Let's take, for example, the case of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. Named for some variety of "white dog", this is an animal who revels in its own rabidity; but its most distinctive characteristic, which it shares with so many other right-winged birds, is its flabby, impotent passion for phony tough talk.
"Filed under: Verbal Bitch Slaps", says the liberal-chewing Chihuahua, congratulating himself because he knows no one else will do it. The internet is not usually thought of as a verbal medium, but why pick nits off a dog's fur when it's only going to bite you for your troubles?
The post is meant to be a rebuke to the idea that gun control will prevent gun violence, but it degenerates after the very first sentence into basement-borne RPG*-enthusiast machospeak:
Here’s something I’d like to tell you, even though it’ll probably make you wet your rubber sheets: If I were insane enough to want to kill you, I wouldn’t need a gun
MOMMY! THE INTERNET MAN IS SCARING ME! HE SAID HE COULD KILL ME WITH A SPORK AND A SUGAR PACKET BECAUSE OF HIS MAIL ORDER NINJA TRAINING
(even though I know for a fact, from personal experience, that I could get one no matter how many idiotic “gun control laws” you choose to enact)
He learned magic firearms acquisition skills in the same Marine Corps correspondence course where he learned to kill people using only his right thumb and a high-speed internet router.
I’m perfectly capable of murdering you with anything down to and including my own hands. It’s not all that hard, really, I can assure you of that.
Spoken like an actual murderer! Or a anonymous shitbag who reads too many Mack Bolan paperbacks.
The thing is, without gun control I don’t know if you have a gun to stop me from doing so. What that means is that everything I’ve ever learned about killing people can be canceled out by an 83-year-old grandma with a pistol. All she has to do is to point and pull the trigger, and everything I know about killing her, which is quite a lot, will be useless because I’ll be dead, and it doesn’t take much training and even less physical strength for her to do that.
Attitudes like this (it requires no training or strength to shoot a gun!) totally have nothing to do with the vast numbers of "accidental" gun deaths we have in America, but I do like how this sick puppy managed to work in yet another reference to how much he knows about killing people. He can't be bothered to follow through his own premises -- why would a psychotic murderer who can kill people in hundreds of ways be steered away from a victim just on the off chance that they might have a gun? -- but my guess is that he's actually 15 years old, so I'm probably holding him to far too high a standard.
Then again, that's, like 83 in dog years...
43 comments:
So does this sweet S,N! gig have anything to do with your statesmanlike performance in comments during GiantSammichGate?
You know he has 52 ways of killing you with his body odor alone.
Lenny,
You have some serious issues.
I'd like to help, but there really isn't much of a point.
The good news?
Your hit count will actually bust a hunsky now.
Well, it's nice to have you there (and here.)
Congratulations!
You missed every single point Misha made, dragged your diatribe into the weeds of adolencent emotional reactonism, forfeiting whatever points you foist.
"Scary man"?
Geeeeeeze loweeeez. If only you knew. His chops were earned on the wall staring down a rifle barrel at the communist antagonists staring back down theirs.
That's a scenario that you will never comprehend. If you were put there you'd dissolve into something too low to kick and too slippery to step in.
Therefore, you have no basis for any comparisons.
If you've ever misjudged a character, you did today.
That's why I stopped by to chuckle.
True to your chosen philosophy,,you concentrate on freaking out over percieved threats, (the wording was simply too subtle for you to grok) and missed the heavily belabored points.
Rather than illuminate them to smarmy snarkism, ejaculating as you slap away evidence, I'll leave you out here in the intellectual desert with the other lizards.
You may snark your reply now, then delete this post.
Your traditions are well known.
You guys are awesome.
Man, that guy actually calls HIMSELF the "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler"? I thought that was one of your smartass nicknames.
Love the above commenter, too. ZOMG HE SEZ THE SCARY MAN CAN KILL US. AND HE'S TOTALLY NOT A RANDOM ANONYMOUS PERSON ON THE INTERNET, EITHER. HE KNOWS STUFF, AND WE SHOULD TRUST HIM.
Kylie, how typically liberal of you. You are either mocking and ripping on a soldier who fought communism or have serious reading comprehension issues. Again, not a huge surprise.
You guys may want to step away from the bong!
If you're going to say "step away from the bong" you should avoid using "grok" as a verb.
Attitudes like this (it requires no training or strength to shoot a gun!)...
Always good to hear from an expert on the use of firearms.
totally have nothing to do with the vast numbers of “accidental” gun deaths we have in America...
Like, dude, here are some fatality numbers from the National Safety Council for 2003 that like, ya know, totally make you look like a moron:
Assault by sharp object: 2,049
Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water: 1,225
Fall on and from stairs and steps:
1,588
Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture: 838
[Motor Vehicle Accident involving] Pedalcyclist: 762
[Accidental] Firearms discharge: 730
We need to ban all sharp things, water sports, multi story buildings, beds and bicycles.
At least around you...
Mr. Clown,
Aptly named blog you have here.
You have beclowned yourself by commenting about someone of which you clearly have little or no knowledge.
There is a little thing called "research" that might boost your credibility in the future.
Better luck next time...
"fought communists"?
The fuck?
Can't be in Vietnam - after 2004 we've seen how respected the soldiers of that war are with the wingnuts (Ha! HA! Purple heart BANDAIDS!)
Maybe it was in Afghanistan, fighting alongside those wonderful "freedom fighters" of the Mujahideen. Boy, I wonder whatever happened to those crazy kids!
You know, I don't think I could ever come up with a fake Internet name as poetic and evocative as "cheapshot911". Think about it: it brings the ambiguity of "cheap shot," suggesting that maybe I think you are taking cheap shots and maybe I'm willing to acknowledge that this is only a cheap shot that I would be taking because of my contempt for you. And then it marries this delicious ambiguity with the golden godless spectre of 9/11. Brilliant!
Perhaps I could better understand if I had spent some time staring down a rifle barrel at some communist antagonists staring back down their rifle barrels, too... wait a minute, I got lost there. Were we talking about the best way to shoot out one's own eyes?
WHERE to begin??
Clown(APT name!), Misha was a soldier in the Danish Army, separated from Soviet (very possible)aggressors by a distance so small, that had you been forced to live with your neighbor that close; you'd want to move out of the tenement public housing you were stuck in. When he states that he is capable of killing you with his bare hands, it would cause you to live a much longer life not to put his assertion to the test.
Kylie, Misha calls his BLOG the A.I.R.; he calls himself the Emperor of same as a tongue in cheek bit of fun; at least learn whereof you speak before you reveal your lack of knowledge.
Bill, you confused two posters as using "bong" and "grok" in the same post; if you can't even keep the players straight, your rebuttals won't hold any weight, whatsoever. Might I suggest,come back when you are sober?
Pere Ubu, I suppose you are too young to know of the "Cold War"...and believe me, as a participant of that conflict myself, I can assure you that there were many unsung fatalities in that conflict.
Hayden(the)Child(s), your diatribe proves you have zero ability to really know the truth of the situation, making Cheapshot's point when he states"That's a scenario that you will never comprehend." Believe me, when you look over the sights of a weapon to see your enemy doing the same to you, it is truly a life-changing experience, and not one that you EVER forget. The manner you make light of such a situation tells me that you are not a person of any standing in an adult world.
He was a brave Danish soldier? They sure fought the nazis, didn't they?
Which wall did he earn his chops on? Oh, yeah, the wall where those dirty commies were staring down their own barrels. That must've been scary.
In the "worth a 1000 words" dep't: Shields of Jeebus & David and some Star Wars thing atop his page. Matbe he earned his chops on the Playstation wall.
Interesting.
I was hoping to find some sort of debate or discussion here, but I guess not.
As has been pointed out, Misha served in the Danish Army (Intel) before immigrating to the United States. Have fun mocking that all you want, I suppose. It's the normal habit of little men to laugh at those bigger than themselves.
"52 ways of killing..." - Um, any human being has a large number of ways to kill anyone. It's not difficult and is shown in movies and television everywhere. People are always creative in ways to kill their fellow man. We use hands, tools, chemicals, whatever is easiest at the time. Some of us are trained in more specific and efficient ways to kill. Misha is one of those. Who cares? His point was that if you wish to kill people, you WILL find a way. School shootings have happened in many different countries with very strict gun control - It simply doesn't work and blaming American 'Gun Culture' is such a ridiculous statement that it does little other than illustrate the ignorance of the person making it. Same with the 'Think of the CHILDREN!' statement. That is so trite that it's even regularly mocked on The Simpsons.
I'm afraid picking on someone's blog name from "Clown Central Station" is rather ironic. Perhaps you missed that point, um...Krusty, is it?
Do you dispute ANY of Misha's points? Or were you just content to make pathetic snarky comments?
1: Do you disagree that psychos can and will find ways to kill whether guns are available or not?
2: Do you disagree that even when guns are illegal, criminals will get guns?
3: Do you disagree that even relatively un-trained and weak persons can effectively use a firearm?
4: Do you disagree that criminals are deterred by the possibility that their victim may be armed?
Looking forward to some very simple answers from you on those four simple points. The same ones Misha made.
Orion
Isn't Denmark the country where a politician ran on the platform of replacing the army with an answering service that said "we surrender" in Russian?
Pere Ubu, I suppose you are too young to know of the "Cold War"...and believe me, as a participant of that conflict myself, I can assure you that there were many unsung fatalities in that conflict.
Um, no, I grew up in the '80s when "oceans didn't protect us" and we still had SOME kind of small respect for Constitutional rights.
So I guess anyone who held a gun for the entire period 1945-1991 is a "veteran of the Cold War who faced down the guns of the Communist horde"? Um, okay, if you really want to demean the risk people who were, you know, getting shot at, or at least were potentially going to be shot at, went through.
Somehow I don't think sitting in Denmark, which is, after all, hundreds of miles from Moscow, is being "on the wall staring down a rifle barrel". I'd reserve that kind of phrase for people who were actually on the front lines, say in the Fulda Gap. Or on the DMZ in Korea. Or in Saigon circa 1969.
Here, have a Purple Heart bandaid. EVERYONE gets one! Wheee!
Orion:
In the missing-the-point department, you guys have been real champs, for which I thank you. I've particularly enjoyed how so many of you enjoy calling me a crazy liberal gun control nut, when in fact I am a multiple gun owner, and an advocate of gun ownership. At no point in my post did I ever advocate gun control; I merely pointed out that the sort of casual ignorance of their ability or not to prevent violence is symptomatic of why America is so flooded with handgun deaths.
The thrust of my criticism had nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with phony tough talk, which is exactly what I smell when someone starts yapping about OH HO YES I COULD KILL YOU SO EASILY WITHOUT A GUN! Maybe you can't see the bogus tough-guy swagger coming off the post I cited, but I can. If you don't agree, well, there we are, but don't presume to lecture me about real tough guys. There's plenty of them in my family, and they don't spend all their time sitting around blogging about how deliciously deadly they are and calling anyone who disagrees with them a faggot.
Anyway, to your questions:
First, you seem to have misinterpreted who the clowns are in the name of my blog, but E for Effort on the cheap joke.
Second, of course, I am always content to make pathetic snarky comments. That's exactly what this blog is for. I have no illusions that I am a deeply profound political thinker, which is what separates me from the people I write about. I don't pretend my bullshit is blueberries.
1. Sure they can. But guns make it oh so much easier. I'm pro-gun, but I'm also not dumb enough to think that more guns isn't going to equal more gun violence, the same way that more cars equal more auto fatalities. If, as a country, we decide we're willing to live with those numbers, fine; but let's not pretend that guns have nothing to do with our high murder rate.
2. Nope, I don't disagree with that at all, nor did I disagree with that in my original post, which had, as I've mentioned, very little to do with guns and very much to do with self-inflating toughman talk. However, it is also the case that it is easier for criminals to get guns in America, where they are widely available, than in countries where they are tightly restricted.
3. Yes, I absolutely disagree with that, and anyone who knows a lot about guns will also disagree. Ask someone in the NRA if an untrained shooter can effectively use a handgun.
4. Yeah, I kinda disagree with that. I think ordinary criminals like muggers or burglars might be deterred at the thought of their victims being armed, but murderers -- especially psychotic murderers like Cho -- don't give a fuck. For evidence of this, look at the gang violence of the inner city: those are areas completely flooded, awash in guns. There are guns everywhere. Every street hood carries a piece, and sometimes more than one. Does this deter criminal behavior? Do the gangs hesitate to start beef from the fear their targets are armed? Nope. In fact, exactly the opposite is true; beef escalates into murder in a heartbeat, specifically BECAUSE everyone is armed. The inner cities, which are inundated in firearms, by your logic should be the safest, most crime-free areas of the country; instead, they're the most dangerous and most crime-ridden.
Pere Ubu:
Hey, man, the Danes may have been hundreds of miles from Moscow, but they shared a border with the evil communists of East Germany!
Oh, no, wait, they didn't. BUT STILL! They were the front lines of the Cold War, and while I don't recall there being any fatalities in the Great Soviet-Danish War, that's just because guys like Misha were just so darn brave and determined that no one dared fire a shot for fear of learning all the ways he knows to kill a man.
Lenny,
At best, you're only a hack, an unemployed writer with a pitiful for crap website, life, and two or three regular readers. They only read your trash, because you point it out to them, "Looky what I wrote!" in some sort of childish glee.
You attacked Misha will no reason behind it. That's sorry. You promote yourself as a tough guy and slander his service.
You don't know dick about tough guys kiddo.
To call yourself a "deep thinker" pretty much tells me everything else I need to know about you.
You're full of yourself and mentally weak.
By the way, last point.
Your writing? I've read several of your posts.
It sucks.
Hey, "Dick"! Thanks for continuing to stop by even though you think my writing sucks.
I may be a hack, but I am, in fact, an employed writer. I am an editor, in fact, and a professional freelance writer. I get paid to post nonsense on the internet! How great is that? You, on the other hand, do it for nothing, which is fine, because I have much respect for dedicated amateurism.
I am sorry you think my website (which one? I have several) is pitiful for crap, and placing my regular readership at two or three is probably overstating the case. But hey, with you on board, that's one more, right? Pointing out "looky what I wrote" in childish glee is pretty much why everyone writes, of course, but this doesn't obligate anyone to read it.
I didn't, in fact, attack Misha for no reason: I attacked him for the good reason that he posted nonsensical phony tough talk for all to see, and that irritates me. If you'd like to see baseless attacks for no reason, may I suggest checking out the comments thread of his post about me? Count how many responses it takes for someone to call me a faggot. (Hint: two.)
I'd really like to know where I promoted myself as a tough guy, or where I slandered his service; I don't think I'm a tough guy, and I didn't even know he was in the service. Can you provide citations?
Also, I appreciate that you're keeping up the tradition of misreading that has such a proud history around here. I did not, in fact, call myself a deep thinker; I did exactly the opposite. Let's all read for context! It's fun.
Thanks for reading my sucky posts!
Maybe A-IR-head's plan to kill you is to send over so many of his little posturing friends that their comments make you laugh to death.
Okay, dude, I read through most of these comments without collapsing into a helpless pile of giggles - score one for me, seriously - but whenever one of these dude who wandered over from Mr. Rottweiler's comment thread accuses you of not being able to write, it cracks my shit up. Coming from a group of people whose members have coined such immortal phrases as "Rather than illuminate them to smarmy snarkism... you missed every single point Misha made, dragged your diatribe into the weeds of adolencent emotional reactonism, forfeiting whatever points you foist" - THAT'S SOME FUNNIES RIGHT THERE.
GREAT WORK LENARD! WAY TO INNIHILATE MISHA AND HIS NAZI MINIONS!!
SEND FACIST RUSH TO JAIL FOR RASCISM!
"I've read several of your posts.
It sucks."
Maybe he didn't get past Mrs. Mortimer Week.
Hey, an anonymous Internet tough guy made fun of my name! Everyone know there ain't no talk tougher than "your name sounds like something weaker" which is why most John Wayne movies are full of The Duke name-calling his enemies. I guess you have to be a tough guy if you're a manly man who goes by "Bert".
And this guy referred to my five sentences (and one interjection) as a "diatribe." Five sentences, two paragraphs, 120 words: diatribe.
I forget, why don't we take these guys seriously, again?
I had rascism once. It took weeks to get that cleared up.
In the missing-the-point department, you guys have been real champs, for which I thank you. I've particularly enjoyed how so many of you enjoy calling me a crazy liberal gun control nut, when in fact I am a multiple gun owner, and an advocate of gun ownership. At no point in my post did I ever advocate gun control; I merely pointed out that the sort of casual ignorance of their ability or not to prevent violence is symptomatic of why America is so flooded with handgun deaths.
* Well, that paragraph has nothing to do with my post, so I'll ignore the straw man and just comment on your last sentence: Exactly what is 'flooded'? The numbers just aren't that high. Check out this online pamphlet, called 'Gun Facts' - You may find it interesting, particularly as a firearm advocate.
The thrust of my criticism had nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with phony tough talk, which is exactly what I smell when someone starts yapping about OH HO YES I COULD KILL YOU SO EASILY WITHOUT A GUN! Maybe you can't see the bogus tough-guy swagger coming off the post I cited, but I can. If you don't agree, well, there we are, but don't presume to lecture me about real tough guys. There's plenty of them in my family, and they don't spend all their time sitting around blogging about how deliciously deadly they are and calling anyone who disagrees with them a faggot.
* Perhaps since I've been reading the Rott for several years, I don't see 'yapping' about his mad killin' skillz. I didn't even interpret that post as having anything to do with that particular topic. Misha pointed out that ANYONE - himself included - could come up with a variety of ways to kill. He's a trained soldier, a trained marksman, and a few other things as well. These DO give him the knowledge of how to kill without much difficulty - more so than the average untrained citizen. So that's hardly 'bogus tough-guy swagger'.
Where did I lecture you about real tough guys? I'm glad you have plenty in your family. I would imagine every family has it's share - which speaks eloquently to Misha's point, no? And again, I don't see where you're finding him spending all (or even a majority) of his time sitting around talking about how deliciously deadly he is, nor calling anyone who disagrees with him a faggot. I've seen an awful LOT of posts and discussions over there where there wasn't even a hint of name calling, and there are precious few posts where he talks about his mad killin' skillz.
The post that so offends you is short and to the point. He mentions that he knows how to kill exactly three times. 1: I don't need a gun to kill. (NO one does). 2: Same point reinforced. 3: Mentions that he knows a lot about how to kill - normal for a soldier and marksman. So, exactly which of these is yapping about being a tough-guy?
Besides - as a friend of mine once put it, if you can do it, it 'aint braggin.
As I'm sure you're aware, every blog has it's 'flavor'. The AIR is a rough-n-tumble vicious festival that specializes in over-the-top hyperbole. IMAO is a bizarre collection of off-the-wall humor. Your blog points out the clowns you see to the left of you and to the right - As you imply to so many of the other folks commenting, If you don't like it, don't visit there.
Anyway, to your questions:
First, you seem to have misinterpreted who the clowns are in the name of my blog, but E for Effort on the cheap joke.
You mean like yours at the expense of The Rott? Hmm. Give it time, it'll come to you.
Second, of course, I am always content to make pathetic snarky comments. That's exactly what this blog is for. I have no illusions that I am a deeply profound political thinker, which is what separates me from the people I write about. I don't pretend my bullshit is blueberries.
Well, that's a relief. I'd be much more comfortable having waffles at your house. If that's all you're interested in, more power to you. I got the impression from your blog that you preferred something a bit meatier than snark. But we can surely switch to that if you prefer. It's fun, harmless, and burns calories. Kinda like masturbating. Not terribly productive though.
1. Sure they can. But guns make it oh so much easier. I'm pro-gun, but I'm also not dumb enough to think that more guns isn't going to equal more gun violence, the same way that more cars equal more auto fatalities. If, as a country, we decide we're willing to live with those numbers, fine; but let's not pretend that guns have nothing to do with our high murder rate.
Evidently, you ARE that dumb. The two are not necessarily causal. You can see this pretty simply by looking at gun crimes in cities and nations with gun bans or very strict gun control. I'm quite willing to STATE that guns have nothing to do with our high murder rate. Speaking of which, what IS our murder rate, hmmm? And how does that compare to The UK's? Australia's? Might want to look into those - as well as their reporting methodologies.
Let's use a simple example, shall we? We have one town with LOTS of guns - EVERY householder in town is REQUIRED to have a gun and demonstrate proficiency. A neighboring town has a gun BAN. No guns allowed! One has a crime rate 5x the surrounding area. The other hasn't had a gun death in 25 years. According to your statement, the gun-infested town should be a hell-hole of gun violence and the other should have NONE. Guess what? It's the other way 'round.
2. Nope, I don't disagree with that at all, nor did I disagree with that in my original post, which had, as I've mentioned, very little to do with guns and very much to do with self-inflating toughman talk. However, it is also the case that it is easier for criminals to get guns in America, where they are widely available, than in countries where they are tightly restricted.
Tell that to the Nazis and explain why there were so many Stens running around shooting Nazi soldiers during WWII.
However I'll grant that in a country where guns are easily available, it's easier for criminals to obtain them. This has little or nothing to do with preventing crime. Banks go to great lengths to make their money difficult to wander off with and strangely, criminals seem to keep finding ways to do this. If they need a gun as a tool of their trade, they will get one. Or make it. Prohibition of ANYTHING simply does not work. Not guns, not drugs, not alcohol, not child porn, not even underground cigarettes for goodness sake.
3. Yes, I absolutely disagree with that, and anyone who knows a lot about guns will also disagree. Ask someone in the NRA if an untrained shooter can effectively use a handgun.
And they will tell you that they sure can. Not AS effectively as someone who is trained, nor as safely. But I guarantee you that an 80 year old woman with a handgun can, with a gun, chase off two large, strong men who are attacking, trained or not. It happens, frequently.
4. Yeah, I kinda disagree with that. I think ordinary criminals like muggers or burglars might be deterred at the thought of their victims being armed, but murderers -- especially psychotic murderers like Cho -- don't give a fuck. For evidence of this, look at the gang violence of the inner city: those are areas completely flooded, awash in guns. There are guns everywhere. Every street hood carries a piece, and sometimes more than one. Does this deter criminal behavior? Do the gangs hesitate to start beef from the fear their targets are armed? Nope. In fact, exactly the opposite is true; beef escalates into murder in a heartbeat, specifically BECAUSE everyone is armed. The inner cities, which are inundated in firearms, by your logic should be the safest, most crime-free areas of the country; instead, they're the most dangerous and most crime-ridden.
Not true. Allow me to give you three examples of where psychotic murders HAVE been deterred by armed citizens.
Hehehe. Good example with the street gangs. And yes, it does. That's why they travel in packs (It helps that they can't aim or shoot very well, Ran into that a couple of times in Tucson). They do indeed hesitate and they do indeed plan in advance for how to deal with their rivals' firepower. Read interviews with them, listen to them talk and you'll see that they do indeed think about these things. Things escalate from beef to murder in a heartbeat NOT because they are carrying guns. Gangs have been killing each other with whatever comes to hand for a very long time. They escalate because these defective children are more concerned with face and social standing in their peer group than they are with risks to their own lives. To kill someone boosts their 'street cred'. To back down is shameful. The gun doesn't really matter.
And your final point proves how very useless gun control is. These animals are wandering around heavily armed in violation of how many gun laws? But from your earlier comment, I'm assuming we're on the same side of that debate.
Slainte!
Orion
Remember, Leonard: When outlaws are gunned, only guns will have outlaws.
"And this guy referred to my five sentences...."
Hayden, I've got one word for you: DICTIONARY
Had you referred to one, you would have noticed that your definition of "diatribe" is the archaic one.
See you aren't above making fun of names either....
Leonard, I see you state that you are an editor, now I know why Misha makes fun of the "myriad levels of fact-checking editors of the MSM". You are a prime example of why he has such disdain for same.
"Um, okay, if you really want to demean the risk people who were, you know, getting shot at, or at least were potentially going to be shot at, went through."
Pere, I was ONE of those people and so was Misha. Just because there wasn't a declared hot war in the area, there was a covert war going on and yes, Virginia, people WERE shot and killed in it, on both sides. These fatalities were always put down as "training accidents" so as not to have what was a "minor misunderstanding" blow up into a full shooting war.
Oh, and you were correct about "oceans not being able to protect you"; it was men such as Misha and I that did, because we were willing to face down the threat head on, with our very lives if necessary. You're Welcome.
Dear "Bert":
Thank you for your continuing concern for me and my name. Before you came along, I thought all denizens of right-wing blogs, especially those who flock to any left-wing blog that dare speak of their blog in less than reverential tones, were nothing but obnoxious, humorless, paper-tigerish, self-congratulatory trolls with the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader and the reasoning skills of a potato. But then you came along to show me exactly how wrong I was. Your personal warmth, generosity of spirit, and superior moral turpitude have made a better man of me. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways, and thank you for being a true friend, "Bert." I hope our charming tete-a-tete continues until every communist loses an eye staring down the barrel of a gun. Oh, and thanks for keeping Belgium free of the pinkos. Until your next delightful missive, consider me your faithful servant waiting breathlessly to learn more at your proverbial knee.
Your pal,
some guy on the Internet
Pere, I was ONE of those people and so was Misha. Just because there wasn't a declared hot war in the area, there was a covert war going on and yes, Virginia, people WERE shot and killed in it, on both sides. These fatalities were always put down as "training accidents" so as not to have what was a "minor misunderstanding" blow up into a full shooting war.
Um, okay, so now we've gone from "facing down the barrel of the Commie gun on the wall" to "sure, we were miles away, but people still got shot, and the only reason you don't know it is the Liberal MSM hid the fact so's not to cause WW3".
Only, WW3 didn't happen over REAL international incidents, so I don't know why it would have over a sniping in Denmark.
Oh, and you were correct about "oceans not being able to protect you"; it was men such as Misha and I that did, because we were willing to face down the threat head on, with our very lives if necessary. You're Welcome.
I assume you guys would have leaped in front of the nuclear missles and bombers coming over the poles and blocked them with your bodies? THAT's what I meant, Sunshine.
And remember the Soviets in Nicaragua, just three days drive from Texas? Way to keep them out of our hemisphere, guys. Good job there, Roscoe.
Hi, Bert!
Thanks for protecting me and my fellow Americans and Danes against the savage hordes of communist nukes. I would have helped, but I was only 20 when the Cold War ended, and also I was busy not taking it very seriously. But still, I totally appreciate it! Without your assistance, I might have to still be scared of the Reds now, instead of the Islamofascists or whatever we're calling them.
Also, I am not an editor for a news organization, but thanks, it was a good try. If it makes you feel any better, I edit, among other things, entertainment writing and school textbooks, so feel free to make fun of me for being part of the vast liberal conspiracy to degrade our culture and brainwash our children.
Well ... this is fairly typical.
Talk about the war, and the leftards scream "chickenhawk", as if not being in the military automatically makes one incapable of discussing military policy.
But once an actual veteran shows up and and dares to disagree with them over military policy or any other matter, they get all pissy, forget all about their precious "chickenhawk" meme, and start hurling feces.
Attempting any kind of debate with these people is just not worth the effort ... they are simply not capable of behaving like adults.
Dear "Kristopher",
Thank you for your respectful comments regarding the hurling of feces. As we "leftards" (and what a delightful term to use, especially in someone else's space!) have never been properly trained in deciphering genuine attempts to engage in a civilized argument from obtuse rhetoric and mindless hostility, our natural tendency is to defecate upon ourselves and then to throw it at the nearest person. Without your keen sense of adulthood and responsibility, we would certainly continue to engage in this rude behavior, which is utterly unlike the way a civilized person behaves (which is, I assume from your example, to visit blogs of a political stripe different from my own, gently offering correction to the misguided). Without you and your cohorts, none of us on the left - we of the misguided notions of shared governance and social justice - would know that we (and here, I'm using comments directed towards Leonard as indicative of how these commenters feel about anyone who disagrees with them politically) "have some serious issues" (Dick), or that we reside "in the intellectual desert with the other lizards" (Cheapshot911), or that we totally look like morons (paraphrased from Moriarty), or that I am "not a person of any standing in an adult world (Bert)", or that we disappoint Mr. Orion who only wants "some sort of debate or discussion", or that we are "full of yourself and mentally weak" (Dick again! Thanks, Dick!), or that I have no idea what "diatribe" means (Thanks, Bert!). And now you arrive to tell us that all of our responses are fecal because you have extrapolated an anti-war stance from Leonard's post about a guy talking tough about the shooting at Virginia Tech and you seem to believe that anyone who is opposed to the war should never, ever contradict someone who is pro-war, if I am reading you correctly.
In short, thank you again for showing us the error of our ways.
Yours truly,
A clown who is not a person of any standing in an adult world
Ah well.
Once again my quest for a liberal who can actually discuss things intelligently.....comes up empty.
Thanks for providing one more data point, guys.
I found Hayden's comments to be particularly apropos. He doesn't like Vets. He doesn't like non-vets. He doesn't like insults. He doesn't like definitions. He doesn't like someone seeking discussion...Pretty plain, he just likes those just like himself. No variety allowed here, thank you! No doubt he's proud of the diversity.
*shrugs* Your blog (Leonard - I'm including Hayden in as he seems a welcome commenter), your rules, your space. Enjoy it. Personally, I enjoy discussions with those who hold a different viewpoint. It allows me to refine, and sometimes change, my own. Evidently you folks don't care too much for that concept. If this were closer to April, I'd consider this stereotypical behavior to be a prank.
Either way - I'll not pester you further.
Slainte!
Orion
Dear "Orion",
Thank you for your generous reading of my previous letters to your friends. I don't know how you deciphered my feelings on veterans, non-veterans, insults, definitions, discussion, variety, and diversity from my few and pithy comments here, but I take your thoughtful characterization to heart. I understand that your prior comments, in which you continually express disappointment in the level of discourse hereabouts, were indicative of your serious love of engagement with alternative points of view, which, as you have shown me, is best expressed by sighing about the level of discourse, making excuses for those you count as allies when they immediately start calling others "faggot", calling the proprietor of the blog - your host, as it were - DUMB in all capital letters, and impugning the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. You, sir, are truly a giant among men, and I am honored to be singled out for your attentions.
Godspeed, sir! May noble Liechtenstein never fall to the frothing proletariat!
Your inferior in every way,
Some guy on the Internet who would be pranking you with stereotypical behavior if today (April 27) were closer to April
Hayden Childs,
Those were real thoughtful responses you made recently to Orion, Bert, & Kristopher - delivered quite politely. It's clear from what you wrote that now you understand their points of view; I found it admirable that they were able to educate you so easily.
You know, not many people would admit to actually being 'inferior in every way' with any greater alacrity; such honesty on your part was as rare as it was refreshing.
Wait. Was that stuff you slapped on with a trowel actually...sarcasm? OH NOES!
'treat them like the words they write actually mean what they say, and instantly - poof! - they are revealed as petty half-wits.'
- h/t, Hayden Childs
Consider yourself officially hoist.
Have a nice day. I know I will.
Where do you people come up with this drivel?
These fatalities were always put down as "training accidents" so as not to have what was a "minor misunderstanding" blow up into a full shooting war.
Please, spare us your Tom Clancy novels. He does it much better, but it's still just well researched fiction. You have it ass-backwards. Training for war is a deadly business. It's the training accidents that are covered up, just like the actual crime rates on college campuses. Which brings us to the other issue, but first, let me say that there are things that went on during the Cold War that some people can't tell you about or they would have to kill you. Actually, much of it now OK to talk about but most of it involved war by proxy and a very dangerous game of nuclear jostling and brinkmanship involving the blue water navies of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There have been books written about it. Blind Man's Bluff is very good, about subs used in espionage, and all true. A good film, prescient even, is the Bedford Incident.
Orion,
Not true. Allow me to give you three examples of where psychotic murders HAVE been deterred by armed citizens.
I have looked at your examples of three cases. To be honest, I find problems with all three of them as justification for anything. Anyone who investigates them objectively, honestly and critically would see the problems. Full disclosure: I am an armed leftist like George Orwell (the social democrat), so I'm not keen on abridgement of the 2nd amendment.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- George Orwell
Never have been, and Reagan, who was in favor of the Assault gun ban and the Brady Bill, was not a liberal Democrat.
Once again my quest for a liberal who can actually discuss things intelligently.....comes up empty.
You know where to find me. You can drop by Grouchy's and say hello to Ron, formerly LC Ron. You remember him, don't you? Any and all are welcome who actually wish to discuss these matters honestly and intelligently (with just enough snark so the rotties feel at home). Gun control won't prevent these crimes anymore than arming the populace will. That's just the sad fact of it.
JT Davis
Oh yeah, one more thing:
The Weimar Republic had restrictive gun laws which the Nazis actually liberalized with the Reichswaffengesetz in 1938, although they did prohibit possession of weapons by Jews shortly thereafter, so don't just come armed with a lot of crap propaganda from the JFPO or the NRA. You'll find out real quick that it has the shelf life of a sick goldfish out of water over there. We both said "honest and intelligent" and I, at least, meant it.
Dear "Bea."
Oh my, aren't you clever? I feel so hoisted that I may have a wedgie. Clearly, given the honest intent to educate and engage as equals that oozes from every commenter I have addressed, even the merest hint of sarcasm on my part would suggest that good faith has been broken. I have so much to learn from you!
Hoping your lovely day hasn't involved the necessity of killing someone with your bare hands,
Some guy on the Internet who really, really takes you seriously now, no kidding
Post a Comment