now I thought you were just a poor debater, now I see that you're likely ... not quite right in the ol' noggin.
Oh man. This makes everything so much clearer.
Oh man, you've finally proved to me that responding to you is a waste of time.
Have a good life, LMC.
Every person that voted for the NDAA, including the one who signed it in to Law are guilty of breaking their Oath of office. I have blasted several congressmen who voted yay for the bill, even though I helped with their campaign a few years ago.
WE DO NOT FORGIVE! WE DO NOT FORGET!
Scott Brown, I still consider you not worth the crud on my shoe.....PS: Scott I told you I would not stop until your back in the private sector attempting to sell your children to the media!
"WE DO NOT FORGIVE! WE DO NOT FORGET!"
That's what I say about 9/11....how's that goin?
We are still unaware of the complete truth of the incident. We will never forget. The only thing that is known is that the truth is unknown
"you are a duplicitous Obama sycophant who thinks that only liberals deserve the protections afforded to all of us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
Send that to ole Russsshhhhhh--I hear he'll be looking for work soon
Do you ever use credible news sources for your information? Or does all your knowledge come from Media Matters, You Tube, and blogs of like-minded individuals?
Well, look at this: are we dupes, or what?
"amazing timeline shows that for last 20 years, US & Israel have claimed Iran was 5 years away from getting nuclear bomb" http://bit.ly/yuVMZv
"Breitbart was about to release film about LulzSec and the CIA so they killed him."
Maybe if we knew what some military victories were we could figure out where the farm is.
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
How did he do?Will Congress continue to stonewall on this?Or will they make something happen?
by phion 11 years ago
Is the USA more divided today than 4 years ago? If so, what is the main factor to this division?If so, what is the main factor to this division? If you believe it is more united...how so?
by James Smith 10 years ago
I know, I know: is Newt Gingrich even relevant anymore? But many are thinking the fact that Gingrich is being forced into a non-interventionist position to hope to stay relevant shows something: the tide is turning, and people are starting to get sick of war. This is good news!I think there are a...
by TMMason 12 years ago
Earlier today, The Blaze reported on the bi-partisan lawsuit that congressional members filed this week against the White House. Now, President Barack Obama’s administration is speaking out, claiming that the War Powers Act does not apply to U.S. action in Libya. The New York Times has more:In a...
by Cassie Smith 10 years ago
Shouldn't the Republicans be congratulating themselves?And laughing at the dummycrats and Obama for the turd legislation that Obamcare is revealed to be? Really, the Republicans have a golden moment right now and they don't know how to take advantage of it. In addition the September...
by Credence2 14 months ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|