There are currently 6 users and 285 guests online.
The War of the Words, The story of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.
Submitted by Number9 on Mon, 2006/10/16 - 2:08pm.
Michael Silence brings some entertainment on a cool gray day. So if Glenn Reynolds and Company are the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, what is a good name for Daily KOS and Company? The French Resistance?
How is bringing up someone's lack of service in the military a 'canard?' It's not making something up to mislead. It's a dumb point to make since they often have valid excuses for not serving these days like "all volunteer service.' Dick Cheney and others though merely dodged the draft. Anyhow: J'accuse vous d'employer des mots francais!
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by LissaKay (not verified) on Mon, 2006/10/16 - 10:02pm.
So what some folks are saying is, you can't support (or criticize) the war effort if you are not in the military and never have been.
OK, I will accept that.
Following that line of thought though, you cannot campaign for (or against) gay rights if you are not gay. Nor for gay marriage unless you are gay and wanting to get married.
You cannot be pro-choice or pro-life if you are not a woman, or cannot get pregnant.
You cannot champion gun owner rights if you do not own a gun. You can't support gun control laws unless you have been shot at.
You can't be against the death penalty unless you are on death row.
You cannot champion women's rights if you are not a woman.
You cannot fight against poverty unless you are poor, or once were.
You cannot support illegal immigration unless you are an illegal alien.
So ... looks like a lotta folk need to be doing a lot of shuttin' up, eh?
(The captcha images here are often very hard for my old eyes to see. Can they be adjusted to have a bit larger text?)
(Oh ... and I can crack wise on being old, because I AM old!)
Submitted by LissaKay (not verified) on Mon, 2006/10/16 - 11:23pm.
What IS the point of this mockumentary, other than to mock those who support the war because they cannot or will not fight in it?
The point of this: "Unlike Glenn Reynolds, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has actually served this country in uniform." ... is what, exactly, then?
(That would be the one and the same Daily "Screw them" Kos, right? That snarling cesspool of hatred, racism, bigotry and intolerance?)
And when your name appears on the Whois for the domain, Knoxviews.com, I will then give consideration to your order to register. Until then, I believe as long as I follow the rules, I can post as I wish.
Submitted by LissaKay (not verified) on Mon, 2006/10/16 - 11:46pm.
Oh well, just when I thought I found a decent debate ... once again, they wimp out. At least you didn't pull that worn out tactic of arguing a point I didn't make. But nice try at deflection ... C+ for effort, D for yet another worn out, cheap debate tactic. Maybe next time you'll be up to it.
Advocating for a war in which one does not fight does not constitute chickenhawkery.
Rather, chickenhawkery is the notion that advocating war somehow in and of itself is an act of courage, moral seriousness and even, to some degree, sacrifice. Chickenhawks are blind to the patent absurdity of these claims - especially when their banner is held by clueless warmongering draft-dodgers like Vice President Gravitas and cheeto-stained wretches "standing up to Islamafoscism and against the appeasers" with mouse and keyboard.
And these Rudyard Kipling wannabees exascerbate the hypocrisy by hacking out bullying, grandiloquent gibberish garnished with military jargon, their own obnoxious neologisms and a mindblowing lack of empathy for both the troops and those caught in the crossfire. Chickenhawk posterboy, Pfc. Doughy Pantload, he of "my family couldn't afford the lost income" infamy, illustrates pitch-perfect technique.
Again, I'd ask you for a source on DailyKos being a "That snarling cesspool of hatred, racism, bigotry and intolerance" but since that's direct from Limbaugh's mouth, you needn't provide.
"And when your name appears on the Whois for the domain, Knoxviews.com, I will then give consideration to your order to register. Until then, I believe as long as I follow the rules, I can post as I wish."
You are late to that game, you fool, so what the hell are you talking about?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 2006/10/17 - 7:51am.
Oooo, Sven! I love how your avatar glows when you slash about with the keen edge of your corruscating wit!
LissaKay, just because you're old doesn't mean you're wise. Your analogies are exactly backwards. Take women's rights, please. Everyone can advocate for the rights of women. I would support your analogy if it were the converse, i.e.:
Non-women may not advocate for the taking away of the rights of women.
And so on. Do you see how you reversed things in your "following that line of reasoning" quip? Follow it, you didn't.
Submitted by dmcd (not verified) on Tue, 2006/10/17 - 10:07am.
ok, I'm not going to get into definitions of a chickenhawk. But here's what pisses me off--when a 22 year old SUV driver with a "W" sticker on the back arrogantly derides Democrats as "cut and runners" when he himself has never served. When I mention that I served during Desert Storm, he insincerely smirks, "I thank you for your service." I respond, "You can thank me by serving your country too. Until then, shut the hell up."
Whether that is fair, just, or logical, I don't care. I don't want to hear warmongering pontification from a kid who is not willing to serve his country, but squanders the freedom provided by those who have served his country.
Sure, he has the right to support an unjust war. You can protest a war without serving too. But IMHO, if you advocate FOR something, you better be willing to put your money (or feet, in this case) where your mouth is.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 2006/10/17 - 10:26am.
chickenhawk nonsense.
Nah.
What was really nonsensical was how these same people would loudly accuse anyone who disagreed with the decision to go to war as treasonous, unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and -- richest of all -- cowardly.
Opposition to the war had nothing to do with cowardice. And history bears this out. You could reasonably oppose the war because you thought it was a waste of national treasure, that the goals were inattainable, that once there we'd never be able to leave, that there was no post-war planning, that the risk of civilian casualties would be atrocious, or because the predicates for war (WMD and Iraq's "terrorism connections") were complete and utter fabrications.
But cowardice? That's a demonstrably ludicrous accusation, and especially coming from people who would never even consider military service.
At least the chickenhawk characterization is fair as it applies to Assrocket and Insty and those semen-crusted violence addicts* at LGF. I read a lot of stuff about "liberals" which is far less complimentary, much more over-generalized, and just plain false.
(* apologies to Wolcott)
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
The American Liberation Front.
La resistance contre des laches et des traitres
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
...this may have well saved my week!
Unlike Glenn Reynolds, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has actually served this country in uniform.
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Did he go to Yale Law? Huh? Did he? Did he? Huh? You know some people have other agendas.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
'Unlike Glenn Reynolds, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has actually served this country in uniform.'
And?
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
Just making a point regarding that "French Resistance" crack, Uncle.
Is it really that oblique?
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
I thought so. I thought you were about to start one of those 'if you support the war, enlist' canards.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
How is bringing up someone's lack of service in the military a 'canard?' It's not making something up to mislead. It's a dumb point to make since they often have valid excuses for not serving these days like "all volunteer service.' Dick Cheney and others though merely dodged the draft. Anyhow: J'accuse vous d'employer des mots francais!
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
"How is bringing up someone's lack of service in the military a 'canard?'"
i referenced a specific canard. Not the made up one you just mentioned.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
So what some folks are saying is, you can't support (or criticize) the war effort if you are not in the military and never have been.
OK, I will accept that.
Following that line of thought though, you cannot campaign for (or against) gay rights if you are not gay. Nor for gay marriage unless you are gay and wanting to get married.
You cannot be pro-choice or pro-life if you are not a woman, or cannot get pregnant.
You cannot champion gun owner rights if you do not own a gun. You can't support gun control laws unless you have been shot at.
You can't be against the death penalty unless you are on death row.
You cannot champion women's rights if you are not a woman.
You cannot fight against poverty unless you are poor, or once were.
You cannot support illegal immigration unless you are an illegal alien.
So ... looks like a lotta folk need to be doing a lot of shuttin' up, eh?
(The captcha images here are often very hard for my old eyes to see. Can they be adjusted to have a bit larger text?)
(Oh ... and I can crack wise on being old, because I AM old!)
Actually, you don't have it straight.
Try again.
(And register, fer chrissakes.)
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
What IS the point of this mockumentary, other than to mock those who support the war because they cannot or will not fight in it?
The point of this: "Unlike Glenn Reynolds, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga has actually served this country in uniform." ... is what, exactly, then?
(That would be the one and the same Daily "Screw them" Kos, right? That snarling cesspool of hatred, racism, bigotry and intolerance?)
And when your name appears on the Whois for the domain, Knoxviews.com, I will then give consideration to your order to register. Until then, I believe as long as I follow the rules, I can post as I wish.
Courtesy of a response is available to registered participants only.
Thanks for playing.
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Oh well, just when I thought I found a decent debate ... once again, they wimp out. At least you didn't pull that worn out tactic of arguing a point I didn't make. But nice try at deflection ... C+ for effort, D for yet another worn out, cheap debate tactic. Maybe next time you'll be up to it.
Toodles, dahlink! ;-)
Advocating for a war in which one does not fight does not constitute chickenhawkery.
Rather, chickenhawkery is the notion that advocating war somehow in and of itself is an act of courage, moral seriousness and even, to some degree, sacrifice. Chickenhawks are blind to the patent absurdity of these claims - especially when their banner is held by clueless warmongering draft-dodgers like Vice President Gravitas and cheeto-stained wretches "standing up to Islamafoscism and against the appeasers" with mouse and keyboard.
And these Rudyard Kipling wannabees exascerbate the hypocrisy by hacking out bullying, grandiloquent gibberish garnished with military jargon, their own obnoxious neologisms and a mindblowing lack of empathy for both the troops and those caught in the crossfire. Chickenhawk posterboy, Pfc. Doughy Pantload, he of "my family couldn't afford the lost income" infamy, illustrates pitch-perfect technique.
It's intolerant to not tolerate intolerance.
Again, I'd ask you for a source on DailyKos being a "That snarling cesspool of hatred, racism, bigotry and intolerance" but since that's direct from Limbaugh's mouth, you needn't provide.
"And when your name appears on the Whois for the domain, Knoxviews.com, I will then give consideration to your order to register. Until then, I believe as long as I follow the rules, I can post as I wish."
You are late to that game, you fool, so what the hell are you talking about?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Oooo, Sven! I love how your avatar glows when you slash about with the keen edge of your corruscating wit!
LissaKay, just because you're old doesn't mean you're wise. Your analogies are exactly backwards. Take women's rights, please. Everyone can advocate for the rights of women. I would support your analogy if it were the converse, i.e.:
Non-women may not advocate for the taking away of the rights of women.
And so on. Do you see how you reversed things in your "following that line of reasoning" quip? Follow it, you didn't.
Heh. Indeed.
Yeah, that was pretty much my take on the whole chickenhawk nonsense.
---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?
ok, I'm not going to get into definitions of a chickenhawk. But here's what pisses me off--when a 22 year old SUV driver with a "W" sticker on the back arrogantly derides Democrats as "cut and runners" when he himself has never served. When I mention that I served during Desert Storm, he insincerely smirks, "I thank you for your service." I respond, "You can thank me by serving your country too. Until then, shut the hell up."
Whether that is fair, just, or logical, I don't care. I don't want to hear warmongering pontification from a kid who is not willing to serve his country, but squanders the freedom provided by those who have served his country.
Sure, he has the right to support an unjust war. You can protest a war without serving too. But IMHO, if you advocate FOR something, you better be willing to put your money (or feet, in this case) where your mouth is.
And maybe he just needs his ass kicked, too.
Nah.
What was really nonsensical was how these same people would loudly accuse anyone who disagreed with the decision to go to war as treasonous, unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and -- richest of all -- cowardly.
Opposition to the war had nothing to do with cowardice. And history bears this out. You could reasonably oppose the war because you thought it was a waste of national treasure, that the goals were inattainable, that once there we'd never be able to leave, that there was no post-war planning, that the risk of civilian casualties would be atrocious, or because the predicates for war (WMD and Iraq's "terrorism connections") were complete and utter fabrications.
But cowardice? That's a demonstrably ludicrous accusation, and especially coming from people who would never even consider military service.
At least the chickenhawk characterization is fair as it applies to Assrocket and Insty and those semen-crusted violence addicts* at LGF. I read a lot of stuff about "liberals" which is far less complimentary, much more over-generalized, and just plain false.
(* apologies to Wolcott)
____________________________
Forget patriotism. Instapundit.com is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Post new comment