GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

TGC: The Chickenhawk Slur Arises Once Again

by

Since I couldn’t have said it better myself, I’d like to reprint ThatGayConservative’s column in full here at GayPatriot….

-GP

======================

ThatGayConservative: Thoughts from the Smoker’s Porch* — The “Chickenhawk” Slur Arises Once Again.

Once again, the liberals are blast-faxing/e-mailing their minions to break out the “Chickenhawk slur again. Jim Hawkins at RightWingNews explains what a Chickenhawk is here:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up.

Again, the liberal left is trotting out their tired, worn out arguments of the past. They make the same old claims that Bush shouldn’t have started a war because he never served in the military. Supposedly, you can’t support a war if you’ve never been there. For added measure, they throw in the Michael Moore lies that nobody in Congress has children serving in Iraq or they use the worn out excuse that neither of Bush’s daughters are serving in the military. They’ve also rolled out the failed “Bush was AWOL” story again.

The race for the White House should be about leadership,…We do not need to divide America over who served and how….Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

John F.You Kerry 30 January, 1992

First of all, American Diplomacy notes that of the 41 presidents the U.S. has had since 1798, sixteen of them, or 39% did not have prior military service. Seven of those, including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt who presided over both world wars, were Democrats. Most recently, President BJ Clinton deployed the military more often in 8 years than any other president in the previous 50 years while providing less funding.
The American Heritage Foundation explains the problems with that policy here. The hypocrisy here is that BJ didn’t serve. He went so far as to dodge the draft by running away to England and to Soviet Moscow. He even went so far as to send a letter to his ROTC commander that he “loathed the military”. Yet there’s nary a whimper from the liberals that BJ never served.

The left also loves to claim that you can’t support the war if you’ve never been there. That’s pure, unadulterated BS plain and simple. One of the things that helped America win WWII and any previous war was the support on the home front from those who had never been there.

Alternatively, I like to ask how they can oppose the war if they’ve never been there and experienced it firsthand.

Another favorite of the liberals is to whine that Jenna and Barbara Bush aren’t serving in the military. The last I checked, the U.S. still had a volunteer military and was not likely to change that policy anytime soon. At the same time, one could ask why Chelsea Clinton never served in Kosovo? She was certainly old enough to enlist, so what’s the story? Apparently, the liberals would have anybody that didn’t agree with them pressed into service.

Another fallacious liberal favorite is the allegation that Bush never served in the military or that he was AWOL. Bill Burkett found military documents in a Kinkos, so it must be true. First of all, contrary to what the liberals would have you believe, the Air National Guard is real military service. The Texas ANG was in charge of protecting the state of Texas during Vietnam. Many pilots did see action in Vietnam as well. The left, who claim to love the military, have no problem bashing the Guard and her members. Apparently, though, running off to England and Soviet Moscow is considered higher service than Air National Guard service. They’d rather count on the testimony of an officer in the Alabama National Guard who can’t remember if he was there, let alone Bush.

So why do the liberals keep trotting out these failed arguments? The answer is your stupidity. The liberals believe that you’re too stupid to know any better or to find out things on your own. They believe that they still have a monopoly on news and information in this country. In essence, they still “misunderstimate” you, your intelligence and your ability to figure shit out on your own.

Additional Note 19 Aug. 2005

After participating in a lengthy comment session over at GayPatriot, it’s become clear to me that the reason the liberals engage in these lies is to try and justify their own hatred. Not only that, but it’s further attempts by the left to stop any and all threats to lord BJ’s supposed “legacy”.

*The Smoker’s Porch is a wonderous place for those who have never been. The Smoker’s Porch exist wherever smokers congregate. There the issues of the day whether it be college, work, local, mational etc. are discussed and sorted through. Oftentimes, solutions and ideas can be found there.
When my younger brother was a senior at The Citadel in Band Company, he held the position of C.O. (commanding officer) of the smoker’s porch. We have a bar out on the lanai at my house where my brother and I get together to smoke, drink and discuss the latest issues or issues of the past, as we are both history nuts. If you’re not a smoker, I highly recommend visiting your nearest Smoker’s Porch.

– ThatGayConservative

Comments

  1. Just to fill in some more about Bush’s record: He flew F-102s, a dangerous jet known for killing pilots even in non-combat situations. He did it 6 years. He was rated in the top 5% of pilots in his unit. He did two or three times the required number of service hours/points every year…until his last year (1973) when he was given permission to work on a political campaign as his unit was winding down and desperately trying to get rid of people.

    I also heard that when he joined his TANG unit in 1968, they were in Vietnam and Bush fully expected to go there.

  5. Wow. Is the ThatGayConservative who you’re reprinting here the same ThatGayConservative who posted the following on another thread of GP? If so, apparently, you have new standards of decency here at GP.

    [QUOTE] “Once again, how fucking dare you. You’re tired and worn out liberal talking points arguement that nobody can support the war unless they serve is FUCKING BORING. It’s tedious. What the fuck difference does it make whether or not we serve? Not a damn bit of difference. On the other hand, how can you NOT support the war if you’ve not had your pussy ass there and don’t have a clue what’s going on? I demand you answer that. Why don’t you grow a fucking pair of balls and enlist so you have a fucking clue what’s going on instead of sucking on Fat Bastard Moore’s cock to tell you what’s going on? Why don’t you yank that fucking tampon out of your bleeding gash and enlist? Then maybe you can tell us how horrible it is.”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 18, 2005 @ 6:29 am – August 18, 2005

  8. Wow. Is the ThatGayConservative who you’re reprinting here the same ThatGayConservative who posted the following on another thread of GP?

    Yeppers and I stand by that, Reatard. Frankly, I was being nice to you.

    BTW, they were aware of it the day I posted it. Sorry to piss in your tattle-tale Cheerios.

  10. #8 – I don’t read Reader and didn’t follow the whole thing between you guys, but I have to say again (and I know I’m not alone) that I don’t stand by abusive language of anyone here, no matter how obtuse.

    TGC, Bruce/Dan haven’t banned you and I frequently support your viewpoints as you know…I’d just like to request again that you back off on the foul names & foul images. They’re unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful.

  12. The “chickenhawk” slur is typical Loony Left Liberal (LLL) tactic. The LLL knows it can not win an argument on the merits (i.e. facts and logic), so it trots out an irrelevant slur intended to discredit the opposing point of view.

    The stupidity of the slur is readily demonstrable, because if it were valid, then no one who isn’t a cop would be allowed to support law enforcement, no one who isn’t a teacher would be allowed to support public education, no one who isn’t willing to sit in a ditch in Texas in August would be allowed to support Cindy Sheehan… and so forth.

  13. “And I guess you’re saying Bruce and Dan approved it in advance, right?”

    Actually, no, he said that they were aware of it the day he posted it, which is logical; that was the day I became aware of it as well.

    Furthermore, in case you haven’t noticed it, both Joe and I have admonished TGC about his foul language, especially when I considered it to be completely misdirected — against one of the regular contrarians here, no less.

    Clint, Joe, V the K, myself, and others have pointed out to you that your continuous argument of “chickenhawks” is illogical, unfair, and meant primarily to sow discord and dislike. To go back to my horse-training analogy, we’ve asked nicely, and we’ve asked less nicely. Don’t be surprised that we’re less than likely to stop him when TGC asks in a manner that is not nice at all.

    Simply put, I certainly don’t argue for using my blacksnake whip on a horse, and can in fact tell you several reasons why it shouldn’t be…..but if getting cracked in his face with one is the only thing that will stop him from trying to run you over and trample you out of sheer malice, have at it.

  14. #13 – “Clint, Joe, V the K, myself, and others have pointed out to you that your continuous argument of “chickenhawks” is illogical, unfair, and meant primarily to sow discord and dislike….”

    Well NDT, here’s the thing.

    I don’t expect Reader to be convinced by anything we write. In fact: I know for a fact that “Reader” does not even read what we write.

    He/she/it may SKIM quickly, trying to figure out what to pick up on for the next ad hominem or whatever. But “reading” takes a different intention. In the past, I’ve seen Reader’s responses be total non sequiturs (to what was written). I realized he/she/it wasn’t actually reading. That’s when I decided he/she/it didn’t merit my reading her.

    But having said that, I may still pick up on somewhat of what she wrote, say through yours or Clint’s responses. And this “chickenhawk” thing is useful. Very useful.

    It’s floating out there, it has to be answered, and we have answered it very well. And I’m stronger and clearer in my own mind about where I stand on things, or what I’m about. And hopefully you, for you.

    And who knows, there might be some other person who was momentarily stunned by the chickenhawk thing (hearing it for the first time, maybe) who now won’t be?

    So long story short – I really don’t care what Reader thinks or does, but certain provocations are quite helpful because they get us to talk about these things.

  15. NDT, they’ve left the most offensive comments ever posted on this site up there for 2 days and now actually go further and PAY TRIBUTE to the commenter by re-printing in full his ramblings from his otherwise quiet website. I’d say they condone him, his thinking, AND his language. (And watching you on your winding road above, I gather that it doesn’t bother you all that much either.)

    Nonetheless, accepting these new standards from Gay Patriot, let’s go on and examine the guy’s post that’s published here. In it, he writes:

    “For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up.”

    Perhaps it’s the word “vulgar” (coming from this individual) that makes you stop and lose the fact that he’s mis-stating the meaning of Chickenhawk. That’s not what a Chickenhawk is…

    A Chickenhawk is specifically someone who STRONGLY ADVOCATES FOR war DURING A TIME OF WAR, but REFUSES TO FIGHT IN THAT WAR.

    He may not be able to discern it, but that’s a big difference from simply someone who “is a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up.”

    Not understanding even the basic term, he tripped right on into the false presidents-not-in-military comparison, rendering his entire post nothing but one more partisan rant.

  16. “Reader” can be found over at OutSports.Com under the rubric RazorbackTX –the chickenhawk thing is his full time schtick over there. He’s meaningless. The LibLefty anti-war types grabbed onto the term when it was making the rounds of radical labor union websites and Democrat underground sites.

    Growing up on a farm, I know that chickenhawks are the toughest, meanest, craftiest, and most tenacious poultry killers in the MidWest. They can figure out how to get into the chicken coop, how to avoid the farmer’s best rifle shot, and still eat better than nearly everything else in the sky. They build their nests high, defend their young to the death, and can hunt at night. Nothing comes close.

    Chickenhawk ain’t a bad thing, unless it’s said by that Jersey white trash Frank-I-stole-the-election-thru-fraud-Lautenberg talking. Or the LibLefties.

  17. TGC-

    One factoid jumped out at me from the above — the claim that President Clinton deployed the military “more often” than any other president for fifty years….

    How exactly are you counting?

    If you’re counting each bombing of an aspirin factory or empty tent as a different deployment, no wonder they were funded less than, say, the first Gulf War.

    In terms of major hot deployments, he inherited Somalia, and the Iraqi No-Fly zone, and ordered forces into parts of the Yugoslav war… what am I forgetting?

    Also, on a more personal note…. I suspect that Reader’s purpose here is primarily as a Troll. So, he actually loves it when he is able to make you lose your temper and curse at him. (Witness his crowing about this triumph of his in comment #5 above.) Not very mature, I know, but there it is.

    His own postings discredit him far more than your cursing at him ever could.

    Also… editting note: The Kerry quote isn’t clear (i.e. what’s quoted and that it’s quoted). Otherwise, nice job.

  18. *snort*

    I really hope Reader won’t get himself banned. I’ll miss laughing over truly insane bits like:

    “A Chickenhawk is specifically someone who STRONGLY ADVOCATES FOR war DURING A TIME OF WAR, but REFUSES TO FIGHT IN THAT WAR.

    He may not be able to discern it, but that’s a big difference from simply someone who “is a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up.””

    Thanks, Reader. I really enjoyed it.

  19. Wow. Well by Reader’s definition, it’s just like I said….NOBODY is a chicken hawk. I don’t know a single person who meets that definition. I fail both the first capitalized phrase and the third.

  20. That’s interesting…

    I would have said that his version was just a rhetorically inflamed version of TGC’s — i.e. foreign policy hawk –> STRONG ADVOCATE OF WAR, and not seeking to join the military –> REFUSING TO SERVE.

    Of course, the implicit suggestions that a hawk supports war generally, as opposed to a specific military action, or that there’s some call for his service that he’s refusing…. those are bogus, but still…

  22. The Chickenhawk arguement is absurd, Would they agree that if there is afire that the firre department should come put out the fire, because they are trained to so? they are the professionals afterall. If there is a war I want the ones out there that have been trained and know what the heck they are doing.

  25. “Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers. I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn’t tell me until it was too late. I’m willing to yield my place to these best generals and I’ll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper.”

    -General Robert E. Lee

  26. A while back…

    http://gaypatriot.net/2005/05/11/of-comments-and-civility
    Of Comments and civility
    Posted by GayPatriotWest at 10:40 pm – May 11, 2005.
    Filed under: Blogging

    Because I’ve been a little under the weather today (suffering from a “summer cold”), I did not check the blog as often as I normally do. When I did check it this afternoon, I found, amidst the usual banter and sharp-tongued exchanges in the comments section, a number (of comments) containing sexual references. Because I welcome open debate, a free exchange of ideas, I am reluctant to delete comments, but realized that, for the sake of the blog, I needed to do so today.

    Nearly all of those who comment, including some of my most severe critics, do not make such references and do not make ad hominem attacks. Thank you for keeping the debate civil. But, I ask those of you who have made sexual references in the past to please desist from doing so in the future. And to refrain from attacking others who comment. Not only do I have the power to delete comments, I also have the power to ban people from commenting. This blog has only banned one person because he repeatedly attacked others who comment. I hope I do not have to do so again.

    A number of teenagers read this blog, some straight, others struggling with their sexual identity. Consider when you post, how your words will appear to that individual still shaping in his mind an image of gays. And consider as well the numerous straight conservatives who check this blog from time to time. Some of your comments might reinforce stereotypes they may have about gay people.

  27. The Chickenhawk meme in a way is a lot like the “you’re a gay male, and as such you’ll never worry about conceiving children, so what right do you have to oppose abortion?” meme.

  28. Comment by Michigan-Matt — Aug. 19, 2005 @ 1:19 pm:

    “‘Reader’ can be found over at OutSports.Com under the rubric RazorbackTX”.

    Reader bites; visits site (and what a hangout that is – the home page photos are worth the trip, fellows). And I can see why Matt might mistake me for RazorbackTX. Though, reading young Matt’s back and forth with RazorbackTX there, I have to offer this gentle advice: Matt, you need to LEARN from RazorbackTX. You need to treat RazorbackTX as YOUR “rubric”. That might be the only way you ever, in the parlance of that site, make the jump up from junior varsity. Good luck.

  29. One thing to remember about the stupid “Pres. Bush should send his own daughters” argument…One of Pres. Bush’s daughters, Barbara, went to South Africa for quite a long time (actually, I think she’s still there) to provide aid to people with HIV. She has done so humbly and with little fanfare. What she is doing is beautiful and honorable. To be sure, Pres. Bush can’t take credit for his daughter’s actions. Barbara is old enough to decide for herself how she will live her life.

  33. Reader-

    Is he correct? Is the important distinction you were trying to make clear in comment #15 that you use the word “chickenhawk” to refer someone who chortles with glee at the thought of death and destruction, and dances on the graves of babies?

  37. “A Chickenhawk is specifically someone who STRONGLY ADVOCATES FOR war DURING A TIME OF WAR, but REFUSES TO FIGHT IN THAT WAR.”

    This is meaningless. What difference does it make if someone refuses or is simply unable to fight in a war? “Well, I woulda gone….” Tell us all about it, loser. Most peole are unable to fight, far a whole spectrum of reasons. Those people are still citizens and they have a responsibilty to have an opinion.

    “The Chickenhawk meme in a way is a lot like the “you’re a gay male, and as such you’ll never worry about conceiving children, so what right do you have to oppose abortion?” meme.”

    And it is equally dishonest and ignorant. Plenty of gay males are fathers, from back in their breeder days. Fathers have as much right to make a decison on abortion as mothers do. Period. Any other position is bigoted, sexist nonsense.

  38. TOTALLY AGREE! Just because I’m an avid environmentalist, conservatives think they can point to my Hummer H2 as hypocritical. Sure, I advocate for sodomy laws even though I’m gay. I also advocate for prohibition of alcohol, though I have been known to drink. I think anyone who uses drugs should be thrown in jail, although this shouldn’t apply to me either.

    I really don’t see why my behavior being at odds with what I advocate is wrong. It’s kind of interesting, though, that those who have been to war (Hagel, McCain, etc) are not nearly as hawkish as those who evaded service.

  39. Yes, Jesus, and conversely, those who oppose the war should join the insurgency! If you can’t support the war without fighting for the war, then you should support the insurgency by fighting along side it! You should obtain an ak-47 and go fight the good fight! Also, if you were born, you have no right to make a decision on the issue of abortion. If you have never owned a firearm, you can’t be in favor of gun control. If you’ve never been sodomized, you can’t have an opinion on sodomy laws! This type of binary logic only convinces mental midgets and possibly children. By your rationale, in order to have a military at all, we would have to be some type of fascist militarist regime where compulsory service is the requirement of the rights of citizenship! This type of crap isn’t convincing anyone. Oh, and by the way. I’m a straight conservative, and I understand his frustration, but don’t believe that his behavior is in anyway a reflection of gay people as a whole. Just to point that out.