Matt Drudge "gets" it.

[daytomann]

lol they may as well have been campaigning for the incumbent. no difference other than skintone between the two.

i'm glad people are coming to their senses, but seems it's too little, too late.

True but as I stated before. It may seem too little too late but consider the alternative. These guys have the voice things can only speed up. Have some optimism. This is good stuff.

 

[daytomann]

Hell, it sounds like Bama is getting the full support and blessing of the GOP establishment regardless.

Yep. They are digging a hole their not going to be able to climb out of very easily. The Demo-publican establishment can't hide behind their "protecting America's interests" tag line any longer.

They can't even hide behind their old sure fire go to..."children are dieing" tag line.

Did anyone hear Pelosi get owned by her 5 year old grandson?

5 year old grandson.."I say no war."

Pelosi... "Well dear, hundreds of children are dieing"

5 year old grandson...“Were these children in the United States?”

Lol awesome!

She said "I'm not sure where's he's been getting his news"

Common sense Nancy, even you're yet to be indoctrinated 5 year old grandson gets it.

 

[daytomann]

Matt Drudge has always done the Lord's own work.
Good to see he's keeping it up.
He's mister integrity.

Still doesn't change the fact that his tweets are 100% true and right on the money.

 

[ignerntbend]

I see what you did there.

 

[53convert]

lol they may as well have been campaigning for the incumbent. no difference other than skintone between the two.

i'm glad people are coming to their senses, but seems it's too little, too late.

we will never know though will we..............thanks a lot pal

 

[otis147]

we will never know though will we..............thanks a lot pal

idunno, looking at romney's record, it's pretty easy to see how he would act as president. his eagerness to double the military budget, and statements about his foreign policy would suggest he was eager to send more people to kill and die overseas...

 

[farmerbyron]

we will never know though will we..............thanks a lot pal

Actually......
From one year ago today.http://www.ibtimes.com/romney’s-stance-syria-indistinguishable-obama-761131

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has thus far remained fairly circumspect about how he would handle the situation in Syria, telling CBS's Scott Pelley: "we have to be ready to take whatever action is necessary to assure that we do not have any kind of weapon of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists."

Romney's rival, President Barack Obama has remained similarly disengaged from Syria. He recently said that the administration is "monitoring the situation closely," but declared that he would only send in troops if Bashar al-Assad chooses to deploy chemical weapons. Obama added that he is absolutely sure that the chemical weapons in Syria are secure.

And then there is this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels

Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.

"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines," he said.

The proposal would mark a significant shift from Barack Obama's administration's policy of trying to keep the conflict a low-intensity one amid fears it might turn into a regional war. Obama is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of the rebels, to restrict the supply of weapons to small arms.

 

[otis147]

Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime that we hope we can control poses a serious Constitutional question: From where does a president get such authority? Since World War II the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don’t object. Our recent presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress. This has been the case since 1950 when we were taken into war in Korea under UN Resolution and without Congressional approval. And once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia.

-- ron paul, june of last year, spouting his dangerous foreign policy of nonintervention...

[video=youtube_share;8rCvfwoRGMg]http://youtu.be/8rCvfwoRGMg[/video]

 

[TedKennedy]

Thanks for posting the video. It's a crying shame we couldn't get Mr. Paul in the White House.

 

[daytomann]

Thanks for posting the video. It's a crying shame we couldn't get Mr. Paul in the White House.

It's ironic that the main knocks against him was his foreign policy. Oh and that he was gonna gut the military. Lol
He would have actually increased defense spending but drastically cut war spending.

How does his foreign policy look now?

People are waking up.