post what ever you feel like saying

[Heisenbleurgh]

no.

[Syntaxvgm]

In this letter, I plan to discuss Ubisoft's mealymouthed, vapid plaints quite extensively. Note that the details aren't pleasant. In fact, they're shocking. But I insist that people who don't know what Ubisoft is up to obviously need to be shocked. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that Ubisoft's asseverations do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.

Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than most. How did Ubisoft get so bloody-minded? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, it's easy enough to hate it any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that it is up to, things that ought to make a real Ubisoft-hater out of you. First off, if its barbs were intended as a joke, it forgot to include the punchline.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, from secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, Ubisoft's spin doctors have always found a way to acquire public acceptance of Ubisoft's rebarbative views. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, Ubisoft has occasionally been successful at eliminating those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. Upon such points its natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as it further strives to create a new cottage industry around its headstrong form of incendiarism. Much of Ubisoft's success is due to the rest of us bending over backwards to assist it and to overlook its failings. That may sound unbelievable, but it's the truth. Another unbelievable but true statement is that Ubisoft does not merely erase the memory of all traditions and all history. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but many members of Ubisoft's den of thieves believe that the best way to serve one's country is to inject Ubisoft's lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Even worse, almost all of Ubisoft's assistants believe that demagogism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that I would be grateful if Ubisoft would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to pursue virtue and knowledge. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. It has long been my opinion—and I have never shrunk from its expression—that Ubisoft is operating according to some very badly flawed logic. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Whenever it encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with its beliefs, Ubisoft doesn't know what to do. The very genesis of Ubisoft's baleful, pathological theatrics is in fetishism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by fetishism.

Ubisoft does not want to batten on the credulity of the ignorant because it is dishonest, brash, destructive, and pompous (though, granted, Ubisoft is all of the aforementioned) but rather because it has been said that Ubisoft is the devil incarnate. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if it had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” it wouldn't be so keen to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that it intends to put its splenetic faction in charge of declaring martial law, suspending elections, and rounding up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately callous). We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that if Ubisoft doesn't see anything wrong with suppressing people's instinct and intellect then perhaps it doesn't deserve all the support it's getting from us.

The simple ability to perform noble deeds is a pons asinorum that Ubisoft may never cross. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Ubisoft tried to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. The issue of what to do about feckless energumens is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that I try never to argue with it because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason.

I have a plan to discuss the relationship among three converging and ever-growing factions—loud vigilantes, short-sighted voluptuaries, and anal-retentive ne'er-do-wells. I call this plan “Operation put Ubisoft on notice for its attempts to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers”. (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with its treatises. Videlicet, they seek temporary tactical alliances with treacherous muttonheads in order to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. And that's saying nothing about how it's a puzzleheaded liar. Let's list some of its more misguided lies: First, Ubisoft claims that the Earth is flat. Second, it insists that it is clean and bright and pure inside. And third, it wants us to believe that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. I presented that list to get you to see that it may not be easy to reinforce what is best in people, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that Ubisoft recently made the astonishing claim that it's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Ubisoft claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, its solution involves destroying our country from within. What bothers me about that is that it desperately wants us to believe that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how Ubisoft demands obeisance from its hirelings. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Ubisoft forces them to glorify the things that everyone else execrates.

And what about Ubisoft's vicegerents? They, like Ubisoft, are lackadaisical repressive-types. Ubisoft is unhappy that people like me want to build a sane and healthy society free of its destructive influences. Such cavils notwithstanding, it commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for it to drain our hope and enthusiasm. With friends like Ubisoft, who needs enemies? I mean, it and its understrappers are puppets of small-minded, disagreeable worrywarts. This issue is coming to the fore because it will give rise to intellectually challenged upstarts in the coming days. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will expose Ubisoft's malisons for what they really are. Only then can we communicate and teach.

What makes Ubisoft think we want it to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming? Did it read something about that in “The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Teetotalism”? When Ubisoft stated that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, I concluded that it was completely self-serving. Now that it claims that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to its nocuous prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers, I feel that it's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Ubisoft is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Ubisoft and a pigeon is that Ubisoft intends to equip unrestrained loblollies with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. That's why metagrobolism is dangerous. Ubisoft's blathering version of it is doubly so.

Inasmuch as I disagree with Ubisoft's accusations and find its ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Ubisoft's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Some critics have called Ubisoft temeritous. A handful insist it's revolting. Its votaries, on the other hand, consider it to be one of the great minds of this century. If unilateralism were an Olympic sport, Ubisoft would clinch the gold medal. A final word: Ubisoft's cajoleries have a crippling effect on science and technology.

[Enderman]

VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION

[Cobiee]

+1 Post count

[Syntaxvgm]

Recent troubling developments prompt me to revisit a subject I've discussed in the past: EA and its plan to set the wolf to mind the sheep. Before I get moving here, let me point out that this serves as a reminder that it's its air of conspiratorial hugger-mugger that makes me think that its perceptions are an integument of ageism. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: There are some simple truths in this world. First, we are now stuck with a blowsy onanism bearing a human face—that of EA. Second, EA prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. And finally, EA draws venom-spouting jargonauts to it like rats to the Pied Piper of Hamelin. How much more illumination does that fact need before EA can grasp it? Assuming the answer is “a substantial amount”, let me point out that EA has an utter disregard for human life. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that it's possible that EA doesn't realize this because it has been ingrained with so much of adventurism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms.

Although the Gospel According to EA says that EA's pestilential, crude gang is a benign and charitable agency, I insist that the common denominator of all of its teachings is that they seek to defile the air and water in the name of profit. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that when some peremptory, coprophagous simps first introduced me to EA's witless false-flag operations, I felt that civilization had reached a nadir of bleakness? EA's cold, analytical approach to pauperism doesn't take into account the human element. In particular, those who have been hurt by pauperism know that we wouldn't have a problem with immoralism if it weren't for EA. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, EA insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, EA claims to have data supporting its assertion that disagreeable poltroons are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. Naturally, it insists that it can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that it's hiding something. Maybe it's hiding the fact that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, intend to look closely at its apothegms to see what makes them so effectual at prostrating the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that EA has tried manipulating the unseen mechanisms of society so as to glorify shambolic, suppressive, murderous governments as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. It has also tried descending to character assassination and name calling. Why does EA do such things? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how EA's “I'm right and you're wrong” attitude is unstable because it leaves no room for compromise.

Why don't more people complain when they catch EA palliating and excusing the atrocities of its trucklers? It's because EA has mastered the art of tricking people with images and myths. It creates myths about what the world is like and then generates false images to match those myths. This proves to me, at least, that Marxism doesn't work. So why does EA cling to it? The answer is a bit of a taboo subject, but that won't stop me from telling you. You see, EA teaches workshops on metagrobolism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

EA really ought to to take something for its hysterical paranoia. I've heard that chlorpromazine works well. Surely, some sort of medication should awaken EA to the fact that it likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of exclusionism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, EA invariably instructs its devotees, who are legion, to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of EA's snotty, wrongheaded traducements.

Judging by the generally audacious nature of EA's plenipotentiaries, I can see that EA intends to put its mephitic animalism movement in charge of subjecting us to the disgusting yapping of putrid manipulators of the public mind. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a dour, sullen wacko. It's a fact. EA claims that the Scriptures are responsible for its delirious thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only jealous, but it fails to consider that EA seems to have recently added the word “antitintinnabularian” to its otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose it intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that it accuses me of being sexist whenever I state that this is a contributing factor to the apparent decline of civilization and culture around us. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that some people have said that EA is, you might say, overly anxious to tip the scales in its favor. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that EA's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Indelicate fogyism is a disgrace to humanity but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we deal summarily with the worst sorts of irascible liars and cheats there are. EA can't be trusted. Everything it says is a lie, and everything it does is based on a lie: its fairy tales, its utterances, its cop-outs—all lies, lies with flakes of truth sprinkled about to make superficial yobbos believe them.

If we let EA coordinate a revolution, then greed, corruption, and neocolonialism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. But don't despair. Rather, take comfort in the knowledge that I fully intend to take a strong position on EA's biases, which, after all, prevent me from getting my work done. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that EA has long been creating a desolation and calling it peace. What worries me more than that, however, is that if EA ever manages to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.

I alluded to this earlier, but we truly can't afford to let EA waste everyone else's time. What I'm suggesting is that we lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. That's the key to revealing the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from EA's smear tactics, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that its publications are rude. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that EA presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful.

I have seen what EA is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. When I was a child my clergyman told me, “The blatant ignorance and social maladjustment of EA's disquisitions will supplant national heroes with bitter heretics within a short period of time.” If you think about it you'll see his point. A small child really couldn't understand that there must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none. But any adult can easily grasp that EA, already oppressive with its brutal programs of Gleichschaltung, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that EA has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that there is nothing more tragic than to find a decent, honest person who's been misled by its irrational pranks. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying its repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why EA's initiatives are more than nasty. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that EA has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would it avouch that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom?

Someone has to be willing to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep. EA likes slogans that abandon me on a desert island. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I plan to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different types of obtuse caciquism. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, we need to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. In the end, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, take an uncharitable attitude towards EA's rabid theories.

[Caincard]

There was a festival going on yesterday. I decided to walk outside of my apartment in nothing but a loincloth and a stag helm while Dovahkiin was blasting over the speakers.

[Syntaxvgm]

+1 Post count

This is off topic. You get no post counts.

[Syntaxvgm]

fuck, copy and paste from somewhere probably

Better yet, made by a generator.

[Caincard]

VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION

WRONG, Alcohol is a solution too.

[Cobiee]

This is off topic. You get no post counts.

i suck

[BirdyTheMighty]

In this letter, I plan to discuss Ubisoft's mealymouthed, vapid plaints quite extensively. Note that the details aren't pleasant. In fact, they're shocking. But I insist that people who don't know what Ubisoft is up to obviously need to be shocked. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that Ubisoft's asseverations do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.

Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than most. How did Ubisoft get so bloody-minded? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, it's easy enough to hate it any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that it is up to, things that ought to make a real Ubisoft-hater out of you. First off, if its barbs were intended as a joke, it forgot to include the punchline.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, from secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, Ubisoft's spin doctors have always found a way to acquire public acceptance of Ubisoft's rebarbative views. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, Ubisoft has occasionally been successful at eliminating those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. Upon such points its natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as it further strives to create a new cottage industry around its headstrong form of incendiarism. Much of Ubisoft's success is due to the rest of us bending over backwards to assist it and to overlook its failings. That may sound unbelievable, but it's the truth. Another unbelievable but true statement is that Ubisoft does not merely erase the memory of all traditions and all history. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but many members of Ubisoft's den of thieves believe that the best way to serve one's country is to inject Ubisoft's lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Even worse, almost all of Ubisoft's assistants believe that demagogism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that I would be grateful if Ubisoft would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to pursue virtue and knowledge. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. It has long been my opinion—and I have never shrunk from its expression—that Ubisoft is operating according to some very badly flawed logic. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Whenever it encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with its beliefs, Ubisoft doesn't know what to do. The very genesis of Ubisoft's baleful, pathological theatrics is in fetishism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by fetishism.

Ubisoft does not want to batten on the credulity of the ignorant because it is dishonest, brash, destructive, and pompous (though, granted, Ubisoft is all of the aforementioned) but rather because it has been said that Ubisoft is the devil incarnate. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if it had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” it wouldn't be so keen to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that it intends to put its splenetic faction in charge of declaring martial law, suspending elections, and rounding up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately callous). We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that if Ubisoft doesn't see anything wrong with suppressing people's instinct and intellect then perhaps it doesn't deserve all the support it's getting from us.

The simple ability to perform noble deeds is a pons asinorum that Ubisoft may never cross. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Ubisoft tried to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. The issue of what to do about feckless energumens is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that I try never to argue with it because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason.

I have a plan to discuss the relationship among three converging and ever-growing factions—loud vigilantes, short-sighted voluptuaries, and anal-retentive ne'er-do-wells. I call this plan “Operation put Ubisoft on notice for its attempts to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers”. (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with its treatises. Videlicet, they seek temporary tactical alliances with treacherous muttonheads in order to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. And that's saying nothing about how it's a puzzleheaded liar. Let's list some of its more misguided lies: First, Ubisoft claims that the Earth is flat. Second, it insists that it is clean and bright and pure inside. And third, it wants us to believe that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. I presented that list to get you to see that it may not be easy to reinforce what is best in people, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that Ubisoft recently made the astonishing claim that it's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Ubisoft claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, its solution involves destroying our country from within. What bothers me about that is that it desperately wants us to believe that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how Ubisoft demands obeisance from its hirelings. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Ubisoft forces them to glorify the things that everyone else execrates.

And what about Ubisoft's vicegerents? They, like Ubisoft, are lackadaisical repressive-types. Ubisoft is unhappy that people like me want to build a sane and healthy society free of its destructive influences. Such cavils notwithstanding, it commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for it to drain our hope and enthusiasm. With friends like Ubisoft, who needs enemies? I mean, it and its understrappers are puppets of small-minded, disagreeable worrywarts. This issue is coming to the fore because it will give rise to intellectually challenged upstarts in the coming days. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will expose Ubisoft's malisons for what they really are. Only then can we communicate and teach.

What makes Ubisoft think we want it to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming? Did it read something about that in “The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Teetotalism”? When Ubisoft stated that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, I concluded that it was completely self-serving. Now that it claims that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to its nocuous prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers, I feel that it's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Ubisoft is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Ubisoft and a pigeon is that Ubisoft intends to equip unrestrained loblollies with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. That's why metagrobolism is dangerous. Ubisoft's blathering version of it is doubly so.

Inasmuch as I disagree with Ubisoft's accusations and find its ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Ubisoft's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Some critics have called Ubisoft temeritous. A handful insist it's revolting. Its votaries, on the other hand, consider it to be one of the great minds of this century. If unilateralism were an Olympic sport, Ubisoft would clinch the gold medal. A final word: Ubisoft's cajoleries have a crippling effect on science and technology.

lol wtf man you expect people to read that shit :lol:

[Syntaxvgm]

lol wtf man you expect people to read that shit :lol:

I've seen a number of semi-intelligible and sick things over the years, but Mr. Birdy The Mighty's asseverations really take the cake. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Birdy claims that tammanyism is a noble cause. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Birdy's claim we must acknowledge that you won't find many of Birdy's lickspittles who will openly admit that they favor Birdy's schemes to violate international laws. In fact, their shenanigans are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Birdy has been offering deceitful, obtuse quodlibetarians a lot of money to create a climate of intimidation. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Birdy has a knack for convincing confused, parasitic politicasters that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like “homotransplantation” and “saccharogalactorrhea” to keep his sales pitch from sounding ornery. That's why you really have to look hard to see that no one need be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of Birdy The Mighty. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how he is frightened that we might reveal the nature and activity of his mercenaries and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that it would be great if we could encourage our spirits to soar. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of factionalism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to show some backbone.

Birdy's pretense of soliciting input from others amounts to little more than a giant suggestion box, inside of which lies a forever-churning paper shredder. I, speaking as someone who is not an untrustworthy braggadocio, could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I once tried to explain to Birdy that his reportages will criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. Rather than feel ashamed of himself, Birdy got angry at me. What this says is that it doesn't really matter why Birdy wants to provide financial support to backwards banana republics and their caustic dictators. Whether it's due to a misplaced faith in privatism, bribes paid to Birdy by merciless apostates, or nagging from some of the headlong mendicants in his gestapo, the fact remains that that's what Birdy wants. What I want, in contrast, is to notify you that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

As I see it, I don't know what to do about the rise in materialism I see all around me. Birdy's solution. not surprisingly, is to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of Lysenkoism. This is one case in which the cure is clearly worse than the disease. Birdy is like a jellyfish in that you can't see his stings coming. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of his meretricious, uninformed treacheries.

Now stay with me a moment here; I am making a point. Specifically, an armed revolt against Birdy is morally justified. However, I avouch that it is not yet strategically justified. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by sniffish psychopaths: I see how important his nerdy, baleful ruses are to his apostles and I laugh. I laugh because we wouldn't have a problem with terrorism if it weren't for him. Although Birdy created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, he insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naïve does Birdy think we are? Truly, he's doing some pretty mean-spirited things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, Birdy can't be trusted. Everything he says is a lie, and everything he does is based on a lie: his squibs, his jibes, his theories—all lies, lies with flakes of truth sprinkled about to make biased fainéants believe them.

Birdy's unrestrained, morally questionable opinions are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Birdy has been destroying our country from within. It seems clear that people should soothe each other's pain, not exploit it. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Birdy drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that Birdy's most progressive idea is to operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

If you've ever watched television or read a book, odds are that you already know that if Birdy truly believes that he is beyond reproach, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. To believe that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and the most voluble battologists you'll ever see is to deceive ourselves. As stated earlier, Birdy has been fairly successful in his efforts to arouse the hostility and excite the cupidity of the most treasonous chiselers you'll ever see. That just goes to show what can be done with a little greed, a complete lack of scruples, and the help of a bunch of irritating lowbrows. He keeps repeating over and over again that he should blend together unilateralism and elitism in a train wreck of monumental proportions because “it's the right thing to do”. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of masochism and indicates to me that I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that if Birdy is victorious in his quest to deny us the opportunity to prevent his lewd complaints from spreading like a malignant tumor, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Birdy minces to the twang of a different zither. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter.

By allowing Birdy to bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled, we are allowing him to play puppet master. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Birdy? Other than that, his goal is to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. How haughty is that? How jaundiced? How pudibund?

If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me point out that the emperor has no clothes on. Birdy doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. Although I'm trying desperately hard to express my opinion of him without using expletives, I'm afraid I do have to say that Birdy presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to add insult to injury.

One might think that I find it amusing how all thinking people simultaneously flinched when they heard Birdy insist that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior, and this is, not surprisingly, the case. I attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that we must work together to justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his deranged initiatives. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to fight the good fight. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because we're going to have to hunker down for a protracted war against Birdy and his claque. This will indeed be a conflict of a type that, given the external backing on which our opponents rely, is unlikely to end in a rout by either side. Even if the fighting ends at the negotiation table, I indubitably suspect that Birdy is a stupid dodo. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?

Prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror

Call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place

Reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed

I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that rather than attempting to work out his disagreements with others, Birdy commonly turns to his friends tapinosis and meiosis, calling his opponents “linguacious barmpots”, “short-sighted sots”, or even “egocentric psychics”. I find that rather sad, primarily because if you were to try to tell Birdy's cohorts that we must stand united as free, sovereign individuals and lead us all toward a better, brighter future, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Birdy is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his ideologies he faces, the more scurrilous he becomes. The more scurrilous he becomes, the more opposition to his ideologies he faces.

An ancient Greek once wrote something to the effect of, “Education is vitiated by his opuscula.” Today, the same dictum applies, just as clearly as when it was first written over two thousand years ago. Ironically, if five years ago I had described a person like Birdy to you and told you that in five years he'd show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment, you'd have thought me offensive. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he claims that antagonism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Well, I beg to differ. I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Failure to define our terms more clearly will lead to a deluge of complaints by Mr. Birdy The Mighty's trained seals.

[Real_PhillBert]

I like pie.

[Hazy125]

Chun-Li's thighs @ixi_your_face

[techswede]

Keyboard and mouse might be awesome in most situations

BUT F**CK PLAYING RACING GAMES ON EM!..

Analog wasd keys need to be a thing!

 

I just had to lower the #pcgamingmustardrace value of my pc by plugging an xbox 360 controller into it!  

 

Also swedish summers are shite! How can there be so much rain and thunder!?

[felixbearpig]

YOLO SCRIPT

 

 Mr. birdy is an ass

[Syntaxvgm]

Mr. birdy is an ass

"YOLO SCRIPT" :lol:

[Trik'Stari]

Keyboard and mouse might be awesome in most situations

BUT F**CK PLAYING RACING GAMES ON EM!..

Analog wasd keys need to be a thing!

 

I just had to lower the #pcgamingmustardrace value of my pc by plugging an xbox 360 controller into it!  

 

Also swedish summers are shite! How can there be so much rain and thunder!?

nice

[Trik'Stari]

[Syntaxvgm]

By now everyone should have heard about Peta and its mordacious, caustic propositions. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Peta's belligerent catch-phrases, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that I stand by what I've written before, that if Peta wanted to, it could wipe out delicate ecosystems. It could unfurl the flag of allotheism. And it could infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating wretched information. We must not allow Peta to do any of these.

 

I guess what I really mean to say is that I, speaking as someone who is not an intrusive, querulous twaddler, am horrified by Peta's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of its parasitic ideals. Hey, it's not my fault that I recently informed Peta that its bootlickers take rights away from individuals whom only Peta perceives as indelicate. Peta said it'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, there is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some “ideology” such as Titoism or negativism. Specifically, Peta is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Peta is sciolism. Why? This can be answered most easily by stating that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that Peta is a perfect specimen of Insincere Pantywaistus, a species known for creating an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that its taradiddles are vulgar—and that's the polite word for what I actually think of them. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that if anything will free us from the shackles of Peta's self-righteous comments, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Peta that given the public appetite for more accountability, any benefit that happens to be gained from its conscienceless ruderies is bound to be fugacious. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Peta has tried to topple society. The other is whether or not Peta's agendas are niddering in theory and peccable in practice. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: The annunciations that Peta's loyalists are so proud of are woefully domineering.

 

It's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Peta. Not only is Peta more mingy and more wishy-washy than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but Peta's disquisitions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: deprive individuals of the right to maintain social tranquillity. Phase two: put a clog on all attempts to limit its power. Peta likes to compare its imprecations to the venerable documents that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.

 

I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Peta. Here's what I have to say to them: Peta claims that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says ill-natured things. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like Peta lead an active disinformation campaign. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. By toning down its quips, many more people are exposed to Peta's laughable, horny message, convinced by its passion, and seduced by its simplistic answers to complex social problems.

 

Peta's goons suspect that Peta has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the contemptible cadgers around it. Sorry, guys, but the inconvenient truth is that it has been brought to my attention that even children are not safe from Peta's self-absorbed scare tactics. While this is certainly true, Peta says that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. Such statements are not just wrong; they're worse than wrong. They reinforce a dangerous and insidious but sadly common misunderstanding among many people. They disguise the fact that I would love to be a fly on the wall near where it and its camp meet. I'd love to hear how those petulant caitiffs come up with their bloody-minded schemes for causing people to betray one another and hate one another. Then, I'd finally be able to back up my claim that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to fight for our freedom of speech, we must remove the misunderstanding that it has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because documents written by Peta's habitués typically include the line, “Peta is a champion of liberty and individual expression”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that if Peta would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, it might begin to realize that the irony is that its most audacious magic-bullet explanations are also its most loathsome. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.”

 

If I thought that Peta's words had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that Peta is completely versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Peta warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against hucksterism. But when Peta is safely surrounded by its idolators, it instructs them to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that if Peta were to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that there is an alternative to lying down passively for the executioner. The alternative is to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. In particular, its recent attempt to perpetuate myths that glorify serfism is one more gambit in a chess game with no rules. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, some day, in the far, far future, it will realize that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince its epigones to rouse people's indignation at Peta. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how it is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because Peta's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that its new changes will be even more abysmal because Peta's opinions have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply perverted. Now, not only are they both ugly and spleenful, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Peta is more than biggety. It's mega-biggety. In fact, to understand just how biggety Peta is, you first need to realize that it manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, “family values”, comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

 

I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but if Peta truly believes that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately jejune, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. So who's crazy? I, or all the snappish skites who warrant that the peak of fashion is to treat people like hidebound pettifoggers? Before you answer, let me point out that if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Peta would throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Peta could have made the same prediction.

 

There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Peta announcing some crapulous thing every few weeks. Peta has announced a number of pea-brained ideas on how to run—or is that ruin?—everyone's life. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it has no record of accomplishment? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: There is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most puzzleheaded theologasters you'll ever see but the hope that makes you eager to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Peta. People have pointed out to me that Peta is a stupid person's idea of a clever organization, but I still can't help but think that Peta's thesis is that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. That's entirely pudibund, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that every time Peta tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well.

 

Here's an eye-opener for you: Peta demands obeisance from its secret agents. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Peta forces them to remake the world to suit its own lascivious needs. Someone once said to me, “Peta broadens its appeal by seeking influence and adherents in the absenteeism movement.” This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, “Fainéantism, thy name is Peta”.

 

Although Peta occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, its older sottises were birdbrained enough. Its latest ones are truly beyond the pale. All of Peta's energy is expended in developing a credible pretext to forcibly silence its castigators. So what's the connection between that and its accusations? The connection is that if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Peta's latest quisquilious perceptions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that I can't make heads or tails of Peta's mind games. I mean, does it want to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, or doesn't it? On a closing note, I hope that this letter, while incomplete, informal, and having no authority except its own inner strength and conviction, has clearly demonstrated to you that it's time for Peta to stop its systematic assault on religious freedom.

[Trik'Stari]

wow WTF

[Syntaxvgm]

wow WTF

My keyboard in on fire. 

[Trik'Stari]

I bet.

 

OH Vegetarians are evil, and should be shunned by all members of society. (they're insane)

 

Part of me wants to make a profile on some Vegan forum so I can post photo's of myself cooking meat and eating it, even when I'm not hungry, and say that I ate that meat because if they didn't it would have gone to waste.

[Syntaxvgm]

I bet.

 

OH Vegetarians are evil, and should be shunned by all members of society. (they're insane)

 

Part of me wants to make a profile on some Vegan forum so I can post photo's of myself cooking meat and eating it, even when I'm not hungry, and say that I ate that meat because if they didn't it would have gone to waste.

I think the boldness of them lately is Obama's fault.

There are some comments I need to make regarding Barack Hussein Obama. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, Barack is known for ascribing opinions to me that I don't even hold. This is not only a grotesque betrayal of the principles that Barack himself claims to uphold but a clear demonstration of how Barack maintains a “Big Brother” dossier of incriminating information about everyone he distrusts to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that I plan to convince the worst types of wicked prigs there are to stop supporting Barack and tolerating his publicity stunts. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, Barack is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way.

 

Given the tenor of our times, Barack wants to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. This desire is implanted in a part of his brain that's immune to reason or argument. Consequently, there's no chance that we can get him to see that as he matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that he's trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his allocutions he faces, the more appalling he becomes. The more appalling he becomes, the more opposition to his allocutions he faces. Well, sure; those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that Barack has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to Leninism and mammonism, that he wants to give what I call irritating, pusillanimous blaguers far more credibility than they deserve, but that doesn't change reality. To deny that he has for so long been nursing the wrongs he imagines the world had done him that Barack is determined to exact revenge by bringing this battle to a fever pitch is pea-brained nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because he is a small part of a large movement that seeks to persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished. And it is irresponsible because my long-term goal is to lead a jacquerie against him. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, Barack's surrogates remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting Barack to philistinism. The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of fighting Barack hammer and tong. I wish only that a few more people could see that Barack has indicated that if we don't let him substitute pap for art then he'll be forced to establish rack-and-thumbscrew programs. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Barack has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that his taradiddles are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lying”.

 

If Barack's treacheries were intended as a joke, Barack forgot to include the punchline. He once tried to shout obscenities at passers-by. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you decidedly don't understand how Barack operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that while he manufactures crises over aspheterism, Barack's gang has been spawning a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, cuckoo behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. He just reported that the Universe belongs to him by right. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Barack's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to develop mind-control technology.

 

The worst sorts of malicious, flippant kleptomaniacs there are are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to fight with spiritual weapons that are as lazy as they are stuporous. Barack had previously claimed that he had no intention to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would convince others that nasty knuckle-draggers are the “chosen people” of scriptural prophecy. We all know what happened then. Now, Barack would have us believe he'd never ever instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his allegations. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Barack uses highfalutin terms like “scleroticochorioiditis” and “phenomenalistic” to conceal his plans to turn over our country to tactless publishers of hate literature. In this scheme of his, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that many, many people have been hurt by Barack for daring to explain the Barack Hussein Obama factor in the equation of egoism. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that honor means nothing to Barack. Principles mean nothing to Barack. All he cares about is how best to introduce a zeitgeist of solecism to our society.

 

Not to change the subject or anything, but Barack will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he indisputably does scare me: His values are scary, his hastily mounted campaigns are scary, and most of all, many people think of his disgraceful codices as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which quixotic devil-worshippers will make irrationalism socially acceptable in the near future. A second all-too-serious item is that we should not concern ourselves with Barack's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Barack's adversarial blanket statements. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Barack's unforgiving diatribes and the Charybdis of anti-intellectualism.

 

I'm not a furciferous person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Barack's co-conspirators and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically chauvinistic ones championed by atrabilious blowhards. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction because that's what Barack wants. He has had some success in tipping the scales in his favor. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, “How did Barack's reign of terror start?” or even the more urgent question, “How might it end?”. No, we must ask, “Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that Barack's false-flag operations are shrouded in a fog of nosism?” To rephrase that question, has Barack ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories was instead spent on something productive? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that his belief is that we should cease to talk about “vague and unreal” objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. Instead, we should be devising increasingly shrewish ways to assail all that is holy. That's Barack's opinion. My opinion is that he should keep his half-baked, know-nothing opinions to himself. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. I say that because he swims in a sea of terrorism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts.

 

To put it another way, I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction.

 

The truth of this is by no means limited to the field of general culture, but applies to politics as well, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that he has been trying to popularize the narrative that he's a moral exemplar. My fear is that if he's successful at promoting such cockamamy notions then even the man on the Clapham omnibus may agree to let him shame my name. Barack claims to have read somewhere that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”. I don't doubt that he has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that Barack has been telling everyone that we should avoid personal responsibility. I would like to remind Barack that false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.

 

I claim that Barack accepts—or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept—the ideological premises of diabolism. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that his apocrisiaries say, “Barack can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers hubristic or incoherent.” Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Barack has been making a ham-handed effort to show that flagitious libertines aren't ever uncivilized. I'm guessing that most people are starting to realize that such claims are a distortion of the truth and that we desperately need to combat these lies by taking a strong position on Barack's revenge fantasies, which, after all, spit in the face of propriety. I don't mean to sound like a crapehanger, but I am certainly concerned that Barack will procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror sometime soon. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of dour braggadocios. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that the scantiness of Barack's abstract knowledge directs his sentiments more to the world of lexiphanicism. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

 

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that if I am correctly informed, Barack derives sadistic pleasure in the misfortune of others. In any case, if you've read any of the froward slop that he has concocted, you'll definitely recall his description of his plan to exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that for those of us who make our living trying to tell you a little bit about Barack and his niddering philippics, it is important to consider that if he honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. To end on a more positive note: For all of Barack Hussein Obama's professed concern for human rights, he has yet to take a firm and unambiguous stand against those pestiferous pronks who meddle in everyone else's affairs.

[WinNut]

-huge-ass wall of text-

Did you write that all yourself?