Max Blumenthal: ‘American Sniper’ Chris Kyle was just a popular mass murderer

posted at 2:01 pm on December 26, 2014 by Noah Rothman

I’ve watched the film depiction of the life of the late Chris Kyle, America’s deadliest sniper, Navy SEAL, and veterans advocate, twice. It is a gripping portrayal, but it is a portrayal nonetheless. While the screenplay perhaps lacks nuance, it is also a product of Hollywood and should be considered a truncated and dramatized version of one man’s life story.

The complexities of biography often elude filmmakers who are charged with creating dense and intricate portraits of a human being in 120 minutes. Nevertheless, the movie is quite enjoyable. The performances are stirring and the wartime themes, difficult as they are, are confronted tastefully.

Having seen the film, I feel qualified to write about it. That was not an obstacle for author and AlterNet Senior Writer Max Blumenthal who determined that it was a bright course of action to sharply criticize a film he had admittedly not seen simply because he detests its subject.

WARNING: The following post contains some limited spoilers as it is necessary to refute Blumenthal’s emotional indictments with the facts to which he confessed he is not privy.

“I haven’t seen American Sniper, but correct me if I’m wrong: An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul,” Blumenthal wrote smugly on his Twitter account. “[T]he whole film’s appeal seems to derive from the latent racism that led America into Iraq.”

He cites a portion of the film (reproduced in the movie’s two-minute trailer) in which Kyle is forced to pull the trigger on a pre-adolescent Iraqi child who is tasked by his mother with smuggling a grenade into a column of advancing Marines. Kyle is later forced to dispatch the boy’s mother as well when she declines to mourn her fallen son and instead attempts to execute the task at which he failed.

Kyle is, indeed, anguished by this morally challenging moment; one which he finds himself forced to confront on more than one occasion, and which he has the parochial temerity to call “evil.” This blithe disregard for the left’s attachment to moral equivalencies may be the most infuriating element of the film for the likes of delicate flowers like Blumenthal.

It is not the only aspect of this film that stabs at the heart of the far-left’s attachment to the dishonorable character of the armed services. In the film, American soldiers routinely encounter the use of children by enemy combatants as ordnance delivery vehicles or objects of leverage over local Iraqi civilians.

But Blumenthal does seek to exonerate Kyle for what he regards as his misdeeds. You see, the SEAL sniper was simply robbed of his free will by a far more devious institution: The American military. To make this comparison, Blumenthal compares the late Kyle to the mass murdering Lee Boyd Malvo (though he confuses the name).

“John Lee Malvo, another mass murdering sniper, would not be glorified on prime time,” Blumenthal averred, confusing the young accomplice of the “D.C. Sniper” for the prime suspect in those killings, John Allen Muhammad.

When confronted with the tastelessness of his comparison by a Twitter user who contended that the impressionable Malvo was misled, Blumenthal indicted the military. “[H]e was brainwashed and stripped of his humanity,” Blumenthal scoffed. “But that never happened to our servicemen, of course.”

Such trite parlor socialism hardly merits a response, but it certainly does deserve wider exposure. This type of thinking – comparing an American serviceman who saved countless lives with over 160 confirmed kills, any number of which might have led to prosecution if they were shown to be targeted indiscriminately, to a mass murderer who expressly targeted American civilians – is pathological. It is also, however, quite common on the extreme left (though usually more tastefully expressed).

Blumenthal’s kneejerk and misguided appeals to relativism brings to mind Ashton Blackwell’s piece in American Thinker on the far-left’s predictable and tortured efforts to erect dubious equivalencies between the United States and its enemies. The post is a rather apt counter to Blumenthal, who has determined that “racism” drives most Americans to excuse the killing of children who act as battlefield combatants. Blackwell noted that America’s enemies in the War on Terror also make targets of children, but they do not distinguish between combatants and civilians.

It is only human to want to make sense of tragedies, as many decent people attest to when they expressed their horror and incomprehension at the slaying of children in Pakistan this week. The mere idea of hurting a child leaves most civilized people stricken— but not all people are civilized, and that is an important truth to not obfuscate in today’s onerously politically correct climate. The mirror-imaging fallacy is the honor attendant of the moral-equivalence fallacy. In the intelligence community, mirror imaging is known as dangerously presuming that your enemies are operating under the same assumptions that you are, and that they are also rational actors or inculcated with similar values of honor. Assuming others behaving irrationally have a rational explanation is, in itself, an irrational expectation on the behalf of the individual receiving the “explanation,” or “grievances,” or “demands.” A person prone to this kind of soft thinking and logical errors are liabilities in a geopolitical sense.

Blumenthal falls right into this trap of fallacious logic. He has his all-consuming prejudices to blame.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is there no standard of basic decency?
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 7:37 PM

 
A bizarre lament from the absolute worst plagiarist posting on the site.
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7397090

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/10/20/ted-cruz-to-conservatives-hold-senate-republicans-accountable-for-this-lousy-deal/comment-page-2/#comment-2480562

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7397066

 

 

Just like I have been against the recent/current actions in Libya, Syria, Iraq and etc.
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 4:46 PM

 
Wait, so telling them you wholly supported their actions and that you personally desired continued and similar expansions for another presidential term when you voted for Obama in 2012 didn’t help, JustTheFacts?

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:16 AM

…an unjust war that has done more damage to America than it has good. Such as ISIS and an unchecked Iran etc.
 
JustTheFacts on December 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM

 
We all remember well that tragic day when Bush wrapped Iraq in that pretty pink bow and smiled as he handed it over to al Qaeda ISIS.
 
Wait, no. That wasn’t that idiot Bush. That was the smart guy, wasn’t it?
 
rogerb on December 27, 2014 at 7:52 PM

 

…the US pulled out on Bush’s date because the Iraqi people and their government REFUSED to extend it any further?…
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM

Not only did the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government refuse to extend the date set by Bush…
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM

The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government did “NOT” give the US government a choice as they wanted the US occupation to end ASAP so they REFUSED to extend Bush’s date any further.
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM

You seem to imagine that Obama has the ability to simply change reality to his whim rather than being merely a single operator in a vast geopolitical game.
 
Tlaloc on December 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM

 
Guys?
 

President Obama Has Ended the War in Iraq
 
ht tp://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/president-obama-has-ended-war-iraq

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month — which would remove all of them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — more than 7 years after the war began.
 
ht tp://change.gov/agenda/iraq_agenda/

American troops served in Iraq with honor and distinction from March 19, 2003 until December 2011. The end of our mission in Iraq marks the fulfillment of a promise Barack Obama made to the American people even before he became President.
 
ht tp://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq

09/11/2014 WASHINGTON — Six years after riding into office on a message of ending the war in Iraq
 
ht tp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/obama-iraq-war_n_5801694.html

 
Let’s hear it, fellows.
 
President Obama either
 
1) knew what he was doing or
 
2) didn’t know what he was doing.
 
It’s a simple question. Which do you choose?

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM

BTW, just glancing back in this thread:
 

#3. In 2002 inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities and in January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 9:29 AM

 
Let me say it once again-
 
Your plagiarism is pathetic and absolutely inexcusable. I don’t know why Ed and Allah allow you to continue spamming their threads with that crap.

 
Here’s the original you ripped off verbatim:
 

3. In 2002 inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities and in January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-580.pdf
 
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/24cvkj/radiolab_this_hour_we_pull_apart_one_sentence/ch63cry

 
Another plagiarized:
 

Saddam, had continually and ruthlessly fought against the spread of radical Islamism by abolishing sharia courts, arresting clerics, cracking down brutishly against any Islamist movement, ordering the executions of any captured fundamentalists and liberalizing society by promoting western ideals of society and law.
 
JustTheFacts on December 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM

 
Original:
 

Also you need to remember that Saddam continually and ruthlessly fought against the spread of radical Islamism by abolishing sharia courts, arresting clerics, cracking down brutishly against any Islamist movement, ordering the executions of any captured fundamentalists and liberalizing society by promoting western ideals of society and law.
 
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/24cvkj/radiolab_this_hour_we_pull_apart_one_sentence/ch63cry

 
Note the time stamps. Those are two different responses plagiarized separately *from the same source*. That doesn’t happen accidentally. You’re pretending someone else’s words are your own.
 
I know you don’t see what’s so wrong about it, but please understand how offensive it is to thinking people who actually debate and understand the issues.
 
This is why it’s pointless to go much farther beyond pointing and laughing at you. You can’t respond or debate because none of your posts are actually yours.

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 8:04 AM

We have a man criticized by someone who will never be one.

thefirstMarkD on December 29, 2014 at 10:59 AM

I Kyle’s book – it sucked, and I said at the time that I think if Kyle hadn’t been a sniper he would be a serial murderer. My neighbor had a completely different take on the book. I’ll probably watch the movie, but only because it is an action movie. I don’t look to amerikan bollywood to shape my opinions as I already know how easily manipulated the gullible amerikan public is.

earlgrey on December 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Since we’re now apparently going to respond on the threads the posts aren’t made on:
 

As for you comment regarding my post of the WELL KNOWN strategy that dates back to ancient times, (perfected by the Nazis), known as Problem Reaction Solution, (a mass propaganda system used to enact government policies that the citizens would not accept otherwise), I used my own wording.
 
JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 2:16 PM

 
Seriously? Your summary and own wording happened to amazingly create itself in precisely the same order and even using the same bracketing/formatting as the scgnews source that you’d already plagiarized verbatim upthread?
 
Plagiarized:

 

Problem = Reaction = Solution
 
Step 1: [Problem] Build up a dictator or extremist to wage proxy wars. No matter how bad they really are be sure to build them up as freedom fighters to the press and ignore any crimes they have committed.
 
Step 2: [Reaction] When the proxies have outlived their usefulness start exposing their crimes to the press and make sure to make them worse than the last problem/threat.
 
Step 3: [Solution] After enough press the public should be begging for the government to act. Then the government will present their solution which usually involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both.
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 3:16 AM

 
Source:
 

There’s a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.
 
Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]
 
Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that’s when it’s time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]
 
Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]
 
http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis

 
The parts in bold are EXACTLY the same.
 
You honestly can’t see how you plagiarized the hell out of that?
 
Again, you’re little more than a liar whose posts are someone else’s. It’s constantly and incredibly offensive.

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 3:13 PM

@rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM

I would have responded sooner but I didn’t notice it turned to page 3 on this thread.

Clearly you are unable to explain why you disagree with specific parts of my comments as you have no argument to the FACTS I posted. Therefore you desperately try to have my FACTS dismissed by accusing me of plagiarizing MYSELF.

You KNOWINGLY keep linking to MY COMMENTS that you KNOW came originally from ME as I AM JustVerifiableFacts on reddit like I am JustTheFacts on HotAir.

I would love to be able to include dozens of links like I do in MY COMMENTS ON REDDIT but every time I post two or more links on this forum it takes hours to be moderated before my comment appears if it appears at all.

Though years ago, on this forum, I was able to post dozens of links, per comment, to original source documents in order to prove that my comments were JUST THE FACTS.

But despite my being handicapped, by not being able to include dozens of links in my comments as I like to do, I challenge you to dispute any of the facts I posted or to try to explain why you disagree with specific parts of my argument.

Otherwise if you cant be constructive to the conversation go troll & witchhunt somewhere else.

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

@rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM

 
Therefore you desperately try to have my FACTS dismissed by accusing me of plagiarizing MYSELF.
 
JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:04 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/10/1246004/-How-House-Republicans-guaranteed-a-nbsp-shutdown

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:06 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://fightforbetterus.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:07 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:07 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:08 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/11/documents-reveal-tobacco-companies-funded-their-own-tea-party-first/

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:08 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:08 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 
For the record, you’re saying you’re Cutthecrapok on reddit and the author of this piece, correct?
 
http://my.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1otgdb/cruz_on_another_shutdown_i_will_do_anything_to/

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Therefore you desperately try to have my FACTS dismissed by accusing me of plagiarizing MYSELF.
 
JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 3:55 PM

 

ht tp://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/10/13/could-gop-lose-sequester-level-spending-in-new-shutdown-negotiations-with-dems/comment-page-2/#comment-2474973

ht tp://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7396688

ht tp://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7396944

ht tp://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7397038

ht tp://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7397090

ht tp://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/11/peter-king-its-ted-cruz-and-rand-paul-who-are-the-real-rinos/comment-page-3/#comment-7397094

ht tp://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/10/20/ted-cruz-to-conservatives-hold-senate-republicans-accountable-for-this-lousy-deal/comment-page-2/#comment-2480562

ht tp://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/10/20/ted-cruz-to-conservatives-hold-senate-republicans-accountable-for-this-lousy-deal/comment-page-2/#comment-2480562

 
You’re claiming to have authored all of these pieces, correct?

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 4:14 PM

…an unjust war that has done more damage to America than it has good. Such as ISIS and an unchecked Iran etc.

JustTheFacts on December 27, 2014 at 5:33 PM

We all remember well that tragic day when Bush wrapped Iraq in that pretty pink bow and smiled as he handed it over to al Qaeda ISIS.

Wait, no. That wasn’t that idiot Bush. That was the smart guy, wasn’t it?

rogerb on December 27, 2014 at 7:52 PM

…the US pulled out on Bush’s date because the Iraqi people and their government REFUSED to extend it any further?…

JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 12:52 AM

Not only did the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government refuse to extend the date set by Bush…

JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM

The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government did “NOT” give the US government a choice as they wanted the US occupation to end ASAP so they REFUSED to extend Bush’s date any further.

JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 3:03 PM

You seem to imagine that Obama has the ability to simply change reality to his whim rather than being merely a single operator in a vast geopolitical game.

Tlaloc on December 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Guys?
rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:28 AM

It’s obvious that you are intentionally playing ignorant as I seriously doubt that you don’t know that that troop withdrawal happened on Bush’s contractual time line.

Everyone knows that Obama wanted to continue the unjust occupation of an unjust war but couldn’t keeping troops in Iraq past Bush’s agreed-upon 2011 deadline.

The White House is offering to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq next year, U.S. officials say, despite opposition from many Iraqis and key Democratic Party allies who demand that President Barack Obama bring home the American military as promised.

the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press. The figures also were noted by foreign diplomats in Baghdad briefed on the issue.

By the huffingtonpost

Ending The War In Iraq: How Obama’s Own Rhetoric — And George Bush’s Pact — Boxed In The President

But negotiations ultimately broke down over the issue of legal immunity for any remaining troops, which was an imperative for the Pentagon and a deal-breaker for the Iraqis, who after nearly nine years of U.S. military presence wanted no more infringements on their sovereignty.

But you already know the above. The Fact is the US should “NOT” have been or continue to be in Iraq nor should the US continue to train, fund, and arm radical Islamic terrorists, to use as proxies around the world as it has continued to do for over 50 years.

But if not for the use of radical Islamic terrorists YOU, rogerb, would no long except torture to extract false confessions, disappearances, extrajudicial killings, maintaining secret foreign gulags, warrantless mass surveillance, blatant manipulation of intelligence and the funding/use of propaganda to lead the nation into preemptive and unjust wars.

Until you help stop this cycle it will continually get worse with a bigger government infringing on more and more rights.

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

So all done with the plagiarizing discussion, eh JustTheFacts?
 
Back to writing your columns for the New Yorker, I suppose.
 

Everyone knows that Obama wanted to continue the unjust occupation of an unjust war but couldn’t keeping troops in Iraq past Bush’s agreed-upon 2011 deadline.

 
(Can you telling how we knowing when you not plagiarizing someone elsing yetting?)
 
So you’re saying Obama tried his hardest but was too bumbling, moronic, and incompetent to accomplish what was best for the nation and what he said he could, and was hired to, do, and had to fall back on something an obviously more capable and intelligent George Bush had the ability to put into place.
 
Wow.
 
We’ll mark you down for number (2) then.
 
There. That wasn’t that hard, was it?
 

But if not for the use of radical Islamic terrorists YOU, rogerb, would no long except torture to extract false confessions,

 
(Can ewe tail how we no when ewe plagiarize and when ewe don’t?)
 

disappearances, extrajudicial killings, maintaining secret foreign gulags, warrantless mass surveillance, blatant manipulation of intelligence and the funding/use of propaganda to lead the nation into preemptive and unjust wars.
 
Until you help stop this cycle it will continually get worse with a bigger government infringing on more and more rights.
 
JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 5:23 PM

 
And yet, interestingly, I’m *not* the one who knowingly and willingly voted to re-elect Obama in 2012 in order for him to continue the practices.
 
Funny, that.

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:15 PM

And yet, interestingly, I’m *not* the one who knowingly and willingly voted to re-elect Obama in 2012 in order for him to continue the practices.

Funny, that.

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:15 PM

You really think that if your guy/gal gets elected they would/could stop the long continued cycle of training, funding, and arming terrorists in the perpetual War Against Terror?

The only person who seemed willing to have risked their life to stop it was Ron Paul. But if you know of someone else please let me know as I would give him/her a serious look and if true would support them vigorously by donating my time and money.

If you know someone like that they would need active citizen support because they will be marginalized by BOTH PARTIES, the media and etc.

Someone with enough courage to try and stop this long bloody cycle would NOT be able to stand alone against the massive interests that have continually supported the current foreign policy.

I think the only way to get the US to stop training, funding and arming terrorist in the perpetual War On Terror is when there is enough public outrage/activist demanding that it stop.

But that takes an informed citizenry which wont happen with the MSM who are ALL owned by only 5 companies whom make most their money from military contracts.

Also the false Left-Right Paradigm keeps everyone divided so that its near impossible to get enough public outrage/activist demanding that the government stop training, funding and arming terrorist in its perpetual War On Terror.

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Peddle your [email protected] on infowars.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2014 at 10:54 PM

Peddle your [email protected] on infowars.

V7_Sport on December 29, 2014 at 10:54 PM

So you don’t believe that the us government has and still continues to train, fund, and arm terrorist in it’s perpetual War on Terror?

It must be to hard for you to except such evil has been/is taking place. Therefore you don’t think it needs to stop as you don’t believe it’s happening.

So when do you think War on Terror will end? What needs to happen for the US to be victorious in its War on Terror? When will the military no longer need to issue the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal?

Who benefits most from the perpetual War on Terror?

You also probably don’t believe that the US made and donated millions of school books to fundamental Madrasa schools with radical Islamic teachings as the donated books are “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings” and the children are “taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines.” Indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry. The Taliban’s children are using those books toady.

I wonder why the US government thought that was a good idea?

JustTheFacts on December 30, 2014 at 1:22 AM

And yet, interestingly, I’m *not* the one who knowingly and willingly voted to re-elect Obama in 2012 in order for him to continue the practices.
 
Funny, that.
 
rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:15 PM

 
You really think that if your guy/gal gets elected they would/could stop the long continued cycle of training, funding, and arming terrorists in the perpetual War Against Terror?
 
The only person who seemed willing to have risked their life to stop it was Ron Paul. But if you know of someone else please let me know as I would give him/her a serious look and if true would support them vigorously by donating my time and money.
 
If you know someone like that they would need active citizen support because they will be marginalized by BOTH PARTIES, the media and etc.
 
Someone with enough courage to try and stop this long bloody cycle would NOT be able to stand alone against the massive interests that have continually supported the current foreign policy.
 
I think the only way to get the US to stop training, funding and arming terrorist in the perpetual War On Terror is when there is enough public outrage/activist demanding that it stop.
 
But that takes an informed citizenry which wont happen with the MSM who are ALL owned by only 5 companies whom make most their money from military contracts.
 
Also the false Left-Right Paradigm keeps everyone divided so that its near impossible to get enough public outrage/activist demanding that the government stop training, funding and arming terrorist in its perpetual War On Terror.
 
JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM

 
Yes, yes, we know. That false Left-Right Paradigm is why you keep posting BushBushBushBushBush and continually attempt to divert the conversation away from Obama 2012! Obama.
 
You keep trying to blame other people for the policies you were clearly aware of and still happily voted to not only continue but expand.
 

So you don’t believe that the us government has and still continues to train, fund, and arm terrorist in it’s perpetual War on Terror?
 
It must be to hard for you to except such evil has been/is taking place. Therefore you don’t think it needs to stop as you don’t believe it’s happening.
 
JustTheFacts on December 30, 2014 at 1:22 AM

 
Hey, let’s have a show of hands of everyone who voted to re-elect Obama in 2012.
 
Again, you, JustTheFacts, were clearly aware and obviously unconcerned since you readily supported not only the continuation but the expansion of these atrocities in the form of your vote.
 
Congratulations on your direct and personal support of evil, JustTheFacts.

rogerb on December 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM

JustTheFacts on December 30, 2014 at 1:22 AM

So you don’t believe that the us government has and still continues to train, fund, and arm terrorist in it’s perpetual War on Terror?

I believe you are a pathetic, clinical paranoiac who seeks validation online from other, pathetic clinical paranoiacs. You have a mental illness that makes you a douchebag. You are a sick little thing and you shouldn’t be indulged.

It must be to hard for you to except such evil has been/is taking place. Therefore you don’t think it needs to stop as you don’t believe it’s happening.

As someone who has worked on “evil” programs let me assure you that it’s about a 45 minute lag time before the schematics are out on the web. This government is far too incompetent to keep a secret, despite what you hear in your echo chambers about nonsensical plots and conspiracies.

So when do you think War on Terror will end?

When muslims evolve beyond islam. Get help. There are pills to make your conspiracies go away and help you out of your parents basement. You are probably too broken to be a productive member of society but at least you won’t be such an obnoxious fool.

V7_Sport on December 30, 2014 at 10:37 PM

And yet, interestingly, I’m *not* the one who knowingly and willingly voted to re-elect Obama in 2012 in order for him to continue the practices.

Funny, that.

rogerb on December 29, 2014 at 6:15 PM

You really think that if your guy/gal gets elected they would/could stop the long continued cycle of training, funding, and arming terrorists in the perpetual War Against Terror?

JustTheFacts on December 29, 2014 at 7:50 PM

You keep trying to blame other people for the policies you were clearly aware of and still happily voted to not only continue but expand.

Congratulations on your direct and personal support of evil, JustTheFacts.

rogerb on December 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM

For years on this forum I have detailed the “CRIMES” committed by Obama, just as I have Bush and Clinton before him.

And I am on record as saying “NO” to arming the Syrian rebels because they are radical Islamic terrorists.

But Mitt Romney said he would give the Syrian rebels “heavy arms to bring down Assad’s fighter jets” because:

“Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines,”

But FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted that his fighters regularly conduct joint operations with Al-Qaida. And Colonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, commander of the FSA’s Northern Front admitted his ties with Al-Qaida, and said that Syria should be ruled by sharia law. Therefore US jets and helicopters would have been shot down if Mitt Romney had done what he said.

The US should save it’s blood and treasure and just let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight out their Shea vs Sunni war, thus destroying most if not all of Islam, without spilling a drop of American blood. That way the end result would be what most republicans want, (an end to Islam).

I was happy to hear Mitt Romney say:

“It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can — as soon as our generals think it’s OK,” Romney said. “One lesson we’ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”

But because Romney left the draw down date open the way he did it meant that the war would continue forever as there has been an unrelenting surge by the Taliban since 2005.

The Taliban had retaken control of nearly 35% of Afghanistan by 2006 and regained 54% of Afghanistan by 2007 and then regained control of over 72% of Afghanistan in 2008 and by 2009 the Taliban had retaken control of 80% of Afghanistan. http://www.icosgroup.net/2009/media/media-press-releases/eight_years_after_911/

Also Romney said he would “double Guantánamo” and that the US should continue its enhanced interrogation techniques.

So please explain how it would “NOT” be more of the same with Romney when Romney said Obama was busy hesitating when he should be busy arming the Syrian rebels = ISIS?

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 1:09 AM

You keep trying to blame other people for the policies you were clearly aware of and still happily voted to not only continue but expand.
 
Congratulations on your direct and personal support of evil, JustTheFacts.
 
rogerb on December 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM

 
For years on this forum I have detailed the “CRIMES” committed by Obama, just as I have Bush and Clinton before him.

 
You’re making things worse.
 
You’ve railed against Obama’s crimes for years, but you still *knowingly* told him that you not only approved of those actions but wanted him to expand through another four year term.
 
*I* didn’t tell Obama I wanted his crimes to continue. Matter of fact, I tried to stop him. V7_Sport didn’t ask Obama to expand. He tried his best to stop him, too. Same with davidk, BigAlSouth, onomo, and countless others here at hotair.
 
We voted against him. We tried to stop him.
 
You didn’t. You told him you understood and accepted what he’d done, and that you wanted four more years of it. That’s what your vote meant.
 
You understand that, right?
 
Everything, every single death and dollar spent, and every decision that has happened since Obama began making decisions?
 
That’s all thanks to you.
 

And I am on record as saying “NO” to arming the Syrian rebels because they are radical Islamic terrorists.

 
Saying you’re against something is nice.
 
Voting against something is nicer.
 

But Mitt Romney said he would give the Syrian rebels “heavy arms to bring down Assad’s fighter jets” because:… But FSA commander Jamal Maarouf admitted

 
And once again more word-for-word plagiarism from here http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis
 
Again, that is absolutely pathetic, and those posts are incredibly offensive to those of us who actually understand and can debate the topics. I’m not addressing the author of those words, so the person I’m discussing the issue with can’t debate or define the thoughts. They’re not his. They’re someone else’s that he’s pretending are his.
 
Pathetic.
 

The US should save it’s blood and treasure and just let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight out their Shea vs Sunni war, thus destroying most if not all of Islam, without spilling a drop of American blood. That way the end result would be what most republicans want, (an end to Islam).

 
Wow, even looking past that offensive “what most republicans want” nonsense, you’re either incredibly ill informed about Islam or you’re incredibly bad at math.
 
Both, probably.
 
Population Saudi Arabia: 28.83 million
 
Population Iran: 77.45 million
 
Total: 106.28 million
 
World Muslim population: 1.6 billion, also written 1600 million.
 
106.28 / 1600 = 6%
 
Assuming total and utter devastation, destroying 6% of something is just a teensy-weensy itty-bitty-bit less than destroying “most if not all”.
 
Matter of fact, it’s almost exactly the opposite.
 

But because Romney left the draw down date open the way he did it meant that the war would continue forever as there has been an unrelenting surge by the Taliban since 2005.

 
Ah yes, fortune telling. We had time travelling earlier, so I guess that’s fitting.
 
(We’ll go along with you and pretend Obama and Romney were the only names anyone could possibly vote for in 2012)
 
So you actually knew Obama was a criminal who had committed heinous acts and atrocities, while you threw chicken bones into a circle and looked at tea leaves to divine what Romney would do.
 
And you made the informed and conscious choice to vote for, in your words, the criminal.
 
You knowingly and cheerfully asked the criminal to continue with his crimes.
 
Again, that’s not me, V7_Sport, davidk, BigAlSouth, onomo, or anyone else here. Matter of fact, we voted against the criminal.
 
It’s all you.
 

… then regained control of over 72% of Afghanistan in 2008 and by 2009 the Taliban had retaken control of 80% of Afghanistan.

 
2008…2009… Say, that was when you personally asked Obama to make all the decisions, wasn’t it?
 
You asked him to do a surge, spend huge amounts of money, kill some women and children, and get a few thousand of our troops killed before surrendering and letting the Taliban have it back, right?
 
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
 

Also Romney said he would “double Guantánamo” and that the US should continue its enhanced interrogation techniques.

 
Versus reneging on his promise of closing Guantanamo and appointing a known torturer to head the CIA. Not to mention all the civilians killed in drone strikes, bombing more countries than Bush, etc.
 
And you knowingly voted to support him in all of all that.
 
But hey, those chicken bones said that Romney would…
 

So please explain how it would “NOT” be more of the same with Romney when Romney said Obama was busy hesitating when he should be busy arming the Syrian rebels = ISIS?
 
JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 1:09 AM

 
What are you talking about?
 
I didn’t say you should vote for Romney.
 
I just pointed out that you DID knowingly and willingly vote for Obama. You even casually mentioned that Paul had some potential:
 

The only person who seemed willing to have risked their life to stop it was Ron Paul. But if you know of someone else please let me know…

 
And then you *still* made the obviously informed choice to elect the man you’d called a criminal for years on this forum.
 
You voted for all of these things.
 
Then you voted for more.
 
We didn’t.
 
Matter of fact, almost everyone here opposed Obama and his actions.
 
Except you.
 
Congratulations on your direct and very personal support evil, JustTheFacts.

rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 7:13 AM

Saying you’re against something is nice.

Voting against something is nicer.

Mitt Romney said he would give the Syrian rebels = ISIS “heavy arms to bring down Assad’s fighter jets”

2008…2009… Say, that was when you personally asked Obama to make all the decisions, wasn’t it?

You asked him to do a surge, spend huge amounts of money, kill some women and children, and get a few thousand of our troops killed before surrendering and letting the Taliban have it back, right?

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

I am on record here at HotAir as opposing the surge! I pointed out that the Generals knew the war was lost but they told Obama the Surge would give the US a chance to negotiate with the Taliban.

I am on record saying that the Generals were WRONG because the Taliban had already gained to much control of Afghanistan to be forced into negotiations. And I am on record as saying the surge would only waste more American lives and US tax dollars.

For over 12 years I have said

The US should save it’s blood and treasure and just let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight out their Shea vs Sunni war, thus destroying most if not all of Islam, without spilling a drop of American blood. That way the end result would be what most republicans want, (an end to Islam).

Because 85–90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni a jihad against Iran and the shia would have all the Sunni’s in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and etc, come to fight the Iranian’s/shia’s.

For example Saddam and his very small secular, nationalist Baath party was able to keep Iran, the Shea, and Al-Qaeda in check.

Saddam shut down Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s mosque and Saddam not only tried to kill him but also had a bounty on Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr’s head.

Saddam had killed the fathers and older brothers of both Ali al-Sistani & Sadeq al-Sadr plus had bounties on the heads of Al Qaeda members as well because Al Qaeda had been operating an anti-Saddam network in the Kurdish territory that was outside of Saddam’s control.

Saddam supported the Christian Maronite Forces who fought against Hezbollah, which were funded by Iran and most other Arab countries.

Saddam continually and ruthlessly fought against the spread of radical Islamism by abolishing sharia courts, arresting clerics, cracking down brutishly against any Islamist movement, ordering the executions of any captured fundamentalists and liberalizing society by promoting western ideals of society and law.

Saddam had fiercely opposed Islamists within his own country, responding with mass executions and torture whenever he felt threatened by them and usually kept Christians and secular Iraqi nationalists within his secular, nationalist government.

Also Romney said he would “double Guantánamo” and that the US should continue its enhanced interrogation techniques.

Versus reneging on his promise of closing Guantanamo and appointing a known torturer to head the CIA. Not to mention all the civilians killed in drone strikes, bombing more countries than Bush, etc.

Damned if I do damned if I don’t. It’s disgusting and obvious that the cycle will not be broken until there is enough public outrage with the governments continued training, arming, and funding, of terrorists in its perpetual War on Terror.

I didn’t say you should vote for Romney.

I just pointed out that you DID knowingly and willingly vote for Obama. You even casually mentioned that Paul had some potential:

The only person who seemed willing to have risked their life to stop it was Ron Paul. But if you know of someone else please let me know…

Well I asked you to PLEASE point out someone who would help end the governments continued training, arming, and funding, of terrorists in its perpetual War on Terror.

Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul seem like he may TRY to limit it though he wont risk his life to STOP it like his father would have done. But all I can do is vote by what they say they are going to do. Though we all know they just lie. Look at the history of broken promises of past presidents.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 1:45 PM

@V7_Sport on December 30, 2014 at 10:37 PM

If you TRULY wanted to end radical Islamic extremists you would get the secular, nationalist, with the very BEST RECORD of killing the most radical Islamic extremists.

First place winner for killing the most radical Islamic extremists is Saddam Hussein!

Second place winner for killing the most radical Islamic extremists is Muammar Gaddafi!

Third place winner for killing the most radical Islamic extremists is Bashar al-Assad!

Yet the US has trained, funded, and armed radical Islamic terrorist to overthrow 2 of the above and used it’s own military to to take out the very best killer of radical Islamic extremists, (Saddam).

Why would the US do that when it’ss obviously counter productive?

Unless there is more to be gained by training, funding, and arming radical Islamic terrorists in the perpetual War on Terrorism. Like the effects the War on Terror has on DOMESTIC policy.

And don’t count on the NEXT president to stop the cycle as “Bush vs Clinton” will just continue doing more of the SAME.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the US citizens can pick different presidential nominees other than “Bush vs Clinton” because it’s the BIG money interests that truly decides the presidential nominees.

That way they, (the BIG money interests), don’t have to worry if its a dem or repub that gets elected since they own both and know that either will continue doing the same to protect the interests of the countries citizens their BIG money donors.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Damned if I do damned if I don’t.

 
What are you babbling about?
 
At what point do you possibly believe you had a “don’t” moment?
 
You voted “do” in 2008, saw Obama kill women and children in drone strikes, saw Obama push a surge in Afghanistan that you claim you opposed, saw Obama screw up Libya, saw Obama screw up Syria, saw Obama screw up Iraq, saw Obama appoint a torturer to positions of power over Americans, and then you voted “do” again in 2012.
 
You never had a “don’t”. This is all on you.
 
You know who tried to stop him?
 
Me. V7_Sport. And every other person here who voted against him.
 
Not you, though. Obama’s actions are all yours.
 

It’s disgusting and obvious that the cycle will not be broken until there is enough public outrage with the governments continued training, arming, and funding, of terrorists in its perpetual War on Terror.
 
JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 1:45 PM

 
That’s hilarious. You tell us that, and then you actively vote to continue it. I bet you even had an Obama sticker somewhere, didn’t you?
 
I guess the cycle can be broken just so long as it doesn’t inconvenience you, right?
 
From up thread:
 

But I also don’t support the current foreign policies and some domestic policies of Obama which I have commented on many times.
 
JustTheFacts on December 28, 2014 at 7:37 PM

 
So which of Obama’s domestic policies were so important to you that you were willing to embrace the governments continued training, arming, and funding, of terrorists in its perpetual War on Terror in order to continue supporting the man you have called a criminal on these forums?
 
Gay marriage?
 
Welfare/free health insurance?
 
Which one was more important to you than dead children from drone attacks and perpetual war?
 
Which one did you sell what you’re trying to tell us are your “morals” for?
 
One? Both?
 
Go ahead, JustTheFacts. We’re all friends here. You can tell us.

rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 3:38 PM

You never had a “don’t”. This is all on you.

You know who tried to stop him?

Me. V7_Sport. And every other person here who voted against him.

Not you, though. Obama’s actions are all yours.

That is NOT true.

Some of those whom you named and many others supported the war’s, supported keeping gitmo open, supported drone strikes, supported demanded that the Syrian Rebels be armed, and etc. etc. etc.

So you CANT pretend that you/they don’t share any responsibility just because it wasn’t your guy/gal doing the very things that you/they have supported.

You either supported those specific policies or you didn’t, regardless of who was president!

If people don’t take responsibility for policies that they supported regardless of who was president at the time, they will have learned nothing, which will allow the same CRIMES to continue with the next administration.

For example a dem who supported the invasion of Iraq has to acknowledge that they supported it NO MATTER who was in office.

Otherwise, if they don’t take responsibility they will lack the desire to look back and reflect on what things made them change their mind vs the things that made them support it initially so that they can learn from it and not make the same mistake again.

I have proven on this forum that I will “NOT” carry water for anyone that breaks the LAW because a CRIME is still a CRIME regardless of who is president. If US citizens did the same the politicians would start being more honest and start serving the people instead of their BIG donors.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Damned if I do damned if I don’t

 
You never had a “don’t”. This is all on you.
 
You know who tried to stop him?
 
Me. V7_Sport. And every other person here who voted against him.
 
Not you, though. Obama’s actions are all yours.

 
That is NOT true.

 
Is that what you tell yourself to get to sleep each night when you think of those children you’re directly responsible for killing in drone strikes?
 
Show of hands:
 
– Who voted for Obama?
 
– Who didn’t vote for Obama?
 
Everyone who voted for Obama owns his decisions.
 
You do understand how that works, right?
 
You can try to blame us for the things you pretend to hate all you want, but you’re the only one who voted for him.
 

I have proven on this forum that I will “NOT” carry water for anyone that breaks the LAW because a CRIME is still a CRIME regardless of who is president.

 
+1. We’ve established that already. You’ll just say they’re criminals before voting for them
 
And then voting for them again.
 

If US citizens did the same the politicians would start being more honest and start serving the people instead of their BIG donors.
 
JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM

 
What, trade their vote in on some pretend opposition to drones killing women and children in exchange for gay marriage? Or trade their vote in against what they claim to be a moral opposition to perpetual war for if they can get an $80/month insurance premium?
 
Which do you mean, JustTheFacts?

rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM

So your saying that Americans should stop voting because either choice is going to continue the same bloody foreign policy which will make the voter responsible for those crimes even if they don’t support it?

Then what should US citizens do, more activism, help other voters be more informed, what?

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM

So if a US citizen is forced to choose between two candidates that they don’t like, (for example Clinton vs Jeb Bush), its best not to vote because the voter will be responsible for “ALL” of the presidents policies even the policies the voter “DIDN’T/DOESN’T” support?

So your saying don’t vote for the lessor of two evils?

I thought that was the American way of voting as there is only two parties to choose from, despite that “NO ONE” fits perfectly into either party.

So your suggesting that US citizens should be given more choices than the two candidates that are always chosen for them by BIG money donors?

Should US citizens demand Proportional Representation and get big money out of politics by having publicly funded elections?

I think that is a good idea rogerb!

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 5:18 PM

 
So your saying that Americans should stop voting because either choice

 
So you only had two names on your ballot in 2008 and 2012?
 
Really?
 

is going to continue the same bloody foreign policy which will make the voter responsible for those crimes even if they don’t support it?
 
Then what should US citizens do, more activism, help other voters be more informed, what?
 
JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 5:31 PM

 
Anyway, why are you worried about 300 million other people? You can’t even manage your own vote.
 
You don’t get to worry about other Americans until after you stop pretending you care about that “bloody foreign policy” you keep supporting, JustTheFacts.
 
(But hey, you got your gay marriage and that $80 monthly insurance premium, didn’t you?)

rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:05 PM

I thought that was the American way of voting as there is only two parties to choose from
 
JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM

 
Holy.
 
Crap.

rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM

You know exactly what I mean so don’t make me write all out.

No one from another party gets the money and air time that the dems and repubs get.

You don’t see a msm debate with Green party, Libertarian party, and etc, candidates up against dems and repubs.

You have to know that they are totally marginalized with the current TWO party system.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:22 PM

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM

What I was suggesting earlier was a way to make it more fair for third party candidates, as I sure you knew but pretended not to.

Here is what needs to be changed in case you don’t already know.

Third Party Candidates’ Mission Impossible
How the deck is stacked against them

I have discussed this many times already on this forum.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:32 PM

I thought that was the American way of voting as there is only two parties to choose from

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Holy.

Crap.
 
rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM

 
You know exactly what I mean so don’t make me write all out.

No one from another party gets the money and air time that the dems and repubs get.

You don’t see a msm debate with Green party, Libertarian party, and etc, candidates up against dems and repubs.

You have to know that they are totally marginalized with the current TWO party system.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:22 PM

 
That’s hilarious. First you blame other people for Obama’s bombing of more countries than Bush, Obama’s exponential increases in NSA surveillance, Obama appointing a torturer to positions of power in the NSA and CIA, Obama’s drone strikes, the innocent civilians killed in Obama’s drone strikes, Obama screwing up Iraq, Obama screwing up Libya, Obama screwing up Syria, etc., along with the perpetual war that ONLY YOU directly supported with your vote for Obama.
 
Now, not surprisingly, you’re lamenting third parties not having any influence, money, or air time immediately after telling everyone
 

there is only two parties to choose from

 
and directly demonstrating how you personally won’t lift a finger or do anything that might inconvenience you in order to support a third party and help them gain influence, money, or air time.
 
But hey, you got your $80 insurance premium, didn’t you? And all it cost was almost every one of the morals you claim you have.
 

@rogerb on December 31, 2014 at 6:06 PM
What I was suggesting earlier was a way to make it more fair for third party candidates, as I sure you knew but pretended not to.

Here is what needs to be changed in case you don’t already know.

Third Party Candidates’ Mission Impossible
How the deck is stacked against them

I have discussed this many times already on this forum.

JustTheFacts on December 31, 2014 at 6:32 PM

 
Yep. Without doing a single thing about it other than personally and actively making the conscious choice to vote against third parties over and over and repeatedly telling the “big money donors” you want them to continue doing what they’re doing over and over.
 
It’s exactly like what you do regarding all the women and children killed in drone strikes that you keep pretending you oppose.
 
But hey, I bet all those dead people are happy you got gay marriage in exchange for all those morals you obviously weren’t using.

rogerb on January 1, 2015 at 6:49 AM

@rogerb on January 1, 2015 at 6:49 AM

Wow!

You seem to have forgotten that, in both the 2008/2012 elections, Ron Paul was more ANTIWAR than Obama who had the second most antiwar rhetoric out of all the candidates.

And because Ron Paul was the most ANTIWAR, out of all the candidates he raised the most money from active military personnel, than all GOP candidates COMBINED in both the 2008/2012 elections, with only Obama coming in SECOND to Ron Paul’s donations from active military personnel in both the 2008/2012 elections.

This was one of the reasons why I donated as much of my time as I could for both Ron Paul’s 2008/2012 campaigns and was one of the reasons why I donated all I could afford for Ron Paul’s 2008/2012 campaigns because I supported the troops and the troop’s decision.

But it wasn’t just me and the troops who OVERWHELMINGLY supported Ron Paul and helped him brake presidential campaign records with his “TEA PARTY MONEY BOMBS”. It was also many of the countries independent voters according to the majority of polls such as the August 23rd Gallup poll showing Ron Paul leading Obama by three points.

Yet Ron Paul was marginalized by his own party despite that he continued to take first place, by a huge margin, in most the republican straw polls.

Ron Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll with 41% of the vote, he won the Clay County Iowa StrawPoll with 25%, he then won EVERY POLL of the Ames, Iowa presidential debate including the Fox News poll of the debate, He was the top GOP candidate against Obama in Rasmussen Reports polls with 38% to Obama’s 39%, he then won again as the top GOP candidate against Obama in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, he then statistically tied for first place in the Ames Straw Poll by just 0.9%, he then won the New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll, then he won a statistical tie for first place in Georgia State GOP Straw Poll with 25.7% to 26% of the vote. He won the California state GOP straw poll with 44.9%, he won the Values Voter Summit with 37% of the vote, and etc, etc, etc, etc,

MOST IMPORTANTLY Ron Paul managed to do all that even though the MSM ignored him despite that he polled much better than the candidates who did receive coverage and was the #1 presidential candidate on Goggle Trends, was the top trending topic on Twitter, had more YouTube channel subscribers than any other candidate for president, his name was the term most frequently searched for, and etc…….

So after being marginalized by his own party Ron Paul did not run as an independent because he knew it’s fruitless with today’s two party system. And the reason Ron Paul did not support Romney was because Ron Paul is ANTIWAR!

Therefore “rogerb” I and the OVERWEHLMING majority of active military personnel were doing all that we could to get the only conservative nominated who could beat Obama’s antiwar rhetoric. And by your standards you are responsible for Obama being elected because you DIDN’T support the troops since you did NOT support RON PAUL’s ANTIWAR policy!

JustTheFacts on January 1, 2015 at 7:07 PM

Did you hope that silly attempt at deflection of responsibility would help get the screams of those little burning children out of your mind at night, JustTheFacts?
 

This was one of the reasons why I donated as much of my time as I could for both Ron Paul’s 2008/2012 campaigns and was one of the reasons why I donated all I could afford for Ron Paul’s 2008/2012 campaigns because I supported the troops and the troop’s decision.
 
…And by your standards you are responsible for Obama being elected because you DIDN’T support the troops since you did NOT support RON PAUL’s ANTIWAR policy!
 
JustTheFacts on January 1, 2015 at 7:07 PM

 
Other than the part where, unlike you, I didn’t happily vote for Obama. The same Obama you call a criminal.
 
Try all you want, but this is no different than those dead women and children you had a hand in killing. You’re the one that willingly, and apparently with more knowledge than most (consider how much worse that makes it) pulled the lever supporting it.
 
Remember, you did all that “for the troops” right before you turned right around and voted to send them to perpetual war.
 
You can keep writhing and twisting all you want, but TheFact remains that none of us voted for it.
 
You did.
 
You didn’t vote for Paul.
 
You can *claim* you supported Paul all you want, but you didn’t vote for him.
 
You voted for Obama.
 
But hey, you got your gay marriage though, didn’t you?
 
We can go around and around all with you you trying to constantly avoid your responsibility (and we have), but it’s no use. These horrors belong to you.
 
See you next thread.

rogerb on January 2, 2015 at 5:55 AM