Oh, right. 2009 was so much better for foreigner (and Americans, too, because Justice said so).

Post #405,547 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 10:24:33 AM Reply	Oh, right. 2009 was so much better for foreigner (and Americans, too, because Justice said so).
Post #405,554 by pwhysall 10/23/15 11:15:37 AM Reply	Cherry-picking mode: ACTIVATE!
Post #405,555 by malraux 10/23/15 11:29:55 AM Reply	Form of... A BAR CHART! Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #405,557 by rcareaga 10/23/15 11:44:09 AM Reply	for your next barchart I'd like to see a depiction of the number of civilians killed by aerial bombardment conducted by German jet aircraft between 1939 and 1945, and by US jet aircraft between 2009 and 2015, which will demonstrate that Obama is the greatest war criminal in history, surpassing even the notorious A. Hitler. If you'd care to submit a passport-suitable photograph of yourself, I'll submit it to Merriam-Webster to go alongside the definition of "disingenuous" in some future edition. cordially,
Post #405,564 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 1:43:37 PM Reply	Hmmm. Time spans differing by 8 years is the same as time spans differing by 70. Yep, that sounds fair to me. Er, no, wait. You're showing me what disingenuous means, right? Are you saying that assassinations by drone did not increase with Obama? That the first and only Americans murdered with that technology did not occur during his presidency and at his direction? Not to mention the Americans we kill with those things by accident (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-u-s-keeps-killing-americans-in-drone-strikes-mostly-by-accident/) Or is it that none of this matters because REPUBLICANS!?
Post #405,572 by rcareaga 10/23/15 3:22:01 PM Reply	Yeah, it matters I'm saying that the number of furriners who will die by orders of the Hillabeast is likely to be significantly smaller than the number who will die if one of the GOP contenders takes the prize. But hey, don't let a little thing like that sully your moral purity, keed. "It is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed."
Post #405,573 by mmoffitt 10/23/15 3:33:39 PM Reply	I don't think the difference on that issue is as great as you seem to think. I'm saying that the number of furriners who will die by orders of the Hillabeast is likely to be significantly smaller than the number who will die if one of the GOP contenders takes the prize. Why do you think that? HRC's hawk credentials are well known. How did you arrive at the conclusion that more furriners will die if it's Trump and not Hillary?
Post #405,580 by Another Scott 10/23/15 7:21:09 PM Reply	Hillary was pushing for war with Iran? Like, say, Rubio? http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/politics/marco-rubio-iran-war/ Or how about Trump? http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/20/donald-trump-in-2007-we-have-to-strike-iran/ The Teabaggers can't wait to have another war. Hillary may be more hawkish than Obama, maybe, but she's not itching to get into a war the way the GOP is. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!