APD Officer
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Scott

  • Rank
    Professional retard

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,428 profile views
  1. Legend says clint hasn't touched arma since his ghosthawk got shot down in that clip
  2. @explicit What the fuck have we birthed
  3. He had to explain it to me too
  4. Why does Chairwoman Clint H Beastwood V replace discourse and open dialogue with lily-livered ballyhoos and blatant ugliness? Anger? Fear? Stupidity? Some deep quixotic urging of her soul? The answer cannot easily be found, but her expositors are neurotic at best, the downfall of society at worst. The bulk of this letter is a critique of her wretched wisecracks. The reason I refer to them as “wretched” is that in no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law in order to improve the lot of humankind. That would lead to anarchy. Instead, I advocate arguing about Chairwoman Beastwood's lamentations, as doing so leads people towards an understanding of how we ought to ponder the lessons and examples of the 19th century's abolitionist movement. In particular, we should consider the abolitionists' deep commitment and unrelenting dedication as well as their moral fervor and powerfully cogent wording, speeches, and direct action. I propose we expand upon those and make the associated lessons and guidelines usable in today's world, emphasizing that Chairwoman Beastwood's favorite story seems to be that her ignorance is just as good as our knowledge. This humbuggery is based on unverified rumor and has long since been decisively discredited by a variety of reputable organizations. Nevertheless, Chairwoman Beastwood has been regimenting the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers. Should doing so buy her the right to dialogue, negotiation, concessions, and power? I say no because when Chairwoman Beastwood stated that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, I concluded that she was thoroughly prissy. Now that she claims that everything will be hunky-dory if we let her promote disingenuous ideologies such as egoism, I allege that she's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Chairwoman Beastwood is doing some pretty crude things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, she has remarked that her decisions are based on reason. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, when people come to me for advice on how to respond to Chairwoman Beastwood's backwards homilies, I tend to proffer them an aphorism from my uncle, who schooled me on how to deal with such nonsense. My uncle would typically say something like, “I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate”. Great stuff. There's no doubt that my uncle recognizes that one might wonder why Chairwoman Beastwood doesn't feel guilty about organizing a troika of disruptive, high-handed haggersnashes, blathering sensualists, and frightful grafters with the sole purpose of reaping a harvest of death. Apparently, even know-it-all Chairwoman Beastwood doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter much if she did, given that she really ought to to take something for her hysterical paranoia. I've heard that chlorpromazine works well. Undeniably, some sort of medication should awaken Chairwoman Beastwood to the fact that I am not interested in debating her. One can't have a debate with someone who is so willingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of the subject being discussed. Although Chairwoman Beastwood is ensconced in impenetrable conviction of superior intellectual status, last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Chairwoman Beastwood that flattery will get Chairwoman Beastwood nowhere. As I expected, she was unconvinced. I once told her that she wallows in her own depravity. How did she respond to that? She proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Chairwoman Beastwood is an interesting character. On the one hand, she likes to move vilipensive masochism from the detestable fringe into a realm of respectability. But on the other hand, we mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of her temulent orations. Instead we must knock some sense into Chairwoman Beastwood. So what are the facts and what is the truth about Chairwoman Beastwood? The most important fact is that she will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let her accelerate our descent into the cesspool of exclusionism. At least putting up with another Clint H Beastwood hissy fit is easier than convincing Chairwoman Beastwood's idolators that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Chairwoman Beastwood's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. When I was younger I wanted to preach a message of community and brotherly love. I still want to do that, but now I realize that we need to let our dream of a just and safe world be bigger than the little kingdoms of our identities. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to convince conscienceless, superficial sophisters to stop supporting Chairwoman Beastwood and tolerating her rejoinders. Chairwoman Beastwood is the big kahuna of savagism. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that juxtaposed to this is the idea that her historical record of parvanimous, pusillanimous false-flag operations is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of her cronies? Ask yourself: What provoked Chairwoman Beastwood to push false and unsubstantiated charges and outright lies in order to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of salacious, petty insurrectionists? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did because we both know that Chairwoman Beastwood's ungrateful accomplices are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why they're so willing to help Chairwoman Beastwood take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. It's easy to tell if Chairwoman Beastwood is lying. If her lips are moving, she's lying. My cause is to create a world in which alcoholism, Cæsarism, and anti-intellectualism are all but forgotten. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Chairwoman Beastwood has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that you and I are objects for her to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've “discovered” that our freedom to challenge Chairwoman Beastwood's claims of exceptionalism is not merely something desirable in theory. This freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. We must start by acknowledging that Chairwoman Beastwood and her swampers are the most meddlesome louts I've ever seen. This is not set down in complaint against them but merely as analysis. If the only way to listen, find compassion, and collaborate is for me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair, then so be it. It would obviously be worth it because I do not find barbs that are crabby, malodorous, and brain-damaged to be “funny”. Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Chairwoman Beastwood and her mercenaries or we break the neck of Chairwoman Beastwood's policy of allotheism once and for all. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that Chairwoman Beastwood extricates herself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading and inaccurate statements decide your position on this issue. It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Chairwoman Beastwood's addlepated harangues. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and shine a light on Chairwoman Beastwood's efforts to foment sneaky forms of political tyranny. That's a very important point; seeing Chairwoman Beastwood succeed at emphasizing the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive has left me with a number of unanswered questions—questions such as “If she's allegedly such a proponent of open inquiry and debate, then why doesn't she want us talking about how the real evil of her shabby pronouncements is that they take the focus off the real issues?” While it's true that we must continue to monitor her adherents and expose them as the incontinent grobians they are, Chairwoman Beastwood has yet to acknowledge that fact. I like to speak of her as “malignant”. That's a reasonable term to use, I proclaim, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, Chairwoman Beastwood is an obstinate rabiator. In fact, Chairwoman Beastwood is worse than an obstinate rabiator; she's also a sleazy skinhead. That's why she feels obligated to pander to our worst fears. One of Chairwoman Beastwood's hired goons once said, “Chairwoman Beastwood's roorbacks are all sweetness and light.” Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Chairwoman Beastwood intends to create a new social class. Militant dummkopfs, quarrelsome smear merchants, and politically incorrect jargonauts will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their protégés. Chairwoman Beastwood has been blaming all of our problems on the poor, beleaguered, taxpaying drudges of society who are only one paycheck away from the poorhouse. Will no one stop her? I am doing what I can by thinking outside the box, yet she periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Sure, we could just sit back and let her cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility, but that prospect really grates on people who have any kind of common sense. Several things Chairwoman Beastwood has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of hers that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. She always cavils at my attempts to eliminate hatred from her heart. That's probably because all of this adds up to something we've never seen before. Specifically, we've never seen Chairwoman Beastwood so aggressively eavesdrop on all sorts of private conversations. What that implies is that tokenism, alarmism, and communism follow her footsteps. Wherever Chairwoman Beastwood goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The implication is that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must maintain an open dialogue. The first step in that process is to realize that my plerophory of the perniciousness of her contrivances comes from the observation that the only winners in her games are ambulance services and funeral homes. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment Chairwoman Clint H Beastwood V possesses, 2) Chairwoman Beastwood's press releases are complete drivel, and 3) to join Chairwoman Beastwood's camorra, one must deal with membership rules, brainwashing rituals, huge amounts of money, and meeting locations enveloped in secrecy.
  5. Either do I. Last paragraph is gold though, fuckin clint and his gas chambers.
  6. To my many friends, both known and unknown, wherever you may be, I submit these thoughts for your consideration. As is customary for a letter of this sort, I will now offer up paper and ink anent the phylogeny of Mr. @Clint Beastwood's foul, morally questionable politics in order to make the point that bitterness seeps out of Clint like blood from an underdone ribeye steak. That extreme bitterness is, as far as I can tell, what leads him to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. Although the themes in Clint's blandishments are limited, Clint has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Clint's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of commercialism and how my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. As you listen to Clint's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that his ruderies are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of collaborationism. Our top priority in the upcoming weeks must be to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community. Look, of course that's going to be tough. Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that one can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how Clint operates. Nevertheless, I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to fight for economic, social, and cultural justice. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Clint plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us in the blink of an eye. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that Clint's deeds promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Clint's servitors because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Clint. Clint's stentorian, incoherent expostulations have been used to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. This is a sobering measure of their influence and extent. It also demonstrates how Clint's circulars can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that it would be great if we could take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of nonrepresentationalism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to issue a call to conscience and reason. Clint believes that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. Go home, Clint; you're drunk. Any sober person would realize that Clint is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to compose paeans to fainéantism. But on the other hand, he keeps saying that his crafty, loud crime syndicate is a respected civil-rights organization. In such statements, as in most of his propaganda, there are major omissions and layers of codswallop wrapped around a small piece of the truth. The real story is that we should not concern ourselves with Clint's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that Clint's incessant bloviating leads me to believe that Clint has taken it upon himself to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to get us out of the hammerlock in which Clint is holding us. I say that because his flock is a sterile bubble of diabolism. Everyone inside the bubble wants to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. In contrast, everyone outside the bubble agrees that the term “idiot savant” comes to mind when thinking of Clint. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I myself insist that if Clint sincerely believes that his publicity stunts can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality then he must be smoking something illegal. If five years ago I had described a person like Clint to you and told you that in five years he'd dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities, you'd have thought me ultra-infelicific. 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 no matter how bad you think his op-ed pieces are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. When I'm through with him he'll think twice before attempting to toss sops to the egos of the hate-filled. While you or I might find it natural to want to establish liberté, egalité, fraternité, his goal is to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. This is abject alcoholism! If we don't make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Clint's canards, then Clint will soon become unstoppable. No borders will be able to detain him. No united global opinion will be able to isolate him. No international police or juridical institutions will be able to interdict him. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. So, Clint, maybe the problem is not with deplorable, psychotic hammerheads, but with you. I've met numerous frightened people who crave shelter from the gathering storm of Clint-induced extremism. To them I say, it seems clear that the quest to understand how Clint can be so doctrinaire raises far more questions than it answers. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Clint sees no reason why he shouldn't meddle in everyone else's affairs. 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 I support the way of willing exchange, of common consent, of self-responsibility, of open opportunity. Clint, in contrast, supports taking the focus off the real issues. This difference in what we each support indicates that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that force us to tailor our smear tactics just to suit his hideous whims, or is it sufficient to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two destructive tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern adventurism? While that question may not be as profound as “What's the meaning of life?” or “Is there a God?”, Clint drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that I myself stand by what I've written before, that I allege we should knock down Clint's house of cards. By “house of cards,” I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and beggarly framework of lies on which Clint's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Clint's apologues are not only uncontrollable but divisive. They are divisive at a time when we need unity. They are apolaustic at a time when we need to come together to tell our shared stories about how Clint has never been able to assimilate and accept the humane ideals, civilized aims, and social aspirations of his peers. In fact, I have said that to Clint on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops curing the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Just because Clint deems it morally acceptable to impair the practice of democracy doesn't make that right in the eyes of God. As people with a religious bent already know, Clint can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. We indisputably can't afford to let him destroy everything beautiful and good. What I'm suggesting is that we tell him how wrong he is. That's the key to condemning Clint's criminal ineptitude, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that he proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a snooty lifestyle. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Some people apparently believe that if we don't bother Clint, Clint won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Clint wants to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his vilipensive behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he likes to say that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. We can see the ruinous effects of this pernicious nonsense all around us every day. For example, we see censorious twits relabeling millions of people as “acerbic”. We see the most closed-minded purveyors of malice and hatred you'll ever see expressing doubt that I wish I knew when Clint was planning on unleashing his next volley of jealous reports. Alas, I'm no Nostradamus. Nevertheless, some of my predictions have come true in spades. For instance, I predicted ages ago that Clint would eat our nation to its bones, and look what happened. Even scarier, I predicted that Clint would see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end in frustration and discouragement. Although most people doubted that prediction when I made it, they neglected to consider that Clint recently went through a collectivism phase in which he tried repeatedly to impede every diplomatic, security, and social priority on which our government needs to focus its efforts. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that Clint and his despotism squad have been hard at work creating a one-world government combining fanaticism and oligarchism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced that there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly coprophagous in intent. If this fatuous scheme is successful, you can wave goodbye to your freedom to say anything publicly about how courage is what we need to keep the faith—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a mumpish yokel in the eye and tell him that perusing the membership of Clint's faddism movement is like taking a tour of Dick Tracy's Rogue's Gallery, and everyone with half a brain understands that. While Clint has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever he wants about McCarthyism, his factotums, who are legion, resist seeing that he is controlling and demanding. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to plant markers that define the limits of what is abhorrent and what is not. I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Nevertheless, I do have the will to show pluck and optimism when presented with threats and terror. That's why I surely assert that knowledge and wisdom are his enemies. Clint understands that by limiting education and enlightenment, he can fool more people into believing that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. Sadly, those with the least education are those who would benefit most from the knowledge that Clint's reportages have created a raffish universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that the moon is made of green cheese. Only within this universe does it make sense to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. And, only if we carve solutions that are neither tendentious nor hidebound can we destroy this blowsy universe of his and exemplify civility, kindness, empathy, and fairness. Clint has already begun constructing gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, Clint should think about how his flimflams lead uppity flakes to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. If Clint doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. Let me conclude by expressing the hope that by reading this letter you have learned the life lesson, “Always put an end to Mr. Clint Beastwood's diabolical cycle of prejudice and reprisal.”
  7. r e t a r d
  8. That's not what they meant
  9. C O M P R E Q U E S T
  10. You should
  11. Whatever you say buddy.
  12. Yeah, and average shows the exact same thing as peak, consistent decrease and then a small increase in the last 30 days