I Think We’ve Upset Dale
I wasn’t posting murder fantasies about my enemies. I was making a deal. We let your politicans run the government, and pretend there is no struggle against Islamic fundamentalists. If they’re wrong, and an American city gets nuked due to their treasonous negligence, then they expiate that sin with their lives. Seems fair to me.
And it also seems like a creepy-assed murder fantasy.
In tort law, there’s the “one bite rule”, which is if you own a dog, and it bites someone, then the first time, you don’t have liability, because it was an unexpected act. After that, however, if the dog bites someone else, then you are liable, because the dog now has a known propensity for biting, which places the burden on you for preventing him from doing so.
9/11 was the one bite. Apparently, for your side, that wasn’t enough.
Yes, Dale, Gavin and I love the thought of more terror attacks, especially since we both live in major cities and whatnot.
But you want my justification? Ok. Here it is: Politicans who, through active negligence, would enable an American city to be nuked by our enemies after 9/11 would deserve to be strung up. That enough justification for you, there, Sparky?
In the real world, of course, we’d have a fair trial before the hangings. But, the hangings would be perfectly deserved.
And, no, actually, I don’t stroke my penis thinking about it. As it happens, I have someone who takes care of that for me. I admit, though, the sense of justice served in that event would provide a certain grim satisfaction.
I.e., a boner.
Now, no one believes that another terrorist attack won’t ever happen again in the US. If our national leaders do everything in their power to prevent it, that’s one thing. If they intentionally pursue policies that minimize our ability to prevent it, then they have a much greater culpability because of their negligence.
I think the causality would, in fact, be fairly obvious.
Most things are the Dems fault though, now that you’ve brought it up.
Because for the last four years, the Democrats have run all three branches of… wait, no, they haven’t, have they?
Apparently, you ain’t too good at that readin’ deal. I didn’t say “generational war”. I said “generational struggle”. I even defined our best offense in that struggle as “The best defense is a good offense, offense, in this case, being to transmit the culture and values that have underpinned Western economic and political dominance to the Muslim world. That means promoting democracy, limited government, human rights, and free markets to a region of the world where they have been essentially nonexistent for the last millennium.”
And who better to promote democracy and human rights than the man who takes “grim satisfaction” from thinking about lynch mobs stringing up the opposition party?
Hey, here’s a neat trick you might want to look into: Try responding to what I actually write, instead of responding to what you imagine I mean.
I’m takin’ it paragraph by paragraph, baby.
Now, here’s a response to one of our commentors:
I don’t get it ? how come they always have something about people being “naked” in these little murder fantasies?
Well, because the humiliation makes it so much more insouciant. Geez, I’d’ve thought that would be obvious.
Indeed- it’s obvious you’ve put quite a bit of thought into the most “grimly satisfying” way to kill your political enemies. And that’s creepy.
(And incidentally, Dale, Gavin was actually being satirical– there’s no need to bring out your guns.)
UPDATE: And just to appease celticgirl… EVIL CAT MINION, DEFEND US FROM DALE’S GRIM SATISFACTION!!!
Go for the ‘nads, Kittens! Yay!
See, what’s amazing about this is, Dale actually had a night to sleep about this. I really thought that he’d wake up in the morning, read what he had wrote and say, “Y’know, I really shouldn’t write detailed fantasies about how I’d like to see Democrats strung up. It’s scary.”
But nope, he digs his heels right back in.
Well, because the humiliation makes it so much more insouciant. Geez, I’d’ve thought that would be obvious.
I don’t see the humiliation factor, I guess.
I mean, wouldn’t it bother the manly macho guys of the GOP to discover that dem men all had bigger dicks than they do?
Oh, wait. I’m starting to get the point of all these String ‘Em Up fantasies.
I’ll make Dale a deal. We start acting like every other country on earth and stop invading somewhere every couple of years and take our toungue out of Israel’s ass and see if anyone shows up to take away my bacon and beer. Cause if they do, it’s on and Dale is smart and I was dumb and we will just nuke everybody but us (genocide for the sake of beer is a virtue) and that’s the end of it.
Ed- incidentally, I don’t agree with you. I think we actually do have to fight al-Qaeda. They won’t just leave us alone if we become isolationists.
Awww, hoo da evil minion? You are! Yes, you!
Ed Marshall – ditto
Brad R – Saudi nationals got over here using student visas, so, in response to the terrible threat of terrorism the U.S. stopped educating foreign terrorists, right? D’oh!!!
They won’t just leave us alone if we become isolationists.
Sure they would, that’s the end of the “far enemy”. After that they can try and bring the joys of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan 1996-2001 to the rest of the Ummah and see how popular that is without the Great Satan as a foil.
All I suggested was acting like every other country on this planet, that’s not isolationism, that’s dismissing American Exceptionalism which really should be shooting fish in a barrel.
brad –
how does not invading places like iraq and balancing our mindlessly onesided middle-east policy constitute isolationism? i’m not saying that that fundamentalist crazies will all of a sudden love us, but there’s no sense in going around doing their recruiting for them.
If you want the “one bite” rule, how about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? 9/11 was the second bite, especially considering warnings like “Osama determined to strike in the US”, “Terrorist may use planes as weapons”, etc.
So wait, by Dale’s logic, if we find that the invasion of Iraq actually exacerbated the problem of global terrorism and had something to do with the next attack on U.S. soil, what is he saying we should do with George W. and company? I want him to answer explicitly, in the hopes that the Secret Service are reading this…
Treasonous, active negligence, huh? And Bush doesn’t fit that descriptor? Cuz, seriously, the man has done next to nothing in the way of actually improving security in the country- harbors, power plants, water supplies, etc. Or maybe the righties would feel safer if the 9/11 commission had graded him on a curve?
yeah he’s really into the “watering the tree of liberty” jefferson quote, but evidently only if democrats are in office. i guess republican blood lacks the nutrients required to bring liberty to full bloom. and perhaps the fruit that the tree bears will not be as ripe if one waters it with…ugh there i go overextending a metaphor…
Ed- I agree that, with the exception of Afghanistan, we generally don’t have to invade other countries in order to fight al-Qaeda. How anyone thinks invading Iraq, with its non-existent WMD stockpiles, would make us safer while Iran and North Korea develop nukes is beyond me.
Well, because the humiliation makes it so much more insouciant. Geez, I’d’ve thought that would be obvious.
Huh? The definition of ‘insouciance’ is ‘light-hearted unconcern’ or ‘nonchalance’; ‘insouciant’ is the adjective form. So that would make “the humiliation that much more nonchalant” or “that much more light-heartedly unconcerned”? That makes no sense whatsoever.
This guy reminds me of someone that I know who once (very seriously) told me I should throw myself under a train because I hold liberal views. Creep-ee. *Shudder* I don’t think that they would actually _kill_ anyone, but the attitude is bad enough.
This guy reminds me of someone that I know who once (very seriously) told me I should throw myself under a train because I hold liberal views. Creep-ee. *Shudder* I don’t think that they would actually _kill_ anyone, but the attitude is bad enough.
Yeah, Dale’s just a harmless doofus. He’s just succumbed to madness induced from a diet of Twinkees and Cheetos. He’ll calm down shortly.
I’m guessing he meant “piquant,” but I may be giving his mad vocab skillz too much credit.
Rule number 1: If I say you aren’t addressing what I write, it is true, even if it is not true.
I think I have Dale down cold. See, Dale always wins because he gets to define “negligence” as another attack, oor whatever else he wants. Something tells me that the Dems could not but fail to be negligen under Dale’s world view. I swear to God, Cheney had a calendar with days checked off until the time he could simultaneously use “I preparing you for the possibility that we might be nuked but the reason we haven’t been yet is me” argument. Thus we get nuked or not, Cheney wins. And Dale deep throated that particular penis all the way.
He is a self-implicated moron.
A two-second Google shows he’s wrong about the one bite rule, also, which isn’t nation-wide and even when present provides remedy when the first bite is the result of owner negligence, among other qualifiers. As an analogy, it bites, too, as September 11 wasn’t the first time Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center.
My way or the highway..
Once again, if you don’t want the Bushco approach it implies you want nothing at all…and subsequent Armageddon.
And oh, yes..if a nuclear device comes to the US it will be delivered in a container ship. Have you reviewed the security procedures for containers? Pitiful. But, hey Bushco has only had 4+ years. Let them work on emergency response for natural disasters first..like after Katrina..
“Insouciant?” Sounds kinda…FRENCH, dontcha think?
And, a.j., I think you’re quite right to draw a connection to the Jeffersonian tree of liberty. It’s hard to imagine anything worthwhile coming to fruition there when the Republicans are watering it with the uring of Cheetoh-eating chickenhawks.
Hmmm….make that “urine.” Isn’t “uring” a, uh, gerund, or something?
by the way, that “tree of liberty” quote? it’s from a letter that jefferson wrote to william stephens smith. and jefferson was writing from (anyone? anyone?) paris. i just think it’s funny.
Where’s Chip?
Imagine a certain chipmunk, surrounded by chestnuts, typing furiously in a high pitched voice.
See, Dale always wins because he gets to define “negligence” as another attack, oor whatever else he wants.
Including defining 9/11 as the first bite in a way that counts against the Democrats. Who was in charge on 9/11 again? Oh yeah, nobody.
I just read Dale’s bio, and to his credit, he’s not a chickenhawk.
That still doesn’t excuse the creepy lynching fantasies, though.
I see everyone made that point on the other thread.
*Sigh* I didn’t mean “the most hostile world environment ever”. I just meant increasingly hostile compared to the current environment. But, thanks for chiming in there, Mr. Literal.
Oh well I’m glad you’re keeping a good perspective on things there Dale, what with your lynch mobs and insane ideas about what constitutes a democracy.
I’m glad he at least had the sense to realize it was impossible to defend that point unless he contextualized it, but really, if it’s such a modern and different problem, why is he quoting Jefferson ad nauseam?
Given that 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch, after he ignored warnings to clear dastardly brush & fish & do manly stuff like that, I’m not sure if the “one bite” thing counts, does it?
Also, honest to God, much of the rest of the world has been living under the threat of terrorist acts for some time, in varying forms. Baldly put, if someone really wants to do something terrible, THEY WILL FIND A WAY. The measured, rational response is to carry on living one’s life to the fullest & damn them to do their worst. The hysterical pissing your bed response favored by certain factions is to make this a generational “struggle” (one impossible to win, btw, given the chimerical nature of those who would do us harm).
And as far as those willing or wanting to do us harm goes — the wholesale revocation of democracy in favor of fascism is, to my mind at least, very harmful indeed.
I do not want to lynch the right-wing extremists. I wish to magically give them something they lack (hint: the Scarecrow managed to find his).
Interesting blog you have here. Islamic extremists are a minority in the Muslim world, and especially were before the fiasco in Iraq. The fantasy that somehow this is a generational conflict, a major war, and that military power can win it is simply ridiculous. I think they get lost in that kind of militarist fear-driven thinking, and can’t comprehend that there may be a rational alternative, and that military action in Iraq may be doing more harm than good. They think “either we defeat them with guns or we’re appeasers,” and hence they see all who question the policy as somehow not seeing the reality of the threat. Reality bites, however, and no matter how you slice it, this Iraq policy is perhaps the biggest fiasco of American foreign policy history. We only aid Islamic extremists when we act like imperialist thugs, killing far more innocents over there than were killed by terrorists here. It was the Iraq invasion that allowed the hardliners to finally win an election in Iran and pose more of a threat than ever. We have to follow the first law of holes: if you are in one, stop digging. This policy is a mess, and people like that guy need to get outside of their paranoid delusions and fantasies of violence and take a cold, rational look. That kind of fantasy is a sign that deep down he knows he’s wrong, but he can’t admit it, and thus falls further into irrationality.
Yeah, zhak, and let’s not forget Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. One bite rule wouldn’t apply no matter how hard he wants to give Bush a pass.
Oh the one bit rule still counts. It just doens’t count the way he wanted it to.
The entire conservative movement had their “one bite” at 9/11 to actually take terrorism seriously. In my opinion, they havn’t.
Actually you know I’m reading what is among the most amazing books ever written. And it pretty much obliterates that idiotic notion about “culture and values that have underpinned Western economic and political dominance”. The book is called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond (he won the National Medal of Science in 1999 in part for this book). Long story short – it’s the east-west orientation of the Eurasian continent and Europe’s Mediterranean climate that allowed European values to dominate the last couple hundred years, and has nothing to do with inherent differences in values or culture or intelligence of the people in different parts of the world.
This book, in just a couple weeks, has completely reshaped the way I approach these epsilon semi-morons when they talk about superior Western culture being the basis of Western dominance. It’s the axes, baby 🙂
Read the book. It’s really good. (ok or watch the PBS special, can’t vouch for it since I haven’t seen it myself)
Salsa- yes, Guns, Germs and Steel is really really good. Predictably, Victor Davis Hanson hated it.
“Politicans who, through active negligence, would enable an American city to be nuked by our enemies after 9/11 would deserve to be strung up.”
Note that the cut-off is “after 9/11.” I know some of you liberals are wanting to hold W. responsible for actively neglecting the August 6th PDB. But you can’t. I mean it’s not like al Qaeda told him what day, or what floor of the WTC the pilots were going to fly into. And without such specifics there was absolutely nothing he could do. So that is what he did, absolutely nothing. That kind of active negligence is something we (Dale and I) can excuse.
And no the attack on the Cole, the embassy bombings, the previous attack on the WTC (and all the other al Qaeda attacks) don’t count as ‘bites.’ Everyone knows that they were just nibbles. No one could have forseen that 9/11 was going to happen, just based on them. Except Clinton. Clinton should have seen it, and this is all his fault anyway, because he’s a Democrat and we all know Demcrats are the cause of everything bad. In fact just yesterday I tripped on a bench when walking through a mall, and I just know it was a Democrat who put that bench there.
This is exactly why us good Americans don’t like you!
Holy shit jeff, I thought you serious up until the last two sentences.
Well played sir.
I didn’t say “generational war”. I said “generational struggle”.
“Mein (Generational) Kampf?”
Cutest. Minion. Ever.
“one bite rule”…does not exist..what an idiot, if your dog bites someone, you ARE liable and your dog can be destroyed…not a damn thing you can do about it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this individual’s perception of a threat derived from the composite image of a feline carrying an automatic weapon and its accompanying subtitle?
Are we all in Kindergarten, or what?
I think he’s realised that he was playing with words that are a bit long for him. ‘…the humiliation makes it so much more insouciant’ has become ‘the humiliation makes it so much more exquisite.’ I guess it was obvious after all.
His commenters were quick on the offensive, chiding you for being intellectual. The gauntlet has been well and truly thrown, chaps.
-The Rev. Schmitt.
Oh no. CHRIST! We’re all a bunch of intellectuals… RUUUUUN!
Next thing you know we’ll be knocking merlot and watching fraiser!
If I catch anyone watching Frasier I will personally drag them into the street, lynch them after a trial, and kill their entire fami-whoops!
Heh. Yeah, I’ll bet you were horribly disappointed to discover that I spent a decade on active duty in a line unit. Just took that whole “chickenhawk” argument right out of your quiver, huh?
Doesn’t it just suck when that happens?
Actually, the problem was that wrote my original post at 3:00 in the morning. So sue me.
I didn’t say “generational war”. I said “generational struggle”.
hee! that is too hilarious.
hey Dale – while you are responding, why don’t you answer the question of whether you have a moral obligation to “string up” Bush & Co if it turns out that his actions have made our country less safe.
oh, what’s that? you can’t answer? hmm, it that because your hypothetical is juvenile and pointless? i thought so.
Actually, the problem was that wrote my original post at 3:00 in the morning. So sue me.
Yeah, I was being snarky, I’m sorry. It happens to all of us occasionally.
Also I think you confused amphiboly with equivocation over on Ed Brayton’s blog.
-The Rev. Schmitt.
“Heh. Yeah, I’ll bet you were horribly disappointed to discover that I spent a decade on active duty in a line unit. Just took that whole “chickenhawk” argument right out of your quiver, huh?”
An Air Farce SP…oooOOOooo…tis true thou are not a chikenhawk, just a chickenshit.
Dale Franks and the boys over at QandO just lost their single female visitor with this little debating gem:
“Cindy, you brainless twat.”
link: http://www.qando.net/comments.aspx?Entry=3216
And, no, actually, I don’t stroke my penis thinking about it. As it happens, I have someone who takes care of that for me.
Your mom doesn’t count.
mskv ugmdojyk yxgaqu zlgiqow ourycats jyrsfbmd nguvla