For the hypocrites who use the "chicken hawk" slur

[bsmeter]

wow, this is what I call BITCH SLAPPED and left to die bleeding!! Talk about getting OWNED and PAWNED!

Very good points you make there Mr. riserburn. I applaud your even keeled response to knee jerk chicken hawk rantings from draft dodging cowards.

Quote from riserburn:

I provided a breakdown of my reasons for why this article is complete crap. It's poorly written and filled with pathetic excuses for evading a question that was posed to him. If he had the sense to at least omit the original respondent's email, he could have dispensed with the impression that he was avoiding the question about his own personal military experience or lack there of. It doesn't take a genius to know that much about writing such an article to see that he completely lost credibility and resorted to whining. You are certainly entitled to think what you like, but if you believe this to be "eloquent" then your taste is in your ass.


I did address the issue. Who's having problems with reading comprehension now?


Where is it that I stated anything about "comments" or opinions when it came to rights about having one in the face of inexperience? These comments where clearly meant to address the issue of experience when it comes to choices about those who are responsible for making decisions and getting the required tasks accomplished. Once again, who's having problems with reading comprehension now?


It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to weed the propaganda from the events. One can easily watch or read only that which is relevant when it comes to current events and simply ignore the banter of opinions and talk show bullshit; if one chooses to do so. However, if you want to call this garbage from any source that caters to one target audience ladened with rhetoric about one political affiliation versus the other news, then don't expect me to take you seriously. You either can't formulate your own opinions without guidance and/or have poor taste and judgement when it comes to choosing your source of "news".


Sticks and stones. You can do whatever you damn well please. However, you would be nothing less than a hypocrite to engage in the perpetuation of name calling regardless of your intentions. Personally, I don't find much difference between the reference of "chickenhawk" and "moonbat" when it comes to targets of criticism for one reason or another. To use either one as a matter of preference to your weapon of choice in a verbal duel is subjective. However, to whine about one insult or label as valid over another raises questions of maturity issues.


I'm not adamantly opposed to having civilian leadership involvement in the decision process to use the military. I am vehemently opposed to civilian leaders that lack military experience insist on micromanaging the details of military tactics and rules of engagement. The pages of history are littered with examples of politicians completely fucking up a war. It is absolutely essential for civilian leaders to recognize their short-coming and limitations when it comes to making military type decisions and to turn the reins over to individuals more qualified if they are truly serious about a military victory. Unfortunately, it's hard to find a politician that places more weight on military victories over political ones when it comes to the use of deadly force.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from riserburn:

I provided a breakdown of my reasons for why this article is complete crap. It's poorly written and filled with pathetic excuses for evading a question that was posed to him. If he had the sense to at least omit the original respondent's email, he could have dispensed with the impression that he was avoiding the question about his own personal military experience or lack there of. It doesn't take a genius to know that much about writing such an article to see that he completely lost credibility and resorted to whining. You are certainly entitled to think what you like, but if you believe this to be "eloquent" then your taste is in your ass.

You're having a total meltdown.

How did he evade the question? Does he specifically have to state, "No, I did not serve in the military" to satisfy you? His point in the article, in case you missed it, is that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ONE HAS SERVED OR NOT in order to opine on the war. You may think this article pathetic and that the author has no credibility, but if you believe the most important point of the article was that he didn't answer the e-mail question as you would have liked him to then your head is up your ass.

I did address the issue. Who's having problems with reading comprehension now?

You did not address the issue. You made an issue where none existed by fixating on the e-mail at the beginning. You still have problems with reading comprehension.

Where is it that I stated anything about "comments" or opinions when it came to rights about having one in the face of inexperience? These comments where clearly meant to address the issue of experience when it comes to choices about those who are responsible for making decisions and getting the required tasks accomplished. Once again, who's having problems with reading comprehension now?

Well, since it is the entire point of the article, I thought it might be important. Ever heard of context? Apparently you are more interested in ranting and skirting along the periphery of an article rather than delving into the article itself. This is assuming you are able to comprehend the article, but it doesn't seem that you do. Either that or you really would just rather attack the messenger.

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to weed the propaganda from the events. One can easily watch or read only that which is relevant when it comes to current events and simply ignore the banter of opinions and talk show bullshit; if one chooses to do so. However, if you want to call this garbage from any source that caters to one target audience ladened with rhetoric about one political affiliation versus the other news, then don't expect me to take you seriously. You either can't formulate your own opinions without guidance and/or have poor taste and judgement when it comes to choosing your source of "news".

Ah, so now you are able to "weed the propaganda from the events." What an amazing ability! So, as the arbiter of truth, please enlighten us all with its crystal clarity. I'm sure it is free from any bias...

ROFLMAO!

Sticks and stones. You can do whatever you damn well please. However, you would be nothing less than a hypocrite to engage in the perpetuation of name calling regardless of your intentions. Personally, I don't find much difference between the reference of "chickenhawk" and "moonbat" when it comes to targets of criticism for one reason or another. To use either one as a matter of preference to your weapon of choice in a verbal duel is subjective. However, to whine about one insult or label as valid over another raises questions of maturity issues.

Yes, clearly this statement of yours illustrates that you are bereft of maturity issues:

Quote from riserburn:

Do you prefer to hear about what's happening in the world from someone that actually goes to the news or from Joe-Blow fat-ass with an opinion and an internet connection? (It's plainly clear who here prefers the latter).

Furthermore, the term "chickenhawk" has been applied to a far greater swath of people than "moonbat." If you haven't served in the military but believe the war is necessary and don't want our forces to scurry home, you're labeled a chickenhawk. "Moonbat" is reserved for the radical left wackos, not for all who are left of center.

I'm not adamantly opposed to having civilian leadership involvement in the decision process to use the military. I am vehemently opposed to civilian leaders that lack military experience insist on micromanaging the details of military tactics and rules of engagement. The pages of history are littered with examples of politicians completely fucking up a war. It is absolutely essential for civilian leaders to recognize their short-coming and limitations when it comes to making military type decisions and to turn the reins over to individuals more qualified if they are truly serious about a military victory. Unfortunately, it's hard to find a politician that places more weight on military victories over political ones when it comes to the use of deadly force.

Well, at least we agree on something.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from bsmeter:

wow, this is what I call BITCH SLAPPED and left to die bleeding!! Talk about getting OWNED and PAWNED!

Very good points you make there Mr. riserburn. I applaud your even keeled response to knee jerk chicken hawk rantings from draft dodging cowards.

LOL! This from the crackpot who claimed all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and that the Bin Laden family is the biggest investor in the Carlyle Group, the same crackpot who, when he was corrected on those points, could only muster this feeble retreat:

Quote from bsmeter:

I hold terrorist lovers and their apologist retainers to the highest level of disdain. You are hereby Ignored. Good riddance.

Like I said before, don't go away mad.

Just go away...

 

[bsmeter]

Quote from Madison:

absolutely right - up until the last sentence.

"chickenhawk" is not a synonym for "pro war on iraq," and doesn't mean "civilian." it relates instead to men who not only did not serve, but actively AVOIDED serving (mostly thanks to unearned privilege and political connections) while others went in their place - these same men who later aggressively solicit for unjustified war to be fought by others, knowing that they themselves are safe from any risk.

these men who say things like "bring em on," taunting enemies from the safety of 24-hr security details, knowing their own children will never have to bear the burden of their wars.

men who slap every veteran in the face by saying things like: "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." – Dick Cheney, on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989

HERE'S A CHICKEN HAWK KLANSMAN LOOKING FOR WMD's. As usual, in the wrong places. ROTFLMAO!!

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1180/chickenhawkjz4.png" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

 

[acronym]

Heh he, you DO understand irony hap

Just tell it like it is dude.........I hear kennedebunke-port is nice this time of year............

 

[riserburn]

Quote from hapaboy:

You're having a total meltdown.

LOL...you wish. I don't get excited or upset about an internet forum riddled with opinions from anonymous individuals who devote themselves to bitching and whining about the government and each other full-time. For me, it's nothing more than an occassional amusing distraction between bits of market news and trading ideas.

How did he evade the question?

Because he never answered it. DUH?!?!

Does he specifically have to state, "No, I did not serve in the military" to satisfy you?

Or "Yes, I did serve in the military"; either way it's known as an answer. Once again.....DUH?!?!

His point in the article, in case you missed it, is that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ONE HAS SERVED OR NOT in order to opine on the war.

By not providing an answer to the original question, his point turns into little more than excuses for why he shouldn't have to and won't give one. That makes it sound like he's whining about people that whine about people like him.

You may think this article pathetic and that the author has no credibility, but if you believe the most important point of the article was that he didn't answer the e-mail question as you would have liked him to then your head is up your ass.

You need to revisit 5th grade English composition class if you think my head is up my ass because I pointed out this simple mistake. The 1st paragraph in ANY opinion piece sets the tone for the entire article. If one fails to readdress the original opening, it changes the tone and intent of the entire article. Since the opener was a question and he failed to provide an answer, then the rest of the article turned into nothing more than excuses for evading the original question. Like I said, he could have avoided this altogether by simply omitting the question.

If this article were a classroom assignment, it would have been returned with a big fat F and covered with more red ink than an ENRON financial statement.

You did not address the issue.

I most certainly did; in the last portion of my last 2 posts. It's not my problem if you "don't get it".

You made an issue where none existed by fixating on the e-mail at the beginning.

Refer above; I typed really slow for you this time.

Well, since it is the entire point of the article, I thought it might be important. Ever heard of context? Apparently you are more interested in ranting and skirting along the periphery of an article rather than delving into the article itself.

Delved? I disected the bitch. Since you seem to be so obsessive about the bias behind media bullshit, I showed why this example was no different from the others that you so detest. Then I gave my reasons for why this article you presented is a piece of worthless, whiney, ill-written, propagandist crap.

This is assuming you are able to comprehend the article, but it doesn't seem that you do. Either that or you really would just rather attack the messenger.

If the messenger is clueless and/or lacks the skills required to deliver the message, he/she is asking to be attacked. Since you are the one gushing over this piece of garbage you call a valid arguement, you fall under the same radar.

Ah, so now you are able to "weed the propaganda from the events." What an amazing ability! So, as the arbiter of truth, please enlighten us all with its crystal clarity. I'm sure it is free from any bias...

I just provided you with 2 posts worth of information about how it's done. Read and learn.

Yes, clearly this statement of yours illustrates that you are bereft of maturity issues:

I'm not the one applauding excuses for and validating the refined details of labels and name calling; you are.

Furthermore, the term "chickenhawk" has been applied to a far greater swath of people than "moonbat." If you haven't served in the military but believe the war is necessary and don't want our forces to scurry home, you're labeled a chickenhawk. "Moonbat" is reserved for the radical left wackos, not for all who are left of center.

See? I rest my case.

Well, at least we agree on something.

Happy now?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from riserburn:

LOL...you wish. I don't get excited or upset about an internet forum riddled with opinions from anonymous individuals who devote themselves to bitching and whining about the government and each other full-time. For me, it's nothing more than an occassional amusing distraction between bits of market news and trading ideas.

Because he never answered it. DUH?!?!

Or "Yes, I did serve in the military"; either way it's known as an answer. Once again.....DUH?!?!

By not providing an answer to the original question, his point turns into little more than excuses for why he shouldn't have to and won't give one. That makes it sound like he's whining about people that whine about people like him.

Fascinating diatribe and hysterics, but you still have problems with reading comprehension.

THE QUESTION: "So tell me, what's your combat record? Ever serve?"

Answer: "You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd, if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself.

Get it, Einstein? He answers and admits he has never seen combat himself. Whether or not he has ever served becomes a secondary point as the rest of the article is based on people being called chickenhawks because they have never been in combat yet support the war, as he states here:

It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.

Who has reading comprehension problems now?

You need to revisit 5th grade English composition class if you think my head is up my ass because I pointed out this simple mistake. The 1st paragraph in ANY opinion piece sets the tone for the entire article. If one fails to readdress the original opening, it changes the tone and intent of the entire article. Since the opener was a question and he failed to provide an answer, then the rest of the article turned into nothing more than excuses for evading the original question. Like I said, he could have avoided this altogether by simply omitting the question.

As noted above, he did answer the question. He did not fail to provide an answer, and thus negates the crux of your pathetic argument. Apparently your 5th grade English composition teacher failed to imbue another critical aspect of reading comprehension - attention to detail.

Your head remains up your ass.

If this article were a classroom assignment, it would have been returned with a big fat F and covered with more red ink than an ENRON financial statement.

If your posts on this subject were a classroom debate assignment, it would have been returned with a big fat F, with a note from your teacher to pay attention to detail and get your head out of your ass.

I most certainly did; in the last portion of my last 2 posts. It's not my problem if you "don't get it".

What I get is that you have reading comprehension skills and that your head remains up your ass.

Refer above; I typed really slow for you this time.

Yes, you typed really slow, as is the case with people who have difficulty formulating thoughts, and you were successful in further emphasizing that you have reading comprehension problems and that your head is up your ass.

Delved? I disected the bitch. Since you seem to be so obsessive about the bias behind media bullshit, I showed why this example was no different from the others that you so detest. Then I gave my reasons for why this article you presented is a piece of worthless, whiney, ill-written, propagandist crap.

I'm sure you mean dissected....anyway, your "reasons" were based on a failed premise due to the fact that you did not comprehend what you were reading. Exit stage left with your erroneous assertions.

If the messenger is clueless and/or lacks the skills required to deliver the message, he/she is asking to be attacked. Since you are the one gushing over this piece of garbage you call a valid arguement, you fall under the same radar.

If the reader is clueless and/or lacks the reading comprehension skills to understand the message, as in your case, it is not the fault of the messenger.

I just provided you with 2 posts worth of information about how it's done. Read and learn.

Sorry, but given your track record on this topic, your "information" is utterly worthless. But it's interesting that you profess to be the arbiter of truth, able to "disect" various "propagandist crap" for the nuggets of truth.

I'm not the one applauding excuses for and validating the refined details of labels and name calling; you are.

I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems. You are.

See? I rest my case.

You never had a case.

Happy now?

I take no pleasure in pointing out the glaring ineptitudes of narcissistic blowhards.

 

[pattersb]

what is the slur for an opposition party too fearful of the polictical fall-out to vote against waging a war they don't believe in?


chickendoves?