PDA

View Full Version : Right wing tough guys


Jim
September 28th 04, 03:58 AM
All the pundits.
OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
a special place for you.

Jim

Peter Webb
September 28th 04, 04:05 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> All the pundits.
> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There
is
> a special place for you.
>
> Jim


Ummm ... the Whitehouse?

Jim
September 28th 04, 04:06 AM
"Peter Webb" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Jim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All the pundits.
> >
OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> > You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There
> is
> > a special place for you.
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> Ummm ... the Whitehouse?
>
LOL

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 04:09 AM
"Jim" > wrote:

>All the pundits.
>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
>a special place for you.

Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
facts straight, Jimbo.

Jim
September 28th 04, 04:20 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
>
> >All the pundits.
>
>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> >You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There
is
> >a special place for you.
>
> Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
> facts straight, Jimbo.

Its funny how the Dem politicians have more military service. Who was that
other Kerry? He should have run.
Navy Seal. ?

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 04:42 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>> >All the pundits.
>>
>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>> >You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There
>is
>> >a special place for you.
>>
>> Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
>> facts straight, Jimbo.
>
>Its funny how the Dem politicians have more military service. Who was that
>other Kerry? He should have run.

Running Bob Kerry for President might be a little difficult after he
admitted killing a dozen unarmed women and children as part of a
special op.

You really, really, really need to do your homework, Jimbo.

Jim
September 28th 04, 04:49 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >All the pundits.
> >>
>
>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> >> >You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
There
> >is
> >> >a special place for you.
> >>
> >> Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
> >> facts straight, Jimbo.
> >
> >Its funny how the Dem politicians have more military service. Who was
that
> >other Kerry? He should have run.
>
> Running Bob Kerry for President might be a little difficult after he
> admitted killing a dozen unarmed women and children as part of a
> special op.
>
> You really, really, really need to do your homework, Jimbo.

Oh...now I see.

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 04:53 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> >> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >All the pundits.
>> >>
>>
>>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>> >> >You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
>> >> >There is a special place for you.
>> >>
>> >> Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
>> >> facts straight, Jimbo.
>> >
>> >Its funny how the Dem politicians have more military service. Who was
>> >that other Kerry? He should have run.
>>
>> Running Bob Kerry for President might be a little difficult after he
>> admitted killing a dozen unarmed women and children as part of a
>> special op.
>>
>> You really, really, really need to do your homework, Jimbo.
>
>Oh...now I see.

BTW, I just noticed that I misspelled his last name: Kerrey.

Jim
September 28th 04, 05:01 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >All the pundits.
> >> >>
> >>
>
>>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich
..
> >> >> >You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
> >> >> >There is a special place for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob Novak was an Army lieutenant during the Korean War. Get your
> >> >> facts straight, Jimbo.
> >> >
> >> >Its funny how the Dem politicians have more military service. Who was
> >> >that other Kerry? He should have run.
> >>
> >> Running Bob Kerry for President might be a little difficult after he
> >> admitted killing a dozen unarmed women and children as part of a
> >> special op.
> >>
> >> You really, really, really need to do your homework, Jimbo.
> >
> >Oh...now I see.
>
> BTW, I just noticed that I misspelled his last name: Kerrey.

Ya..whatever happened to him! We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
country has gone right wing.

Jim

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 05:47 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>
>We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
>country has gone right wing.

Maybe you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Limbaugh.
You obviously do that just to get yourself all cranked up. Watch CNN
and listen to NPR; they'll tell you what you want to hear.

MJL
September 28th 04, 05:52 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:01:04 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:


>Ya..whatever happened to him! We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
>country has gone right wing.
>
>Jim
>

Hardly. 1/2 the voting part of the country has but in the American
system if you have a small majority of voters you essentially win all
the power.

In fact, I'm wondering what exactly is the check and balance on a
one-party system. I suppose the Senate rules afford the minority a
considerable amount of power but even that can be eroded if one-party
rule endures long enough. I'm a partisan in the intelligent sense of
the word (if there is such a thing) but even I would not want dems
running all the branches of government.

The only challenge I see that may fracture the neocon coalition is a
nationalist party. In fact, I'm interested in theories on why the
republicans have been so soft on illegal immigration.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Jim
September 28th 04, 05:59 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
> >
> >We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
> >country has gone right wing.
>
> Maybe you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Limbaugh.
> You obviously do that just to get yourself all cranked up. Watch CNN
> and listen to NPR; they'll tell you what you want to hear.

Fox news tells you what you want to hear John. I have friends like you.
Friends.

Jim

Proton Soup
September 28th 04, 06:37 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 04:52:27 GMT, MJL > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:01:04 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
>
>
>>Ya..whatever happened to him! We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
>>country has gone right wing.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>Hardly. 1/2 the voting part of the country has but in the American
>system if you have a small majority of voters you essentially win all
>the power.
>
>In fact, I'm wondering what exactly is the check and balance on a
>one-party system. I suppose the Senate rules afford the minority a
>considerable amount of power but even that can be eroded if one-party
>rule endures long enough. I'm a partisan in the intelligent sense of
>the word (if there is such a thing) but even I would not want dems
>running all the branches of government.
>
>The only challenge I see that may fracture the neocon coalition is a
>nationalist party. In fact, I'm interested in theories on why the
>republicans have been so soft on illegal immigration.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a political struggle to gain
control of the brown vote.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John M. Williams
September 28th 04, 07:50 AM
MJL > wrote:
>
>The only challenge I see that may fracture the neocon coalition is a
>nationalist party. In fact, I'm interested in theories on why the
>republicans have been so soft on illegal immigration.

So, you're nationalist and socialist? Hmmm … it seems there was party
formed around 1920 that had a name like that. Yes, Mikey I think that
would suit you. You'd probably like playing dress-up in the uniforms,
too.

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 02:07 PM
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:58:37 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:

>All the pundits.
>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
>a special place for you.

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

Adam Fahy
September 28th 04, 08:47 PM
Jim wrote:

> All the pundits.
> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
> There is a special place for you.

Tucker Carlson "talks tough" and calls Kerry a bad man?


-Adam

Adam Fahy
September 28th 04, 08:50 PM
MJL wrote:

> The only challenge I see that may fracture the neocon coalition

WTF? Three people do not make a "coalition."


-Adam

Adam Fahy
September 28th 04, 08:51 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:58:37 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
>
>
>>All the pundits.
>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>>You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
>>a special place for you.
>
>
> http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

chicken hawk
n.

1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of
preying on chickens.



-Adam

Tiger Hillside
September 28th 04, 09:30 PM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:51:46 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:58:37 -0400, "Jim" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All the pundits.
>>>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>>>You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
>>>a special place for you.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
>
>chicken hawk
>n.
>
> 1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of
>preying on chickens.
>
That is certainly one definition. And one that people who fit the
other definition would probably like to apply to themselves.

Adam Fahy
September 28th 04, 10:19 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:51:46 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:

>>chicken hawk
>>n.
>>
>> 1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of
>>preying on chickens.
>
> That is certainly one definition. And one that people who fit the
> other definition would probably like to apply to themselves.

OMG how insightful.


-Adam

Don
September 29th 04, 01:18 AM
In fact, I'm interested in theories on why the
>republicans have been so soft on illegal immigration.

Cheap labor.

Don
September 29th 04, 01:23 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>"Jim" > wrote:
>>
>>We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
>>country has gone right wing.
>
>Maybe you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Limbaugh.
>You obviously do that just to get yourself all cranked up. Watch CNN
>and listen to NPR; they'll tell you what you want to hear.


Fox News watchers are the most ignorant, NPR the most informed.
http://www.current.org/news/news0319study.shtml

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 02:29 AM
(Don) wrote:
says...
>>"Jim" > wrote:
>>>
>>>We Dems need all we can get! The whole damn
>>>country has gone right wing.
>>
>>Maybe you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Limbaugh.
>>You obviously do that just to get yourself all cranked up. Watch CNN
>>and listen to NPR; they'll tell you what you want to hear.
>
>Fox News watchers are the most ignorant, NPR the most informed.
>http://www.current.org/news/news0319study.shtml

I don't watch Fox News. I listen to NPR on a daily basis, but I
recognize the aspects of many news stories which they are omitting or
minimizing. Therefore, I guess I'm smarter than all of them.

Thanks, Don.

Pete
September 29th 04, 06:40 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:51:46 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
>> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:58:37 -0400, "Jim" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> All the pundits.
>>>>
OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>>>> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
>>>> There is a special place for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
>>
>> chicken hawk
>> n.
>>
>> 1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of
>> preying on chickens.
>>
> That is certainly one definition. And one that people who fit the
> other definition would probably like to apply to themselves.

No, that is THE definition. It's accurate and not too difficult to
understand.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/22/2004

Tiger Hillside
September 29th 04, 02:06 PM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:40:22 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:51:46 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:58:37 -0400, "Jim" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All the pundits.
>>>>>
>OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>>>>> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
>>>>> There is a special place for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks
>>>
>>> chicken hawk
>>> n.
>>>
>>> 1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of
>>> preying on chickens.
>>>
>> That is certainly one definition. And one that people who fit the
>> other definition would probably like to apply to themselves.
>
>No, that is THE definition. It's accurate and not too difficult to
>understand.

No, it is not "THE" definition. The definition in politics is more
like the one at the page referenced above:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone
else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by
personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of
experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
than the conduct of the people.

Adam Fahy
September 29th 04, 05:10 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
> than the conduct of the people.

I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
than decry the insult. Moron.


-Adam

Tiger Hillside
September 29th 04, 05:24 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>> than the conduct of the people.
>
>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
>than decry the insult. Moron.

You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
because of the behavior described. Objecting, as the OP did, because
the term Chickenhawk also has another meaning does say a thing about
the people named in the Chickenhawk database. Bush and Cheney and
Rumsfeld and Limbaugh and so on did avoid service. They did support
the war. Make of it what you will. But try something better than a
silly insult.

Adam Fahy
September 29th 04, 06:04 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>>I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>>>than the conduct of the people.
>>
>>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
>>than decry the insult. Moron.
>
> You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
> silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
> because of the behavior described.

The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
directed to; it is meaningless outside of trying to silence debate; it
is simply ad-hominem, nothing more. The implications inherent in
embracing such an idea, that people who choose not to participate in an
activity have no right to endorse that activity, is dehumanizing and
against the concepts supposedly at the foundation of our republic (the US).


> Objecting, as the OP did, because
> the term Chickenhawk also has another meaning

The point is, it doesn't "also has another meaning;" that /is/ the
meaning, and it's both ironic and amusing that people have chosen to
pick that word in particular as a slur.


> does say a thing about
> the people named in the Chickenhawk database. Bush and Cheney and
> Rumsfeld and Limbaugh and so on did avoid service. They did support
> the war.

Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service. I don't know about the "and so
on." And as for supporting the war, which war? There have been more
than one. When did you serve, BTW?


-Adam

Tiger Hillside
September 29th 04, 06:58 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:04:49 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>>I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>>>>than the conduct of the people.
>>>
>>>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
>>>than decry the insult. Moron.
>>
>> You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
>> silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
>> because of the behavior described.
>
>The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
>directed to;

Of course it is not meaningless, I provided a definition from the
website that listed the people to whom it applied.

> it is meaningless outside of trying to silence debate;

I don't want to silence debate on the topic, I am willing to discuss
those issues.

>it
>is simply ad-hominem, nothing more.

Actually politics is the one area where ad hominem is not
automatically a rhetorical fallacy. It is reasonable to discuss the
person's character since we are trying to predict future actions. As
such that all these people avoided a war they supported and now
support another war is relevant to discussions of the current war.

>The implications inherent in
>embracing such an idea, that people who choose not to participate in an
>activity have no right to endorse that activity, is dehumanizing and
>against the concepts supposedly at the foundation of our republic (the US).

If you draw it out that much I would agree. I do, however, think it is
relevant that some many of the decision makers regarding this war
avoided military service. That many of them also supported the past
war is also relevant. I see a major theme that runs through modern
Republican positions: everything is free. You can have a war and more
health care and a safe retirement and it won't cost anything. In fact,
you can do all this and cut taxes and it will magically get fixed.

> > Objecting, as the OP did, because
>> the term Chickenhawk also has another meaning
>
>The point is, it doesn't "also has another meaning;" that /is/ the
>meaning,

No, it is not "the" meaning. Who died and put you in charge of the
English language? Words change their meanings, this word has added a
new meaning. One clearly spelled out in the page I referenced.

> and it's both ironic and amusing that people have chosen to
>pick that word in particular as a slur.

I do think it is amusing as well. And I think the irony was
intentional. They are not like the bird called a chickenhawk, they
are like chickens who want to consider themselves hawks.

If you want irony how about that Powell, who is the most decorated
major person involved in the administration was against the war and
has spoken about how bad things are going.
>
> > does say a thing about
>> the people named in the Chickenhawk database. Bush and Cheney and
>> Rumsfeld and Limbaugh and so on did avoid service. They did support
>> the war.
>
>Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.

Bush had people get him into the Guard unit that had senator's sons
and members of the Dallas Cowboys. I don't understand how anyone can
actually believe that he was just randomly put to the top of the list
and that he really wanted to fight but had to do the guard stuff.

Rumsfeld is actually a legitimate border case and I will take him off
my list.

> I don't know about the "and so
>on."

Then follow the link I provided. Here it is again:


http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

>And as for supporting the war, which war?

It is relevant that they supported the war they avoided.

> There have been more
>than one. When did you serve, BTW?

My service is not relevant since I am not trying to lead the war and I
am not supporting the war. There is no conflict there.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 29th 04, 07:24 PM
On 2004-09-29, Adam Fahy > wrote:
> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:10:15 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>>I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>>>>than the conduct of the people.
>>>
>>>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
>>>than decry the insult. Moron.
>>
>> You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
>> silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
>> because of the behavior described.
>
> The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
> directed to;

But I think that's the point.

Putting others in harms way (but evading combat duty even for wars you
support) is not "tough". Putting yourself in harms way is.

There are some who want to make support for the war a character issue,
and argue that it is "strong" to support sending others into harms way,
whereas those who have misgivings about doing so are weak or
unpatriotic. The point is that this represents a different point of view
about what it means to be brave, strong and patriotic.

> Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.

Even if we ignore the AWOL allegations (which I'm prone to do with anything
that's an "allegation"), Bush clearly avoided combat.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Adam Fahy
September 29th 04, 07:32 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:04:49 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:

>>The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
>>directed to;
>
> Of course it is not meaningless

It's meaningless outside of what I said it was meaningless outside of.


>>it
>>is simply ad-hominem, nothing more.
>
> Actually politics is the one area where ad hominem is not
> automatically a rhetorical fallacy. It is reasonable to discuss the
> person's character since we are trying to predict future actions.

Politics-in-general perhaps; policy debate no. Which offices are Novak,
Carlson, Coulter, and Limbaugh running for again? The term is a means
to tar certain people as a means of begging the question. We assume one
wouldn't be deemed a "chickenhawk" for supporting a war you agreed with;
outside of a meaningless smear, what purpose does it serve? Were the
President a former General, and he supported a war you disagreed with,
what name would you call him then?


>>>Objecting, as the OP did, because
>>>the term Chickenhawk also has another meaning
>>
>>The point is, it doesn't "also has another meaning;" that /is/ the
>>meaning,
>
> No, it is not "the" meaning. Who died and put you in charge of the
> English language?

The dictionary.


> If you want irony how about that Powell, who is the most decorated
> major person involved in the administration was against the war and
> has spoken about how bad things are going.

That's both inaccurate and not ironic.


>>Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.
>
> Bush had people get him into the Guard unit that had senator's sons
> and members of the Dallas Cowboys.

> Rumsfeld is actually a legitimate border case and I will take him off
> my list.

The point was, they both served.


>>I don't know about the "and so on."

> Then follow the link I provided.

But the conclusions you reached via that site have been in at least two
case inaccurate. The point was, I don't know the full story behind the
"and so on" people to say.


>>When did you serve, BTW?
>
> My service is not relevant since I am not trying to lead the war and I
> am not supporting the war. There is no conflict there.

Of course there is. How can you tar someone for not having served, when
you have not served? Obviously you feel there are valid reasons for not
serving in the military, or else you would put your life where your
rhetoric is. Otherwise I assume you are a pacifist.


-Adam

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 07:33 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote
> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>>>I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>>>>>than the conduct of the people.
>>>>
>>>>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
>>>>than decry the insult. Moron.
>>>
>>> You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
>>> silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
>>> because of the behavior described.
>>
>> The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
>> directed to;
>
> But I think that's the point.
>
> Putting others in harms way (but evading combat duty even for wars you
> support) is not "tough". Putting yourself in harms way is.
>
> There are some who want to make support for the war a character issue,
> and argue that it is "strong" to support sending others into harms way,
> whereas those who have misgivings about doing so are weak or
> unpatriotic. The point is that this represents a different point of view
> about what it means to be brave, strong and patriotic.
>
>> Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.
>
> Even if we ignore the AWOL allegations (which I'm prone to do with
> anything
> that's an "allegation"), Bush clearly avoided combat.

As someone who was eligible for the draft the last year of that evil,
immoral, unjustifiable, war, I must say that avoiding combat in Vietnam was
a very smart thing to do, and adds to Bush's qualifications as President.

David

John M. Williams
September 29th 04, 07:33 PM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
>
>If you want irony how about that Powell, who is the most decorated
>major person involved in the administration was against the war and
>has spoken about how bad things are going.

Please quote Colin Powell, verbatim, at to "how bad things are going."

I see that characterization frequently, and then I hear what he
actually said. Since you have made the assertion, the burden is on
you to produce the exact quotations.

Adam Fahy
September 29th 04, 08:12 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> That's tantamount to saying that anyone who has misgivings about the
> approach of the current leadership is unpatriotic

You like using this term. What does it mean to be "unpatriotic?"


-Adam

Tiger Hillside
September 29th 04, 08:50 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:32:56 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:04:49 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>
>>>The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
>>>directed to;
>>
>> Of course it is not meaningless
>
>It's meaningless outside of what I said it was meaningless outside of.
>
If a word has a meaning a in context it has a meaning in that context.
I don't see your objection.

[snip]
>
>
>>>Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.
>>
>> Bush had people get him into the Guard unit that had senator's sons
>> and members of the Dallas Cowboys.
>
>> Rumsfeld is actually a legitimate border case and I will take him off
>> my list.
>
>The point was, they both served.

Bush avoided.

[snip]

Tiger Hillside
September 29th 04, 08:51 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:33:03 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

[snip]

>As someone who was eligible for the draft the last year of that evil,
>immoral, unjustifiable, war, I must say that avoiding combat in Vietnam was
>a very smart thing to do, and adds to Bush's qualifications as President.

If Bush 'fessed up that he did that it would do him credit. But he
can't even admit it was a bad idea to say "Mission Accomplished" or,
worse yet, "Bring 'em on".

Will
September 29th 04, 09:40 PM
In article . net>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote
> > Adam Fahy > wrote:
> >> Tiger Hillside wrote:
> >>> Adam Fahy > wrote:
> >>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
> >>>>>I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
> >>>>>than the conduct of the people.
> >>>>
> >>>>I see. So when I call you a moron, it's better to look at your conduct
> >>>>than decry the insult. Moron.
> >>>
> >>> You should probably learn some logic and rhetoric rather than try
> >>> silly insults. The term in question, "Chickenhawk" was only insulting
> >>> because of the behavior described.
> >>
> >> The term is meaningless outside of trying to tar the person it is
> >> directed to;
> >
> > But I think that's the point.
> >
> > Putting others in harms way (but evading combat duty even for wars you
> > support) is not "tough". Putting yourself in harms way is.
> >
> > There are some who want to make support for the war a character issue,
> > and argue that it is "strong" to support sending others into harms way,
> > whereas those who have misgivings about doing so are weak or
> > unpatriotic. The point is that this represents a different point of view
> > about what it means to be brave, strong and patriotic.
> >
> >> Bush and Rumsfeld did not avoid service.
> >
> > Even if we ignore the AWOL allegations (which I'm prone to do with
> > anything
> > that's an "allegation"), Bush clearly avoided combat.
>
> As someone who was eligible for the draft the last year of that evil,
> immoral, unjustifiable, war, I must say that avoiding combat in Vietnam was
> a very smart thing to do, and adds to Bush's qualifications as President.

While I agree with the first part of your statement, if it described
Bush's reasons for avoiding combat then he shouldn't claim to have
supported the war. And I don't think Bush's "smarts" played as much of
a role in avoiding combat as his daddy's money and connections.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 29th 04, 10:46 PM
On 2004-09-29, John M Williams > wrote:

> The United States Armed Forces is NOT a job-training and
> young-adult-warehousing agency, Donovan, no matter how often pacifists
> like you try to characterize it as such. The job of the armed forces,
> first and foremost, is to fight. Period.

Yes, I understand this. But the fact remains that once you've signed up, you
don't get to pick and choose which wars you do and don't fight. It's not the
right or the responsibility of the troops to second-guess their orders. It
is the right -- and responsibility -- of the powers that be, to use the
military wisely.

On the other hand, the government does not have the authority to order anyone
to marry.

> No, you don't get to join up, receive the benefits, and then quit when
> you might actually have to do what was always expected of you. That's
> reality, Donovan. Get over it.

I am "over it", I just disagree with your comparison.

> As to the comparison I made, I doubt very much that you could enter
> into a gay marriage without being committed to engaging in sexual
> conduct with your partner.

Still, you can always "quit".

> If gay married couples are subject to the
> same law that straight married couples are, then repeated, wilful
> refusal to engage in sexual relations without cause is deemed gross
> neglect of duty, and thus, grounds for divorce.

But there is no "divorce" from the military. Again, I'm not arguing that there
should be, I'm arguing that sending someone to fight in a poorly planned war
is not analogous to permitting someone to choose their partner.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Jim
September 29th 04, 11:04 PM
"Adam Fahy" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jim wrote:
>
> > All the pundits.
> >
OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> > You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
> > There is a special place for you.
>
> Tucker Carlson "talks tough" and calls Kerry a bad man?
>

Ya,hard to do with a bowtie. In fact,I read an article recently by
Tucker..was it Esquire? Cant remember..im getting fatigued. I'm pretty sure
he said he wasnt voting for Bush. He's a righty anyway.

Jim

David Cohen
September 29th 04, 11:43 PM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>As someone who was eligible for the draft the last year of that evil,
>>immoral, unjustifiable, war, I must say that avoiding combat in Vietnam
>>was
>>a very smart thing to do, and adds to Bush's qualifications as President.
>
> If Bush 'fessed up that he did that it would do him credit.

I agree with you. He is, first and foremost, a politician. That is not a
good thing.

Bush is not my first choice as President. Not even near the top. It's just
that John Kerry is so far down the list, his name isn't even on the toilet
paper dragging from my shoe.

David

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 12:54 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>But there is no "divorce" from the military. Again, I'm not arguing that there
>should be, I'm arguing that sending someone to fight in a poorly planned war
>is not analogous to permitting someone to choose their partner.

[a] "Poorly planned" is your personal judgment. Others disagree …
many, many others.

[b] The point you're arguing is a strawman. It is not the original
point. The original point is that one need not serve in combat as a
prerequisite to ordering others into war any more than one needs to
give blowjobs as a prerequisite to supporting homosexual marriage.

[c] As to your spurious requirement of combat experience, please note
that Franklin D. Roosevelt had no military experience, yet he ordered
more than sixteen million Americans into war, including many who did
not volunteer. More than 400,000 died. So much for your requirement
of combat experience.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 30th 04, 02:54 AM
On 2004-09-29, John M Williams > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>
>>But there is no "divorce" from the military. Again, I'm not arguing that there
>>should be, I'm arguing that sending someone to fight in a poorly planned war
>>is not analogous to permitting someone to choose their partner.
>
> [a] "Poorly planned" is your personal judgment. Others disagree …
> many, many others.

Sure, but I have the right to make that personal judgment.

> [b] The point you're arguing is a strawman. It is not the original
> point. The original point is that one need not serve in combat as a
> prerequisite to ordering others into war any more than one needs to
> give blowjobs as a prerequisite to supporting homosexual marriage.

I see where the confusion is.

I don't think anyone is saying that service in combat should be a
requirement to initiate a war. Clinton didn't serve in combat either,
but still initiated military action.

> [c] As to your spurious requirement of combat experience,

No such requirement exists.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Pete
September 30th 04, 04:18 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
> than the conduct of the people.

Ah, but you misunderstand. Our definition (the correct one) quite accurately
describes the conduct of the people you and those of your ilk are bent on
maligning. Terrorists (especially the Islamic cowards)= Chickens. We will
prey on them.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/23/2004

Pete
September 30th 04, 04:26 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> They're a volunteer force, but once they sign up, they can't choose
> to go or not to go on depending on how they feel about the war. You can't
> just quit your job when you feel like it if you're in the military (I
> wonder why they don't allow that ... ?). On the other hand, no-one is
> proposing that anyone under any circumstances be forced to give
> someone else a blowjob.

What a ridiculous statement. Joining a branch of the military means your job
is either that of a warrior, or working in support of the warriors. That's
what the military is. It's not the Job Corps, the Peace Corps, or the
AmeriCorps. It's the Marine Corps. If someone is opposed to war, the
military is probably not the logical career path to follow. And spare us any
blather about options for the poor and minorities.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/23/2004

Pete
September 30th 04, 04:35 AM
David Cohen wrote:
>> "Tiger Hillside" > wrote

>> If Bush 'fessed up that he did that it would do him credit.
>
> I agree with you. He is, first and foremost, a politician. That is
> not a good thing.

Anyone who is not, first and foremost, a politician, in unelectable.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/23/2004

Pete
September 30th 04, 04:37 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> Insurgency escalating, Powell concedes

Noting that the insurgency is escalating does not equate to characterizing
the situation as "going badly".


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/23/2004

Tiger Hillside
September 30th 04, 05:06 AM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:37:52 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> Insurgency escalating, Powell concedes
>
>Noting that the insurgency is escalating does not equate to characterizing
>the situation as "going badly".

Nor, I suppose, does his admission that things are getting worse. Have
you read some of the editorial following his comments?

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 05:10 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
> John M Williams > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>>
>>>But there is no "divorce" from the military. Again, I'm not arguing that there
>>>should be, I'm arguing that sending someone to fight in a poorly planned war
>>>is not analogous to permitting someone to choose their partner.
>>
>> [a] "Poorly planned" is your personal judgment. Others disagree …
>> many, many others.
>
>Sure, but I have the right to make that personal judgment.
>
>> [b] The point you're arguing is a strawman. It is not the original
>> point. The original point is that one need not serve in combat as a
>> prerequisite to ordering others into war any more than one needs to
>> give blowjobs as a prerequisite to supporting homosexual marriage.
>
>I see where the confusion is.
>
>I don't think anyone is saying that service in combat should be a
>requirement to initiate a war. Clinton didn't serve in combat either,
>but still initiated military action.
>
>> [c] As to your spurious requirement of combat experience,
>
>No such requirement exists.

There has been much discussion about the use of the word
"chickenhawk." You have used it repeatedly. If you have been using
the lexical definition, then I have no problem with that. If you have
been using the political definition that has been popularized by those
who opposed to the current administration, your use of that word
contradicts what you have said above.

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 06:20 AM
Tiger Hillside > wrote:
> "Pete" > wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>> Insurgency escalating, Powell concedes
>>
>>Noting that the insurgency is escalating does not equate to characterizing
>>the situation as "going badly".
>
>Nor, I suppose, does his admission that things are getting worse. Have
>you read some of the editorial following his comments?

That's called "spin," Tigger. Those of us who follow the news can
draw our own conclusions without listening to others "spin" it.

Tiger Hillside
September 30th 04, 12:29 PM
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:18:45 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> I find it quite funny that your objection is to the name used rather
>> than the conduct of the people.
>
>Ah, but you misunderstand. Our definition (the correct one) quite accurately
>describes the conduct of the people you and those of your ilk are bent on
>maligning. Terrorists (especially the Islamic cowards)= Chickens. We will
>prey on them.

I don't see what that has to do with my point. Personally, I don't see
how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
They are many things, but cowardly does not seem to be the point. Nor
do I see current bluster ("Bring 'em on") negates previous conduct.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 30th 04, 04:15 PM
On 2004-09-30, Pete > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> They're a volunteer force, but once they sign up, they can't choose
>> to go or not to go on depending on how they feel about the war. You can't
>> just quit your job when you feel like it if you're in the military (I
>> wonder why they don't allow that ... ?). On the other hand, no-one is
>> proposing that anyone under any circumstances be forced to give
>> someone else a blowjob.
>
> What a ridiculous statement. Joining a branch of the military means your job
> is either that of a warrior, or working in support of the warriors. That's
> what the military is. It's not the Job Corps, the Peace Corps, or the
> AmeriCorps. It's the Marine Corps. If someone is opposed to war, the
> military is probably not the logical career path to follow.

I agree that it's a lousy choice of career for a pacifist, but the point is
that the troops do not get to decide to stay home based on objections to the
policy of the administration. It's the administration's responsibility to
be judicious about entering into a battle, it's not the troops right or
responsibility to second-guess those decisions.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
September 30th 04, 04:18 PM
On 2004-09-30, John M Williams > wrote:

> There has been much discussion about the use of the word
> "chickenhawk." You have used it repeatedly. If you have been using
> the lexical definition, then I have no problem with that. If you have
> been using the political definition that has been popularized by those
> who opposed to the current administration, your use of that word
> contradicts what you have said above.

I use the word to describe those who are extravagant in spending the lives
of others, but miserly when their country asks them to put their own ass on
the line.

In other words, it's not enough for someone to not serve and commit troops
to battle, I use the term to describe hawkish politicians who went out of
their way to avoid combat.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Adam Fahy
September 30th 04, 05:38 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> Personally, I don't see
> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.

Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.


-Adam

Adam Fahy
September 30th 04, 05:39 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> I agree that it's a lousy choice of career for a pacifist, but the point is
> that the troops do not get to decide to stay home based on objections to the
> policy of the administration.

They do get to decide whether to sign up, however.


-Adam

Adam Fahy
September 30th 04, 05:42 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> I use the word to describe those who are extravagant in spending the lives
> of others, but miserly when their country asks them to put their own ass on
> the line.
>
> In other words, it's not enough for someone to not serve and commit troops
> to battle, I use the term to describe hawkish politicians who went out of
> their way to avoid combat.

Like Bill Clinton?

I feel your entire so-called argument hinges on Bush and Cheney's
supposed impassioned support of the Vietnam war, which is a point yet to
be demonstrated.

When did you serve again? I have yet to see this answered.


-Adam

John M. Williams
September 30th 04, 05:46 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2004-09-30, John M Williams > wrote:
>
>> There has been much discussion about the use of the word
>> "chickenhawk." You have used it repeatedly. If you have been using
>> the lexical definition, then I have no problem with that. If you have
>> been using the political definition that has been popularized by those
>> who opposed to the current administration, your use of that word
>> contradicts what you have said above.
>
>I use the word to describe those who are extravagant in spending the lives
>of others, but miserly when their country asks them to put their own ass on
>the line.
>
>In other words, it's not enough for someone to not serve and commit troops
>to battle, I use the term to describe hawkish politicians who went out of
>their way to avoid combat.

You're splitting hairs and parsing words, Donovan.

Tiger Hillside
September 30th 04, 05:49 PM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> Personally, I don't see
>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>
>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.

It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 30th 04, 05:55 PM
On 2004-09-30, Adam Fahy > wrote:

>> In other words, it's not enough for someone to not serve and commit troops
>> to battle, I use the term to describe hawkish politicians who went out of
>> their way to avoid combat.
>
> Like Bill Clinton?

I wouldn't describe Bill Clinton as extraordinarily hawkish. But he did avoid
combat in a similar way to Ashcroft and Cheney.

> I feel your entire so-called argument hinges on Bush and Cheney's
> supposed impassioned support of the Vietnam war, which is a point yet to
> be demonstrated.

Bush supported the Vietnam war, but I wouldn't describe his support as
"impassioned".

> When did you serve again? I have yet to see this answered.

I'll answer it when I run for office. Until then, it's not of any
relevance. Note also that I've never used the term to describe political
commentators.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Proton Soup
September 30th 04, 06:10 PM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:49:34 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>wrote:
>
>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I don't see
>>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>>
>>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>
>It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
>usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
>term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
>wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
>mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
>understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.

They are cowards because they seldom question authority in their
society. They blindly follow along because they are afraid of the
consequences if they dare to ever speak up against what one of their
leaders says or does.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Tiger Hillside
September 30th 04, 07:17 PM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:10:19 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:49:34 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't see
>>>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>>>
>>>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>>
>>It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
>>usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
>>term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
>>wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
>>mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
>>understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.
>
>They are cowards because they seldom question authority in their
>society.

That is not particularly a sign of cowardice. It is certainly a rather
common trait.

>They blindly follow along because they are afraid of the
>consequences if they dare to ever speak up against what one of their
>leaders says or does.

I don't know that you can say that with support. You don't know that
they going along because they are afraid of the consequences. It is
easy to imagine that our ideas are so clearly right (I know my are)
that others much have something wrong with them if they don't agree
(what is wrong with you anyway?). They very well may blow themselves
up because they believe. Or because they see this as the only way they
can help their country. In fact I don't know that I have read anything
that has seriously attempted to understand the mind set of suicide
bombers. (Obviously it is rather hard to get live samples to
interview.) What I would expect, if cowardice was a major factor, was
that occasionally people would change their minds and give themselves
up. I don't know of any time that has happened.

Adam Fahy
September 30th 04, 11:12 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:

>>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>
> It can be if it is done in despair.

Or from a feeling of powerlessness, or disenfranchisement.


> Suicidal action in combat is usually not considered cowardly.

Perhaps, but we're talking apples and oranges; the discussion is suicide
terrorism, not suicide between combatants.


-Adam

Proton Soup
October 1st 04, 01:13 AM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:17:36 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:10:19 -0500, Proton Soup >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:49:34 GMT, Tiger Hillside
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't see
>>>>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>>>>
>>>>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>>>
>>>It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
>>>usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
>>>term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
>>>wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
>>>mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
>>>understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.
>>
>>They are cowards because they seldom question authority in their
>>society.
>
>That is not particularly a sign of cowardice. It is certainly a rather
>common trait.
>
>>They blindly follow along because they are afraid of the
>>consequences if they dare to ever speak up against what one of their
>>leaders says or does.
>
>I don't know that you can say that with support. You don't know that
>they going along because they are afraid of the consequences. It is
>easy to imagine that our ideas are so clearly right (I know my are)
>that others much have something wrong with them if they don't agree
>(what is wrong with you anyway?). They very well may blow themselves
>up because they believe. Or because they see this as the only way they
>can help their country. In fact I don't know that I have read anything
>that has seriously attempted to understand the mind set of suicide
>bombers. (Obviously it is rather hard to get live samples to
>interview.) What I would expect, if cowardice was a major factor, was
>that occasionally people would change their minds and give themselves
>up. I don't know of any time that has happened.

It would be nice if someone has compiled statistics on homicide
bombers. Things like age, sex, and marital status. I suspect most of
them are young single males.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Pete
October 1st 04, 02:22 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:
>
>> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I don't see
>>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>>
>> Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>
> It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
> usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
> term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
> wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
> mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
> understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.

Islamic suicide bombers have utmost faith that their action will send them
to paradise. If you are a true believer, you will enthusiastically sacrifice
yourself. This is stupid, not courageous. The targets of these evil people
are generally innocent. This is cowardice.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/24/2004

MJL
October 1st 04, 03:59 AM
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:47:16 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>
>> All the pundits.
>> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?
>> There is a special place for you.
>
>Tucker Carlson "talks tough" and calls Kerry a bad man?
>
>
>-Adam

Tucker is the perfect example of a guy who has overcompensated for his
homosexuality.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Tiger Hillside
October 1st 04, 11:56 AM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:12:36 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>
>>>Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>>
>> It can be if it is done in despair.
>
>Or from a feeling of powerlessness, or disenfranchisement.

I don't see that as the same kind of thing.

> > Suicidal action in combat is usually not considered cowardly.
>
>Perhaps, but we're talking apples and oranges; the discussion is suicide
>terrorism, not suicide between combatants.

From their perspective they are in combat.

Tiger Hillside
October 1st 04, 11:57 AM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:22:49 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:38:54 GMT, Adam Fahy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't see
>>>> how it is useful to call someone who blows themselves up a coward.
>>>
>>> Suicide is often thought to be a cowardly act.
>>
>> It can be if it is done in despair. Suicidal action in combat is
>> usually not considered cowardly. These people are misguided (to use a
>> term that is both accurate and horrible mild), destructive, dangerous,
>> wrong, and even evil. But they are not cowards. I think it is a
>> mistake to glibly attach epithets to those you oppose. We have to
>> understand the accurately if we are going to defeat them.
>
>Islamic suicide bombers have utmost faith that their action will send them
>to paradise. If you are a true believer, you will enthusiastically sacrifice
>yourself. This is stupid, not courageous. The targets of these evil people
>are generally innocent. This is cowardice.

It is wrong, it is terroristic, but it is not inherently cowardly
unless you are changing the meaning of the word.

Barbara
October 1st 04, 04:15 PM
"Jim" > wrote in message >...
> All the pundits.
> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
> a special place for you.
>
> Jim

Why pick on the journalists?

Many regular everyday men wave the flag, but never found the military
worthy enough of their time to actually join and make a contribution(
and will not let women who want to make a contribution ).

Plenty of hypocrites to go around in all circles.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 1st 04, 04:26 PM
On 2004-10-01, Barbara > wrote:
> "Jim" > wrote in message >...
>> All the pundits.
>> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
>> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.? There is
>> a special place for you.
>
> Why pick on the journalists?

Indeed. I think when one attacks the character of those whose primary
function is to analyze and debate (as opposed to holding office), the
thin line between legitimate discussion and pure ad-hominem (arguably
for the purpose of silencing legitimate debate) is traversed.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Adam Fahy
October 1st 04, 05:07 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:12:36 GMT, Adam Fahy >
> wrote:

>>>Suicidal action in combat is usually not considered cowardly.
>>
>>Perhaps, but we're talking apples and oranges; the discussion is suicide
>>terrorism, not suicide between combatants.

> From their perspective they are in combat.

And from their perspective they are being brave. But to a normal
person, they are desperate and cowardly.


-Adam

Will Brink
October 2nd 04, 02:24 PM
In article >,
"Jim" > wrote:

> All the pundits.
> OReilly,Hannity,Bush,Cheney,Novak,Carlson,Limbaugh ,Coulter,Delay,Gingrich.
> You all talk tough but never served and can call Kerry a bad man.?

Don't think any of them have called Kerry a "bad man" but the again, I
don't pay all that much attention to that pack of idiots.


> There is
> a special place for you.
>
> Jim
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Jim
October 4th 04, 02:19 AM
I think it is time for the right wingers to just admit they are wrong. I'm
getting sick and tired of hearing Limbaugh and Hannity wanting to hang the
liberals and the Democrats.
Turn on the radio..the health club I go to..every station is tuned to Fox
News. Its a constant right wing noise machine. They act like they are the
underdog...fighting the liberal media. CBS!!!! Jump..there you go...CBS
isnt the problem...Fox News is the problem.

Jim

Donovan Rebbechi
October 5th 04, 03:56 AM
On 2004-10-05, John M Williams > wrote:
>>>>So, what you're saying is that we have to support any operation
>>>>American troops are sent into?
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Are you trying to say that we should support or not support
>> our troops depending on mission they're sent on?
>
> I'm saying that sending them mixed messages about their
> service and their cause is a poor idea. That
> rationalization may make you feel better, but it doesn't
> do much for them.

OK, help us out here --

Suppose the president initiated military action that you didn't support. Just
a hypothetical -- I'm sure you could imagine a military operation that you
would not favor initiating (bombing Paris, for example). What would be your
position ? Would you "support the troops" ? Or would you avoid supporting the
troops for fear of sending them "mixed messages" ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John M. Williams
October 5th 04, 05:44 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2004-10-05, John M Williams > wrote:
>>>>>So, what you're saying is that we have to support any operation
>>>>>American troops are sent into?
>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to say that we should support or not support
>>> our troops depending on mission they're sent on?
>>
>> I'm saying that sending them mixed messages about their
>> service and their cause is a poor idea. That
>> rationalization may make you feel better, but it doesn't
>> do much for them.
>
>OK, help us out here --
>
>Suppose the president initiated military action that you didn't support. Just
>a hypothetical -- I'm sure you could imagine a military operation that you
>would not favor initiating (bombing Paris, for example).

Is that in planning stages? Excellent!

>What would be your
>position ?

I would protest the military action.

>Would you "support the troops" ?

I would demand they be brought home. Saying I "support" them would be
disingenuous.

>Or would you avoid supporting the
>troops for fear of sending them "mixed messages" ?

I would do my best not to engage in doublespeak.

You realize, of course, that any military action to which I would
vehemently object would probably be one which was also very unpopular
with our troops.

Proton Soup
October 5th 04, 05:57 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:44:45 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>On 2004-10-05, John M Williams > wrote:
>>>>>>So, what you're saying is that we have to support any operation
>>>>>>American troops are sent into?
>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>> Are you trying to say that we should support or not support
>>>> our troops depending on mission they're sent on?
>>>
>>> I'm saying that sending them mixed messages about their
>>> service and their cause is a poor idea. That
>>> rationalization may make you feel better, but it doesn't
>>> do much for them.
>>
>>OK, help us out here --
>>
>>Suppose the president initiated military action that you didn't support. Just
>>a hypothetical -- I'm sure you could imagine a military operation that you
>>would not favor initiating (bombing Paris, for example).
>
>Is that in planning stages? Excellent!

Contingency planning. That's what the Pentagon does. Canada, too!

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John M. Williams
October 5th 04, 06:20 AM
Proton Soup > wrote:

> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>
>>>On 2004-10-05, John M Williams > wrote:
>>>>>>>So, what you're saying is that we have to support any operation
>>>>>>>American troops are sent into?
>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you trying to say that we should support or not support
>>>>> our troops depending on mission they're sent on?
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying that sending them mixed messages about their
>>>> service and their cause is a poor idea. That
>>>> rationalization may make you feel better, but it doesn't
>>>> do much for them.
>>>
>>>OK, help us out here --
>>>
>>>Suppose the president initiated military action that you didn't support. Just
>>>a hypothetical -- I'm sure you could imagine a military operation that you
>>>would not favor initiating (bombing Paris, for example).
>>
>>Is that in planning stages? Excellent!
>
>Contingency planning. That's what the Pentagon does. Canada, too!

Let's start with Montreal. I like the French theme.

Larry Hodges
October 5th 04, 07:13 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-10-05, John M Williams >
> wrote:
>>>>> So, what you're saying is that we have to support any operation
>>>>> American troops are sent into?
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> Are you trying to say that we should support or not support
>>> our troops depending on mission they're sent on?
>>
>> I'm saying that sending them mixed messages about their
>> service and their cause is a poor idea. That
>> rationalization may make you feel better, but it doesn't
>> do much for them.
>
> OK, help us out here --
>
> Suppose the president initiated military action that you didn't
> support. Just a hypothetical -- I'm sure you could imagine a military
> operation that you would not favor initiating (bombing Paris, for
> example).

Finally! About damn time!
--
-Larry