1 - 10 Next
The only problem with your scenario is that Putin would declare the residents of little Russia in New York City oppressed as a pretext to conquer Blue America, and then we'd have an enemy sharing our landmass that ISN'T composed of whimpering Pajama Boys.
You forget that liberals despise military force, work, and any violence except for disorganized mob violence, which is called "peace marching." Well, their peace marchers are responsible for their own actions in Red America and would be summarily shot. Blue America's only other shock troops are legions of Pajama Boys, the flabby arm of the Park Police, and shrill, nagging harpies of gender studies departments. That's who they're going to send against the hunters, law enforcement, and dedicated military forces of Red America? That's why, when anyone starts speculating about who would win in a military struggle between liberals and conservatives--if, God forbid, it ever came to civil war--I just have to laugh. Except for the gangbangers, liberal America HAS no armed strength and will never have any. It's not even a question. Red America just has to pull back from the cities, refuse to resupply, and let them descend into starving anarchy. Game over.
Katie, that article didn't cover the single most damning sentiment in the military: that all the sacrifices we made to win in Iraq and Afghanistan have been squandered. I don't have words to tell you how sick it makes me to hear about ISIS aka Al-Queda flags flying over Ramadi and Fallujah. I was THERE. Can civilians spare a second to think what that feels like? It'd be like having Germany come back in 1954 to re-take Normandy. We took that territory with blood and held it with unbelievable determination and commitment, and the civilians in this country not only refused to acknowledge our victory--and we DID win, I was there, I saw it--but then threw it away! How many of us died for that? How many of us lost our families over continuous deployments? How many of us came back maimed and traumatized? Yeah, there are budget cuts and benefit cuts. Congress is once again stabbing our retirees in the back. The VA is neglecting our most vulnerable vets to death and the American public isn't terribly upset about it. But NOTHING compares to spitting on the gains that we made and the victories we won and the graves of all the men and women that won them. I'm a legacy veteran going back to the Revolutionary War and I would never tell my children to go into the military. This country doesn't deserve us.
No, you contemptible little worm, it's because we gave up our lives, limbs, and frequently our families winning Iraq and Afghanistan only to be sandbagged by our country at the behest of despicable cretins like you. The only thing worse than seeing the things we had to see on the way to winning is for that victory to be destroyed by the most pathetic Commander in Chief in the history of this nation. You want atrocities, look no further than the barbarous regimes you prefer to your own country.
In response to:

Tolerate or Be Stamped Out

Zoomie Wrote: Aug 08, 2014 12:31 PM
That's what's going to happen in the end. The tolerance of Christians will have a breaking point.
In response to:

The Jew-Hating Obama Administration

Zoomie Wrote: Jul 02, 2014 1:09 PM
Yes, it was Bibi's fault they died, not the fault of the people that actually, y'know, KILLED them. Thank you for providing a valuable example of deformed "progressive" thought, you moral cretin.
In response to:

SNAFU: Can Our Military Be Saved?

Zoomie Wrote: Jun 24, 2014 1:18 PM
Military members are already leaving. The current NCO and mid-level officers are going to hold out until retirement, but I'm a vet who got out when Obama was elected, working for a defense contractor and I work with Marines all day every day. If they have less than ten years in, odds are they're not going to re-enlist. They're not interested in getting killed because a GI Jane wannabe can't pull her weight, they're not going to die for another pointless war that this country doesn't have the testicular fortitude to finish, they're not interested in retiring and being reliant on a VA that neglects them to death, and--most dangerous of all--they don't believe the civilians of this country have the intelligence or sense required to intelligently use the best military on the planet. I can't believe the number of times I've had to explain that NO, you do not want the military deciding on its own when and where it should be deployed. Or I've had to explain that no, the US military cannot, will not operate on American soil. Or no, it is not the job of the military to explain why we should or shouldn't go to war to the rest of the country. The military can say whether, strategically, attacking such-and-such will get us closer to the overall goal as defined by the President and Congress. But the idea of the military being the final arbiter of when and where we go to war, much less being the pitchman for the idea or, God forbid, taking a political side, is dangerous. Suicidally so. Is this not taught in schools anymore? If citizens aren't capable of this fundamental job, i.e. following politics well enough to make an INFORMED, adult decision about whether or not to deploy their military to kill and die overseas, then no sane adult will serve in that military. And it appears that citizens don't even know they have this responsibility. So there will be no military. You get the military you deserve.
In response to:

How Fatherhood Made Me a Better Person

Zoomie Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 3:43 PM
The components of a "real" woman, especially as defined by a man, is just begging for widespread condemnation by feminists. I'm a conservative woman and, even if I had a Townhall.com podium, wouldn't bait that particular bear unless there was a really good reason to do so. It's not that there is no distinction between a "real" woman and the kind of whining, dysfunctional, promiscuous, self-righteous and still somehow victimized female preferred by the left. It's that a man would have to be a masochist if he dared to point it out.
In response to:

How Fatherhood Made Me a Better Person

Zoomie Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 3:39 PM
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not deliberately misunderstanding. Eternal childhood has nothing to do with procreation and whether or not you use contraception. It's the current trend toward declaring a 26 year-old a "child" still on their parents' health insurance. It's the thirty year-old college students with three degrees and no real world experience or contributions. It's the infantilization of the adult to a lifestyle of constant dependence, whether it's on their parents, their college, or the state. It's the increasing trend toward a population that, predominantly, has never been responsible for their own livelihoods or contributed more to the nation than they have taken out. THAT is what conservatives--and Ben--object to. Having children is traditionally viewed as the ultimate contribution to the future and the irrevocable step into adulthood in that you are then responsible not just for your own livelihood, but the livelihood of your child. Whether or not you take that step is still up to you and no conservative is trying to force anyone to take it. On the contrary, we believe a lot of people are having children who absolutely should not, but we're not going to try to impose the government on anyone to force them to make more responsible decisions. Does that clear it up for you, or are you just trolling?
In response to:

Catholic Capitalist Replies to the Pope

Zoomie Wrote: Dec 12, 2013 4:28 PM
As someone who was born and raised Catholic, I have to say it's getting harder to stay one. When I deployed to Iraq in 2008 both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict had spoken against the war, effectively leaving me as a military member in moral limbo. I believed at the time and still believe now we were right to go, and I resent both Popes for effectively refusing their blessing to me and the tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of other Catholic military members who deployed to war in Iraq. That's no small thing. For those of us that died over there, what does that mean? Now Pope Francis is apparently denouncing capitalism, and it seems to me that if we--meaning conservatives and Republicans--invoked the Pope's authority against the Soviet Union up through the fall of the Berlin Wall, then we can't turn around and say that his words don't count now except on strictly moral and religious matters when we don't like what the newest Pope is saying. And if he's saying "blessed are those that fight income inequality," well, then I guess those of us that think that fight does more harm than good aren't blessed. So what does that mean for me as a Catholic? It seems I'm having to treat Popes like Presidents lately, and just putting my head down and enduring until I get one that isn't condemning the things I've believed in my whole life and gone to war to defend. I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work.
1 - 10 Next