It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have a Laugh: Chickenhawk caught being a Chikenhawk

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The distinction might be lost on some, but it's better to be a chicken hawk (non-sexual connotation) than to be just plain chicken, or rotten to the core, as some might characterize those who can't muster even lip-service (no pun intended) for their country.

Personally, I think the young man has a point, but I also think that if he hasn't any problems that would prevent him from serving in the military (which might very well be the case), he should put his behind where his mouth is. The military is a global enterprise and there are many ways an individual can serve without going to Iraq.

Chris Matthews is a hypocrite of the worst kind and really is in no position to criticize the individual in question. I've heard his excuse for not serving in Vietnam and it was so lame I can't even remember what it was. But, to be fair the tape was edited in such a way as not to reveal just how Matthews handled the entire interview.

I'd rather have one Jason Mattera on my side than a thousand Bout Times. I might also point out that the US is fighting this war with girls who put their booty on the line while perfectly able-bodied young men are walking the streets here who can't figure out how to keep their pants above their knees and who think a 12 inch woofer has more appeal than a 155mm howitzer. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a nation sends its women to fight its wars while its men sit around whining on bulletin boards.


[edit on 2005/8/9 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Again, so if you are unwilling to go to war and fight you should be against the war.

Is THAT your point?


No, I said if you are for the war and unwilling to back it up with your own precious flesh you should sit down and stf up.

Can I be any more clear?


No, you cannot be any more clear, and you cannot be any more wrong. One doesn't have to serve in the military to have an opinion. One does not have to not serve to have the opposing opinion.

Your line of reasoning is too conveniant, and in my mind, self-serving for your position in this topic of conversation.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
You know, the more I think about it, the more I find it extremely biased.

"Guest number one, what do you think?"
"Well, after looking at the evidence, I think the policy is a sound one."
"Have you actually served in the military?"
"No."
"Well then, shut up! You have ne right to speak!"

"Guest number two, and you?"
"I think the policy is a bad one."
"You may speak, and it makes no difference whether you have served since you are against the policy."

Nope, no problem that I can see.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
"Guest number two, and you?"
"I think the policy is a bad one."
"You may speak, and it makes no difference whether you have served since you are against the policy."

Nope, no problem that I can see.


But, that's not how the interview went.

Chris Mathews caught the young democrat smirking at the young republican's beat down, and then immediatly started hammering the young democrat for the party's unwavoring support of abortion rights.

It wasn't as though they spent another 5 minutes collectively just hammering the young republican. Chris Mathews picked out problem areas for both guests, and then took turns beating each of them up.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a nation sends its women to fight its wars while its men sit around whining on bulletin boards.


Only the ugly ones.

Hey! I can be sexist too!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   
This young man that Grady would rather have than multiples of me ( Chickenhawk in the sexual context....et tu, Grady?
) is :
- 21 years old
- stating that he knows his azz from his elbow relative to "culture" & "wars" ( having been 21, as many of you pro or con to his argument know full well, he does not )
- is a loquacious advocate of policies that will surely mobilize way too many fellow Americans his age toward extended tours or conscription at some point
- is healthy, likely from affluent means......and yet, can't think of a single area of speciality in all of our armed services that his skills can serve the "cause"?

Nobody is making the argument that he can't voice his opinions. What is being lost on some of you is this: he's choosing to state them in prime time across the country to peers who won't have the same "outs" he's going to have, as well as folks who joined in their starry eyed teens (me) who think he's full-O-crap and playing a "Culture Wars" card to save face & cover the fact that he's simply networking with the power elite to ingratiate himself in case the shiiiit really does hit the fan.
I personally think he'd be fine fodder for OCS.
And I think Brimstone has the new PTS catch phrase: " Just say no to Corporate Jesus" - Damn .....that's good!!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
And I think Brimstone has the new PTS catch phrase: " Just say no to Corporate Jesus" - Damn .....that's good!!


What? Did Neo-Jesus show up in this thread and I missed the autograph signing?





posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
"KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!!!!!!!!!! Bomb Brown People! Rape the women and children!!!!"

"Hey how about you go over if you support the war so much?"

"Run Away Run Away Run Away Run Away Run Away Run Away!!!!!!"

Pretty much what happened in the interview.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The distinction might be lost on some, but it's better to be a chicken hawk (non-sexual connotation)


I don't even know where you're coming from on that one.


than to be just plain chicken, or rotten to the core, as some might characterize those who can't muster even lip-service (no pun intended) for their country.


So you're saying, we should all (whether we agree on the war or not 'muster up' lip service for the cause?

chicken hawk = refuses to fight for the cause

Personally, as a veteran and a proud one at that, I refuse to support this (disasterous) illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a once-SOVEREIGN nation. (Guess what guys, that sovereign thing applies to ALL nations - not just white nations.) I am on the record against this (in the mainstream media) from before the invasion. Everything that has happened since has proven me right. WMD anyone?
The flame is for all of those unecessary deaths on all sides. This whole thing is motherexplativing TRAVESTY.


Personally, I think the young man has a point, but I also think that if he hasn't any problems that would prevent him from serving in the military (which might very well be the case), he should put his behind where his mouth is. The military is a global enterprise and there are many ways an individual can serve without going to Iraq.


Please explain to us why the most well-fed, well-educated and most vocal pro-war voices among us are those very people who refuse to join themselves.


Chris Matthews is a hypocrite of the worst kind and really is in no position to criticize the individual in question. I've heard his excuse for not serving in Vietnam and it was so lame I can't even remember what it was.


Absolutely no one out there sees Chris Matthews as anything more than a talking head. Certainly not an expert on foreign policy or military policy. The man asks questions.. worthless softball questions at that.


I'd rather have one Jason Mattera on my side than a thousand Bout Times.


Well Grady I'd take one Bout Time and pit him against a 1,000 of your group thinked, Fox "news" sheep any day of the week.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
No, I said if you are for the war and unwilling to back it up with your own precious flesh you should sit down and stf up.

Can I be any more clear?


No, you cannot be any more clear, and you cannot be any more wrong. One doesn't have to serve in the military to have an opinion. One does not have to not serve to have the opposing opinion.


Nowhere in my posts have I said you must serve to state an opinion. We all have a right to our opinion, however misguided that opinion might be.

I have a pretty good idea you yourself have alot more respect for someone (on military matters) that has served.

If you're 21, and you're healthy and vocally support this war, you should JOIN. Otherwise you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Its as simple as that.


Your line of reasoning is too conveniant, and in my mind, self-serving for your position in this topic of conversation.


Convenient and self-serving? I willingly put my own a$$ on the line when the time came, so call it what you want. Personally, I believe I EARNED my right to call a spade a spade.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Please explain to us why the most well-fed, well-educated and most vocal pro-war voices among us are those very people who refuse to join themselves.


You don't have any empirical data to prove this assertion.

This guy is not alone:

www.npr.org...

The Army has met its recruitment quotas for the last two months, although I can't find any stories reporting that fact. Maybe those who are most vocal are the most vocal because they aren't in Iraq and elsewhere around the world serving their nation. Certainly, I can't speak for everyone and neither can you.

I hope you don't play as fast and loose with the facts professionally as you do here.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Please explain to us why the most well-fed, well-educated and most vocal pro-war voices among us are those very people who refuse to join themselves.


You don't have any empirical data to prove this assertion.



What's wrong with common sense? Just us vets talking here: how many times did YOU come across a drug store cowboy....all "hardcore" & "patriotic" except he never spent day one in boot camp?
The "chickenhawk" phenom is an old one: look at all of the Legislators that have greased our path to war.......deferments & excuses out the wazoo!



This guy is not alone:

www.npr.org...


The Army has met its recruitment quotas for the last two months, although I can't find any stories reporting that fact.


Great piece.......let them be shamed into going back until nothing is left to cobble together, is that the intent?

About that recruiting:

Army poised to miss 2005 recruiting goal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, hard pressed to attract new soldiers amid the Iraq war, exceeded its July recruiting goal but seems doomed to miss its target for the year, while the Army Reserve and National Guard fell short of their goals again.



And the months where they hit their target? Funny how these investigations into recruiting violations coinicide with that, no?

news.yahoo.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The thought that you can't support a war unless you're in the military is ridiculous on its face. People should enter a field where their talents and interests can be most helpful. By some logic here the only people not fighting that can support the war are the very old, the handicapped, and I guess gays since they can't join the military.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
By some logic here the only people not fighting that can support the war are the very old, the handicapped, and I guess gays since they can't join the military.


There is no prohibition against gays joining the military. They simply have to keep it to themselves. I would guess that among certain demographics that the prevalence of homosexuals is higher than the society-at-large.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no prohibition against gays joining the military. They simply have to keep it to themselves. I would guess that among certain demographics that the prevalence of homosexuals is higher than the society-at-large.


Yes, there's Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but you still can't join the military if you say you're gay. You can certainly enter if you say you're straight...so there's still a de facto ban on gays.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no prohibition against gays joining the military. They simply have to keep it to themselves. I would guess that among certain demographics that the prevalence of homosexuals is higher than the society-at-large.


www.worth1000.com...

I concur.


"More unnatural acts before 7am than most people do all day."

[edit on 12-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Stay focused DJ - your partner in denial Grady's not even backing you on the 21 year old affluent means rep from some junior Republican group NOT "putting his butt where his mouth is" - that's the point.
And when they grow up to be Karl Rove & Dick Cheney and STILL doing the same thing, well, you know.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
That video is gold and a keeper. Gonna keep an eye on this kid. And WTF is a "Culture War"? At least he is off to a good start in his political career, bullsheet artistry.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   


Just ran across that, thought it might belong in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join