The Chickenhawk database

[Kuen]

A chickenhawk is a term often applied to public persons - generally male - who (1) tend to advocate, or are fervent supporters of those who advocate, military solutions to political problems, and who have personally (2) declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime.



New Hampshire Gazette Chickenhawk database (http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html)

[dnc101]

From the web page you listed:

Some individuals may qualify more for their political associations than for any demonstrated personal tendency towards bellicosity. Some women may be included for exceptional bellicosity.

This list is provisonal. The management of the Gazette is proud to have served the vital public function of assembling the best known list of American chickenhawks, but we confess - we declare and emphasize - that we have not the resources to tend to it properly. Therefore we declare it provisional: we acknowledge there may be faults - hell, we know there are.

In other words, this is political propoganda. And they know that they are not accurate. So they are knowingly not telling the truth. Let's think- is there a term for people do that?

How 'bout you, Kuen- did you serve?

[dnc101]

Another little excerpt from their page:

"Bill Clinton: He may have launched a few cruise missiles to distract us from a dalliance with a girl half his age, but our judges believe he wasn't bellicose enough to make the cut. Your mileage may vary."

Think maybe they are a little biased?

Most of you here know I'm not a Bush fan (Sr. or Jr.). And I've said more than once that if most politicians were worth a **** they 'd have got an honest job. But it really irks me when some puffed up small minded lib takes cheap shots like this.

If you are going to put out information like this, then you are obligated to be accurate, unbiased, and to get all the facts. I noticed under the Lame Excuse collumn almost none of the reasons for not serving were listed. Some may have had legitimate reasons. Most of the reasons that were listed were apparent slurs making reference to problems with their nether regions.

[dnc101]

One more point- the thing that really gets me about this kind of post is its objective. It is an ad homenem attack. It seeks to avoid discussion of the impending war on its merits and instead attacks individuals in public positions who don't agree with the views of the author(s). It appeals to our emotions in an attempt to change the debate from reason and logic to a mire of personal attacks.

Their real objective is much more vile. We are at war with terrorists and those who support them. These leftists want to disrupt that effort like they have every effort since the late '50s (except when their pride and joy Bill blew up a bunch of innocents). And, as allways, it is our servicemen who will bear the consequences. Most of the people here are too young to remember Nam. They never had to deal with the idiotic restrictions put on fighting men in order to appease the leftists and their dupes at home. Things like radioing for permission to return fire when caught in an ambush. Or how about standing guard duty without ammunition because our liberals don't trust our military- remember the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

(I edited out some of my more inflamitory retorts. This kind of thing does tend to get me riled, but that isn't reason to respond with my own ad homenems.)

[David Jamieson]

What does this have to do with anything?

I mean, what does this mean to Kungfu practice?
This isn't even related remotely to bjj, muay thai or boxing?

yeesh.

Like we don't know politicians are a bunch of yutz's already? :D

cheers