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.
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. 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. 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. 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! Yes, clearly this statement of yours illustrates that you are bereft of maturity issues: 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. Well, at least we agree on something.
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: Like I said before, don't go away mad. Just go away...
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>
Heh he, you DO understand irony hap Just tell it like it is dude.........I hear kennedebunke-port is nice this time of year............
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. 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. I most certainly did; in the last portion of my last 2 posts. It's not my problem if you "don't get it". Refer above; I typed really slow for you this time. 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. 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. I just provided you with 2 posts worth of information about how it's done. Read and learn. I'm not the one applauding excuses for and validating the refined details of labels and name calling; you are. See? I rest my case. Happy now?
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: Who has reading comprehension problems now? 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 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. What I get is that you have reading comprehension skills and that your head remains up your ass. 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. 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 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. 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 with reading comprehension problems. You are. You never had a case. I take no pleasure in pointing out the glaring ineptitudes of narcissistic blowhards.
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?