On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:14:41 -0700, cibola de oro > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:12:57 -0700, cibola de oro > wrote:
> >
> >> This is the same old libitarded "chickenhawk" venom
> >
> > You don't think Dick Cheney, a draft dodger, is the epitome of a
> > chicken hawk?
>
> I think the term in and of itself is patently absurd, overtly hateful,
> and fully emblematic of the rank hypocrisy of the left.
>
> Was Clinton a "chickenhawk" for ordering our troops into Kosovo?
>
> How about Woodrow Wilson for WWW1?

Did they do it with the sole purpose of enriching their former
employer, Halliburton?
>
> Mealy-mouthed Dems who always get rel military men to do their remote
> control bidding think they can denigrate anyone else who doesn't follow
> the same proxy-war schema.
>
> They're sick people, to the core!
>
> The Constitutional precedent for our very Commander in Chief to NOT need
> to have served is historically established and tested.
>
> No more need be said on such foolishly partisan, semantic inanities.
>
> > He was all for war for one reason only: money.
>
> That's simply a belief, not at all a proven fact.
>
You wouldn't admit it was true even if the facts slapped you in the
face and introduced personally themselves to you.


--

sf