Paul in January: Say, that Bradley Manning is a patriotic, heroic kind of guy, isn’t he?

posted at 2:05 pm on December 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This clip has been making the rounds last night and today, but it’s not new — it’s actually from a clip featured by Wikileaks, for obvious reasons, last January. Still, it’s not as if the parameters of the Bradley Manning case have changed significantly in the last eleven months, or at least not in any way that mitigates Manning’s alleged crimes. The enlisted soldier transmitted a vast trove of classified government communications, primarily diplomatic cables but also some internal military information, and sent it to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Jazz Shaw has a good update on the case on the front page today, for those who haven’t followed it closely. Bear in mind that Ron Paul wants to become Commander in Chief, which raises all sorts of questions about how a President Paul would safeguard classified information:

So if we have an American citizen, and he’s willing to take it, uh, take the consequences and practice civil disobedience, say “This is what our government’s doing!” Should he be locked up and in prison? Or should we, you know, see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what’s going on in government.

We’ve heard that a lot from Manning’s apologists, that he’s a true hero and not a criminal, but this is absurd on many levels.  First, the disclosures didn’t pertain to some objectionable course of action that Manning couldn’t abide; he released everything he could grab to Assange and Wikileaks regardless of the topic involved.  There was no discrimination at all.  That’s not the profile of a whistleblower, but it does fit the profile of someone harboring a grudge, and wanting to lash out only to inflict damage.

Next, as anyone who has held a clearance can attest — and I’ve held a few myself — a clearance doesn’t give one the right to declassify information.  Anyone who has a clearance knows exactly what consequences will follow from exposing classified material, regardless of the reasons for the disclosure.  Furthermore, as anyone who has held a clearance also knows, processes exist to communicate violations of the law or ethics discovered in classified material.  Those processes include using your own chain of command, contacting an Inspector General’s office — or even contacting a member of Congress, like Ron Paul himself.   The options most certainly do not include passing classified material to journalists, American, Australian, or otherwise.  There is no evidence at all that Manning ever tried any other option — because Manning is nothing more than a disgruntled nut, not a whistleblower of any kind.

Besides, if Paul thinks Manning was “willing to take the consequences,” why not just let him?  The consequences of deliberately stealing and exposing classified material are a long prison sentence and a pretty miserable life.  That’s because exposing classified material isn’t “civil disobedience.”  It’s theft and espionage, a difference one would presume that a Congressman and a man who wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate would know.

Finally, consider the fact that the responsibility for protecting classified material lies with the executive branch — up to and including the President.  Paul’s declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who’s more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief.  The clip may be a year old, but there’s no reason to think that Paul has gotten a year wiser.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

Paul’s declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who’s more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief.

This is where stupid people like you fail.

The American government does do a lot of evil things. Elect a Romney, Newt, what-ave-you, and it will continue to do so. With the blessing of lemmings like you.

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM

jp on December 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Do you have more anti-Paul posts or more Pro-Newt/Romney posts combined?

Notorious GOP on December 21, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Flora Duh

Ron Paul in 1988 advocated sustaining our Constitutional Republic through smaller federal governance in order to protect American citizens’ Bill of Rights.

You can not legislate high morals. If that were possible, Members of Congress would be the most righteous of people. Rather, as a generalization, they represent the most depraved of elitists, those whom Jesus rebuked consistently for being hypocrites, and making laws requiring hardship on the meek while considering themselves above those laws, never lifting a finger to actually do anything but enrich themselves.

Opiates were readily available throughout the 19th Century (Edgar Allen Poe). Morphine addiction was given no mind by the pharmaceutical and medical community upon its innovation (Civil War veterans). Cocaine was an original ingredient in CocaCola, hence it’s trademark name, marketed specifically to sooth mothers at home. “Leading” American families started their fortunes as drug runners; Forbes providing merchant shipping for British opium trade from the East; Joe Kennedy running bootleg whiskey. How well did the well intended abolition of alcoholic beverage in the USA work as time progressed? ORGANIZED CRIME resulted. You want to harangue against those who promoted the sale of immoral drugs in America? Be certain to include the South’s tobacco industry, only relatively recently maligned for the dangers to health from smoking.

I advocate against using drugs. And I used to think that only crazy people could think that legalizing drugs might be the lesser evil way to deal with the horrible problems of illicit drugs in American life.

I don’t take drugs, smoke anything, or drink alcohol at all. Aside from water, some juice and milk, my other beverage is hot herbal tea or morning coffee. But no “law” dictated my choice to eat and drink what is good for my body. I don’t watch horror movies or pornography, but not because of any “law”.

A few years ago I read Bob Barr’s transition in thinking and began reflecting on the points he made regarding the futility of America’s War of Poverty, War on Crime, War on Drugs, even now the War on Terror given the set up to fail even while increasing authoritarianism.

Our current prison population is OVER CROWDED with “non-violent” criminals who cost more to house and feed than they’re worth, in my humble opinion. If we’re to have laws to enforce regarding drugs, who ends up paying for enforcement? Tax payers. And what “good” results from paying to prosecute, sentence, and imprison idiots? Do they come out of prison less idiotic? Having served time in prison, do they come out hardened criminals, violent? And meanwhile, who is profiting from the laws to enforce morality? Compared to the pain besetting our society, how much more would it pain those who sell illegal drugs if those drugs were not illegal? Again, how well did Prohibition solve the problems of drinking alcohol and drunken (domestic and urban) violence in America?

There must be a better solution. Employers, given Libertarian law enforcement, could hire and fire employees based upon job performance and company policy. If a company has no tolerance for drugs, they can pay to test their employees and do as they see fit. If employees insist on utilizing illicit drugs (including alcohol), they would need to seek employment in a business that accepts such, having no place available to work responsibly with machinery or in human supervision.

maverick muse on December 21, 2011 at 6:45 PM

George Romney was NOT a General Authority of the Mormon Church when the Church’s President (Prophet) decided that he had a revelation terminating the Mormon dogma that prevented Blacks from holding Mormon’s priesthood. Being a Regional Rep is not being one of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Your correct, I was wrong, it wasn’t George Romney, it was Marion G. Romney.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 21, 2011 at 6:45 PM

This is where stupid people like you fail.

The American government does do a lot of evil things. Elect a Romney, Newt, what-ave-you, and it will continue to do so. With the blessing of lemmings like you.

Aquateen Hungerforce

And yed braindead lemmings like you actually believe the BS RP pushes.

Hard Right on December 21, 2011 at 6:50 PM

RP has endorsed two America hating, socialism loving, radical leftists. Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. He praises Manning as a hero. Yet morons like Aquateenhungerforce (that show sis for drug addled retards) and Maverick Muse think he means anything he says about following the Constitution. And they have the nerve to call us stupid or lemmings. Project much?

Hard Right on December 21, 2011 at 6:54 PM

With the risk of being pedantic, not entirely true.

In exigent or emergency situations, they can search you or your belongings. They don’t need probable cause.

It’s considered, under the circumstances, a reasonable search.

Also, border and border searches are permissible. That’s also considered reasonable.

There are a few more exceptions but I’m too tired to look them up.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 6:20 PM

It is entirely true, no matter how many unconstitutional rulings or cases you present.

Dante on December 21, 2011 at 6:57 PM

It is entirely true, no matter how many unconstitutional rulings or cases you present.

Dante on December 21, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Well gee, I suppose we are all sorry that reality conflicts with your Ronulan dreams…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM

One thing you Paul supporters are sure good at.You know how to call people that dare to question anything about what Paul has said or done jerks , brain dead ,lairs , fools ,stupid and other intelligent words.At one time i could have voted for Paul if he had won the nomination.But now you could not pay me enough to vote for this man.

logman1 on December 21, 2011 at 7:00 PM

The American government does do a lot of evil things.

Aquateen Hungerforce on December 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Name some of these evil things.
Thanks.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:11 PM

I like the one we created in 1789.

Can you make an argument that is not based on false dilemmas? I can stand against all those things and likewise against discrimination based on race , sex, and religion. In your case you move from one extreme to the other. It is like running from a lion but crashing into a bear.

These are not extremes. The federal government regulates these things already.

Yes, because some things need to be regulated at the federal level if we want to be the United States of America. If we follow the Paul model there could still be slavery and no one state could say another state was wrong. Now of course it is equally wrong for the federal government to go too far. But this is exactly my point. The Paul model is too simplistic and doesn’t live up to the founding documents of this country. In Paul’s system you are not guaranteed the right to life and liberty, unless the local government grants it.

Aaaah, so what about the liberty of the people at the local level? Suppose they buck the local laws as Private Manning because they FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM! Would Paul praise them also?

If you don’t like things at your local level you have much more ability to change it, or more opportunity to pick up and move elsewhere.

ReformedDeceptiCon on December 21, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Yes, that is true, and I’m not saying I totally disagree with Paul, I’m making the point that Paul supporters throw liberty around as if it answers all questions. I think some things are so fundamental to nation and its founding principles that they should be enshrined at the national level. Paul believes protecting the innocent life of the unborn, and treating all people as equals is up to the local level, because of liberty. I believe this is a distortion of the best of liberty.

RonDelDon on December 21, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Well, it’s nice to see that there is still no one thing the Paul supporters will critique their guy on. Who knew that all these pro-defense Republicans don’t care that a US Serviceman gave away intelligence for free.

Telling.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM

It is entirely true, no matter how many unconstitutional rulings or cases you present.

Okay, your argument is with the Supreme Court and not me.

I do think the Framers would have agreed that it’s okay in an emergency situation – i.e., the middle of a crime or a shooting – for the police not to need to get a search warrant. That the circumstances permit the police to conduct searches for guns or a shooter without getting a magistrate’s approval.

I’m pretty sure case law at the time allowed that.

But that’s just me, I guess.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 7:18 PM

I would a debate moderator to ask Ron Paul, is America the greatest country in the world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cQZNcaujs#t=4m50s

ZGMF_Freedom on December 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Compared to the pain besetting our society, how much more would it pain those who sell illegal drugs if those drugs were not illegal? Again, how well did Prohibition solve the problems of drinking alcohol and drunken (domestic and urban) violence in America?

maverick muse on December 21, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Mexico decriminalized drugs several years ago…..hows that working out in the real world? Are we seeing less violence?..less organized crime and gang/cartel involvement?

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Mexico decriminalized drugs several years ago…..hows that working out in the real world? Are we seeing less violence?..less organized crime and gang/cartel involvement?

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Have you ever heard of Prohibition?

Dante on December 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM

The only thing bat-shit crazier than Ron Paul is a Ron Paul supporter. Ever person I personally know who supports Ron Paul is either a Truther, pot head, or a rabid racist/anti-Semite. And many are all three.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Have you ever heard of Prohibition?

Dante on December 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Yes..of course.
And?

Seriously…that is the weakest non sequitur I’ve seen in a long time.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Passing on 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables has nothing to do with how “evil” the U.S. is, it is treason and if Paul can’t recognize it when he sees it he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

What is worse in this case is that he is actually defending it.

Johnny Alamo on December 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

The only thing bat-shit crazier than Ron Paul is a Ron Paul supporter. Ever person I personally know who supports Ron Paul is either a Truther, pot head, or a rabid racist/anti-Semite. And many are all three.
The Notorious G.O.P on December 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM

You forgot economically illiterate (sic), naive about human nature, historically ignorant, completely in denial about the history of Islam, and anti-American. And as dishonest about the truth about their candidate as Newtonians are about theirs.

Basilsbest on December 21, 2011 at 7:45 PM

…Truther, pot head, or a rabid racist/anti-Semite…The Notorious G.O.P

He could probably get 22.6% of the Democrats to cross over
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html

BoxHead1 on December 21, 2011 at 7:47 PM

it is treason and if Paul can’t recognize it when he sees it he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

It’s illegal and outrageous but it’s not treason.

The Constitution defines treason (it requires “adherence” to an enemy as well as aid and comfort) and based on what we know, Manning didn’t commit it. He gave the info to Assange and not AQ.

Assange is not a declared enemy of the US; AQ is.

I do agree with your other points though.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Yes..of course.
And?

Seriously…that is the weakest non sequitur I’ve seen in a long time.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Crime and murder plummeted when it was repealed.

Non sequitur doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Dante on December 21, 2011 at 7:52 PM

My take on the Ron Paul newsletters:
The owner, publisher and editor. All under his name and went out for 20yrs. Anyone would be held accountable for the content under these circumstances. It is not acceptable to disavow them 10yrs after they stopped being published and think you should not be held accountable. Why should he get a pass, no one else would. It would take a suspension of disbelief, as Hillary would put it. Although the Cult of Paul is willing, the majority of Americans are not. And that is the point, the issue of the newsletters will not disappear if he were to run in the general election. A billion Obama dollars would make sure of that. Fair or not, that is the reality. WAKE UP!
NOTE: I did not say Paul is a racist nor did I claim he wrote them. What I wrote is what would end any chance of him winning!

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 7:54 PM

“All under his name and went out for 20yrs.”

That’s incorrect – they went out for about 5 years, 20 years ago.

NewLiberty on December 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Even though I really like a whole lot of Paul’s domestic ideas – particularly when it comes to economics – he is batshit crazy when it comes to foreign policy. He’s as mad as a hatter and simply can’t be trusted to keep America safe if he’s at the helm.

So Cal Jim on December 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Ron Paul is the only one trying to actually freakin save this country from big government, and the establishment is trying to shut him up. Predictable.

NewLiberty on December 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Passing on 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables has nothing to do with how “evil” the U.S. is, it is treason and if Paul can’t recognize it when he sees it he is not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

What is worse in this case is that he is actually defending it.

Johnny Alamo on December 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

At the very least it is aiding the enemy and the majority of Americans do see it that way. For Dr. Paul to praise Manning will at the very least hurt his image with voters.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:01 PM

“All under his name and went out for 20yrs.”

That’s incorrect – they went out for about 5 years, 20 years ago.

NewLiberty on December 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

You are incorrect the newsletters went out in the 80′s and 90′s, he had more then one newsletter. Would you like the list of them?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM

NOTE: I did not say Paul is a racist nor did I claim he wrote them. What I wrote is what would end any chance of him winning! IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 7:54 PM

The rest of your post is excellent but Republicans who act like they were born yesterday (Paul supporters) only hurt the party. Paul is responsible for his newsletters and it is highly unlikely that he didn’t write them. And no Virginia, Gingrich was not paid by Freddie Mac for history lessons. The Republican Party should not brand itself as The Party of Stupid And Naive.

Basilsbest on December 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

The Ronulan definition of liberty is they get to do whatever they want with no one to stop or tell them it’s wrong.

Ron Paul is NOT pro-constitution. He endorsed two raging America haters, socialism lovers, and anti-semites. Cynthia McKinney and Ralph nader.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/21/ron_paul_hates_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/

Ex aide of Ron Paul says he he read the newsletters.
Ron Paul “did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and refax them to Jean to go to the printer.”

Combine the above with his blame America first attitude and hatred of Reagan, it becomes clear he hates America.

Hard Right on December 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Ron Paul means sh!t for brains in every known language on Earth.

profitsbeard on December 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

“All under his name and went out for 20yrs.”

That’s incorrect – they went out for about 5 years, 20 years ago.

NewLiberty on December 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

If this reply is all you have to say on my comment, you have failed to make a case against my premise.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM

The Constitution defines treason (it requires “adherence” to an enemy as well as aid and comfort) and based on what we know, Manning didn’t commit it. He gave the info to Assange and not AQ.

Assange is not a declared enemy of the US; AQ is.

I do agree with your other points though.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Thats an interesting grey area. Simply because an organization or a number of organizations..however loosely knit, are aided by confidential information, it should not mean that the person who made it possible..Manning, should find a loophole in the definition of “adherence”.
Any number of left wing anti American organizations show an “adherence” to aiding…..anything not American.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Oops. Other link
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/20/ex-ron-paul-aide-disputes-paul

Hard Right on December 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM

The rest of your post is excellent but Republicans who act like they were born yesterday (Paul supporters) only hurt the party. Paul is responsible for his newsletters and it is highly unlikely that he didn’t write them. And no Virginia, Gingrich was not paid by Freddie Mac for history lessons. The Republican Party should not brand itself as The Party of Stupid And Naive.

Basilsbest on December 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I could not agree more. Don’t get me started on Newt, I would be high jacking a thread! I will wait for a Newt thread for that.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Ron Paul is the only one trying to actually freakin save this country from big government, and the establishment is trying to shut him up. Predictable.

NewLiberty on December 21, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Ron Paul is mentally ill and they only way he can “save” anything is in his fantasy world. Just my opinion.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Thats an interesting grey area. Simply because an organization or a number of organizations..however loosely knit, are aided by confidential information, it should not mean that the person who made it possible

Well, the Constitution’s definition of treason makes sense here if you think about it. For example, if I give help to an AQ agent – money say or sell him a gun – but I don’t know he’s an AQ agent, I’m not guilty of treason. Even though I gave him aid and comfort.

The government has to prove that I knew he was an AQ agent and I was helping him in his cause.

Aid and comfort isn’t enough. You have to knowingly assist an enemy to commit treason.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/20/ex-ron-paul-aide-disputes-paul

Hard Right on December 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Thanks for the link, I have not read that one yet.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Ron Paul means sh!t for brains in every known language on Earth.

profitsbeard on December 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

+1000
We call it Kukae! Sounds like Kookay

Kini on December 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Looks like the Stormfront types are out in force tonight, defending Reich Chancellor Paul.

Dunedainn on December 21, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Well, the Constitution’s definition of treason makes sense here if you think about it. For example, if I give help to an AQ agent – money say or sell him a gun – but I don’t know he’s an AQ agent, I’m not guilty of treason. Even though I gave him aid and comfort.

The government has to prove that I knew he was an AQ agent and I was helping him in his cause.

Aid and comfort isn’t enough. You have to knowingly assist an enemy to commit treason.
SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM

You may be correct legally, I do not know. As far as Dr Paul’s praise is concerned (this is a thread about him) the perception of the American voters is more important. Legal or not the Majority of Americans perceive Manning to be a traitor. Dr. Paul’s praise will turn many voters away. Fair or not, that is reality.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:26 PM

logman1 on December 21, 2011 at 7:00 PM

So there is a Logman and a Logman1, and they both hate Paul? Two differnt people I’m sure…

rndmusrnm on December 21, 2011 at 8:30 PM

You know they’re freaking out when you have Erick Erickson and CNN attacking Ron Paul together. The establishment is an meltdown and EE should be embarrassed for doing their bidding. What a fraud but not surprising after he hitched his wagon to the Gardasil Mumbler.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Aid and comfort isn’t enough. You have to knowingly assist an enemy to commit treason.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM

I understand what you mean.
My point about “grey area”..is in context of the shifted paradigm of the nature of “enemies of a country”. Its a shifted world now. If a person supports a loose matrix of anti American organizations or ideologies, they are not innocent of the effects of their actions…as in the example you gave of a person unwittingly selling a weapon to a stranger who happens to be AQ.
AQ is becoming just one of a many headed hydra of anti western culture mechanisms.
This can be a vague area in many things….the passing of classified military informant is not one of those “vague” ares imo.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

The wit and wisdom of Ron Paul, Constitutional Genius. Informative reading for his detractors and essential reading for his supporters.

Basilsbest on December 21, 2011 at 6:49 PM

This will not change the perception of the American voters. His newsletters and his praise of Manning will be front and center if he were to run in the general election.Unlike Obama’s issues the MSM will not be so kind to Dr. Paul. It will be the Headlines of most papers several times. The Obama ads will write them selves, they just have to read excerpts from the newsletters, over and over. The amount of damning excerpts are Epic. The clip of Dr.Paul stating that Manning should be considered a hero will be played free of charge by the MSM.
Fair or not, that is the reality.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 8:46 PM

No, someone was ignorant enough to make blanket accusations that all who serve are nazis or pedophiles. And you’re surprised that those of us that served honorably and served with many others who served honorably are upset? Why ever would we be upset that while many of us gave up years of our lives to protect ungrateful sacks of crap like you we still have to come home and be insulted by people who are nothing more than the whiny libtardian offspring of worthless Vietnam generation scumbags who think that because they play Call of Duty or Battlefield 3 on the PS3 or Xbox they know something about an institution they were too cowardly to even go into themselves?

What’s next? You want to insult my cousin who died in Iraq from an IED as a war criminal? Maybe you think that my grandfather who won a Silver Star at the Battle of the Bulge was a warmonger because he killed those poor nazis or my other grandfather who was at Iwo Jima and Okinawa was a war criminal because he killed those poor innocent Japonese who only attacked us because we provoked them in 1941?

You can justify your garbage however you want either by supposedly giving to Wounded Warrior or whatever but I think I speak for many others that served too when I say who cares, you can stuff it. If you think that just because you give a few dollars it means you care about the military you are seriously deluded.

Also I hate to point out one little fallacy with your anti-military screed. Just because you can cherry pick incidents doesn’t mean the whole bunch is rotten we could do the same thing in the civilian world too in the universities and in the business world in just about any institution. What do you expect in a group of at least 2 million or so? That everyone is perfect? That is highly unrealistic. At least we had the stones to step up and actually give back to our country as opposed to only taking from it and then crying that you haven’t been able to take more. However, I realize I am wasting my breath trying to explain concepts such as honor, duty, sacrifice, pride and love of country to someone who has none.

bbinfl on December 21, 2011 at 6:42 PM

I did not make a blanket accusation. Go read my posts. I was questioning why members of the military look away when managerial elements of their organization commit and then often cover up heinous crimes. Those incidents are mentioned occurred but as usual the U.S. Army covered it up. That’s all I said.

I have nothing against the core of the military that does all the heavy lifting. I reiterated that many times. With that said, if you love the military, help clean it up and rehab it’s image. Because all this secrecy and blatant lies only engenders more anger against men and women who are many times just trying to do their job.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM

So there is a Logman and a Logman1, and they both hate Paul? Two differnt people I’m sure…

rndmusrnm on December 21, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Something like that.

Logboy on December 21, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I have nothing against the core of the military that does all the heavy lifting. I reiterated that many times. With that said, if you love the military, help clean it up and rehab it’s image. Because all this secrecy and blatant lies only engenders more anger against men and women who are many times just trying to do their job.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM

You essentially said we are a group of child molesters. How is that respect?

Logboy on December 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Listen to some of his sessions with Alex Jones on the radio. They *seem* pretty wild but…

I’m not sure Crazy Uncle Ron believes a lot of the BS he says. More and more he looks and sounds like someone who loves power, loves easy money, loves attention, loves a personality cult (which he assuredly has), and truly enjoys being controversial.

So, he’s a consummate attention whore not really worth thinking about too much.

CorporatePiggy on December 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM

He’s got a lot in common with Gloria Alred, except he has that cult thing going and she’s only got MSNBC.

CorporatePiggy on December 21, 2011 at 8:54 PM

Name some of these evil things.
Thanks.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 7:11 PM

If you’re asking this, I pray for you. All empires do bad, abominable things because these fools truly think that they are larger than God. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

You essentially said we are a group of child molesters. How is that respect?

Logboy on December 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I said that certain elements in the military protected child molesters, so they could push the Presidio Scandal under the rug. Go back and read what I wrote. I playfully said something like, “Be all you can be and come home to find that your 6 year old daughter contracted Chlamydia” which pertains to the Aquino case.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I said that certain elements in the military protected child molesters, so they could push the Presidio Scandal under the rug. Go back and read what I wrote. I playfully said something like, “Be all you can be and come home to find that your 6 year old daughter contracted Chlamydia” which pertains to the Aquino case.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I did read what you wrote, and I quoted it a few hours ago. Nowhere in your post did you say anything about Aquino, or even allude to it. But hey, if thats how you feel about the military who am I to silence your true feelings.

Logboy on December 21, 2011 at 9:01 PM

If you’re asking this, I pray for you. All empires do bad, abominable things because these fools truly think that they are larger than God. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Thats a non answer.
I take that as a inability to address the question and conceding the position in my favor.
Thanks.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM

….the passing of classified military informant is not one of those “vague” ares imo.

Okay, I see your point now. In the era of the Internet and mass communications and cellphones, et cetera, the information released will be received by a lot more people – including enemies – than in previous times.

I’m sure Manning knew that those leaks would get into the hands of AQ and the Taliban and Iran and other enemies. The question is whether he intended to do that.

I guess if the military can prove that he knowingly released the information with the intent to aid AQ, treason charges could be brought against him.

As with any crime, intent is still critical here.

I’m not defending the guy of course. Just explaining the law as I read it.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 9:05 PM

I did not make a blanket accusation. Go read my posts. I was questioning why members of the military look away when managerial elements of their organization commit and then often cover up heinous crimes. Those incidents are mentioned occurred but as usual the U.S. Army covered it up. That’s all I said.

I have nothing against the core of the military that does all the heavy lifting. I reiterated that many times. With that said, if you love the military, help clean it up and rehab it’s image. Because all this secrecy and blatant lies only engenders more anger against men and women who are many times just trying to do their job.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 8:48 PM

The Majority of incidents that you know of are known to you because the military does, as you put it, clean it up . It is obvious by your rhetoric that you dislike the military, no matter how you try to candy coat it. The volunteers that join the military are not just trying to do their job. They are risking their lives for you. Cover-ups happen in civilian America at a higher rate then the military, why are you not helping clean it up and rehabbing it’s image? Hmmmmmmm

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Thats a non answer.
I take that as a inability to address the question and conceding the position in my favor.
Thanks.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM

I you give me 12 hours I can probably fill this board with documented incidents that would make your head spin. Stop projecting your Christian values on others, when some individuals in power are in now way like you. At one time, conservatives used to be misanthropes instead of flag waving droids. They were very suspect of centralized power.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:08 PM

The Majority of incidents that you know of are known to you because the military does, as you put it, clean it up . It is obvious by your rhetoric that you dislike the military, no matter how you try to candy coat it. The volunteers that join the military are not just trying to do their job. They are risking their lives for you. Cover-ups happen in civilian America at a higher rate then the military, why are you not helping clean it up and rehabbing it’s image? Hmmmmmmm

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:07 PM

But is the private sector conducting covert assassinations and dropping ordinance on alleged terrorists via remote controlled drones? Has elements of the private sector been caught running illegal drugs from the Golden Triangle? You’re comparing apples to oranges. I’m sure a private company can violate Afghanistan’s airspace, take down a valuable intel asset and then allegedly drop his corpse into the depths of the Indian Sea. Sure, that’s feasible.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:13 PM

I’m sure Manning knew that those leaks would get into the hands of AQ and the Taliban and Iran and other enemies. The question is whether he intended to do that.

I guess if the military can prove that he knowingly released the information with the intent to aid AQ, treason charges could be brought against him.

As with any crime, intent is still critical here.

Oddly enough it would seem that his only defense would be that he had no idea it was possible that it would damage national security.
AQ…Taliban..etc. Irrelevant imo.

The counter question becomes..what did he intend on accomplishing, if not damaging the country?..sting his ex lover??..that is a insanity defense position imo.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Iowawoman, heed the words of Thomas Jefferson. Now juxtapose that to our own current situation where many of these chains have been cut for several decades? What do you think the endgame will be? For all it’s great accomplishments, America is not immune from corruption if the natural checks and balances have been dissolved:

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:21 PM

The counter question becomes..what did he intend on accomplishing, if not damaging the country?..sting his ex lover??..that is a insanity defense position imo.

Well, if the stories about him having “gender problems” are true then I’m not sure what state of mind he was in. Seems to have been a pretty unstable person.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 9:25 PM

But is the private sector conducting covert assassinations and dropping ordinance on alleged terrorists via remote controlled drones? Has elements of the private sector been caught running illegal drugs from the Golden Triangle? You’re comparing apples to oranges. I’m sure a private company can violate Afghanistan’s airspace, take down a valuable intel asset and then allegedly drop his corpse into the depths of the Indian Sea. Sure, that’s feasible.

The non-military(civilian)are giving the orders for these acts. Why are you not attacking them? Elements of the private sector have been caught running illegal drugs from numerous countries. private companies and civilians can and do violate Afghanistan’s boarders to smuggle drugs. I am sure more then one corpse has been dumped by them into the depths of the Indian Sea. And yet I hear nothing from you about them. Hows them apples?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM

The non-military(civilian)are giving the orders for these acts. Why are you not attacking them? Elements of the private sector have been caught running illegal drugs from numerous countries. private companies and civilians can and do violate Afghanistan’s boarders to smuggle drugs. I am sure more then one corpse has been dumped by them into the depths of the Indian Sea. And yet I hear nothing from you about them. Hows them apples?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM

But very few of them have the resources and geographical access which the military draws upon. Did you see the stealth copter they used to get into Pakistan and raid OBL’s compound?

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM

I’m sure Manning knew that those leaks would get into the hands of AQ and the Taliban and Iran and other enemies. The question is whether he intended to do that.

I guess if the military can prove that he knowingly released the information with the intent to aid AQ, treason charges could be brought against him.

As with any crime, intent is still critical here.

Thats still a non sequitur whether you want to accept it or not.
I realize you may be stuck in the past…but its not the 20′s anymore..alcohol is not illegal narcotics.
Try to keep up.
If you can’t address the issue, don’t expect a reply.
I don’t waste time with kind of blather. I just choose not to. Nothing personal.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM

The non-military(civilian)are giving the orders for these acts. Why are you not attacking them? Elements of the private sector have been caught running illegal drugs from numerous countries. private companies and civilians can and do violate Afghanistan’s boarders to smuggle drugs. I am sure more then one corpse has been dumped by them into the depths of the Indian Sea. And yet I hear nothing from you about them. Hows them apples?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:27 PM

The civilians dictating policy are horrible and worse I may add. Plus, it doesn’t help that the CFR has it’s claws in the Joint Chiefs Staff. I really feel for the rank and file because they are forced to obey the most delusional orders or it’s off to a military prison.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Well, if the stories about him having “gender problems” are true then I’m not sure what state of mind he was in. Seems to have been a pretty unstable person.

SteveMG on December 21, 2011 at 9:25 PM

I agree.
In a way it points to what I was referring to about the new face and mechanisms of Americas enemies. A case could be made that it is the seemingly harmless PC machine that paved the way for an grossly unstable person to have access to such information and facilities.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:36 PM

I you give me 12 hours I can probably fill this board with documented incidents that would make your head spin. Stop projecting your Christian values on others, when some individuals in power are in now way like you. At one time, conservatives used to be misanthropes instead of flag waving droids. They were very suspect of centralized power.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Thats still a non answer. After your “12 hours” claim, the rest of the post was just left wing evangelistic boilerplate…..come to think of it, the “12 hrs” bit was just finding the downbeat.

Give me 12 hrs and I can make your head spin with documentation that the Earth is hollow and there are undersea alien space stations.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Iowawoman, heed the words of Thomas Jefferson. Now juxtapose that to our own current situation where many of these chains have been cut for several decades? What do you think the endgame will be? For all it’s great accomplishments, America is not immune from corruption if the natural checks and balances have been dissolved:

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Thomas Jefferson

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:21 PM

You have no idea who you are debating. We were discussing your attacks on the military. Not the government. Talk about apples and oranges.
you now try to deflect your unseemly comments by changing the subject. Focus You were wrong to call our men and women in the military pedophiles. No matter how you twist and turn your words are there for all to see. My issue is with you and your comments. Thomas Jefferson would be disgusted by your words, do not drag him into this. I look forward to discussing the foundation of our country at another time. Admit your comments about the military were distortions and disgusting lies and move on.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Thats still a non answer. After your “12 hours” claim, the rest of the post was just left wing evangelistic boilerplate…..come to think of it, the “12 hrs” bit was just finding the downbeat.

Give me 12 hrs and I can make your head spin with documentation that the Earth is hollow and there are undersea alien space stations.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Leftwing? Consolidated power corrupts the most honest men with the best of intentions. That’s why men must be denied access to this power. For a long time, say up until the early 1900s, the constitution did an effective job of protecting men from their own self-destructive passions. You’re going to tell me that the U.S. is somehow different and immune to these compulsions? Is that a left wing observation?

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

You have no idea who you are debating. We were discussing your attacks on the military. Not the government. Talk about apples and oranges.
you now try to deflect your unseemly comments by changing the subject. Focus You were wrong to call our men and women in the military pedophiles. No matter how you twist and turn your words are there for all to see. My issue is with you and your comments. Thomas Jefferson would be disgusted by your words, do not drag him into this. I look forward to discussing the foundation of our country at another time. Admit your comments about the military were distortions and disgusting lies and move on.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Are you devoid of reading comprehension? I know this is an emotional topic but I will continue. I did not call the entire military pedophiles. What I said was that there is an insidious element within the military which encourages and protects this behavior akin to the Catholic Church. That is all I said.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Leftwing? Consolidated power corrupts the most honest men with the best of intentions. That’s why men must be denied access to this power. For a long time, say up until the early 1900s, the constitution did an effective job of protecting men from their own self-destructive passions. You’re going to tell me that the U.S. is somehow different and immune to these compulsions? Is that a left wing observation?

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:46 PM

What are you going on about??
Seriously..what is the point you’re trying to make and how does it relate to the topic?

You sound like a RP supporter…just rambling and grabbing at concepts.
At least thats the way it seems to me..I could be wrong.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Here is a touch of evil mixed up with some negligence. I pulled this from an earlier post I made:

-Who here refuted the coverup regarding the U.S.S. Indianapolis Incident?
-The refusal by the U.S. military to accept responsibility for the mass contraction of Gulf War syndrome, which negatively affected a QUARTER MILLION of Desert Storm Vets? For the mathematically impaired that is 250,000 individuals.
-The Presidio pedophilia incidents?
- the coverup of our Vietnam POWs despite 1,600 first hand eyewitness accounts and numerous satellite images

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Please don’t project your sick fantasies on us.

M240H on December 21, 2011 at 9:55 PM

What are you going on about??
Seriously..what is the point you’re trying to make and how does it relate to the topic?

You sound like a RP supporter…just rambling and grabbing at concepts.
At least thats the way it seems to me..I could be wrong.

Mimzey on December 21, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Am I making headway here or is this an exercise in futility? I don’t want you to hate the military, but be vigilant when analyzing what is officially stated? That’s all.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Are you devoid of reading comprehension? I know this is an emotional topic but I will continue. I did not call the entire military pedophiles. What I said was that there is an insidious element within the military which encourages and protects this behavior akin to the Catholic Church. That is all I said.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Didn’t you get upset the other night for people being uncivil to you?

Is this a case of dishing it out and not being able to take it.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Are you devoid of reading comprehension? I know this is an emotional topic but I will continue. I did not call the entire military pedophiles. What I said was that there is an insidious element within the military which encourages and protects this behavior akin to the Catholic Church. That is all I said.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Show me any proof of this. We do have proof about the Catholic Church. One incident will not suffice, to be akin to the Catholic Church, you proof must show that level of insidious elements. Otherwise, your comments about the military were distortions and disgusting lies.
Also I have not written aspersions toward you, and yet you snark me with: Are you devoid of reading comprehension
I believe anyone reading my comments would agree reading comprehension is not a weakness of mine.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM

You have no idea who you are debating. We were discussing your attacks on the military. Not the government.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM

The military is part of the government. They receive funding from the treasury department.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Pitchforker is a pitch-forking loon.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Didn’t you get upset the other night for people being uncivil to you?

Is this a case of dishing it out and not being able to take it.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM

You’re right but I feel like she’s being intentionally obtuse to suggest that the U.S. military is immune to corruption.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The military is part of the government. They receive funding from the treasury department.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:03 PM

The military takes orders from a civilian government, they are not part of the government. You again have deflected by changing the subject.
Again focus: Show me any proof of this. We do have proof about the Catholic Church. One incident will not suffice, to be akin to the Catholic Church, your proof must show that level of insidious elements. Otherwise, your comments about the military were distortions and disgusting lies.
Now I will add, that you need to apologize to me for your uncalled for snark: Are you devoid of reading comprehension and Admit your comments about the military were distortions and disgusting lies and move on.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:15 PM

You’re right but I feel like she’s being intentionally obtuse to suggest that the U.S. military is immune to corruption.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I wouldn’t have made my comment if Iowawoman have been the least bit rude to you. Your comments are out there and it sounds like she’s just trying to figure out what you’re trying to say.

Do you just expect others to live by rules you try to set or are you going to be civil too?

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM

History repeats itself. The vampires are prowling the graveyard again, protecting their turf:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/21/buchanan-ron-paul-wont-go-third-party-it-would-damage-sons-political-future/

And according to Pat Buchanan, that is what happened to him in 1992 and 1996 when he ran for president and began to get traction, especially after winning the New Hampshire primary in 1996. In an appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto,” Buchanan explained how the establishment went after him.

“I’ll tell you what happens to you — you find out as Richard Nixon once told me that when you are down or have either got a problem you find out who your friends are,” Buchanan said. “And both in ‘92 and a ‘96 I was astonished. You know, I challenged George Bush and ‘92 and we did great in New Hampshire, and ol’ Newt Gingrich down there comparing me to David Duke in Georgia because I was coming out for a border fence along the San Diego line.”

In 1996, Buchanan said, “you had not only the big media come down on you with both feet, but your own people in your party. You can’t nominate this guy and all the rest of it, whereas you have been a loyal Republican all those years. It would be a terrible mistake to say that to Ron Paul.”

But should such bad politicking happen with the case of Ron Paul, Buchanan said he doubt the Texas congressman would go third party because of the damage it might do to his son Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s political future.

“I don’t think Ron Paul will go third party for a number of reasons,” Buchanan said. “One, his son has a tremendous future in the GOP, I think as a leader of the non-interventionists in the Senate, and if Ron Paul ran third-party, his son would be obligated to endorse him and that would terminate, I think, any future he had.” (RELATED: Full coverage of Ron Paul)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/21/buchanan-ron-paul-wont-go-third-party-it-would-damage-sons-political-future/#ixzz1hEJVxtAg

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:18 PM

Are you ignoring me because you were wrong? Can you not admit when you have made a mistake?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Ron Paul praised Bradley Manning, a traitorous soldier who have away classified documents to the enemy. Manning should executed if found guilty and Paul should be ashamed of his words.

But here on Planet Paul, we must rationalize what it all means.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Ignoring facts seems to be the best way to support Ron Paul.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:24 PM

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Ma’am, in my opinion you’ve already been far more polite to this troll than most would have been considering his rudeness to you. I’m not sure what else you might learn from trying to engage with this one.

My 2 cents.

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:25 PM

I agree hawkdriver, he refuses to apologize for the distortions and disgusting lies he has laid upon our honorable military men and women. I am done.

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Are you ignoring me because you were wrong? Can you not admit when you have made a mistake?

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Of course, I’m not wrong. Have you ever heard of Operation Twisted Traveler which ensnared American military officials as well as diplomats? It is well known in intel circles that high level American military officials frequent these child prostitute hotels in Southeast Asia, going back to the Vietnam era. Bangkok Thailand as well as Cambodia. You name it, these freaks are over there in child playland. So we have the aforementioned Aquino/Presidio coverup and now this garbage which has been going on for years in Southeast Asia.

Then on the military contractor side, you had Blackwater running a sex ring in Iraq I believe with local boy sex slaves.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:35 PM

IowaWoman on December 21, 2011 at 10:30 PM

I’m with you. I will not sit around and have these anti-American type bad-mouth everything we stand for. ANd I certainly won’t support a man who think a cold-blooded traitor is someone to be praised. Because thats what this thread was about, no?

You’re a good woman, Iowa, er, woman!

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I’m with you. I will not sit around and have these anti-American type bad-mouth everything we stand for. ANd I certainly won’t support a man who think a cold-blooded traitor is someone to be praised. Because thats what this thread was about, no?

You’re a good woman, Iowa, er, woman!

hawkdriver on December 21, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Hawk, tell the brass to keep their hands off the genitals of little children. It’s not good PR for recruitment.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Hollywood. The Catholic Church. The U.S. Military and the U.S. Government. Pedophilia enclaves at the upper levels.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Gee, you certainly know a lot about the military for someone who didn’t have the stones to actually join.

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Project much pervert? I’ve read through your comments, and you push the ridiculous and treasonous behavior of pedophiles and radical homosexuals off on to the great men and women of our military, and even on to priests and pastors, that seek only to lead us to redemption. My take; you’re a pedophile and traitor, seeking cover by exposing the bad acts of a select few.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 10:45 PM
Project much pervert? I’ve read through your comments, and you push the ridiculous and treasonous behavior of pedophiles and radical homosexuals off on to the great men and women of our military, and even on to priests and pastors, that seek only to lead us to redemption. My take; you’re a pedophile and traitor, seeking cover by exposing the bad acts of a select few.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Just because they are in the military doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of great sins. I am shocked how close minded you are. If I was in the military, I would want the pedophilia eliminated. Children are a precious resource and their innocence should not compromised to a bunch of sick, sadistic plutocrats.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Gee, you certainly know a lot about the military for someone who didn’t have the stones to actually join.

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM

You’re damn right. I keep my eye on all potential problems.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:02 PM

If I was in the military, I would want the pedophilia eliminated

And yet, you wimped out when you actually had the chance to walk the talk, making you the worst kind of hypocrite. Quite frankly, no one here gives a flip about what you think is the truth, and even more honestly, no matter how much noise you make Mommy still isn’t going to love you. (HT Ace)

Oh, BTW…your apology is not accepted.

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM

And yet, you wimped out when you actually had the chance to walk the talk, making you the worst kind of hypocrite. Quite frankly, no one here gives a flip about what you think is the truth, and even more honestly, no matter how much noise you make Mommy still isn’t going to love you. (HT Ace)

Oh, BTW…your apology is not accepted.

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 11:07 PM

No, I was right in my choice. The last ten years prove that without a doubt. That insanity going on over there is not defending this country. That’s a strategic resource grab as outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his work the Grand Chessboard. America must be a force in Eurasia to ward off the Soviets as well as the growing Chinese threat. Fighting them over there, so they they don’t come over sounds great for propaganda sound-bytes but it’s an incredible embellishment.

Here’s what Brzezinski stated in his 1998 book:

“How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”[3]

The Empire must feed or die. Sorry bub, but I would never sign up this garbage. Defend the country. Yes. Die for some greedy plutocrat? Hell no.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Just because they are in the military doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of great sins. I am shocked how close minded you are. If I was in the military, I would want the pedophilia eliminated. Children are a precious resource and their innocence should not compromised to a bunch of sick, sadistic plutocrats.

Pitchforker on December 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM
You’re right, you wouldn’t want any competition from government, would you? Exactly what I would expect from one of Manning’s ex-lovers.

Lighthorse on December 21, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7