Wednesday, January 17, 2007

In case RE is reading I needed to get one more bird reference in today

This line of reasoning, of course, is nothing new for liberals. I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard one of them say that those who didn't serve have no moral right to opine on war issues. This "chicken-hawk" argument is so childishly misguided you would think liberals, who consider themselves superior logicians and cerebral sophisticates, would be too embarrassed to make it.

The question is not who is qualified to opine, but whether an opinion has merit, irrespective of the characteristics of its proponents or opponents. Under liberal logic, the rich-from-birth Ted Kennedy is disqualified from empathizing with and advocating for the poor. And, the Framers should have limited the franchise in presidential elections to military personnel and their parents, and maybe their grandparents, but not aunts, uncles, brother, sisters or cousins.

Interestingly, Boxer pretended she had no standing to opine either, since her children are too old and her grandchildren too young to serve. But that didn't stop her from making clear her view that the war is not worth American lives, because her opinion is sanctified by its liberalism. Since she's against the war, the ending of which would supposedly end the risk to American lives, her opinion is legitimate.

What this really boils down to is the antiwar left's intolerance for dissenting opinions and their propensity to make decisions on an emotional, rather than logical basis. If you don't agree with them, you either aren't listening -- another charge Boxer leveled at Rice -- or you don't have the right to opine. But Boxer's logic is self-defeating: If your personal circumstances disqualify you from opining, they do so regardless of the nature of your opinion.

The story itself is a little dated, but the arrogance of liberalism is well illustrated in this column and that arrogance is pervasive in every issue you ever care about.






Actually, I've encountered that very same argument from conservative military veterans: "If you never served your country, you have no right to comment on the war."

So it seems that, once again, stupid argument tactics are bipartisan.
Ya' know RW, I want to see more of the Democrats who think before they speak. Allowing the far-left fringe to represent them causes me to doubt the intelligence of the entire party.

They don't know what ammunition looks like, how to load it, or how to discharge their weapon.

By the way, I have a Daisy BB gun that I use to discourage roaming dogs. Where do I put the BBs?

I can't find an opening other than the end of the barrel. I poured them down the barrel and they came out like buckshot about eight feet from where I was standing.

J/K, I'll ask Semper once more, and...I'll pay attention this time.

Would you care to provide an example or should we just take your word for it?

If the dogs come back the bb's go inside a 12 gauge shotgun shell.
"Would you care to provide an example or should we just take your word for it? "

No problem...

"those of you that complain about something like this most likely have never served your country. so until you serve STFU!" (

"Go back to your and speak to the enemy sympathizers, such as yourself. Let me guess, never served in the military, never served your country, yet expect to have a voice." (

"you, little man, have no room to say squat, you never served your country!" (

"If you have never served your country you have, in my opinion, no right to talk about how good or bad this country is and you absolutely have no right to critisize the President." (

"Please leave America at your earliest convenience. I can tell from your comments that you have never served your Country or anyone else for one minute of your life." (

"They are doing all of this for US & how dare him say something like that. AND as for JMJ guess you’ve never served your country now have you?" (

"FACT: you personally know NOTHING! You've never been in the Military, you've never been in the Govt, you've never been in the IC, you've never served your Country in any way, you've never held Public Office, and your knowledge resume is BLANK! That's a FACT!" (

"If I had my way, I would put people like you in a uniform and send you over to experience first hand what its like to be in combat.... Only then will you truly understand and have the right to an opinion. Losing your son doesn’t give you the right to bash the war and the president in my eyes when you have never served your country." (

"Both of you, though, are losers because you have never served your country, don't know what that sacrifice is all about, and attempt to disrupt the morale of our troops on the ground in Iraq." (

"As far as I'm concerned those who have never worn a uniform, never marched a step, never served in war or peacetime, have no right to criticize those of us who have served." (

"Only those who served have a right to criticize" (

"...all you can do is bash; serve your country first then maybe, just maybe you earn the right to criticize." (

I decided to test one of those links so I picked the last one. It's about K-Fed, Steve O and professional wrestling.

Are they all just random bullshit like that one?


I just checked a few more of your links and they don't back your point at all unless you are talking about some anonymous comments. (Much like your own)

Quit spamming and come up with something real.
I accept your apology, thanks.

Now I see why when you read about K-Fed wrestling you think you're seeing conservative military veterans telling non-vets to stfu.

No wonder you don't use a name.

Anonymous Coward manages to come up with, count 'em, 12 examples of Veterans who use the chickenhawker argument. It's possible that those links are heisted from a Democrat website.

I bet there are hundreds of thousands of examples of the reverse scenario.
I am not the wanker, it is PF.

Buy Danish,

I turned the anonymous coward's last one into a link @ 4:14. When you get a chance take a look and see what it has to with this topic.

Four of the twelve don't have enough of the URL to look at, but the rest of the ones I looked at don't seem like they have anything to do with it either, unless it's something in a comment. The HuffPo one that I linked up doesn't even have anything in the comments about this.

You aren't the other "anonymous" either are you?
No, the only blog he or she listed that I post at is the HP.

Did you read the other "anonymous" HuffPo link? You might want to keep yourself from being confused with that clown by signing in or using "other."
You so funny RW! I could just hear you..."on the next episode of..."

Were you talking into a tin can.

Too funny!


You and PoliFore are close. WTF is his problem with me? I dropped in at Wooten's this evening and my name has been jacked yet again, and for no apparent reason.

He really should spare everybody his bullshit. Does he talk to himself too?

I liked the way you stuntified Huge Foolhardy today!

I think I know why you were jacked this time. Southern Democrat got really put out with what I posted and said I talked like someone in a Nazi bunker and that I wanted to establish a theocracy. Of course I said it was all wrong.

Then PoFo posting under @@ said he agreed with Southern Democrat. PoFo doesn't like me a bit. Oh well. He's not the only one. Too bad. I knew it wasn't you or the other posts with @@ that followed.
I saw your post Dusty. Thanks. Somebody else caught it too, but I don't know who it was.

It's not that big a deal. I can't solve it, that's up to the AJC, and they aren't going to do anything to fix it.

I saw where you had a fun lunch with your boys today. That's great.


You're up late. I will say goodnight too. Pleasant dreams.
Goodnight @@! & Dusty too! (I think because if I'm not mistaken Dusty is still up and on another page)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?