Message #19359

[uselesslegs]

It's a weird thing. 

Romney talked of Mali, what was going on in Syria and a few other hotspots happening around the world...and the tone was one of caution and possible action, needing to build more warships, blah-blah.. As best as I remember.  He got quite the assload of votes and with that in mind, I would also assume those votes cast were done with the knowledge that Romney, as President, was most likely down with smacking that ban hammer around if need be.

Contrast that with Obama more or less echoing that these hotspots were things to eye cautiously, and that he wasn't a pussy and would do something if he had to, but he'd rather ere on the side of non-intervention if possible, because we're quite the friggin war weary nation.

Flash forward to today, most people (it seems) that cast a vote for Romney are against any kind of intervention, despite voting for someone who leaned towards intervention/engagement...and everyone who cast a vote for Obama because his tone suggested we don't need more engagements of the military, are also upset we're looking at intervention, because that's not what they voted for.

So I'm left laughing darkly, with the realization that the need to kick Obama in the nuts, over anything he's attached to or supports, outweighs any positions, that prior to this, seemed to agree with his move towards involvement, based on their votes for Romney.

The God warriors loathing of Obama is actually greater than their need to obliterate anything that says "Allah", under other circumstance where they'd jump at the chance....ESPECIALLY if it involves ACTUAL WMD's of the chemical variety. That shit sent them into the bonkers zone before...but now? "Eh, let's slow this down and talk about it a little." Wtf?