Why Do Liberals Hate 'American Sniper'?

Heywood said:
If Snowden really did sell those secrets to the Chinese and Russia, the US would've covertly killed him already.

If he posed that big of a threat to national security, the Drone President would've destroyed him already.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Such a high profile case that Obama cannot kill him off unless you believe in tin foil conspiracy theories.
 
gilesfan said:
Doubtful. Such a high profile case that Obama cannot kill him off unless you believe in tin foil conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Obama wouldn't dare send a drop to kill a person on Russian soil. Wouldn't be surprised if the Russian spies caught earlier this week weren't traded for Snowden
 
AerchAngel said:
You do know Goldy that Ventura had too many hits to the head when he wrestled and a certified loon. They actually hate him up here. Ask 500 about this government policies, a complete joke like the person he is.

So take his opinions with a worth a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Hate is too strong a term, but we look back at his four years as governor with a fair amount of remorse. As H.L. Mencken wrote, "For every complex problem, there's an answer that's clear, simple, and wrong." Jesse was he master of the "clear, simple, and wrong" part of that.

Tapate50, I had to take Jesse seriously because my job as a lobbyist required that I do so. But he was way in over his head. He put together a tremendous cabinet and set of commissioners who agreed to sign on because they thought Jesse would be able to transcend the boundaries of politics as usual and some solid policy could be adopted. Jesse then proceeded not to listen to any of them and turn on his wrestler persona when dealing with the media and the Legislature. So much good could have been done had he just kept himself in check.
 
50PoundHead said:
Hate is too strong a term, but we look back at his four years as governor with a fair amount of remorse. As H.L. Mencken wrote, "For every complex problem, there's an answer that's clear, simple, and wrong." Jesse was he master of the "clear, simple, and wrong" part of that.

Tapate50, I had to take Jesse seriously because my job as a lobbyist required that I do so. But he was way in over his head. He put together a tremendous cabinet and set of commissioners who agreed to sign on because they thought Jesse would be able to transcend the boundaries of politics as usual and some solid policy could be adopted. Jesse then proceeded not to listen to any of them and turn on his wrestler persona when dealing with the media and the Legislature. So much good could have been done had he just kept himself in check.
Click to expand...

Inside baseball. I love it.
 
Liberals are typically anti war.

I wish some liberals would be more willing to understand the need this country has for people like Kyle. I haven't seen the movie, but threads like this make me understand why this movie was so good. It's an unashamed portrayal of a man that many folks don't want to admit is an important asset for war. He's a warrior. We need warriors in this country even if you think the particular war he fought in was unjust.
 
weso1 said:
That's a very naive opinion, imo.
Click to expand...

You could say someone like Chris Kyle is a means to an end, but I don't think such a person should be celebrated as an end unto itself. In light of that, I find considering the ends for which one fights to be really important, and not easily brushed aside with qualifying statements like, "even if you think the particular war he fought in was unjust."
 
I dunno, Weso. I think you may be missing the point. Chris Kyle had a particular skill set, which, loosely described, was "shoot the bad guys." In shooting the bad guys, he arguably kept some of his cohort, our countrymen, from dying untimely deaths far from home. That has value in its own context. But some of us can't divorce that from the larger context, roughly expressed as "why were we there, and was it necessary?"

In WWII, when we were arguably liberating the larger world from evil, we fought with a collection of civilians drafted into service. My great uncle, a grocery store owner from North Carolina, flew bombers over Japan. My grandfather, a high school teacher, was a field medic in the Pacific. Personally, I'd rather have—and celebrate—a nation of grocery clerks and teachers who can become soldiers in extremis than train a cadre of killing machines who wreak violence in the general direction of where the politicians of the day say the bad guys are. In saying this, I'm not minimizing or denigrating the service of the folks who served in Iraq—I'm just saying they got a bad deal. I'd like to think that my point of view is ultimately more humane and considerate towards them—which, I'd like to think, in light of how Chris Kyle died, isn't entirely crazy.
 
jpx7 said:
You could say someone like Chris Kyle is a means to an end, but I don't think such a person should be celebrated as an end unto itself. In light of that, I find considering the ends for which one fights to be really important, and not easily brushed aside with qualifying statements like, "even if you think the particular war he fought in was unjust."
Click to expand...

This is all that really needs to be said.
 
Julio3000 said:
I dunno, Weso. I think you may be missing the point. Chris Kyle had a particular skill set, which, loosely described, was "shoot the bad guys." In shooting the bad guys, he arguably kept some of his cohort, our countrymen, from dying untimely deaths far from home. That has value in its own context. But some of us can't divorce that from the larger context, roughly expressed as "why were we there, and was it necessary?"

In WWII, when we were arguably liberating the larger world from evil, we fought with a collection of civilians drafted into service. My great uncle, a grocery store owner from North Carolina, flew bombers over Japan. My grandfather, a high school teacher, was a field medic in the Pacific. Personally, I'd rather have—and celebrate—a nation of grocery clerks and teachers who can become soldiers in extremis than train a cadre of killing machines who wreak violence in the general direction of where the politicians of the day say the bad guys are. In saying this, I'm not minimizing or denigrating the service of the folks who served in Iraq—I'm just saying they got a bad deal. I'd like to think that my point of view is ultimately more humane and considerate towards them—which, I'd like to think, in light of how Chris Kyle died, isn't entirely crazy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that speak more to how war has changed? You are dealing with smaller scale battles with highly trained soldiers. This is no different on the "enemies" side as well. The days of a massive land battle are over. It will always be smaller units that must be better trained to work as a group and on their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top