Let’s be honest with ourselves for just a moment here. Yes, Chrs Kyle was extraordinarily good at killing people, BUT he also did so in an illegal, unconstitutional war. So that makes him the invader and the murderur. Also, we know that he lied about a lot of things in his personal memoir, American Sniper (there’s a reason Jesse Ventura sued him for defamation…AND WON). This makes Kyle a liar on top of things. Not exactly the picture of a Christian hero.
NoMoWoe! You are like the rainbow platypus any more. What do you do when not violently decrying the actual nature of man? We miss the code pink angle and usually are now just left with old soy/Cindy and the standard trolls. Hope you are well and don't run across any gangs or jihad in your pink travels. They could really crap on your NoMoWoe outlook.
Ugh you piss me off. No it wasn't illegal and unconstitutional. We voted go go into Iraq and Afghanistan both times. I don't particularly agree that we went in but it's still legal
No we don't know he lied and I doubt you know much about how and why JV was awarded the money. Blame Washington DC for our presence over seas, don't blame the ones "serving". That alone shows how ignorant and misinformed you are. Don't expect everyone to jump to your conclusions when calling a person a liar unless you walked in their shoes.
DLV....I wonder what No More War has to say about Obama's wars and drone strikes. I guess those are legal even though there were never voted on.
Popp from past statements he doesn't like either
4 out of 5 tools agree you too are a tool.
And you are a left wing nut, who would have left Hitler over-run this country. You would have been a coward at any time. You probably deny the Holocaust. You simply have no character, guts, or integrity. What a lowly coward and cheap shot artist you are. Go join Michael Moore and go live in Russia.
Back to your basement and your blow up sex dolls you moron. It was NOT an "illegal" war, and it was NOT "unconstutitional" CIte the section and and paragraph MAKING it "unconstitutional". DO be AWARE that CONGRESS voted almost 100% in favor of the war and GUESS WHO is CONSTITUTIONALLY empowered to approve of and declare war. SHISH , nothing but a liberal moron spewing his lack of education.
Delusional response. I pray that you will find help. God Bless
"Illegality" and "unconstitutionality" are no longer things to avoid. In fact, our president regards them very little even though he used to teach the subject of the constitution. You need to evolve from this concept of Constitutionality and illegality like our president evolved on homosexuality, gay marriage and abortion.
Sorry but the war was not illegal and it wasn't unconstitutional. You people scream that crap like it is fact but it just isn't. Democraps just like republicans voted for the use of force which means that it wasn't unconstitutional and although the WMD that was thought to be there had already been moved to Syria, there was WMD found just because it wasn't nukes doesn't mean that you get to make up your own facts.
[-1] January 11, 2015 at 7:18pm
LOL! “We bombed and killed a whole bunch of innocent people in WWII, so what’s the big deal?!?” When will you conservatards learn that the whole “two wrongs makes a right” argument is not a valid defense? Can you imagine the horror and disgust if Mexico bombed America and was achieving a civilian casualty rate of 80% and higher? Lol, the media wouldn’t be able to shut up about it. But whatever, it’s just a bunch of brown people, right? Yeah, screw those guys…
[-4] January 11, 2015 at 2:27pm
Lol, if an 80% civilian casualty rate doesn’t qualify as apartheid, you’re probably either a sociopath or a conservative. Now that I think about it…is there any difference between the two?
[-2] January 11, 2015 at 2:23pm
Ok good, so your auguing that Bush was/is just like Obama. How does that validate your argument again?
 January 11, 2015 at 2:21pm
Hahahaha, more like “bankruptcy and selling out our liberties and freedoms for empire is coming to you!” Lol, quit with fearmongering. If anything America is less free today because you sat silently by while Bush robbed us of our liberty. But hey, anything to kill a few brown people, right?
[-6] January 11, 2015 at 11:49am
Let’s discuss this: did the French government’s actions in Mali and Libya motivate these attacks?
it appears the discussion is not going to happen - but that would be the reasonable thing to do based on the article.
note that when Benghazzi happened, conservatives did not believe government narrative….But when it is done by random ‘terrorists’ in this case, then they automatically believe the narrative…..Or was it just automatic opposition based on Obama being president?
Nothing to do with Libya nor Mali. What did the folks at Charlie Hebdo have to do with either country? It had everything to do with Jihad, "avenging the prophet", and killing Jews.
It doesn't matter because Islam has always been at odds with the west. The actions of France and the west are just an excuse to make the attack on CH justifiable. News flash it's not.
[-5] January 11, 2015 at 11:39am
Yes! How dare those journalists ACTUALLY do their job and show the apartheid that is really going on in Gaza and the West Bank by the satanic, Israeli government! They should be ashamed!
Apartheid? How is there an apartheid in Gaza? Israel doesn't control Gaza. The population is 100% Palestinian. If there's apartheid it's because of the rulers of Gaza, Hamas.
And I don't see how it's journalists job to sabotage what a guest is saying. Imagine a man comes in to discuss the importance of a space program and the news station broadcasts scenes of the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
January 4, 2015 at 5:32pm
George Washington would oppose most in the neoconservative/Republican Party and would most likely only identify with Ron Paul or Justin Amash. Washington was a non-interventionist and would probably be labeled an isolationist by the likes of Huckabee today.
George Washington admired a humble foreign policy which prompted free trade with all and entangling alliances with none (just read his farewell address) Washington would have told the military to keep its mitts off Iran and would’ve flipped Israel the bird!
November 24, 2014 at 4:09pm
A Cruz presidency would be far worse than a Bush presidency I fear. Thank God his chances of actually winning are fairly slim.
November 24, 2014 at 4:07pm
Lol, I love it when neocons turn on their own.
 November 24, 2014 at 12:40pm
William F. Buckley Jr. was the very definition of neoconservatism: small on domestic socialism, big on empire. On many an occasion, Buckley had no qualms about admitting that he thought the U.S. should have an active role as the world’s policeman (look up his debates with Ron Paul). Why anyone would get upset for simply pointing out the man’s stated beliefs is beyond me.
Thank you. Par for the course, here. Pearls before swine as well, for the most part. LOL!
Well you see, folks in these here parts they prefer their rhetoric a bit more provincial . .
“And the thrushes of the grass that here in this great state and this great country sing with the patriotic enthusiasm of the Founding Fathers who desirous of a godly country and faithfully committed to faith and commitment of our brave young military members, who fight the good fight in ways the rest can look to and with admiration pledge to stand tall and grow the grass where the thrushes live and raise their little babies." – Sarah Palin
Morons find purchase in conservative places.
There can be such a thing as a good Empire.
England came close, but just missed it because they could never accept the peoples they ruled as different and equal no matter how educated those peoples were.
That attitude of tribal loyalty is very strong in the men of the Island, if only they had used it to bind the Empire together instead of as a way of defining it.
An "EMPIRE out of England" instead of "The ENGLISH Empire".
 November 21, 2014 at 3:50pm
It’s a shame that the neocon crackhead version of the GOP that currently exists is so far away from ideals and policies of the last GOP president with a functioning human brain.
I find the immigration debate between Dems and Repubs to be a fascinating one. One would think the roles would be reversed. More immigration = a larger pool of cheap labor. Big business heavily favors cheap labor so that those at the top can keep more of their money. Republicans are the party of big business. On the other hand, one would think that Democrats would oppose immigration in favor a smaller pool of cheap labor. A large pool of cheap labor would make it more difficult for the democrats to raise the minimum wage (which has been their goal for a long time).
So this debate is truly a perplexing one to me, since it seems that, in reality, both parties would heavily favor the exact opposite stance that they are taking.
All my life, I have heard that Republicans are the party of business and democrats are the party of the "little guy." I submit, this is a gross over-simplification, traditional Republicans are for smaller government and greater individual freedom. Democraps are for large government, control over the population and denying freedom. Not perplexing, just check your assumptions.
cuz its about votes- THe dems are the party of free stuff and redistribution of wealth- doesn't take a genious to figure this one out
Traditional liberals are for the rule of law (by this I mean Thomas Jefferson liberals) and limited government. That is not what modern "liberals" are for. Most democrats aren't even a modern definition of liberal, they are progressives and socialists and communists. Thought they pander to Unions and minoroities, they really only care about their position as the 1%, and everyone else can suck it. Redistribute so that the 1% stays the 1% (if they're democraps or progressives) and everyone else becomes serfs, owing everything to the government. "We'll take care of you!"
Anyway, that is the progressive end game, for RINOs and Demoncrats. This plays into all of their hands. And don't let those repubs fool you; except for a few stalwarts like Cruz, Issa, Sessions, and Gowdy, they're all in the tank too.
What debate are you talking about? The only thing I'm hearing is blame the opposition for stalling legislation that a temper-tantrum president insist on.
 November 10, 2014 at 3:48pm
Sorry Obozo, but it’s impossible to defame the character of someone who has none. Rush Limbaugh has made a career out of taking things out of context, fear-mongering, and outright lying about about anyone or anything to boost his own influence.
start naming the lies, fear mongering, and taking people out of context please!
We're waiting! Not general opinions, but cold hard facts. Step up now!
Let me guess - you've never actually listened to his show on a regular basis. But of course you've heard about the things that he says and they are just so *sniff* awful *sniff* that you can hardly bear it *sniff sniff*. You will not reply with any evidence of what you say because you have none. You may go away now.
No mo, You can't name one of these incidents though, can you? You have never actually listened to the Rush program either. Everything you think you know about Rush you learned from Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz. Why don't you take 6 weeks and listen to his show dailly then report the actual incidents of "taking things out of context, fear mongering, and outright lying" to us. In over 25 years of his show, commie leftists have attacked him with these type of charges to poison the public opinion of his program. In all those years NOT ONE of these accusations has proven true.Rush uses the truth and the contextual quotes that reveal the truth about the communist left. He doesn't use the C word either.
I have been listening to him since he was in Sacramento and his half truths and outright lies are easy to verify if you look. Obama care is not the biggest tax increase in history, Prince William Sound is not pristine now, there were no administrative costs when donating to Haiti through the government web sight, Reagan did double the national debt, President Obama does not want to mandate circumcision: just a few of the lies Rush has told.
Spoken like true liberal pond scum! Thank you for letting us know who you are!
 November 5, 2014 at 4:14pm
Geek, I find that your response is the central thesis of conservative thought when it comes to war, and it perfectly sums up why war is and will continue to be a stumbling block for the far right for a long time to come.
Your basic summation is this, “The reason we shouldn’t go to war is because we don’t kill/punish/hurt/deamonize those whom we go to war with bad enough.” Not, “What about the people who we’re killing, don’t their lives matter also? Especially the civilians?” Did it ever occur to you that many of those in the foreign lands with which the US has been occupying are merely doing what you or I would do if a foreign army were rolling through our streets? Namely, defending our lives and our families with our backs to our homes and our fronts towards the enemy?
You cannot remove the moral component from all of this, even as much as you’d like to. Their lives matter too, even though you’d like to think of them as mere untermenschen. You should read up on that term, by the way. It was made famous by the Nazi’s whose views perfectly encapsulate your own. You see, the Nazis thought exactly the same way about the people whose lands they conquered. If you were non-German, you were basically sub-human to them. Just like the Nazis, you believe that the innocent civilians in these lands are just untermenschen whose lives don’t really matter. Quite a moral dilemma, isn’t it?
November 5, 2014 at 3:58pm
I think the best option is to stop supporting their dictators, bombing/droning their innocents, and just flat out giving them reasons to hate us. Much cheaper and WAY more ethical according to Biblical standards. (Ever hear of the golden rule? Psst, here’s a little secret: it’s a commandment of Jesus, himself.)
 November 5, 2014 at 3:53pm
1.) He was in the house of representatives you moron.
2.) There had never been a bigger defender of liberty and freedom than the man whom you are attempting to slander (and failing miserably at).
THUMBS DOWN YOU TOOL!
 November 5, 2014 at 3:50pm
Thor, I suggest you read “War is a Racket” by Major General Smedley Butler. In his book, written in 1935, he described how American foreign policy directed primarily by American corporate interests was provoking Japan to an attack.
This is one of his most infamous quotes from that book:
“The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.”