Its interesting that we think alike …

In actuality, the term “Chickenhawk” has been around since Vietnam. The term originally meant those who used college deferments or other political pull to get out of military service (and yes, Clinton fits the bill – pardon the pun – while Bush does not).

Recently, the term has been changed to mean anyone who is pro military or pro war who hasn’t served in the military. The reasoning is that those who haven’t served in the military don’t have the moral authority to make such decisions (using this logic, Clinton had no moral authority to make war in Serbia, while Bush does in Iraq).

Of course, the unintended consequences of such a belief system, is that logically, those who have not served in the military have no moral authority to oppose war either…

I doubt that our founding fathers thought this way. You see, using this standard, even Lincoln was a chickenhawk.

Just because someone hasn’t served, it doesn’t mean their opinions don’t count, and you have to look at their actions. For every conservative that you have named, all of them have been openly supportive of the military and its mission in both word and deed.

Sadly, most of us can’t say the same for liberals (including veterans like kerry, murtha and innouhe)

GSP
BTW-alot of us here are vets, and I am willing to sign my DD 214 to release my records-Can you say the same for kerry?

The moonbat says “You say you support the war? Enlist in the U.S. military, pick up a rifle and fight the jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan or you’re a hypocrite.”

The wingnut should retort “You say you’re against the war? Join Al Qaeda, strap on a bombvest and fight the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan or you’re a hypocrite.”

My response to this lunacy, is to ask them why are they not human shields? There is no age limit to become one, and it is better way to stop the US and Coalition forces, instead of hanging out at a protest with a silly sign.

In reality, only 15% of their 15% would be withheld from Defense. The other 85% of their 15% would be taken out of programs they love.

Oh, wait! The neocons are in charge of the IRS! The whole 15% will come out food stamps for illegal aliens.

The wingnut should retort “You say you’re against the war? Join Al Qaeda, strap on a bombvest and fight the occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan or you’re a hypocrite.”

Bring back the draft and there will be a lot fewer chickens out there.

And a lot more Canadians…

Had an uncle who was “Stationed in Canada during Vietnam”. Dad’s never quite forgiven him.

I’m going to love it when the IRS cuts off his car, and drags him kicking and screaming from it; then impounds the car ,and his first born son,

Not a major problem as moonbats prefer to copulate with womyn who tend to abort their offspring.
But I’m lovin’ this idea of directing your taxes to fund what you deem worthy. Sort of like the Presidential Election Campaign Fund but on a more massive scale. Let the gov’t allocate funding from 85% of the general tax revenue, and let the taxpayer decide what department(s) they want their remaining 15% to go to. Make them more accountable to the people who pay their salaries.

Charles Johnson bravely waded into the land of Nutrootia and found this, er, nugget from Daily Kos diarist Brandon Friedman titled: The Real Story Behind the Falling Casualty Rate in Iraq. Apparently Friedman thinks we should thank Muqtada al-Sadr for…

People like this have been around since the Revolution. In 1790 Alexandar Hamiliton went to great lengths with legislation designed to persuade people to pay their taxes. British loyalists and mercenaries continued to refuse American taxation and created violent havoc in this nation up until the end of the War of 1812.

Idiots like this are not patriots and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Regardless of their political or spiritual beliefs, this is a pre-meditated act of anarchy that fringes on traitorous activity.

Oh well, it takes all types to make this great blue marble go round and round. Have a great day everyone

OK, so somebody says, “I’m withholding the 15% that goes to national defense.” Fine. Why wouldn’t somebody else’s “conscience” dictate that they withhold the percentage that goes to say, welfare payments?

This kind of “reasoning” – if it can be called that – is simply an invitation for tax chiselers of all stripes to rationalize an excuse for not paying part of their taxes. I don’t care how much lipstick they slather on it, it’s still a pig.

On another subject:

Let’s see what chickenhawks I can find who are/recently were actually, oh say, IN POLITICS and who actually, oh say, MAKE POLICY.

Don’t forget those chickenhawks Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt; true, they’re not around to make policy today, but both ordered hundreds of thousands of uniformed personnel to death and grievous injury and never served a day themselves.

There ought to be a version of Godwin’s Law applicable to anyone making the “chickenhawk” argument these days. It’s so stupid, on so many levels, and has been refuted so many times, that it’s really become nothing more than an admission of intellectual bankruptcy.