Lots of anti-war protests when Bush was president, but hardly any protests now ... even though we're still at war. Can anyone explain this?
JenSemPa
2012/08/21 16:00:04
|
|
|||||
|
26 votes
|
|
90% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
10% | ||
Top Opinion
-
RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/08/21 16:09:25Protest against the Exalted Barack Obama? Not on your life!
+3Barack 0bama is ordering the military to kill suspected terrorists in cold blood (without a trial), and what do we hear from the ACLU?
Obama shut down the war in Iraq, and NOBODY objected to our "entering" Afghanistan looking for bin Laden. Or did you forget that we AREN'T -- and never have been -- "at war" with Afghanistan? We're not fighting Karzai. Duh.
_
It was the biggest organized social/political march this year. In fact, it's the biggest one pretty much every year. Not that the liberal media would let you know.
They love someone who declares himself judge, jury, and exectutioner. When he comes for them they will wake up, but noone will care
NOBAMA 2012
and they will until that guy decides they should die. The same guy that threw his own grandmother under the bus
NOBAMA 2012
The fact that they're not can be explained by looking at the political persuasion of the current occupant of the White House.
If Romney is elected and chooses to continue military action in the Middle East, the anti-war protesters will be back. You read it here first.
The people of occupy are very much opposed to the "military industrial complex" and it may be that the anti war protestors have joined forces with them believing that by toppling those that profit from war is the best strategy to ending it.
Let's be honest: It's because a liberal Democrat is president.
The anti-war protests stopped almost immediately after he took office. That was nearly 3 years before the "occupy" stuff even started.
so Obama
NOBAMA 2012