Rant from the Dean's Office
The commentary on my post about the Lefty Civil War has been far greater than I imagined. A big thank you to those who commented intelligently, and a big PHHHHHTTTT to all the lefties who commented otherwise (The two sets are completely disjoint, I assure you).
Really, the lefty assertions to the effect that "Michael Moore and the Clintons will take all the guns" obviously were not thoroughly thought through.
Firstly, these assertions fly in the face of all the advice given by police in Gun-Controlled communities to law abiding citizens when the latter are confronted with an armed mugger in the street or an armed robber in their homes: DO NOT GRAB THE GUN AWAY FROM THE ROBBER. GIVE THE ROBBER WHAT HE WANTS. A determined man holding a gun to defend his land will not give a shambling hulk like Michael Moore a free attempt to take his gun away from him as a courtesy. I quote from the Gospel of Saint Du Toit:
"Verily, veriliy, I say unto thee, when thou seest the Moore, delayest thou not by marvelling that such an immensity canst move, but straightway commenceth firing upon him whilst he is afar off, lest, if he come near to take thy gun, and thou be forced to fire upon him then, that he not fall upon thee when he kicketh the bucket, and crusheth thee under his bulk. Lo, I have told thee in advance: Why shouldst thou die the death of a fool at the hand of a fool, shaming thy children and thy children's children unto the third and fourth generation?"
Okay, so if TAKING the guns is not practical, then you'll have to talk with the bearers of said guns and convince them to GIVE you their guns. Well, first off, you can damn well forget about us red state rural civvies with guns: We've had enough of your lying shit, can see your lying shit from afar off, and will shoot the lying shit out of you the moment you get in range. That leaves the military.
The assertion that Senator Clinton and Former President Clinton can take the guns by ORDERING the military to hand over their guns, or even fight on their behalf, misses the fact that both Clintons are now outside of the Chain of Command. Thus, any military personnel obeying them would be committing mutiny. Inculating blind obedience to the Chain of Command is the way civilian authority over the military in our Republic is implemented. When you asshats screamed "Babykiller!" at the ROTC students in the halls during the 60's, they did not punch your lights out because you were right and they were secretly ashamed. They did not punch your lights out because they had not received an order to punch your lights out, demonstrating that they had more self control than you had courtesy and politeness. You cannot hope for a Military that will not follow the Chain of Command and obey Dean if Bush wins, when you want that same military to follow the Chain of command and obey Dean if he DOES win, and ignore Bush. You CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Finished with your temper tantrum after hearing that last sentence snookins? You are? Good, because I'm not finished yet.
You may be hoping that the Clintoons can get some of the military on your side and give you their guns, and maybe even fight for you, if the Clintoons can convince them that the orders they're being given are illegal, and should be disobeyed (to be followed by blind obedience to THEIR orders, of course).
Alas, this hope is vain. If, as you lefties imply, American Solders are truly NeoNazi, Merciless, babykilling Myrmidons, then wouldn't the distintictions of legal and illegal orders kinda go over their heads? If it didn't, would they bother with it?
Okay, so despite all the lies, misrepresentations, and omissions of fact calculated to cast the American Soldier and their work in Iraq in the worst possible light that you have uttered, it appears that deep down inside, you lefties hope that they will disobey illegal orders and risk themselves to protect you and fight for you.
And indeed they will.
Provided, of course, that they believe you lefties and the Clintoons and the Media that the orders are illegal.
THAT is going to prove a tad bit difficult to execute. In fact, the very explanation of why that is so may be a tad bit difficult for you lefties to comprehend. Then again, this IS the Imperial Crusader War College, dedicated to education and learning, so I'm gonna give it a good try.
If there is one thing that you lefties excel at, it is in pumping out the lies and spinning stuff to get people to believe you. You're awfully good at that, and we on the right are (when not incensed at the blatant bias that you and the media can show while finesseing it off as impartiality) in downright awe at your propagandistic skills. I tip my hat to you.
Unfortunately, when you spread misinformation and lies about someone else, you will never, ever achieve 100% success in convincing everyone to believe your lies. That is an iron law, unalterable, inescapable, and unyielding. Axiomatic in fact.
I'll prove it: When you spread lies about someone, you'll never be able to convince the person about whom you are lying, thus never achieving 100% success.
For you lefty trolls and spammers who doubtless have vision problems with small letters, and thus read and write everything in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS, let me repeat what I said: WHEN YOU SPREAD LIES ABOUT SOMEONE, YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE PERSON ABOUT WHOM YOU ARE LYING.
You see, when you lie about someone, you have to rely on the fact that the people hearing the lie don't know about the truth. But someone DOES know the truth: the person you are slandering. They may not have the perfect words to formulate an answer. They may not be allowed to answer. Their answer may not be allowed to see the light of day. There may be active efforts to limit the number of people who will be allowed to hear that answer and be convinced. But, mark my words, the person being slandered KNOWS. They may not be able to affect how people react to them based on your lies about them, but they sure as hell can affect how they react to YOU based on your lies about them. The more effective you are in making sure THEIR answer isn't heard, the more pissed off they will be at you, and even less likely to believe you and cooperate with you in the future.
So let's recap your game plan, shall we? You leftists are going to start a civil war if Bush wins, and plan to get weapons to fight with and soldiers to fight for you from the armed forces of the very nation against which you are rebelling. You're going to get these soldiers to switch sides or hand you their guns by sending the loony leftist liberal Clintoons to assure them that the orders that they have been given to shoot rebel loony leftist liberals are illegal. And you are expecting them, against whom you loony leftist liberals have spread lies and slander and misinformation since the 1960's, TO BELIEVE YOU THAT ONE TIME AND SWITCH SIDES.
Now, by the time the Election rolls around, just how many Regulars will have been rotated out of Iraq back to the States in time to vote AND fight a civil war? Regulars about whose accomplishments and difficulties you have ignored, lied about, and deceived the citizens of the United States of?
You. Expect. THEM. To. Switch. Sides.
Um, Yeah.
So you loony lefty liberals, think HARD about this (the asprin's in the drawer, since you're sure to need it shortly): Is all that bullshit you've been spewing about the American Military REALLY true? I don't mean if you BELIEVE it. I mean is it REALLY TRUE?
Because if it is and you start your fool civil war, then you're fucked because they're mean, merciless Neo-Nazi, babykilling bastards who won't give a damn about the Geneva Convention and illegal orders, and who will shoot you in sheer bloodlust.
And you will be dead.
And if you don't, then you've been lying about them for the last 40 years. Worse yet, they KNOW you've been lying about them. So again you're fucked if you start your fool civil war because you've been pissing your potential recruits off for the last 40 years and NOW THEY WILL GET THE PERMISSION TO SHOOT YOU, which they will do with as much pleasure and abandon as we gun-totin' red state civvies will.
And you will be DEAD.
Posted by ptah at January 3, 2004 07:33 PM"And you will be DEAD."
And I can't wait. RARRRRRRR!!!
Where did you find the "American Myrmidon" picture? Indymedia? I wouldn't be surprised, not after they posted a shot from a protest last year, two masked cowards with a banner stating, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers". I was preparing to deploy for OIF, and can only remember wanting to beat the living dogsnot out of those two assholes. Not for protesting, not for their repellent sentiments, but for being a pair of masked, faceless cowards, lacking the balls to put a face behind their words. Trolls, anyone?
I was an absentee voter in 2000, and would have been absolutely stark-raving mad to find that my ballot had been thrown out on a technicality because some DNC flake wanted to perform emergency surgery on his equally flaky candidate's poll returns.
So, If the SHTF, would I have a change of heart and fight for them? Would I arm those jagoffs, teach the limp-wrists to handle and fire a rifle? F no. They "support" us only when it's politically convenient to do so, and then shit on us the other 99% of the time. Good luck finding some babykillin' so'jers to fight for you, assholes.
R. A. Hardin
SGT/USMC
Now that's one masterful SMACK to the collective snouts of the idiotarians if I ever saw one! Love it! But I suspect their blather is very much like a tantrum of a little spoiled brat who "threatens" the grownups when he can't get his way--and getting even more pissed off because he knows he can't make that threat reality. "If you don't buy me this toy, I'll get my big bad imaginary friend to beat you up! Waaaaa!" It's nothing but empty blather. Sad bastards, those leftists!
Posted by: Natasha at January 4, 2004 04:30 AMTo the owner of this esteemed blog: I regret to inform you of an infestation of your blog by a completely idiotic, annoying, hysterical troll known as UmYeah. This specimen has been polluting threads on various blogs I frequent, annoying normal readers and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion. He is good for one thing-- laughter, but only occasionally. After a few posts, he will start getting hysterical (he is already almost there, but not quite) which makes for a hilarious read. However, as a rule, he is quite boring and whiny. He hates it when his posts are "creatively edited" ;). After a few of those he usually goes away, probably to hug his teddy-bear and cry in helpless angst while looking for other blogs to troll in search for attention.
Posted by: Natasha at January 4, 2004 10:27 AMSutcliffe's syphlus has clearly eaten most what little brain he ever had. Too bad he was never bright enough to seek medical attention. It is also too bad that the disease has not finished his brain stem yet. Then we would not hear anymore of his inane blatherings.
Just think, this 'person' believes that he would make a good LE officer. LOL. Of the dozens of LE officers (state, local, and federal) I have met, none would tolerate Sutcliffe's presence.
Good luck passing the psych profile, asshat.
Ptah, I suggest you begin editing Sutcliffe's comments to be more amusing.
Posted by: Eric Sivula at January 4, 2004 11:50 AMFacts are facts. Conservatives have the guns. They know how to use them. Liberals will line up to be disarmed. When they are all helpless, let the games begin. I can barely wait. We'll use ammo, and Duh Yup can use it's delusions.
Duh Yup Squealed-Spatula wiped of his revolver and buttoned up his burgundy shirt!
Posted by: mark at January 4, 2004 12:36 PM(eyes Mark suspiciously) How'd you know I had a burgundy shirt? (grin)
Thank you Natasha, and Done Eric. I did a mini-fisking instead of a wholesale edit. I'll escalate if continued hysteria ensues.
Posted by: Ptah at January 4, 2004 02:09 PMLord Spatula,
Inductive reasoning would lead one to presume you have more than one burgundy shirt. Blood stains don't show up very well on burgundy. Black is also good.
Special Ed
Posted by: Special Ed at January 4, 2004 02:22 PMLOL! It's a line from a Tom Waits song.
"Mister Seigel"
"I spent all my money in a Mexican whorehouse baby
across the street from a Catholic church
And then I wiped off my revolver
and I buttoned up my Burgundy shirt
I shot the morning in the back, with my red wings on
told the sun he'd better go back down
And if I can find a book of matches
I'm goin' to burn this hotel down"
Frankly, there is no rational reason to hate black people, and therefore, I do not. I cannot imagine that anyone else here does. Furthermore, I myself hate nobody. Hate is a tool of the left almost exclusively.
Besides, how complex can your life be, Duh Yup? it consists primarily of trolling and practicing your particular brand of idioting. I can't imagine that taxes the brain of anyone.
Oh, wait, you're a "Progressive". Nevermind.
Dumb Yeah, what do you mean *start* revolting? You swine *are* revolting! Hahahaha! Boy, you are an idiot!
Posted by: Natasha at January 4, 2004 04:21 PMOh, and don't you just love the typical leftist maneuver (manure): when out of slogans, call the opponent a racist. Leftists! I almost feel sorry for them, but not quite :)
Posted by: Natasha at January 4, 2004 04:27 PMYes, Natasha, I noticed the classic disjoint jumps between subjects. We have here a prime example of trollus pechens, the Fisher Troll, whose main modus operandi is to jump from subject to subject, never following up on any response if the audience appears competent to answer them or see through their bullshit. He's "fishing" for a subject that he hopes nobody knows about, so he can gain an advantage and feel confident and knowledgeable.
Based on this, I will not ban dear snookums, whose ravings will be preserved for prosterity, since future trolls will surely assure our great grandchildren that the trolls in 2003 weren't that bad at all...
Posted by: Ptah at January 4, 2004 05:10 PMTo go mildly off-topic, I've just discovered this really fun novel about the radical left's dreamed-of "civil war", and it even starts out with them having the Presidency and (initially) the military.
And they still lose.
"A State of Disobedience", by Tom Kratman, published by Baen. Came out in hardcover in December 2003, and is also available online as an e-book.
A free ebook preview is available here. Full version can be bought through Baen's webscriptions.net
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200312/0743471709.htm?blurb
Posted by: Chuckg at January 4, 2004 06:36 PMThe standard Goebbellian tactic of the 'BigLie' is to accuse the one you attack with the 'smear' that they are what you are:
eg. Call the opposition to your fascism... fascists...
So the Dean-Collectivists call the individualists fascists... when in fact the Dean-Collectivists endorse elitist authoritarian collectivism...
Better known as fascism.
Posted by: DANEgerus at January 4, 2004 07:00 PMThe liberals can't revolt. The last president to lie to the American public was named Johnson. Nixon covered up Johnson lied. Sorry progressives.
Mike, Johnson was the last President who lied to the public and where people died. Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton lied but, to his credit, only the integrity of the English language died.
Posted by: Ptah at January 5, 2004 05:04 AMDANEgerus:
"So the Dean-Collectivists call the individualists fascists... when in fact the Dean-Collectivists endorse elitist authoritarian collectivism... Better known as fascism."
Please don't be so disengeneous. [or factual :P] There are collectivists on the right and individualists on the left, and vice-versa, and both sides are equally represented by fascists [just not in equal numbers... :P] . So the socialists tend to vote Dem? Does that make Dems socialists? [birds of a feather... :P] Then what about all those neo-nazis who vote GOP? Because they certainly like Bush a lot more than Dean. But I (unlike many of my peers) would never call the GOP a Nazi organization, even if Nazis regularly vote for that party, so you're not any more correct in calling the Democrats fascists -- but go ahead, it only helps Dean's re-election efforts that much more when you pick on the wrong target. [I'll trust the voters to see who's right and wrong. :P]
mark:
"Facts are facts. Conservatives have the guns. They know how to use them. Liberals will line up to be disarmed. When they are all helpless, let the games begin. I can barely wait."
There are plenty of liberals like myself who own & love guns, ["DO NOT FEAR, MY FELLOW LIBERALS! I have a gun! Follow me, mes amis, and we shall force the selfish rurals to share their food with us! Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! There they are! Follow me! Attack! Oh shit, where did everyone -" :P] and this is why we like Dean and dislike, say, Kucinich -- any guess which one wants to protect gun rights and which one doesn't? Oh, I forgot: they're both Democrats, therefore they must both be total fascist pigs. [You liberals have a quaint way of reading our minds, don't you? Have you tried going into business as a Psychic? Tried predicting the Stock market? Next Saturday's Lotto numbers? :P] Sigh. I don't suppose that it's worth mentioning that NO Democrat ever comes out with a plan to remove the 2nd Amendment [Not yet. The snake in the Garden was more subtle, and they take after their kin. :P] -- yet when they try to come down on assault rifles & such, you've been so indoctrinated into thinking that "you give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" that you freak out and call them gun-grabbers when they want to legislate anything that sounds like "control". [It's called "slippery slope", a technique used by socialists to gradually implement their goals in many areas with great success. Of COURSE you'd poo-poo it when we start suspecting you're using it AGAIN. Of course, you asshats screamd it when considering Partial Birth Abortion. Pissed, no doubt, at seeing your weapon being turned against you perhaps? :P] When Rush speaks, you obey. Repeat as necessary. ["You DISAGREE WITH ME! SHAME! CLEARLY youu are FOOLISH SHEEP, and must bow before MY SUPERIOR Intellect! YASSSS! It CANNOT BE that Rush may be arguing logically from an entirely different set of axioms that I detest, but that you SHEEP also hold, and thus come to DIFFERENT conclusions than me! That would imply that you could think, but that CANNOT BE, for YOU ARE SHEEP! YOU ARE SHEEP! YOU ARE SHEEP!" Repeat as necessary. :P]
Some advice: don't pigeonhole an entire side of politics as "leftist" because they don't use the same slogans as you [or the same axioms? :P] ; trust me, lots of liberals and lots of conservatives have common agendas, they just believe in different means. [Unlike you, we worry about the results, while you worry about looking good. :P] And, yes, politicians on both side are corrupt, but that doesn't mean the ideology of their consituents is corrupt.
Go ahead and flame me now, everyone. I'm sure there'll be nothing I haven't heard 1000 times before. [He now dons the martyr's clothes and strikes a pose eerily similiar to that of Washington Crossing the Delaware, confident in the "fact" that his flaming us proves his intelligence, while us flaming him proves his superiority. Go take up acting, but avoid working for Michael Moore: He won't be able to stand working near an ego whose size exceeds his bulk :P]
Posted by: Tlahuixcalpantecuhtli at January 5, 2004 05:06 PM*walks off, pocketing marker pen*
Posted by: Ptah at January 5, 2004 06:26 PMWha?
Next time try english. Oh, and try having a point, it helps a great deal. That's beside the one on your head.
As far as flaming, well, I'm not sure if bullshit burns.
Most, if not all, conservatives I know have no problem with differences of opinion. No two conservatives agree on just how much the government should be involved in day-to-day affairs of the people. BUT, we also don't like people who say that they agree with much of our stances on politics voting for people who would ban our rights to have those stances, or those rights. So, while I can have a healthy discussion on just about any policy with a liberal, (I would love to sit down and chat with Sen. Miller (D)Ga. over a beer or 20) I draw the line at being told that I'm too uninformed, extreme, or uneducated to be allowed to have my voice heard in the public discourse... which all the liberal candidates for President have endorsed, to one form or another.
Posted by: Humble Devildog at January 6, 2004 09:10 AMPtah: I appreciate your attempt to offend me, but unlike the bulk of my liberal-libertarian peers, I am nigh-unoffendable. It's weird. I simply cannot take stuff like this personally. I am, however, confused by the "Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" thing (where were you going with that?), but heartened to hear that you do not like Rush Limbaugh. I apologize for stereotyping you, my bad. But then, you're surely stereotyping me, no? Oui.
Anyway, skipping on to the one black marker scrawl of yours I can actually bite into (you really don't leave me much . . . I mean, come on, Michael Moore insults??), I dare you to address the fact that if socialists can be "birds of a feather" with liberals, then one must logically include white supremicists with conservatives. My point being that since white supremicists actually are not birds of a feather with conservatives, then you cannot make a similar association with socialists vis-a-vis liberals. So what if the GOP was supported segregation and the Dems opposed fighting wars with communists? That was forty fuckin' years ago! Aren't all the people from back then in retirement homes now? Sipping on their juic boxes and drooling in their bibs? It's the 21st century, time to MOVE ALONG.
Mark: my head is quite round, not pointy at all. Why do you say such mean things! It's so hurtful! Waaah!!
Humble Devilog: I feel your pain. No, really, I do. It pisses me off to see conservatives being pigeonholed constantly as racists, fascists, and plutocrats, and the degree of partisanship in this country is truly alarming -- people putting their ideology ahead of their country is SO distasteful. And yet I have indulged in this far too often, usually as a result of being constantly pigeonholed myself; it's not a matter of "who started it", it's just that politics has become such a football game of a spectacle that it's hard not to simply choose "sides" and commence throwing feces. I know what it must feel like when someone labels you a racist redneck; it's what it feels like when someone calls me a socialist/communist/fascist/slur-de-jour. Yes, the size of the government is something that's up for debate (anti-collectivism is really just anti-civilization), but we should all recognize that what it all comes down to is wanting what's best for the US; only the Unibomber & his ilk and a thousand or so Glorious People's Revolutionary College Students seriously are anti-American at heart. Anyone who actually calls themselves a "Democrat" is seriously someone that conservatives have a lot in common with -- football politics aside. You said: "I draw the line at being told that I'm too uninformed, extreme, or uneducated to be allowed to have my voice heard in the public discourse... which all the liberal candidates for President have endorsed, to one form or another." -- so imagine being told by conservatives that your party is best for bin Laden, that your party hates America, or that you and your friends are all "elitists". It does go both ways, right? For what it's worth, though, I don't think Dean & Co. are complaining about the likes of the folks on this site; they're really more outspoken about the huge influence of Christian fundamentalists who essentially own the GOP (just as unions and lawyers own the Dems). They're going after your leaders not you; you, they want on their side, of course. Wishful thinking? Dean was accused of being a closet Republican throughout his career in Vermont, so I think he's got a lot more in common with you than you've been led to believe by the conservative press. Just some food for thought.
Posted by: Tlahuixcalpantecuhtli at January 6, 2004 10:15 AMReally. At least take a SWIPE at speaking English. Incoherent babble may play at Atrios but here it's just, well, incoherent babble.
Posted by: mark at January 6, 2004 09:04 PM