Any White Feathers For Romney and Bush?

Michelle Malkin is really funny. Via atrios, tbogg delivers the punchline:

Michelle Malkin, has a bitchin' idea on how to show those defeatosurrenderquitterocrats a thing or two about stick-to-it-tiveness; Send 'em a white feather:
The White Feather has been a symbol for cowardice. I suggest that white feathers be sent to the leaders of the Senate and House for the cowardly vote that abandons our soldiers around the world. . . .Wha? Oh. Michelle has an update: Update: Several readers note that legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock wore a white feather in his hat band. . . .

Maybe not. But if it is a go, how about sending them to Bush and Romney:

[Romney said] "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." [Bush said about the war on terror]"I don't think you can win it."

Let Bush and Romney be as perplexed as Congressional Dems Michelle. I guess white flags are too expensive for this "gesture."

< The Gaffe of the Debate: Bill Richardson on Justice White | Note To The GOP: Al Qaida Leadership Is Not In Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can we send a white fellow to Michelle? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 10:47:52 AM EST
    The military is broken in troop numbers and she obviously remains physically fit and hasn't enlisted yet!  Maybe we could send her a whole pillow to rest her big fat head on.

    Bloody Chicken Feathers (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    The only pillow I would send is one with blood soaked white feathers collected directly from the slaughter house.

    OMG, I really need coffee (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    I slept in, just woke.....I meant a white feather.  I don't know how I got white fellow I must have been thinking pillow and feather and I got white fellow.  Lord help me that is soooo wrong ;p

    you can send me a white fellow (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 04:31:11 PM EST
    or any employed fellow around his mid 40s (especially if he can cook)

    Speaking of cowards.... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    What about Ms. Malkin?  She's a young, able-bodied woman...if the future of our country is truly hanging in the balance of the outcome in Iraq she should get her arse over there or stick a sock in it.  Form an Abraham Lincoln Brigade and hop a commercial flight with all your war-hawk buddies...whats stoppin ya?

    Its easy to sacrifice somebody else's blood and guts, ain't it.

    kdog (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:22:37 AM EST
    Would you tell John McCain that?

    McCain is old.... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    and no longer able-bodied.  I'd tell McCain he should know better as a vet of our last senseless war, and not to put his own political ambitions over the well-being of the troops and the nation.

    Kdog (none / 0) (#7)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:36:43 PM EST
    So you're saying that a man who volunteered for military service and spent years as a POW is being stupid just for his own career? Wow!

    I don't necessarily agree with his position nor do I think I'd ever vote for the guy - but he has sacrificed far more than both of us so I wouldn't make any assumptions about his motivations. He may actually just believe in them.


    McCain is fighting Vietnam all over again (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    It's an easy call, and he's upping the volume because he's running for President.  There's a sociopathic disconnect in the guy, clear as his obviously and ridicuulously false claims about how easy it was for Americans to go around Baghdad unarmed or protected.  Then he shows up a rew days later with hundreds of troops, helicopters, lord knows how much protecting him?

    Please, it was infuriatingly and confoundingly absurd.  Such a pathetic moment and comment, he lost all credibility with a giant segment of the public.  What he says about this war means squat if he can't even speak the OBVIOUS truth when it is right in front of him.  He had and continues to have no excuse.


    I question the motivations... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    of all the war's cheerleaders....their war support just has to be for political reasons since there are no logical reasons to support it that I can see.

    BTW..I shouldn't even be calling it a war...its an occupation now and has been for some time.


    Waiting for (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    your long critique of those that have continually characterized opponents of the as "America haters", "terrorist enablers", "anti-semites", "Bin Ladens favorite candidate" etc etc

    In the meantime, in the war of words, you're probobly going to keep getting sauce-for-the-chickenhawk on your face.

    Sloppy (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    jondee, why should I be held responsible for a "long critique" of those people. Their words speak for themselves.

    But since you insist that I be the one to discuss their issues, you can see what I wrote about it here in #10 responding to a question similar to your comment.


    Chickenhawks (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    Were this not a scam war but a Moral war that was about defending America and not just a luxury lifestyle chickenhawk would not enter into the discussion.

    The great  majority of soldiers fighting this war are not doing so because they are poor and this is a chance for upward mobility. The fat cats sitting on their couches fanning the flames of war in their climate controlled luxury chambers have nothing to lose, except maybe higher prices to fill their SUVs.

    That is a disgusting moral position. Chickenhawk is right on target, if not a mild epithet for those urging their less fortunate countryfolk to their deaths. The majority of those that have the fortune to come out alive will be scarred for life.

    Believing in the war and doing nothing to fight it is cowardly and sadistic at best.

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    "Chickenhawk" also has alot to do with one classes historical tendency to expect and coerce another to do it's dirty work. Or, hadnt you ever noticed?

    Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    The first part of your comment was innacurate. Therefore, I did not bother to read the rest.

    Regarding Chickenhawks:

    The idea is that those who aren't themselves in the military (or willing to "send" their presumably adult children to war) have no right to an opinion about the war.

    This is not the definition of a chickenhawk.

    A chickenhawk is a person who, in the past or present, has deliberately avoided volunteering for service during armed conflict, even though able bodied, yet continues to advocate war, carries out national policy to initiate war, and labels those who oppose the war as unpatriotic (see hypocrisy). No one ever said they don't have a right to an opinion about the war.

    Aight. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:28:01 PM EST
    Che, Repack Rider's "Enlist or STFU" suggests that the use of the epithet is otherwise. The phrase has been used all over the blogosphere to silence war supporters.

    But let's assume you're right. It's still a crappy argument for the very reason you point out. Calling chickenhawk is the same thing as calling "hypocrite."

    I'm sure you're familiar with the ad hominem tu quoque and its logical deficiencies; I have mentioned it before.


    Epithets, insults, name-calling & ad hominem (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by walt on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 03:00:17 AM EST
    This discussion is hilarious.  Chickenhawk. GOoPer. Rethuglican. Rightwingnut. Fundagelical. Tool. Twit. Twerp. Wuss. And billions & billions of expletives.

    Truman, Harry S.  Capt. US Army & Lt.Col. US Army Reserve. President.  "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

    En garde.  This website condemns & deletes comments that use profanity, which deserve deletion.  OK.  But if you want to play on the internet, you should be prepared for me to call you a cowardly, sniveling, frightened, wussy, chickenhawk.  Time to grow up, tinkerbell.

    Neener, neener, neener.  If you think this is a debating club, go join one, wimp.  You want some cheese & crackers with your whine, you miserable shirker. Goldbrick. Malingerer.  You sniveling, drooling, mewling, retro- excuse for an alib-ike, go make your pseudo-heroic silly comments to . . . here's a phone card, call someone who cares.

    If you believe in war, go fight one.  Oh, and I don't recommend the Texas Air National Guard because they've got a lot of planes over there just now.  Did you ever notice that, dovehawk?  Bu$h xliii signed up with the champagne squadron & spent YEARS on the sidelines.  But now, now that he's el jefe, the Chimp-in-Chief, the Deciderator, BigBossMan, the Kahuna, it's off to the frontlines for every Guard & Reserve unit in the USA.

    Ya' ever considerate that, my delirious non-volunteer (no offense intended, avoiderator)?  Who's the Chimperator that uses Guard & Reserve personnel as if they were career combat commandos?  Yup!  The dude who missed his flight physical 3 years in a row (I know, made-up, bogus documents) & jumped ship (well, F-102) all the way to an Alabama political campaign after keeping the skies over Texas safe from the Viet Cong (some fight 'em over there, some--such as "Little Bootz"--stay home & fight 'em over here), the NVA (oops, that's North Vietnamese Army to the historically challenged) & the (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha) commie yellow tide.  [Little Bootz is a pun on the cowboy boots Bu$h xliii often wears as a comparison, by me, to the Roman emperor, Caligula, who was denigrated for his tiny feet.  To the credit of Caligula, he was not a cheerleader from Connecticut, although he was very likely a murderous chickenhawk.]

    So, good buddy, if I, or some other troublemaker, calls you a "no good, cowardly, yellow, running dog, capitalist, war-mongering, fear merchant, chickenhawk, don't take it personally: it's just politics--you cry-baby, sob-sister.

    Oh.  If I call you a chickenhawk, it really is not an ad hominem attack.  I'm just letting the other sentient mammals reading this website know that I have correctly identified you as a person who would rather other people went to war & died for George W. Bu$h's sins.

    One person's name calling (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:39:56 AM EST
     may be another's colorful use of the english language. IMHO varying descriptive terms are quite entertaining at times, and relatively harmless.

    Chicken - a bird

    Hawk - a bird

    All else is in the eye of the beholder.

    What would Vonnegut have said?

    Repack (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:45:09 PM EST
    Interesting and nostalgic. I had a 26" Schwinn with a 2-speed hub with I think a bendix brake (With the matal tab that had to be attached to the rear frame to work). To change gears you just pedaled back about a quarter turn and it shifted into the other higher gera. I used it to deliver papers (had the huge saddle baskets and an oversized front one). My friends and I called them trucks. Then we had our other bike for regular riding. I started with a  silver 20 inch 3-speed Stingray from Sears, which rapidly became a one speed. It had a cobalt blue metal flake banana seat on it. It was a sixth grade chick magnet. Later (~'67) I had a Schwinn 27" 10 speed (I should have gotten a 25" but none were available). Those things weighed a ton! The French bikes were much lighter at the time but very temperamental.

    Chickenhawk Meme (1.66 / 3) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 12:59:30 PM EST
    It seems the Chickenhawk Meme will never die. I've written about this before, and I will largely be reprising my comments here.

    "Chickenhawk" as an epithet is one of the dumber memes to have been created by war opponents. The idea is that those who aren't themselves in the military (or willing to "send" their presumably adult children to war) have no right to an opinion about the war. The converse is, of course, ignored; there is no concomitant obligation on the part of war opponents to have marched on Washington, laid down in front of tanks, or even served in the military themselves before they opine about war-related matters.

    Repack Rider has been a frequent offender of the use of the term. He once wrote to me:

    Million dollar question.  Are you planning to serve in the military, or have you already served?

    The answer to that question will do a lot to define your character to the rest of us here.  You are either a coward or a patriot.

    For y'see, if you accept the chickenhawk meme, those are the only two options: cowardice or patriotism. This is really an attempt to stifle discussion, as we shall see. Said Repack Rider:

    If they don't care to participate in the war they are so "supportive" of, then then the only adjective that applies is "cowardly."

    This is an absurd idea. It is an offense against (1) common sense, (2) our democratic traditions, (3) logic, and (4) the English language. I shall deal with each in turn, but first I confess: I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever intend to be enlisted in the military. Also, when I say "war supporter" I mean supporters of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, not people who support war for war's sake.

    First, common sense, that which embodies our collective judgement strongly militates against any such idea. The concept that one must be engaged in an activity to have an opinion on it is ridiculous.

    For example, we do not believe that police officers should set crime control policy--imagine what Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence would look like if they did! Moreover, what if only the poor were allowed to have valid opinions about welfare? I shudder to think what school policy would be like if we left it up to the students. And I'm curious to know what Jeralyn would say about leaving the penal code up to criminals (or maybe wardens?).

    You get the picture. The idea that the only legitimate opinion about war comes from the military doesn't hold up so well. And this brings me to my second point:

    Our democratic traditions are exactly contrary to the very idea. The Founders chose to leave control of military policy in the hands of the Legislative and Executive branches--two civilian brances of government. Now, I'm sure that there have been many ex-military Presidents, Senators, and Representatives (and maybe some that were and are in the reserves, if that isn't a separation of powers issue), but there has never been a requirement that they be. I personally am thankful that the Founders did not establish a military dictatorship. No doubt they could have tried.

    In fact, I'm certain that we've had quite a few Presidents who were never in the military. And I'm sure they were still the Commander-in-Chief during their terms in office, despite the lack. I'm equally certain that they made speeches and proposals and arguments about military matters without being called a "coward" by the Left.

    That's because, logically, one has nothing to do with the other. And I think that might be what frustrates me about the chickenhawk meme the most. It's a simple ad hominem, the most common logical fallacy.

    Repack Rider gives this away when he responds to my lengthy comments with his "Million dollar question." He's only interested in one thing: me. That's not a response to argument, that's namecalling. And it's a shame that this is such a widespread phenomena, regarded as meaningful debate by much of the Left.

    Finally, it is abuse of the English language to call war supporters "cowards." A coward is defined as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." There are two main problems with calling war supporters coward.

    First, you don't know a thing about the life and circumstances of the person at whom you are namecalling. In my case, all Repack Rider knew was that I was a young male advocate for the wars. Upthread, we have kdog and Militarytracy calling Michelle Malkin "coward" for not signing up. As if they know anything at all about her life.

    That's not the only problem. This usage of "coward" is a perversion of the term. We consider it courageous to enlist in the military because the enlistee is voluntarily placing his life and health in the hands of others. But is it the opposite of courageousness to choose not to enlist? Apparently not for able-bodied Democrats. Instead, only able-bodied war supporters are cowards for not signing up. And what's the difference between the two groups? Just one thing: speech.

    Somehow, Lefty proponents of the chickenhawk meme consider able-bodied proponents of war to have assumed an affirmative duty to enlist. When they refuse to do so, they are characterized as "cowards." I've already outlined the logical and common sensical problems with this consideration above.

    But I suppose the chickenhawk meme is not meant to comport with common sense, or logic, or democracy, or anything really. It is deeply disingenuous to claim that not serving in the military says something about the character of war supporters that it doesn't say about war opponents. Calling someone a Chickenhawk is just a means of shutting down debate. It's juvenile. It's hardly effective. And it's a shame that it's tolerated and even encouraged around here.  

    Too many people advocating for war? Let's just pretend that no one get's to have a pro-war opinion unless they've served. Yeah, that'll teach them to dare speak out. You'll just call them cowards and shame them into silence!

    So many words in vain (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    In its common usage, Chickenhawk refers not to disallowing OPINIONS of those who haven't served, but to confront those in power who eagerly SEND others to war having never served themselves.  

    That said, personally, if I get the sense that never having served hasn't hindered your ability to think rationally on the issue, then I don't consider it an issue.  However, if I come to the conclusion that you're talking out of your as* because of a lack of relevant experience (of which military service could be one), then I consider it an issue -- that you are green.


    Common usage (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    Dad, it has not been my experience that the use of the epithet has been confined to those situations in which someone in power is eagerly sending someone else off to war, despite never having served himself.

    In fact, calling "chickenhawk" appears most common to me when, well, people are yelling it at me or other blog commenters. For example, Repack Rider in the comment which gave rise to my original thoughts on the meme.

    We were having a discussion about the war and then, suddenly tired of addressing the merits of my arguments, Repack Rider demanded to know why I hadn't enlisted. When it became clear that I hadn't enlisted, he wrote "Enlist or STFU." His purpose was to shut down debate

    I wrote briefly a second time on the topic when mreddieb said this:

    I can recognize a ChickenHawk and Pro Iraq war coward a mile away! And this was a typical reaction of the Cowardly lions who discuss war in the abstract and squeal loudly and display indignance and a pretense of being insulted when called on their Cowardice. I revelled in their squawking and quivering raised indignant voices. They scream to cover the truth exposing something in their personal character. They wish to deny to themselves.

    Dad, that isn't the comment of someone who is discriminating between mere war supporters and those in power who send others to fight.

    Furthermore, I don't see how your distinction works in the present case. How does Michelle Malkin come under the definition "someone in power who eagerly SEND others to war having never served themselves?"


    Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    I empathize with your position and appreciate the arguments you bring. I don't condone name-calling and chickenhawk seems a rather lame name to throw out there, alongside of coward to refer to someone's position on the war.

    But, you miss something in your analysis. Everything you say is true and makes sense and is supportive of our democratic positions. I thank you for pointing them out. However, people who are against war for moral and humanitarian reasons are right to point out the carnage that results from war and the innocents that will be caught in the middle. They are also right to question both the leaders and the supporters of war and how they came to their conclusion to support a war war.

    I think you will respond that it is presumptuous for me to assume that just because someone supports a war does not mean that they did not consider the moral implications and weigh the positives with the negatives, but it stems from my belief that their can be NO rational reasons for defending the innocent loss of life that will result from the decision to go to war-no matter the cause. The death of one innocent child cannot be morally defended. War is addictive and it is hell. We chose to go there. It is a logical and rational conclusion for those of us who share my beliefs that those who supported this war in the beginning and who continue to support it now are not able to  comprehend and morally consider the hellish outcomes that result from war. Individuals who have served in wars and seen combat usually have an appreciation for what war does to individuals, families, communities, and their fellow soldiers. Thus the question of supporters of proponents for war on whether or not they have served is relevant to understand how much they may actually understand or comprehend the carnage and hell that war produces.


    Peaches (none / 0) (#22)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 05:22:37 PM EST
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. But I think there is something different between "question[ing] both the leaders and the supporters of war and how they came to their conclusion to support a war" and calling them "chickenhawk."

    I don't think there's anything wrong with such questioning. In fact, on a topic such as war, I'd hope that such questioning would be serious and on-going, even after the initiation of combat.

    I suppose that calling "chickenhawk" could be a type of arguing about "leaders and supporters." But, as I laid out earlier, it's not a very good argument.

    You also write:

    Thus the question of supporters of proponents for war on whether or not they have served is relevant to understand how much they may actually understand or comprehend the carnage and hell that war produces.

    Dad also mentioned this idea in #15. And certainly it is an important line of questioning. But it is not what occurs in the chickenhawk argument.

    For example: lets say I'm a young guy who supports the war and I make some arguments about going to war, some of which are open to criticism because I'm just not that well versed in what will happen when we do go to war.

    Obviously, my ideas should be evaluated on how sound they actually are. But is that what calling chickenhawk does? No. Because in this example, folks like Repack Rider would call me chickenhawk, no matter the soundness of my military strategy and comprehension of war.

    The opposite is, thankfully, not true: Further assume that I am, for whatever reason, unable to enlist. In that case, the chickenhawk label doesn't apply to me. I can't very well be called a coward for not doing something which I am physically unable to do. But my plans should still be evaluated for soundness and comprehension of war.

    Therefore, calling chickenhawk is not the same thing as questioning a person's understanding or comprehension of war. It is simple name-calling, designed to shut down debate.

    Finally, you have assumed that there is "NO rational reasons for defending the innocent loss of life that will result from the decision to go to war-no matter the cause. The death of one innocent child cannot be morally defended." That is patently not the case. It is obviously more moral to go to war in the case that one innocent child more will be killed by not going to war, than by staying at peace.

    The example is patent in WWII, which always seems to provide the best examples. At what point should Great Britain have gone to war? When Germany directly attacks GB, or when it becomes clear that a whole lot more people (even non-British) are going to die if they don't act?

    John Stuart Mill said it best:

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    Gabe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:15:19 AM EST
    I was aware of the Mill quote. It is a good one. I think we can have discussions as long as we understand our starting points. The Mill quote is a good place to begin, if one wishes to defend the decision to go to war. You can make many logical moves from there to arrive at a well thought out position that defends the Iraq war or any war.

    I begin with a different assumption and disagree with Mill. I assume war is indefensible and freedom does not require an assumption that war is sometimes justifiable as Mill says. If one begins with my assumptions, obviously rational arguments can be made that will support a position of Peace. My assumptions are built upon the great teachers of nonviolence in our hi8stories - Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, etc.

    We can have discussions, and both of us can be rational and logical in our arguments. However, we won't change each others opinions as long as we hold different assumptions and , of course, that is all right.

    The larger argument then would ask which assumptions would be better held for humanities future, and I would argue that we need both assumptions because in different circumstances these assumptions are like strategies and circumstances will dictate which strategy will succeed. In WWII, my pacifist leanings may not have been a successful strategy against Fascitst movements intent upon spreading their influence worldwide. However, I think a more Pacifist America right now would benefit humanity worldwide by lowering the spending and trading of arms worldwide and decreasing the incidents of war and Terrorism. Of course, to follow my arguments and agree with them you would have to share some of my assumptions that are negative in regards to war. And, of course, I could be wrong. But, then again, so could you.


    Malkin has every right to her.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    opinion on the war...however, when she starts calling people cowards, I think its fair to call her a cowardly chickenhawk.

    Is it cowardly to not fight or support a war you do not believe in?  I say no.  I think it is cowardly to refuse to fight in a war that you believe is absolutely vital to our continued existence, which I think sums up Malkin's position.

    So again...if there is a coward here it's Malkin.


    Now you've done it (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    And I think that might be what frustrates me about the chickenhawk meme the most. It's a simple ad hominem
    Showing that this ad hominem bugs you will just encourage the Repacks of the world will throw it at you at every opportunity.

    You rang? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    Who are the "repacks of the world?"

    I thought I was the only one.

    Being a veteran gives me empathy that you apparently lack.  Do you understand the social cost of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of permanently traumatized veterans returning to our society?  What personal sacrifice are you willing to make for the troops you so blithely send into harm's way for the fourth time, an experience they will live with for the rest of their lives, but which has no impact on YOUR life?

    I pointed this out in another post to PPJ.  A lot of people "support the troops" as long as it isn't in any way inconvenient to them to do so.  But if supporting the troops meant you had to skip lunch or do twenty pushups once a week, yellow ribbons would disappear from the face of the earth.

    BTW, do you have any idea where my name comes from?


    repack - cool name, cool concept! (none / 0) (#30)
    by conchita on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 07:31:57 PM EST
    thanks for the link.  until now i'd never heard of repack riders (except in your name).

    Even (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    that nation, slowly on it's way to being "Greater", that we're all supposed to die for, Israel, backhandedly attempts to undercut the "chickenhawk" syndrome by requiring mandatory service.

    I meant higher gear (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
    Sorry for the OT.