[ARCHIVED THREAD] - removed (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/14/2009 3:37:14 PM EDT
Yep Its Amazing to see how many post to this stupid Sh-t 
|
|
Having just been exposed to 68mopar's corrupt suggestions, I ponder how best to express my disgust at 68mopar's total lack of sensitivity and reasoning. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I proscribe 68mopar and his factotums as the most dangerous enemies of the people. What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe his line that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that 68mopar's goal is to submerge us in a sea of solipsism. How cheeky is that? How apolaustic? How jackbooted? Even though 68mopar gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, 68mopar claims that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. When 68mopar made his puppy-dog coadjutors wag their little tails by promising to let them slow scientific progress, I realized for the first time that we have not only a right but also a responsibility to test the assumptions that underlie 68mopar's antics. Still, I recommend you check out some of 68mopar's ebullitions and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Lest I forget to mention this later, the main dissensus between me and 68mopar is that I claim that if a new Dark Age is about to descend upon us—as many believe it will—it will be the result of 68mopar's revenge fantasies. He, on the other hand, contends that he has a "special" perspective on cynicism that carries with it a "special" right to demonize my family and friends. Must it be explained to him that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word? Because he obviously doesn't realize that prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially his ignominious form of it—is. Can you really blame me for suggesting that even maverick Internet news and opinion sites are beginning to proclaim that in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that exhibit cruelty to animals suddenly gain a mass following? The important point here is not that 68mopar's claims about denominationalism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguely defined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity of unreason from which no sense can escape. The vital matter is that there's something fishy about 68mopar's inveracities. I think he's up to something, something neo-grotty and perhaps even ribald. While 68mopar is out challenging all I stand for, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about 68mopar's attempts to test another formula for silencing serious opposition. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of bestial parvenus. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that this serves as a reminder that 68mopar's consistent lack of regard for others will promote communism's traits as normative values to be embraced eventually. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can we break his hypnotic spell over sleazy meatheads? A clue might be that many people are convinced that his incessant word-mongering makes me think that academicism is, at its core, an abhorrent system that seeks to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. I can't comment on that, but I can say that given a choice of having him create a factitious demand for his pathological monographs or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that 68mopar shouldn't besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions lionize soporific goof-offs. While you or I might find it natural to want to turn his biased homilies to our advantage, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that 68mopar stubbornly refuses to own up to his mistakes serves only to convince me that by allowing him to write off whole sections of society, we are allowing him to play puppet master. There's a chance that 68mopar will substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate one day. Well, that's extremely speculative but it is clear today that I myself will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to get the 68mopar monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well. 68mopar claims that the rules don't apply to him. This is a very coldhearted and unconstructive view and, moreover, is wrong in many ways. Make no mistake about it; I allege that we should let him prattle on about how the existence and perpetuation of neopaganism is its own moral justification. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how I've heard 68mopar say that he has answers to everything. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is 68mopar secretly trying to deplete the ozone layer? The key to answering such questions is to realize that for 68mopar, all roads lead to Trotskyism. With 68mopar's policies hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that 68mopar's behavior might be different if he were told that his favorite activities include cheating, lying, and tricking people into believing that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. Of course, as far as 68mopar is concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Why does he think that clueless beggars are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive?" Whatever the answer, he's more than snarky. 68mopar is mega-snarky. In fact, to understand just how snarky he is, you first need to realize that while 68mopar and other jaundiced election-year also-rans sometimes differ on the details and scale of their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that you understand that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must do something good for others. The first step in that process is to realize that his backers are blissfully ignorant of his passive-aggressive, repulsive communiqués. Yes, I could add that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of his paltry utterances, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that 68mopar is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about 68mopar. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents and in these primarily as an illustration that I correctly predicted that 68mopar would control, manipulate, and harm other people. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon. Throughout human history, sanguinary scatterbrains have always been ungrateful. So it should come as no surprise that it has been said that this is a prescribed thought vs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes, a police state vs. free society issue. I believe that to be true. I also believe that it's unfortunate that 68mopar has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. 68mopar cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about 68mopar's latest contumacious machinations. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I clearly hope that 68mopar serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. And that's what writing this sort of letter is all about. It's a way to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. |
|
Quoted: [snip] I see your  story and raise you the Chewbacca Defense"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, Puff Daddy's accusers would certainly want you to believe my client was carrying a stolen gun on December 27th, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company producer and entertainer and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey. The defense rests." |
|
Quoted: holy shit, you typed all that out?Having just been exposed to 68mopar's corrupt suggestions, I ponderhow best to express my disgust at 68mopar's total lack of sensitivityand reasoning. Before examining the present situation, however, it isimportant that I proscribe 68mopar and his factotums as the mostdangerous enemies of the people. What I find frightening is that someacademics actually believe his line that he is a tireless protector ofcivil rights and civil liberties for all people. In this case,"academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsiasurviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers oftruth who understand that 68mopar's goal is to submerge us in a sea ofsolipsism. How cheeky is that? How apolaustic? How jackbooted? Eventhough 68mopar gives flattering titles to his natural distempers,68mopar claims that he should be a given a direct pipeline to theNational Treasury. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hookerwith a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. When 68mopar made his puppy-dog coadjutors wag their little tails bypromising to let them slow scientific progress, I realized for thefirst time that we have not only a right but also a responsibility totest the assumptions that underlie 68mopar's antics. Still, I recommendyou check out some of 68mopar's ebullitions and draw your ownconclusions on the matter. Lest I forget to mention this later, themain dissensus between me and 68mopar is that I claim that if a newDark Age is about to descend upon us—as many believe it will—it will bethe result of 68mopar's revenge fantasies. He, on the other hand,contends that he has a "special" perspective on cynicism that carrieswith it a "special" right to demonize my family and friends. Must it beexplained to him that he considers "honesty" to be a dirty word?Because he obviously doesn't realize that prudence is no vice.Cowardice—especially his ignominious form of it—is. Can you reallyblame me for suggesting that even maverick Internet news and opinionsites are beginning to proclaim that in times of economic, social, orpolitical crisis, small groups that exhibit cruelty to animals suddenlygain a mass following? The important point here is not that 68mopar's claims aboutdenominationalism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguelydefined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity ofunreason from which no sense can escape. The vital matter is thatthere's something fishy about 68mopar's inveracities. I think he's upto something, something neo-grotty and perhaps even ribald. While68mopar is out challenging all I stand for, the general public isshouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, brokenhearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and adespondency about 68mopar's attempts to test another formula forsilencing serious opposition. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are nottroubled by fear of bestial parvenus. Until that day arrives, however,we must spread the word that this serves as a reminder that 68mopar'sconsistent lack of regard for others will promote communism's traits asnormative values to be embraced eventually. That's pretty transparent.What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Howcan we break his hypnotic spell over sleazy meatheads? A clue might bethat many people are convinced that his incessant word-mongering makesme think that academicism is, at its core, an abhorrent system thatseeks to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. I can'tcomment on that, but I can say that given a choice of having him createa factitious demand for his pathological monographs or having mybicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers,purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that68mopar shouldn't besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures.That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, tooangry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditoriumbefore the response. Both of those actions lionize soporific goof-offs.While you or I might find it natural to want to turn his biasedhomilies to our advantage, some of the facts I'm about to present mayseem shocking. This they certainly are. However, when a mistake ismade, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. Thattakes real courage. The way that 68mopar stubbornly refuses to own upto his mistakes serves only to convince me that by allowing him towrite off whole sections of society, we are allowing him to play puppetmaster. There's a chance that 68mopar will substitute breast-beating andschwarmerei for action and honest debate one day. Well, that'sextremely speculative but it is clear today that I myself will nevergive up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possibleto get the 68mopar monkey off our backs and off other people's backs aswell. 68mopar claims that the rules don't apply to him. This is a verycoldhearted and unconstructive view and, moreover, is wrong in manyways. Make no mistake about it; I allege that we should let him prattleon about how the existence and perpetuation of neopaganism is its ownmoral justification. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber isharmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it doesdemonstrate how I've heard 68mopar say that he has answers toeverything. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is 68mopar secretlytrying to deplete the ozone layer? The key to answering such questionsis to realize that for 68mopar, all roads lead to Trotskyism. With 68mopar's policies hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles,it makes sense that 68mopar's behavior might be different if he weretold that his favorite activities include cheating, lying, and trickingpeople into believing that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminatemind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground,government facilities. Of course, as far as 68mopar is concerned, thisfact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuseme with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it is more than apurely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?"or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask,"Why does he think that clueless beggars are all inherently good,sensitive, creative, and inoffensive?" Whatever the answer, he's morethan snarky. 68mopar is mega-snarky. In fact, to understand just howsnarky he is, you first need to realize that while 68mopar and otherjaundiced election-year also-rans sometimes differ on the details andscale of their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree onthe basic principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that youunderstand that the time is always right to do what is right. That'swhy we must do something good for others. The first step in thatprocess is to realize that his backers are blissfully ignorant of hispassive-aggressive, repulsive communiqués. Yes, I could add that acertain curtailment of the right to political opposition is anunavoidable concomitant of his paltry utterances, but I wanted to keepmy message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from themain thrust of my message, which is that 68mopar is addicted to thefeeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has noreal concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires tolead. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: I am notconcerned with rumors or hearsay about 68mopar. I am interested only inascertained facts attested by published documents and in theseprimarily as an illustration that I correctly predicted that 68moparwould control, manipulate, and harm other people. Alas, I didn't thinkhe'd do that so effectively—or so soon. Throughout human history,sanguinary scatterbrains have always been ungrateful. So it should comeas no surprise that it has been said that this is a prescribed thoughtvs. free inquiry issue, an anti-democracy vs. democracy issue, and yes,a police state vs. free society issue. I believe that to be true. Ialso believe that it's unfortunate that 68mopar has no real education.It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is somentally handicapped. 68mopar cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in aworld of fantasies. To be more specific, if you're like most people youjust shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about 68mopar's latestcontumacious machinations. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging Ihope you'll realize that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate tosee crimes go unpunished. That's why I clearly hope that 68mopar servesa long prison term for his illegal attempts to destroy our youths'ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. And that's what writingthis sort of letter is all about. It's a way to advocate social changethrough dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. cliff notes please |
|
Quoted: ^^ LOL As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Hedonist. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Hedonist, not because I harbor any ill-will towards him but because aside from a few exceptions, this statement is really valid. Hence and therefore, some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with wanton fomenters of revolution on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. Allow me to explain. I wouldn't judge Hedonist's secret police too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for Hedonist's plot to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. Hedonist's catch-phrases are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of nativism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. Hedonist lives for one reason and for one reason only: to poke someone's eyes out. Identifying and naming the most mentally deficient creeps you'll ever see is fundamentally different from using their plaints as an instrument of rebellion—an instructive warning for the future. Though Hedonist's expositions be madness, yet there is method to them. Step by step, they make it easier for him to remake the world to suit his own twisted needs. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Hedonist's cankered musings. They are not a cause; they are an effect. Should we sit back and let Hedonist skewer me over a pit barbecue, or should we study the problem and recommend corrective action? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for insecure tightwads: He wants nothing less than to cause one-sided denunciations to be entered into historical fact, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his nasty viewpoints. When Hedonist hears anyone say that his anti-democratic invectives are responsible for the growth in teen pregnancy, the demise of the work ethic, the size of the federal deficit, and everything else that's wrong with our nation, his answer is to replace intellectual integrity with petty sloganeering. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. His indecent gestapo has its origins in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, Templars, Freemasons, Illuminati, and assorted interests dedicated to Satanic worship and absolute power. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with what I call headstrong popinjays as soon as our backs are turned. He may find it inconceivable that we must be fearless in confronting his voluble junta, but he'll come to his senses one day. It is deeply unfortunate that we must raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise, because Hedonist's newsgroup postings should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Hedonist's complaints are intended to ensure that all of the news we receive is filtered through a narrow ideological prism." If Hedonist continues to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth, I will decidedly be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. All in all, I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But conclaves of his companions have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will ever admit that Hedonist would have us believe that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Not surprisingly, his evidence for that totally short-sighted claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, he has a checkered track record for accuracy. I contend it would be more accurate for Hedonist to say that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to sharpen intergroup tensions. "How could Hedonist be so randy?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is honestly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Hedonist plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe his line that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Hedonist talks a lot about alarmism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? Before you answer, let me point out that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his credos in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. Hedonist sees no reason why he shouldn't destabilize the already volatile social fabric that he purportedly aims to save. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that as soon as Hedonist found the resources to do so he lost no time in increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. The inevitable followed: What I call slovenly pip-squeaks started to blend together wowserism and nihilism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. The scariest part of all of this is that if Hedonist sincerely believes that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not then he must be smoking something illegal. The elasticity of Hedonist's interpretation of the Bible shields him from having to take a stand for anything morally correct yet politically (spiritually?) unpopular. Am I saying that his morals are a gangrenous putrefaction that serves only to sweep Hedonist's peccadillos under the rug? Yes. That I get concerned when I see Hedonist eliminate the plebiscitary mechanisms which ensure a free and democratic society? Maybe. That an axiom among his slaves is that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power? Definitely. Hedonist's argument that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders" is hopelessly flawed and absolutely circuitous. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how finding the best way to restore the ancient traditions that Hedonist has abandoned is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that the next time Hedonist decides to eroticize relations of dominance and subordination, he should think to himself, cui bono?—who benefits? Hedonist's put-downs are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, sometimes I think that Hedonist is simply a willing pawn of those raving nincompoops who make us dependent on slaphappy dirtbags for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. While Hedonist is indubitably entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, a complete description of the problems with his excuses would occupy several volumes. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why I, speaking as someone who is not a bloody-minded, crass televangelist, feel that Hedonist has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize parasitic libertinism. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Hedonist himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum. |
here's a little something for ya.