User Profile: No_More_War_Please


Member Since: February 02, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • [1] October 23, 2014 at 2:46pm

    Slap, stop playing stupid. That’s Sarah Palin’s job. Bristol knowingly got drunk at a party she brought her OWN KID TO. This was pointed out by several witnesses, just listen to the audio. No one forced her or any of her idiot family members to get drunk (even though I’m pretty sure getting wasted with little kids present is pretty much in their DNA).

    The fact is that all of this paints Bristol and Sarah as BAD PARENTS. I’m just sayin’ is that it doesn’t look good is all.

  • October 23, 2014 at 2:13pm

    The Palin’s aren’t Christian. They merely exploit the Bible and Christianity as a foil to further their political views.

    Sooner or later, those like Sarah Palin and her ilk’s crass debasement of their belief system eventually rears it’s ugly head from time to time with examples as observed here.

  • [2] October 23, 2014 at 2:10pm

    What a bunch of white trash morons. Prayerfully, Sarah Palin will never see another elected office again.

    Honestly, what kind of mother and grandmother (Bristol and Sarah) take their five year old son/grandson (Bristol’s kid) to a party where the mother (Bristol) gets drunk and punches the guy who’s throwing the party???? Alaska should pass a law banning the Palin family from ever being able to obtain/consume alcohol (no one else, just specifically the Palins).

    I don’t think the Sarah or her white trash husband and kids would know what class is if it sucker punched them in the nose.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 1:13pm


    Still with the strange fascination with fecal matter? You must have some sick desperation in your life. Or perhaps it was something traumatic that happened in your childhood? Maybe your dad abused you in some way, perhaps? Holding on to repressed memories is what’s driving your strange obsession with other people’s poop isn’t it? I suggest you seek psychiatric help for that…

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 1:10pm

    Ok, since none of you idiots have bothered replying with a substantive argument or example, I’ll be happy to show you all the ignorance of your ways:

    Here’s the clear difference between a news organization that sensationalizes everything (screaming in all caps) and one that simply reports what’s happening:

    (From August 2, 2014)


    CNN: Plane carrying American doctor with Ebola lands at Dobbins Air Reserve Base near Atlanta

    Anyone tell the difference?

  • [-3] October 21, 2014 at 5:20pm

    From a purely unbiased standpoint, I would say that the top three news sources that are most trust-worthy to present just the facts in an unbiased fashion are:

    1.) BBC
    2.) NPR
    3.) Al Jazeera America

    The three WORST and most biased news sources that often skew the facts to conform to their agenda would be:

    1.) NBC
    2.) Fox News
    3.) TheBlaze

    Responses (6) +
  • [-1] October 21, 2014 at 9:16am

    Don’t be silly Snow,

    Iran is helping us out by beating back the enemy that WE CREATED IN IRAQ (ISIS). The least we could do is not commit acts of war against them by sanctioning them.

    But do we ever learn? Of course not. It’s like Murray Rothbard said, one intervention leads to another. We’re losing Iraq because we destabilized the region to take out a dictator (Saddam) that we propped up to contain the blowback from our first intervention in Iran with the Shah. At least with the Iranians coming to our rescue it has come full circle in a way.

    Anyone else agree that US foreign policy over the past 60+ years is utter fail?

  • [2] October 15, 2014 at 11:48am

    Right on the money Zappa. And why would the Bush administration go to such lengths to cover up the existence of chemical weapons from the media if their whole motivation was to, as most on this site claim, find them in the first place?

    Could it perhaps be because the US had a hand in making/delivering those chemical weapons to Saddam in the first place?

  • [-2] October 15, 2014 at 10:07am

    VRW, Saddam had yellow cake? That’s laughable. Based one what report, genius? Saddam’s own son-in-law defected to Jordan in 90′s and ADMITTED that they had no WMD’s.

    We knew that. After Hussein Kamel’s return (and subsequent execution), Saddam got scared and divulged all further weapons’s program information to the UN. We knew in 1995 that he had no weapons of mass destruction. Everything that Bush tried to lie to us about would have insulted the intelligence of a 3rd grader (i.e. someone like you).

    But whatever, I mean, what’s a couple trillion dollars of treasure sunk, not to mention the thousands of U.S. military dead, hundreds of thousands maimed, and an epidemic of suicide now rampant among returning vets?

    Forget all that… ‘MERICA, F*** YEAH!!

  • [-4] October 15, 2014 at 9:57am

    KennyDee, sorry, but once again, you fail. The lack of evidence concluding that Saddam did not have a nuke does not mean he had one. That’s like me saying that the lack of evidence proving you DON’T have crystal meth in your house is a clear indication that you have it. It makes no sense, and no intelligent person would ever give such an argument a second thought.

    But I suppose it’s easy to fool people like you whose average intelligence can be trumped by a second grader. Why else would you buy into such senseless war propaganda? Even if WMD’s were a pretext for war (here’s a hint: they aren’t), no conclusive evidence was ever found to suggest Saddam had them.

  • [-1] October 15, 2014 at 8:52am

    Let’s cut the BS and stop lying to ourselves to make us feel better, ok? Iraq having chemical weapons is NOT the bill of goods that the Bush administration attempted to sell us. What they claimed (and lied about) was Saddam Hussein having possession of weapons of mass destruction (specifically, nuclear capable weapons). Trying to back-pedal and say that chemical weapons constitutes as WMD’s is completely disingenuous for a couple of reasons:

    1.) Virtually every middle eastern dictatorship has had chemical weapons of some type. This is not and has never been news. We know this and allow it in many other countries.

    2.) Who do you think gave Saddam those chemical weapons? WE DID YOU MORONS! We supplied munitions and weaponry of all types to Iraq AND Iran during the 70′s and 80′s when they were fighting each other.

    Just more proof that American foreign policy is nothing but long-term FAIL!

    Responses (8) +
  • [9] October 8, 2014 at 9:39am

    America is responsible for the majority of hostility it has reaped worldwide. Whether it be because we have supported dictators for Pinochet (no you idiots, I’m not talking about the wooden boy whose nose grew longer when he lied) or Saddam or the Shah or any of the plethora of bad guys all of the middle east; whether it be because we have bombed, droned, sanctioned, killed, maimed, innocent civilians in third world countries everywhere; whether it be because we continue to support the apartheid regime in Israel, we have reaped hatred from countries all over the world from Cuba to North Korea. You would think we would have learned by now.

    Even though these college kids may be misguided in their reasoning, it’s refreshing to see that the next generation isn’t towing the establishment line of, “The United States of America is the most awesomest country in the history of awesome, and the only reason anyone anywhere could possibly hate us is because of our sheer awesomeness!!!”

  • [3] October 7, 2014 at 10:40pm

    Ah yes, the anti-Biblical heretic, John Hagee. The same man who tried to make the claim that Jesus was not the son of God and did not come to earth to die for man’s sins. It’s true, it’s all in his book, “In defense of Jews”. He even had to print retractions about it because the entire evangelical Christian church turned on him!

    Why anyone would continue to listen to this antichrist is beyond me.

  • [8] October 7, 2014 at 2:51pm

    Ted Cruz:

    State bans gay marriage?
    “State’s Rights!”

    State legalizes pot?
    “Send in the Feds!”

    And besides, Ted Cruz is still a *****…

    Responses (2) +
  • October 6, 2014 at 11:51am

    “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.”

    -Gen Smedly Butler in 1935….

  • [-1] October 6, 2014 at 11:25am


    You should learn ACTUAL history, not just the kind that suites your agenda. Read the book, “War Is A Racket” by Gen. Smedly Butler, and find out why Japan actually attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. In his book, Gen. Butler (a two time Medal of Honor recipient) basically lays out in detail that he was nothing more than an armed thug and muscleman for the military industrial complex, all under the guise of “war hero”. He also describes how US foreign policy in the far east, largely motivated by corporate interests on Wall Street, fomented anger and hostility towards the the US (which is what ultimately led up to Pearl Harbor).

  • [2] September 29, 2014 at 5:26pm


    4.) Cut off foreign aide to everyone, including Israel. Stop supporting would-be dictators in two-bit nations around the world, and stop supporting the apartheid state known as Israel (according to Ehud Olmert it is:

  • [2] September 29, 2014 at 5:26pm

    Challenge accepted Elana! I’ve got good ways to stop the spread of radical Islam, and they won’t cost us another $2-$3 trillion, 4,000 dead, and 100,000+ maimed!

    1.) Stop propping up and tearing down dictators. Even the CIA openly admits that supporting dictators from Chile to Iraq was/is complete and utter fail:

    2.) Stop killing innocent civilians. Why do you think these “islamic extremists” use pictures/videos of dead kids in their recruitment video? Why not simply say that it’s Allah’s will and be done with it. The simple fact is that killing dead innocent people is and has always been the most effective way to turn the populace against you. Why do you think we lost in Vietnam?

    3.) Bring all the troops home. Osama Bin Laden claimed that the mere fact that US forces occupied muslim holy lands was reason enough to come after us. Bin Laden would have made an excellent politician for this simple reason: he stayed on message. All throughout the years in which we were chasing him, he never deviated from this point. Bring the troops home, and these guy will go back to fighting/killing each other.

  • September 29, 2014 at 4:02pm

    News flash to all the sociopaths here on TheBlaze:

    A 500lb bomb dropped from 35,000 feet also beheads people, and they’re usually innocent. Sometime even women and children. I’m just going to let that sink in…

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] September 29, 2014 at 12:48pm

    You’re wrong on all accounts about me being a liberal. In fact, I think you would find yourself agreeing with Hilary Clinton more that you would agreeing with me. Let’s educate you on the traditional conservative approach on non-intervention.

    Chicken hawks like Cruz would get eaten alive by non-interventionists. Gen. Smedley Butler (stop listening to GB and read “War is a Racket”, and actually LEARN something), Gen. Robert Wood, and Hamilton Fish III were all military men of the 19th and 20th century who knew the horrors of war and opposed it vehemently. Additionally, there were those like Senator Robert Taft (a.k.a. “Mr. Republican”) who were staunchly anti-interventionist. Contrary to what you would believe, it was the LEFT who supported big wars and big government/military interventions around the world. In 1898, it was liberals in congress who wanted war with Spain. The great historian, William Leuchtenburg (a liberal by the way) was forced to concede that the burden of the anti-imperialist movement in America rested solely on the shoulders of late 19th and early 20th century conservatives! Just look at WWI, it was the left who overwhelmingly supported intervention in Europe. Additionally, if we wanted to look at current interventions, it was those like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, The New York Times, Howard Stern, etc., etc. who supported intervention in Iraq (at least initially). So if anyone is in the camp of the liberals, it would be you quicksdraw!

123 To page: Go