Until then, I think this will fall on deaf ears.

The "chicken hawk" label is particularly silly in its premise, because it implies that only some people are allowed to talk about public policy. Still, all the ad hominem-type arguments get us away from discussing the issues.

When I call you an idiot is not just calling you a name... it is an accurate description.

Since you still don't get it... I'll explain it.

If you notice carefully I tend to react to people EXACTLY the way they behave plus 10% for illustrations sake. This technique drives people like you crazy.

When the rare liberal is found that can hold an intelligent debate I act accordingly.

When idiots like Kevin at Calpunditz say that liberals should bash conservative and be rude about it, I will tear him to shreds. (and son of a gun, I'll be rude about it)

Your problem is that you have no clue what intelligent discourse is. All you know is to throw bombs at the other side. (and you even brag that you don't care if what you say is true or accurate.)

When you act like that, you have not earned anything that resembles respect and actually get a fair amount of distain.

And son of a gun, I react accordingly.

Since you have replied 3 times to this post, you apparently see this as a great evil. You claim it is a great evil on both sides. OK Let's see if you mean it or you are a hopeless hypocrite.

You can raise the level of discourse and set the example. You can quit throwing bombs and discuss things in an intelligent way.

Will you do it, or are you a liar?

Paul

BTW- I wouldn't take that bet with the points.

Your protestations fall on deaf ears as long you partake in the exact behavior you condone.

See.. Calling you a hypocrite is not just invective, it's accurate.

Its a colorful way of saying 'hypocrite'. It has no bearing on a 'right' to comment on making war, it merely (if correctly applied) brings up the chickenhawk's consistency and possibly elitism.

---