Do you support the BIGGEST CHICKEN HAWK to ever run for President?
DDogbreath
2012/06/05 22:50:51
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | ||
|
28 votes
|
|
65% | ||
|
14 votes
|
|
33% | |||
I see many of you "military guys" are being duped into supporting the BIGGEST CHICKEN HAWK ever to run for the office of presidency.
I'm glad I didn't "fall for it" because that would make me a hypocrite.
Watch these two short videos, did you fall for it?
Feel like a hypocrite yet?
Not me I'm voting for "Liberty" and a VETERAN.
RON PAUL 2012!
Top Opinion
-
endthefed.soundmoney 2012/06/06 01:40:22
When I took my physical in Sep 65 I was given the option of enlisting or getting drafted. I tried the AF but they had so many signing up they shut down enlistments. So I went Army. Signed up for 4 years for Europe. Went to Germany in July 66'. Just befor Christmas 67' they decided they needed me in Nam. Came home for a months leave. Missed the big show. Got there 6 days after Tet.
So, that being said, who do think knows more about the military? Someone like me and millions of others who served, or someone like Obama and Romney who spent their time avoiding serving?
It is long used in this war-related meaning, and also recently I believe Gingrich used it in debate. It is an oxymoronic term to point out hypocrisy of those who refuse/avoid service while at the same time promoting wars and freely committing others to fight and die. It is a combination of "chicken", meaning coward, plus the much older term "war hawks"-- those who zealously promote war. Wide use of this meaning of the term started during Vietnam.
Wide use of this meaning of the term did start during Vietnam, but it never stopped being used that way. I believe Gingrich recently used it in debate. It is now a general oxymoronic term to point out hypocrisy of those who refuse/avoid service while at the same time promoting wars and freely committing others to fight and die. It is a combination of "chicken", meaning coward, plus the much older term "war hawks"-- those who zealously promote war.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to stir up trouble and spread garbage, because your post reeks of sewage from a public hole.
The other question about how hard the Mormon church requirements (are laughable) compared to getting shot at in Vietnam. Which I was too young for the draft then.
You are the one making the same mistake as you did in 2008, nominating a sh*tty candidate against Obama. How many times do you do the same thing expecting different results? That is what an insane person does.
Everything else is irrelevant. You can climb back into your little nest now.
It is an oxymoronic term to point out hypocrisy of those who refuse/avoid service while at the same time promoting wars and freely committing others to fight and die. It is a combination of "chicken", meaning coward, plus the much older term "war hawks"-- those who zealously promote war. Wide use of this meaning of the term did start during Vietnam, but it is in general usage now-- Gingrich even used it in debate. One previous similar term was "war wimp".
I'm glad for your comment now, and the rest of this reply is not toward you, but for all who would question the truth of the original post, distasteful tho it may be to some. To be a sissy or pansy is not good, of course, but to be a sissy or pansy while at the same time expecting others NOT to be so is a serious problem for us. THAT is what leads to BLOWBACK unending.
I am appalled at the current foreign policy, which has been in place my entire 46yr life, of preventive or "humanitarian" wars with no legal declaration nor direct attack by another government. But at the same time I DO care for our troops, many of whom I know as friends and family, and feel the need to protect them from UNnecessary harm. I do not hesitate to fight where a REAL need occurs, here or there. But I would not expect anyone to bleed for false reasons, ESPecially if I myself would not do so; just as I don't expect others to pick up my own dog's poo.
Today I think there ar...
I'm glad for your comment now, and the rest of this reply is not toward you, but for all who would question the truth of the original post, distasteful tho it may be to some. To be a sissy or pansy is not good, of course, but to be a sissy or pansy while at the same time expecting others NOT to be so is a serious problem for us. THAT is what leads to BLOWBACK unending.
I am appalled at the current foreign policy, which has been in place my entire 46yr life, of preventive or "humanitarian" wars with no legal declaration nor direct attack by another government. But at the same time I DO care for our troops, many of whom I know as friends and family, and feel the need to protect them from UNnecessary harm. I do not hesitate to fight where a REAL need occurs, here or there. But I would not expect anyone to bleed for false reasons, ESPecially if I myself would not do so; just as I don't expect others to pick up my own dog's poo.
Today I think there are not two parties or two sides within the USA, unless those two sides are We the People vs. our own Chickenhawk powers that be. I do not like the term, and would not have posted it here because it is indeed baiting to some. But maybe that is not the poster's bad, but my own sissiness talking there?? i.e., Maybe it needed to be said...
And, as some have done here, to put the likes of GW Bush or Romney (or Obama, et al) in the same category of Eisenhower or JFK is downright sickening to me. To them I say, PT109!