# the left vs. the military: Act of Valor



## billc (Feb 22, 2012)

In another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?"  we have the movie Act of Valor.  You saw the same level of contempt for the movie Battle: Los Angeles when it came out.  Here is an article on the Huffington post review of the film.  For those who do not like Breitbart you could go straight to the hufpo to read the review...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/20/huffpo-slams-act-of-valor-not-anti-military-anti-american-enough/




> The upcoming film &#8220;Act of Valor&#8221; is replete with that kind of action, but *there  are a few things it doesn&#8217;t have: There are no corrupt officers, no  damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the  virtue of the cause.*
> 
> That&#8217;s because &#8220;Act of Valor&#8221; was born not in Hollywood, but in the  Pentagon. It was commissioned by the Navy&#8217;s Special Warfare Command and* its success will be measured not in box-office receipts, but in the number of new recruits it attracts to the Navy SEALs.* [emphasis added]



Yes, the Navy Seals are known for their doubts about their service...

With almost every movie about the military out there, at least since the vietnam war, being a negative portrayel of the military, is it too much to ask for one, once in a great while, that actually salutes the effort of our soldiers and sailors?

Where does the left get their dislike for the miltary?   Will they ever understand what the U.S. military is about or who our soldiers and sailors actually are?


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2012)

Movies are about conflict and growth.  The characters in the movie have to move from one place to another... they have to take a journey.  Conflict can be external, but it is often also (or exclusively) internal.  

Corrupt officers, doubts, fears, crisis of faith... these are all very common ways to create conflict.  Without conflict, you don't have a story.  

It's also, I think, important to note that the accusation is essentially that movies with these kinds of conflicts are leftist propaganda. It positions cinema as nefarious and politicized, rather than as entertainment.  If believed, than it follows that movies without these kinds of conflicts are rightwing propaganda.

I don't believe that this is true in most cases.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 22, 2012)

Steve said:


> Movies are about conflict and growth. The characters in the movie have to move from one place to another... they have to take a journey. Conflict can be external, but it is often also (or exclusively) internal.
> 
> *Conflict doesn't have to be at the cost of character.  It can be, but doesn't have to be.  It is also permissible to have a hero that doesn't hate his own country (so who does the hero love?).  That is mostly Hollywood hype for the controversy it causes.  Call it controversy or conflict, but it does sell movies.  The sad part is that it may also shape thought processes rather than just supposedly report or postulate them.
> *
> ...



Just some quick thoughts on my part.  I realize that the military isn't perfect, nor is the movie industry.  I am not always a fan of right-wing posters here at MT, but not left-wing posters either.  Mostly it is emotion talking, and interpretations of facts to support their own beliefs.  Life usually isn't that simple.

But by no means do I intend what I have written as a put down to you.   You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.  Neither has to agree with the other.

And if you think I have a bias towards the military, I reckon I do.  I spent 29 years in the US Army.  It isn't perfect, but it isn't all bad, and it does serve its country and its country's citizens.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 22, 2012)

Do keep in mind that that particular movie was originally conceived as a recruiting video. 

It will be singularely skewed in favour of the military. 

And regardless of what the myth portrays, I'm sure SEALs do get conflicted about missions. I would not trust a soldier that does not.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Just some quick thoughts on my part.  I realize that the military isn't perfect, nor is the movie industry.  I am not always a fan of right-wing posters here at MT, but not left-wing posters either.  Mostly it is emotion talking, and interpretations of facts to support their own beliefs.  Life usually isn't that simple.
> 
> But by no means do I intend what I have written as a put down to you.   You are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.  Neither has to agree with the other.
> 
> And if you think I have a bias towards the military, I reckon I do.  I spent 29 years in the US Army.  It isn't perfect, but it isn't all bad, and it does serve its country and its country's citizens.


I can't say I agree 100%, but I think we're close.  My last sentence was this: "I don't believe this is true in most cases."  What I meant by that is I believe most movies are just movies.  They can be provocative without being propaganda. 

I'm saying this because I want to be very clear that I'm not emotionally vested here.  I'm not advocating a left wing position.  I'm pointing out that the very act of politicizing most movies is pointless and usually off-base.

And if you think I don't have a bias towards the military, you would be wrong.  I spent 4 years in the USAF as an ammo troop.  I'm the only single term enlistee in my family.  My three brothers all have over 10 years each.  My mom had over 8, but was forced out when she got pregnant back in the late 60's, and my dad is retired USAF.  My family has a tradition of military service that extends back to the civil war.  I have a wall in my house with dozens of pictures of family in uniform.  I don't wear it on my sleeve, but I'm a proud vet from a family of proud vets.

For what it's worth, while you say you weren't trying to put me down, I will admit that I took offense to your post.  That you felt it necessary to write that came off as patronizing to me, kind of like starting off a sentence with, "No offense but..."  Always followed by something offensive.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 22, 2012)

No offence but ... :lol:

This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now.  Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'?  By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?  

I understand and agree wholeheartedly (as a Navy wannabe) with the manifest dignities that go along with volunteering to put your life on the line for the ideals of your country (or at least the ideals of the money behind the men in charge of your country).  What I don't understand in my bones is the hero-worship of many who have done no more than put themselves in a 'box' where heroism may be required.  Fireman and police and the ambulance-service do much the same but get only a fraction of the kudos.

If any country should have a Cult of the Warrior it is Britain, for war (and shop-keeping) has been our life-blood for a very long time indeed.  But we don't - it's getting a bit that way now, fed by true heroism as well as media mythology but it's still more of an acknowledgement of people doing a scummy job for reasons that are, for many of us, tenuous or untenable.

Is it, perhaps, that the American military (other than in the 69's and 70's) has never really been seen as the haven of last resort for the scum of the earth, which is what the British Army was for a couple of very successful Imperial centuries?


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> No offence but ... :lol:
> 
> This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now.  Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'?  By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?
> 
> ...




I think it's because since 1865 the average person has not seen the aftermath up close.


----------



## Steve (Feb 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> No offence but ... :lol:
> 
> This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now.  Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'?  By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?
> 
> I understand and agree wholeheartedly (as a Navy wannabe) with the manifest dignities that go along with volunteering to put your life on the line for the ideals of your country (or at least the ideals of the money behind the men in charge of your country).  What I don't understand in my bones is the hero-worship of many who have done no more than put themselves in a 'box' where heroism may be required.  Fireman and police and the ambulance-service do much the same but get only a fraction of the kudos.


First responders deserve just as much respect.  For me, it's not hero worship.  In fact, I've found myself in hot water on these boards before for suggesting taht there are plenty of despicable vets running around.  

But there is, as you say, a default position that one should respect someone who has served honorably in the defense of his or her country.  Not hero worship.  Just simply respect for that thing.  And a fundamental belief that we as a society should honor and care for those who are permanently disabled or killed in this service, or their surviving dependents.  


> If any country should have a Cult of the Warrior it is Britain, for war (and shop-keeping) has been our life-blood for a very long time indeed.  But we don't - it's getting a bit that way now, fed by true heroism as well as media mythology but it's still more of an acknowledgement of people doing a scummy job for reasons that are, for many of us, tenuous or untenable.


I would say that this is more a gap of understanding than any real difference in belief.  We honor our vets as you do.  For most, it's not more than that.  I think there are some who try to politicize "support the troops" but they're in the minority, I believe.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 22, 2012)

Battle: Los Angeles was an incredibly stupid movie.  Bad writing, bad concept, bad acting, it was simply embarrassing. 

Hey, I'm a guy, I like a good shoot-em-up movie from time to time.  But that movie was chock full of cringe-inducing crap, that quite frankly stunk with the bad cheese stench of blatant recruitment.  I felt like I paid $4.99 on Pay-Per-View to watch a two-hour recruitment film.  That's not what I intended to spend my money on, and that's why I didn't like it.

It had nothing to do with my leftist pinko commie fascist socialist hippie tree-hugging puppy kissing animal rights activistic godless leanings.  Or whatever else it is that Billcihak wants to label people who disagree with his political leanings.

I expect Act of Valor to be much the same.


----------



## billc (Feb 22, 2012)

I think the citizen soldier part of service in the U.S. military might make it different over here.  We don't  "take the Queen's shilling," but we enlist to protect our fellow citizens from the people who might try to harm them.  It is a choice freely made, by a free citizen.  The people who join give up certain freedoms, endure hardships, especially in war time, and they are us, as it were.  They aren't born to a warrior class, they come from all walks of life.  Maybe that helps.

Here is a question.  After 9/11, the worst attack on the United States in our history, how many movies were made that showed the effort against radical, islamic terrorism as a noble fight?  How many showed the U.S. military as evil, dupes, or doped up nut jobs?  The biggest military endeavor in our lifetimes and hollywood decides not to cash in.  They make film after film showing the U.S. as evil, dupes or nut jobs, that make no money, and the only pro-American, pro military film I can think of off the top of my head was Dear John, where the war was peripheral to the story.  It did have that Amanda Siefried in it, and it did show the U.S. special forces in a good light, but that is it.  HBO's big contribution to the effort is Homeland, where a U.S. marine converts to Islam to kill the American President.  Thanks HBO.  You even have the pacific theater of WW2 coming under assault now with the HBO show the Pacific and Tom Hanks and his stupid comments.

You didn't have to think that Battle: Los Angeles was good, but that isn't the criticism for Act Of Valor, this is...



> *There are no corrupt officers, no damaged heroes, no queasy doubts about the value of the mission or the virtue of the cause.*



That is how hollywood sees the military, except for Jerry Bruckheimer.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 22, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Battle: Los Angeles was an incredibly stupid movie.  Bad writing, bad concept, bad acting, it was simply embarrassing.
> 
> Hey, I'm a guy, I like a good shoot-em-up movie from time to time.  But that movie was chock full of cringe-inducing crap, that quite frankly stunk with the bad cheese stench of blatant recruitment.  I felt like I paid $4.99 on Pay-Per-View to watch a two-hour recruitment film.  That's not what I intended to spend my money on, and that's why I didn't like it.
> 
> ...



The difference being that Battle: LA was conceived as a movie that turned out looking like a commercial. Act of Valor started as a commercial that got extended as a movie. I expect the acting to stink a month old blue cheese.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 22, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think the citizen soldier part of service in the U.S. military might make it different over here.  We don't  "take the Queen's shilling," but we enlist to protect our fellow citizens from the people who might try to harm them.  It is a choice freely made, by a free citizen.  The people who join give up certain freedoms, endure hardships, especially in war time, and they are us, as it were.  They aren't born to a warrior class, they come from all walks of life.  Maybe that helps.
> 
> Here is a question.  After 9/11, the worst attack on the United States in our history, how many movies were made that showed the effort against radical, islamic terrorism as a noble fight?  How many showed the U.S. military as evil, dupes, or doped up nut jobs?  The biggest military endeavor in our lifetimes and hollywood decides not to cash in.  They make film after film showing the U.S. as evil, dupes or nut jobs, that make no money, and the only pro-American, pro military film I can think of off the top of my head was Dear John, where the war was peripheral to the story.  It did have that Amanda Siefried in it, and it did show the U.S. special forces in a good light, but that is it.  HBO's big contribution to the effort is Homeland, where a U.S. marine converts to Islam to kill the American President.  Thanks HBO.  You even have the pacific theater of WW2 coming under assault now with the HBO show the Pacific and Tom Hanks and his stupid comments.
> 
> ...




Hollywood makes movies that has conflict, very often internal. It's also hard to depict in a 2 hour movie.


AFAIC, one of the better depiction of that life, as far as entertainment is concerned, was 'The Unit'. The format of a TV series is much better to allow for character development, to show both sides.


----------



## Kinghercules (Feb 22, 2012)

billcihak said:


> In another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?"  we have the movie Act of Valor.  You saw the same level of contempt for the movie Battle: Los Angeles when it came out.  Here is an article on the Huffington post review of the film.  For those who do not like Breitbart you could go straight to the hufpo to read the review...
> 
> http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/hollywoodland/2012/02/20/huffpo-slams-act-of-valor-not-anti-military-anti-american-enough/
> 
> ...



I think the question should be "Why the need to have a pro military movie?"
I think these movies just tryna help Americans gear up for a war with Iran.  As if they really pose  a damn threat.
Get real!


----------



## Cyriacus (Feb 22, 2012)

Kinghercules said:


> I think the question should be "Why the need to have a pro military movie?"
> I think these movies just tryna help Americans gear up for a war with Iran.  As if they really pose  a damn threat.
> Get real!


Yeah.
They should make the movies about fighting Aliens, so noone dares relate it to anything realistic.
NO WAIT.
Then if there are Aliens, we might be too violent towards them!
Better make it about fighting vicious ant monsters with no thought or reason, possibly colored pink to make them implausible.
There we go.

:lfao:


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 23, 2012)

Its not a right or left thing.  I saw the movie before it came out with my best friend.  
"Its not that good.  Terrible acting, Small plot.  No character development.  Predictable. Good action."  These are things that my friend said and he is a staunch conservative.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 23, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Hollywood makes movies that has conflict, very often internal. It's also hard to depict in a 2 hour movie.
> 
> 
> AFAIC, one of the better depiction of that life, as far as entertainment is concerned, was 'The Unit'. The format of a TV series is much better to allow for character development, to show both sides.




For my money, _Red Tails_ was the best military movie I've seen in a long while.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 23, 2012)

Hello Bill, can I ask please when you say this movie is _another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?"_ do you think it is a natural predisposition of the left to dislike the military of their own nation?  Would you explain why this would be the case that it would be more important for a citizen to support a left-leaning political orthodoxy than to ensure safety for their own family and theirselves?  

I do not think it is quite the same here in the UK I think political ideology is not the main reason for support or otherwise of the military.  Is this how it is in the US?  Thank you.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 23, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> For my money, _Red Tails_ was the best military movie I've seen in a long while.




Try to find a copy if _The Tuskagee Airmen_ with Lawrence Fishburne for a much better take on that squadron.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 23, 2012)

So you just want more blatant propaganda, got it.  Why didn't you just say so?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 23, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> No offence but ... :lol:
> 
> This is a side-track but I do have a question that has been hovering on my fingers here for a couple of years now. Why is it that American's have such a 'Cult of the Warrior'? By this I mean an over idolisation of someone because they chose to go into the armed forces?



From my perspective, I think the general American trend is to view any political/social issue as a line in the sand, rather than a spectrum. You're either liberal or conservative; pro-military or entirely against it; an anti-regulation, pro-capitalist or a socialist regulatory control-freak. From that starting point, the assumption is that one's answers must ALWAYS be either in-favor of or against a certain position. 

Taking the military service as an example, the result is that one must always favor the soldier if one wishes to fall on the pro-military side of the line. There is no room to say something like "yeah, that soldier deserves respect for his service, but he was wrong to shoot those civilians". It's unfortunate, because such thinking results in the mindset that servicemen can do no wrong, which clearly they can. But if you say that they can or did make a mistake, then clearly you're an anti-military pinko pansie whatever. 

So, response may be off the mark, but I think that's a big part of how the soldier-worship develops. All-or-nothing thinking results in the idea that the serviceman can do no wrong.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> I can't say I agree 100%, but I think we're close. My last sentence was this: "I don't believe this is true in most cases." What I meant by that is I believe most movies are just movies. They can be provocative without being propaganda.
> 
> I'm saying this because I want to be very clear that I'm not emotionally vested here. I'm not advocating a left wing position. I'm pointing out that the very act of politicizing most movies is pointless and usually off-base.
> 
> ...



Sorry you took that as a put down.  However, I did not agree with all you said as you have not agreed with all I said.  Maybe my choice of words was not good.  I got the impression that you were trying to justify the unfriendly reviews of the movie, and implicitly, the military.  From your background you provided, that was evidently incorrect on my part.  

I perhaps get a little sensitive about portrayal of the military. I was born just before WWII, and grew up around people who never doubted why they had served in the military then.  So I never did either.  I was also lucky to have spent most of the late 60s and early 70s in Vietnam, so I didn't run into what many returning servicemembers did.  When I did come home to visit, the area of the midwest where I lived, hadn't bought into military-bashing.  Still, we did have newspapers and radio news in Vietnam, albeit mostly military, and we met members who had been exposed to indignities.

So if I was a little too sensitive and insulted you, my apologies.  It was not intended.  But I still reserve the right to disagree, and support you have that right too.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 23, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Hello Bill, can I ask please when you say this movie is _another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?"_ do you think it is a natural predisposition of the left to dislike the military of their own nation? Would you explain why this would be the case that it would be more important for a citizen to support a left-leaning political orthodoxy than to ensure safety for their own family and theirselves?
> 
> I do not think it is quite the same here in the UK I think political ideology is not the main reason for support or otherwise of the military. Is this how it is in the US? Thank you.



Hi Jenna,

this is Bill's perception.  It fails to recognize human subtleties in attitudes, perceptions, ideals, and circumstances, and does not reflect the truth in any overall way, here in the United States.  It is an attitude that attempts to take the wide range of human emotions and cram them into an "either/or" world.  Needless to say, it doesn't work.  It won't stop him from trying, however.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 23, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> For my money, _Red Tails_ was the best military movie I've seen in a long while.



I haven't seen it yet, but look forward to the chance. Your good report makes me even more anxious to see it sooner. Just for curiosity, have you seen _The Longest Day_, or the series _Band Of Brothers_? No movie will perfectly display everything that goes on in the military, and if fact, imho, if it tries to do so, it loses much of its impact. That was one of the problems with _Apocolypse Now, _which was I think, intentionaly surrealistic.Most of what it depected could have been or was true, but all in one short movie? Naw.



Jenna said:


> Hello Bill, can I ask please when you say this movie is _another installment of "Why does the left dislike the military so much?"_ do you think it is a natural predisposition of the left to dislike the military of their own nation? Would you explain why this would be the case that it would be more important for a citizen to support a left-leaning political orthodoxy than to ensure safety for their own family and theirselves?
> 
> I do not think it is quite the same here in the UK I think political ideology is not the main reason for support or otherwise of the military. Is this how it is in the US? Thank you.



Well, Bill is unabashedly conservative. I lean that way myself, but not as militantly since I have some liberal in my veins as well. I think many strong left/liberal people are more inclined to dislike/distrust the military. They are also more likely to look for any reason to stay out of the military. And maybe the two are related. But never doubt there are liberals in the military. Leftists at least in the USA has more of a connotation of communist, and that as a political ideal would not go far in the military. As you can see, I can make some distinctions between leftist and liberalness. Bill may or may not, and that is for him to say or not.  But I don't think his support of conservative ideas is any stranger than other's support of liberal ideas, nor any more difficult to agree with or disagree with.  They just don't agree philosophically.

But Bill in his right/conservative attitude, is no worse than those here at MT who are unabashedly left/liberal in their attitude. They are just at different ends of a line. Left and Right aren't always going to agree, nor always be correct or incorect.   And each one's beliefs will be at odds with the other.  You make it sound as if you are left/liberal.  So be it.  I will not agree with much of what you do.  And I may say so.  I just hope I do it in a nice way, especially if I have any hope of converting you to my beliefs.  I can convert you, right?   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





But isn't it wonderful how being martial artists, we can all so congeneally get alone even when we are cutting each other's belief systems to shreds? :uhyeah: 

To us! :cheers: :drinkbeer


----------



## clfsean (Feb 23, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Try to find a copy if _The Tuskagee Airmen_ with Lawrence Fishburne for a much better take on that squadron.



That one was good


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2012)

With regard to the Left versus the Right and their support of 'the military', I think you have to first state your framework.

*Era:*

In terms of era; I am a post Vietnam-era veteran, having enlisted in 1979.  The military was not looked upon fondly by the Left in my experience at that time.  I'll leave out the histrionics and the 'baby killer' remarks or accusations of being spat upon by hippies; suffice to say I did not experience that myself, but I certainly did experience the attitudes of the times.  We were less than respected; little more than low-brow louts.  The military was where one went if one had no hopes of college or a minor criminal background and did not wish to 'make something' of oneself.  Others may disagree, but that was my experience.  The Right by comparison, was broadly supportive of the military, also in my experience.

Prior to my era, the Vietnam era veterans had it worse.  It was my understanding from the time I served with them (many were still on active duty when I was) that they experienced so much discrimination and anger directed towards them by the anti-war groups (and yes, that would be the Left) that many of them had a permanent dislike for all things Left-wing.  By the same token, many of them had also experienced the pain of being rejected by their fellow veterans of WWII and Korea as being 'losers' in war, and 'dope-smokers' and 'hippies' themselves.  They were ostracized, even excluded, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and when they were finally allowed to join, it was made clear that they were not wanted.  This, plus the fact that many Vietnam-era veterans were not in favor of the war in the first place, led them to found their own group, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and to dislike the Right, which the WWII and Korean era vets seemed to mostly be.  Please note that today, many of those animosities are gone, thankfully.  Vietnam veterans are rightfully seen as the heroes they are.

The WWII and Korean era veterans were, to the best of my knowledge, often members of the Right wing themselves.  They had been raised to hate and fight communists and communism.  Yes, we fought alongside the USSR in WWII, but not happily, and the way Berlin and Eastern Europe were divided after WWII was proof of that.  Many today do not even realize that in the Korean war, we fought Chinese regular troops face-to-face.  It was no proxy war, the UN was fighting Red China (as it was known to us at that time).  Of course, few civilians had a negative opinion of the military following WWII or Korea.  WWII veterans were seen from the beginning as the 'Greatest Generation' of Americans, and Korean veterans were largely forgotten, but certainly not despised or hated.
*
War:
*
One must also consider the attitudes of the Left and the Right with regard not just to the troops, but also to the conflict.  Basically, the Left was pro-war in WWII, ambivalent during Korea, anti-war in Vietnam, and anti-war (but claimed to be pro-troops) in recent conflicts.  There are some exceptions.  The Left was pro-war with Afghanistan following 9/11, but anti-war with Iraq during the same time period.  The Right has been steadfastly pro-war (as far as I know) in all our military conflicts since WWII (although both the Left and the Right were anti-war prior to WWII).

*Anti-Troops versus Anti-Military*

I think one must also consider that there is a more nuanced approach that tends to be independent of political leanings, and that is how one thinks of the military versus how one thinks of the people who serve in the military.  I have met enough people to know that many do not like the military in general, but they have no animosity towards those who serve in it.  It's rather like being anti-union, but not disliking people who drive trucks or build cars.  It can be confusing, however, when one is not sure what one is hearing.  Anti-military rhetoric can sound a lot like anti-troop rhetoric, unless the speaker makes it clear that they mean one and not the other; and some people have a natural suspicion that others can actually separate the two.  For example, in the most recent conflict in Iraq, many on the Left (Moveon, etc) were demonstrably anti-war and anti-military, but they claimed to 'love the troops'.  This was sometimes not true (in my opinion) and sometimes true but not believed by others.  There was so much dislike and distrust between the Left and the Right in those cases, that few believed the claims of the others, and tended to lump a dislike of the military or the war into a dislike of service personnel and veterans.  The fact that some veterans were also members of the Left and anti-war only heightened the distrust and dislike.  One also has to remember that although it is not commonly brought up, many members of the Right are technically anti-military also, as the more Libertarian-leaning Right see two problems with the military.  One is the prohibition in the Constitution against a 'standing army' initially, and two is the warning against a strong military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us of which undermines Democracy.

In summary, I do not think the Left is generally anti-veteran or anti-military or anti-troops.  However, they do *tend* (in the USA) to be *anti-war*, which sometimes doesn't come across as nuanced as it could, and there are some who truly do show animosity towards servicemen and servicewomen (and they tend to be seen as representative by some on the Right), and they often seem anti-military by contrast with the Right, which is typically not anti-war, anti-military, or anti-troops.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 23, 2012)

In my experience, the only ones saying the left hates the military is those on the far right who want the left viewed as negatively as possible.  Most people of any political alignment in the States, whether agreeing with the wars or not, feel people in the military should be treated with respect and honored for thier servece.  Of course thier are always exceptions.  You do have knuckleheads from the left who think all military personel are murderer wanna be's.  You also have equally as knuckleheaded people from the right that believe all military personel can do no wrong and our men and women in uniform should not be held to a standard even in the battlefield. 

The original post is just one more example of trying to paint the left as evil.


----------



## billc (Feb 23, 2012)

Why does the left dislike the military...

1) It is an institution whose purpose is to use violence against other people.  In a lot of ways the criticism of the military is mirrored by criticism of American law enforcement.  To many on the left, there is never a good reason to use violence.  Ask some people if a police officer shooting a killer, about to kill an innocent victim, is the same as the killer killing the victim, there are those who will say there is no difference.  

2) The military is seen as a tool used to promote U.S. foreign policy.

3) They see any dollar spent on the military as a dollar wasted, and which could have been better spent on various social welfare programs.

4) They see it as a sexist, racist, anti-gay institution.

5) They see it as an institution that was used to kill people of color around the world.

I don't care if people make anti-military movies, I would just like every once in a great while a pro-military movie.  Jerry Bruckheimer likes the military, how can you tell, you can see it in his movies, from Pirates of the Carribean to the Transformers series, and Black hawk down, the military is portrayed positively.  Does every movie have to do this, of course not, but does every movie not made by Jerry Bruckheimer have to show the military in a bad light?  Especially, non-world war two European theater of operations movies?  I make the World War two distinction because the attack is starting on the fight in the Pacific theater.  To see this in real life, look up what Tom Hanks, big liberal supporter of Obama, said about the pacific, as compared to fighting in Europe.   Also, we used nuclear weapons in the pacific and the left will never forgive the country for that.


By the way, I am still waiting for the positive movies about the military fighting the war against radical islamic terrorists, where the U.S. military are the good guys, the terrorists are definitely the bad guys, and we win the battle.  Anyone....

You have all the other movies, besides Dear John, that portray American soldiers in the war on radical islamic terrorism as rapists, murderers, drug addicts, crazy,  or sympathetic to the terrorists, or just plain evil.  Still waiting for the movie other than Dear John that isn't against the military.  Hmmmm...perhaps just one.  Empty hands, do all war on islamic terrorist movies have to show our soldiers as the bad guys?

Here is a short list of anti-war on islamic terrorism films...

Redacted
Rendition
Brothers
In the valley of Elah
Lions for lambs
Stop Loss
Just off the top of my head, not to mention the series Homeland on HBO where the marine converts to radical islam and becomes a terrorist sleeper.

As to seeing the military as different from the personel, good point but not quite accurate.  My reason for saying this is look at what the left side of the aisle does when any soldier or sailor is accused of doing something wrong, they immediately thing they are guilty.  The most recent episode was the marines urinating on the dead islamic terrorist killers.  People on the political right believed that they should be punished according to the regulations of the military the UCMJ, seeing it as wrong but something that happens in war, the left, went out of their minds.   Check the news coverage, check the reaction of Hillary and Obama to the incident.


----------



## billc (Feb 23, 2012)

Some good military/war movies...

Zulu (today or yesterday was the anniversary of the battle at Roarkes Drift)
Saving Private Ryan (European theater in World War 2 so it is safe)
Glory
Black Hawk Down
The Green Berets (when I was little I almost cried at the puppy scene, and Lt. Sulu makes an appearance)
Battle: Los Angeles ( yeah, not the best, especially with the shaky cam, but still fun)
Transformers (only the fight against the scorpion thing when you see the U.S. military go into action.)
True Lies ( The scene where the marine jets fly past the helicopter, excellent imagery, and then start shooting) (James Cameron said he won't make another True Lies.)
Braveheart
Lord of the Rings


A  short list, I'll think about some more...

Here is a story that points to the dislike of the police by the left that mirrors their dislike of the military...I believe one famous lefty would say the police "acted stupidly."  

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/l...ment-film-better-this-world-screenplay-award/


> Here is the official film synopsis:The story of Bradley Crowder and David McKay, who were accused of intending to firebomb the 2008 Republican National Convention, is a dramatic tale of idealism, loyalty, crime and betrayal. *Better This World*follows *the radicalization of these boyhood friends from Midland, Texas, under the tutelage of revolutionary activist Brandon Darby.* The results: eight homemade bombs, multiple domestic terrorism charges and a high-stakes entrapment defense hinging on the actions of a controversial FBI informant. *Better This World* goes to the heart of the war on terror and its impact on civil liberties and political dissent in post-9/11 America. _A co-production of ITVS in association with American Documentary | POV._​See that bit about Crowder and McKay becoming radicalized under the tutelage of Brandon Darby? That is total fiction; a lie concocted by McKay as part of his defense strategy. When Crowder and McKay were first arrested for making Molotov cocktails and planning to use them at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota they initially took responsibility for what they had done. Then after they discovered that Brandon Darby had been a confidential informant for the FBI, their story suddenly changed.
> But don&#8217;t take my word for it. The following is from the transcript of David McKay&#8217;s guilty plea.Mr. McKay started off the case confessing to the FBI, implicating his co-defendant Crowder, never claiming to the FBI that Darby had anything to do with it, and on early jail calls with his father admitted he was guilty, there was nothing more to look into, &#8220;I&#8217;m guilty of possession, I am going to plead guilty.&#8221;​Then something changed &#8211; McKay discovered that Brandon Darby had been working with the FBI. McKay then starting claiming that the Molotov cocktails were Darby&#8217;s idea and that Darby was at the meeting were Crowder and McKay came up with idea. McKay said that Darby and the FBI entrapped him and he testified to that in his first trial.



Here is youtube video that looks at the distortions in this particular film...


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry you took that as a put down.


Just very quickly, I'm not trying to bust your balls here, but you're hitting on a couple of my pet peeves.   The quoted sentence is one of the biggest.  Any time the words "sorry" or "apologize" are followed by any pronoun other than "I," my blood pressure begins to rise.  You don't get to apologize to me about how I took something.  You can apologize for what you said, if you choose to, but saying you're sorry I took it as a put down isn't an apology at all.  I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but you're essentially apologizing on my behalf, and frankly, I'm not at all sorry I took offense for what I still believe was a clear insult.   





> However, I did not agree with all you said as you have not agreed with all I said.  Maybe my choice of words was not good.  I got the impression that you were trying to justify the unfriendly reviews of the movie, and implicitly, the military.  From your background you provided, that was evidently incorrect on my part.


Maybe instead of insulting me and then apologizing for me, you could go back to what I actually wrote and address the content of my posts.  That's much safer ground and much less likely to cause unintentional offense.  Please be specific, and then I'm sure we can get to the bottom of any misunderstanding.  





> I perhaps get a little sensitive about portrayal of the military. I was born just before WWII, and grew up around people who never doubted why they had served in the military then.  So I never did either.  I was also lucky to have spent most of the late 60s and early 70s in Vietnam, so I didn't run into what many returning servicemembers did.  When I did come home to visit, the area of the midwest where I lived, hadn't bought into military-bashing.  Still, we did have newspapers and radio news in Vietnam, albeit mostly military, and we met members who had been exposed to indignities.


And I'm still not at all clear how you got from my post to the above statement.  Are you now comparing me to a 60's/70's era, anti-military zealot?  Jesus, man.  I have to ask, what kind of a damned hippy do you think I am?





> So if I was a little too sensitive and insulted you, my apologies.


No problem.  I accept your apology.  





> It was not intended.  But I still reserve the right to disagree, and support you have that right too.


By all means, knock yourself out.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 23, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Why does the left dislike the military...
> 
> 1) It is an institution whose purpose is to use violence against other people.  In a lot of ways the criticism of the military is mirrored by criticism of American law enforcement.  To many on the left, there is never a good reason to use violence.  Ask some people if a police officer shooting a killer, about to kill an innocent victim, is the same as the killer killing the victim, there are those who will say there is no difference.



But, but, but...

I thought that all the acts of genocide were carried by the left?


----------



## billc (Feb 23, 2012)

Hmmm...who said anything about genocide?  Yes, the socialists did kill close to 100 million, but that wasn't the American military.  Do you consider world war 2, vietnam, korea, the gulf war and the war on terrorism acts of genocide?


----------



## billc (Feb 23, 2012)

Oh, I was incorrect about the HBO show Homeland.  It wasn't one elite, marine, scout/sniper who converted to radical muslim terrorism to conduct jihad against the United States, but two elite, marine scout/snipers who converted to radical islam to conduct jihad against the United States.  Sorry I missed that.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 23, 2012)

I think my biggest problem about using terms like "The Left" or "The Right" is that they wrongly unify and monolithize those who fall more left or right, politically. Trying to say "The Left hates the military" is as demonstrably false as "The Right loves the military". In both camps, there is a diversity of opinion.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> ...
> No problem.  I accept your apology.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that sir.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...who said anything about genocide?  Yes, the socialists did kill close to 100 million, but that wasn't the American military.  Do you consider world war 2, vietnam, korea, the gulf war and the war on terrorism acts of genocide?




Your position is that 'the left' is responsible for all ills and murders in the world, buthen you posit they hate the military because the military kils people. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

yes, the left is responsible for over 100 million innocent deaths.  How is it possible when the "left" dislikes the military.  There are democratic socialists, the ones who like big government to give us "free" healthcare, which isn't free because we just pay up front, and all the other government goodies.  They dislike the military because they see it as interfering with the government hand outs.  Then there is the extreme left, the national socialists, the communists and so on, who use the military to enforce their desires to change people.  That is the problem that was mentioned in my post about star trek and the "nazi" episode.  Once you start giving government more and more power and control over your lives, you are consolidating power that can and eventually will be misused once the wrong people get control of it.  

From the Star Trek thread...




> And while it is true that many liberal stories involve people  fighting against oppressive governments, it is important to note that  they rarely (if ever) criticize the concentration of power itself.  Instead, they merely attack those who would _misuse_ the power,  i.e. those who would use the power for purposes of which the liberals  don&#8217;t approve; this is why oppressive governments in liberal stories are  always police states, military dictatorships or theocracies. And in  many cases, the resolution of the story involves the replacement of the  evil government with a benign council of experts or bleeding hearts who  will then use that same monolithic power &#8220;to help people.&#8221;



I say to people, once you pass a stupid law, you need to create stupid police to enforce it.  My example is school lunch programs.  Once the government mandates that each lunch must have fruit and vegetables, even lunches from home, eventually you will need someone to enforce that rule.  For example, the recent stories of lunch room "police" going thru the homemade lunches of students and then forcing them to buy the school lunch if the homemade lunch doesn't fit the government mandate.  So too with everything else.  Once the left is in control of a government for long enough, and those silly people will just not sign on to their wonderful programs to improve the lives of the "little" people, they need someone to enforce their wonderful plans.  Eventually, that leads to more police, and then more soldiers.  That is how Stalin and Hitler and Pol pot and the other lefties came to embrace the military, at its worst.  Stupid government planning eventually leads to the need for guys with guns.  That is why the democratic left ends up getting purged.  As Ann Coulter once said, "Communists are socialists who really mean it..."

From the star trek thread...The episode where the federation historian tries to use the extreme left, nazi model to createe a "good" society, and how that will always fail...




> &#8220;Patterns of Force&#8221; rejects this as faulty logic. It  warns that you cannot have a benign dictator. It warns the problem is  the concentration of power itself, because the misuse of that power is  inevitable. And no matter what the intentions may be for the creation of  the state, the very concentration of that much power will attract  someone who will misuse the power for evil.



that is why the democratic left can dislike the military, and then fall victim to the extreme left, who embraces the military's ability to use violence, to control the people they want to "improve."


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 24, 2012)

More of the left is evil nonsense.  "The left are socialist."  "The left likes big government" "The left dislikes the military"  All statements menat to inflame people against others that have political view points left of thier own.  Yet none of those statements are based in fact.  They are opinion stated as fact so the average person accepts them as truth.

The one about big government is pretty easy to research. Just do a bit of research and see when the government has grown the most.  Quickly you see that governmental growth is a more complex issue than the left does it or the right does it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2012)

By this curious logic, anarchists are the ultimate conservatives...

This is what happens when you twist the English language for a goal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Although it can be abused (*and has been in this thread,* I'd say), it is appropriate to generalize when speaking of groups.  Otherwise, one could not discuss them at all.  What do Democrats believe?  What do Republicans believe?  Individually, they believe so many different things that you can hardly make even one statement that would be true of all of them.  So one has to generalize, and likewise, one has to accept that generalities do not necessarily apply to individuals.

The 'Left' does hold certain beliefs when spoken of as a general group, as does the 'Right'.  One cannot win an argument by merely denying that one personally does not hold the identical beliefs as the general membership of the group.  One can say that the Left tends more towards socialism than the Right.  This is a true statement.  Just because one considers oneself a member of the Left and NOT a socialist does not negate the fact.

Does the Left hate the military?  I believe it does not; but it is a true statement that the Left tends to be more anti-war than the Right, and this can cause others to doubt the Left's true feelings about the military and about military members, as well as the fact that if some few do dislike both the military and military members, they are more likely to be found on the Left than the Right.

Not much to be done about that, I believe.  For myself, I am cut with the same sword; as a member of the Right, I find myself tarred with appellations like 'racist', which are not true in my case (I believe), but if racists there be, I would have to accept they are more commonly found in the Right than the Left.


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

Here is a look at the critic's reviews of the movie...yes, these guys like the military alright...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/c...decry-pro-military-pro-american-act-of-valor/



> Time Out New York&#8217;s Joshua Rothkopf calls the film &#8220;scary,&#8221; with a &#8220;ridiculously limited view of American righteousness.&#8221;
> 
> Tampa Bay Times critic Steve Persall dubs &#8220;Valor&#8221; &#8220;a land mine movie for anyone to review who isn&#8217;t a military veteran, who hasn&#8217;t bought into the cult of warfare,&#8221; later adding &#8220;pacifists won&#8217;t be nearly as impressed.&#8221;
> 
> ...



And of course we can't leave out the soldier as a nut job opinion...



> But Ebert can&#8217;t help compare the film with &#8220;To Hell and Back,&#8221; a new documentary following a soldier who joined the Marines because he wanted to kill people.
> Why Ebert would compare the heroism on display in &#8220;Valor&#8221; to a single soldier with serious mental issues is beyond comprehension.



And to the heart of the matter...




> No film should be above criticism, but the nature of the attacks above has less to do with quality and everything to do with scribes uneasy with the notion that Navy SEALs should be considered heroes for their bravery in the face of live fire &#8211; on and off screen.



Those reviews vs. this review by a certified righty...

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/02/24/i-am-a-navy-seal/



> Actually, Hollywood dropped the ball on World War IV. Too many films have remained invested in exposing the CIA and American military forces as corrupt and greedy torturers, and as psychiatrically traumatized and murderous ex-soldiers (_Syriana__, Valley of Elah, Safe House_). This obsession has trumped showing viewers who, exactly, declared war on America for the last 33 years (Khomeini began it when he took the American Embassy personnel hostage) and whom we must now fight.




You can add Syriana, and Safe House to the list of anti-war on terror movies...


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

Here is a discussion about what the directors discovered while filming Act of Valor...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/c...hange-hollywoods-false-image-of-u-s-soldiers/



> [h=1]BH Interview: Act of Valor Directors Battle to Change Hollywoods False Image of U.S. Soldiers[/h]by                 *			  	Christian Toto			  	*Act of Valor directors Mike Mouse McCoy and Scott Waugh were surprised to learn the Navy SEALs who star in their new film were nothing like the characters seen in modern war movies.
> They were intellectual, down to earth, dedicated family men, McCoy tells Big Hollywood. Theyre some of the finest people weve met in our lives.


----------



## billc (Feb 27, 2012)

I saw Act of Valor on Sunday.  It was okay, not great.  The fight scenes were a bit confusing, which may be real but doesn't make for a good movie fight scene, and the acting is what you would expect of actual navy seals vs. actors.  Other than that, the beginning of the movie was really pretty good.  Spoiler...the rescue was emotional, as seeing a woman being abused by criminal thugs is never good.  The one good thing...they didn't waterboard her, they just...well, go and see for yourselves.  Here is a look at why it made as much money as it did, through word of mouth...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/k...vie-traditional-hollywood-cant-and-wont-make/



> Let me clue you in, Tinseltown &#8211; &#8220;Act&#8221; is an unapologetically pro-military movie that doesn&#8217;t have topretend that the greatest threat to America is space aliens. It&#8217;s got action &#8211; holy cow, does it have action. It&#8217;s got emotion &#8211; _real _emotion, not that hacky &#8220;emotional conflict&#8221; cookie cutter crap that your screenwriting seminars push. And it&#8217;s got this thing called &#8220;moral clarity.&#8221;
> Since that&#8217;s an unfamiliar concept, I&#8217;ll give you a chance to Google it.
> Yeah, Hollywood, moral clarity.  The bad guys are bad guys. As in the real world outside of the I-10/I-5/101 Freeway/Pacific Ocean box where you live your miserable, morally bankrupt lives, there&#8217;s no ambiguity. American warriors are the unambiguous heroes, and the people they hunt down are unambiguously evil.
> There&#8217;s no bogus back story to the villains about how Americans were mean to them, or how their daddies didn&#8217;t hug them enough, or how global warming destroyed their petting zoo.
> ...




And the C.I.A. isn't shown as the bad guys either...they actually are the good guys as well...

I think the "moral clarity" is the biggest selling point for the movie.  The bad guys are actual bad guys, and when they get theirs in the river scene...it's just great.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 27, 2012)

I saw it on Saturday. It was predictable. REALLY predictable. But respectful, and even though I figured out the end from the opening monologue, I steal teared up at the end.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Mar 30, 2012)

You don't get any more left than Naomi Wolf and here is her reaction to Katy Perry doing a video that involved the marines...The video shows Perry breaking up with her cheating boyfriend, she joins the marines and goes through boot camp.  It is a good video...


As the saying goes...if a conservative doesn't like a radio/television program or a specific actor or actress, they simply don't watch them.  If  a liberal doesn't like a radio/television program, or a specific actor or actress, they want them taken off the air or boycotted...here is a classic liberal call to boycott someone, probably someone who is closer to naomi wolf in other things, simply because she disagrees with Perry on this video.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/30/Naomi-Wolf-Katy-Perry



> Writes Wolf on Facebook:Have you all seen the Katy Perry Marines video? It is a total piece of propaganda for the Marines...I really want to find out if she was paid by them for making it...it is truly shameful. I would suggest a boycott of this singer whom I really liked -- if you are as offended at this glorification of violence as I am.
> 
> ​





> Wolf's reaction to the video and her suggestion that portraying the Marines in a nice manner is a "glorification of violence" betrays her prejudice against our military. It's due to the effort of those Marines that Wolf is able to play keyboard revolutionary on American soil. She believes spending a few minutes outside and getting arrested in her evening gown en route to a _one-percenter_ event is a worthier effort than leaving your family to fly far from home and eat MREs in sweltering temperatures so a bitter, feminist writer can exercise the right to free speech (which you protect) -- and then complain about your efforts to secure it. Spare me your self-righteous indignation. Don't complain about the free choice of a woman to make such a video or cut down the work of our sisters in the military. How very _anti-feminist_.
> Kudos to Perry for making a video so unlike what we see in Hollywood, where our men and women in uniform are denigrated by trust-fund socialists as zombified killing machines performing lowly tasks. Kudos to Perry for showing a video of free women exercising their right to choose how they want to live their lives. And kudos again to Perry for making a music video which shows how women can be empowered beyond flashing T&A to win male approval.



I didn't like Kate Perry too much because she seemed/seems a little too sleazy.  This video raises my appreciation of her.  She did something nice for our troops here.   Good for her.
Glorification of violence...how about possibly honoring the men and women who keep poor little naomi wolf safe from the real predators in the world...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Apr 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> You don't get any more left than Naomi Wolf and here is her reaction to Katy Perry doing a video that involved the marines...The video shows Perry breaking up with her cheating boyfriend, she joins the marines and goes through boot camp.  It is a good video...
> 
> 
> As the saying goes...if a conservative doesn't like a radio/television program or a specific actor or actress, they simply don't watch them.  If  a liberal doesn't like a radio/television program, or a specific actor or actress, they want them taken off the air or boycotted...here is a classic liberal call to boycott someone, probably someone who is closer to naomi wolf in other things, simply because she disagrees with Perry on this video.
> ...



Wait, what? Conservatives don't boycott? There was no conservative boycott of the companies that "bailed on rush limbaugh"? There was no conservative boycott of CPAC? The people who tried to boycott Disney, military enlistment (during the repeal of DART), the movie "Thor" or a myriad of other things that have been boycotted on the last 30 years by conservative groups?

Were they just liberals cleverly disguised as conservatives?

Seriously, where do you get this stuff, and why aren't you fact checking it?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Apr 2, 2012)

Well, first, the thread is about the left disliking the military and you have a prominent lefty, naomi wolf, attacking Perry because she made a video that showed the marines, the people fighting and dying for this country all over the world, in a favorable light.  It's about the U.S. marines, not the taliban, or the kudz forces or the russian or chinese military.  

Second, this is a big country and boycott's happen on both sides, but the organized efforts, the glitter bombs, the flour bombs, the pie throwing, the union beat downs, the calls for the removal of Fox cable news, most recently the attack on Rush, the fact that conservative speakers on college campuses, Ann Coulter, and David Horowitz to name two, are all from the organized and institutional left.  There is really no comparison now or in history that the left does not value freedom of speech as much as conservatives do.

Here is an article on the very subject from the daily caller...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/the-lefts-free-speech-attack-dogs/



> The evidence of this calculated assault on free speech is  overwhelming, but the most recent and high-profile examples include  carefully orchestrated campaigns by three well-funded, interconnected,  George Soros-linked organizations: Media Matters for America (MMFA); the  Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance  Against Defamation (GLAAD).
> 
> After years of trying to censor the conservative voice of Rush  Limbaugh, for instance, the George Soros-funded Media Matters recently  pulled out all the stops to get him booted from the airwaves.






> Another example of this Orwellian censorship crusade involves the  Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an outfit that, until recent  years, was viewed as a relatively credible civil rights organization.  Unfortunately, the SPLC has now cashed in most of its remaining  political capital, taking the same cynical path as its fellow travelers  over at Media Matters. The SPLC too has become little more than a  mouthpiece for left-wing extremism.
> 
> In a &#8220;too cute by half&#8221; attempt to marginalize those who observe the  traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, or who embrace a  constitutionalist view of government, the SPLC has moved from monitoring  actual hate groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis, to slandering mainstream  Christian and tea party organizations with that very same  &#8220;SPLC-certified hate group&#8221; label. Indeed, in its promotional materials  and on its website, the SPLC indiscriminately lumps well-respected,  highly influential Christian organizations like the Family Research  Council and the American Family Association together with domestic  terrorist and white supremacist groups.
> ​



Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/the-lefts-free-speech-attack-dogs/#ixzz1qtjdqftG



​


----------

