Re: Why do people in the US Military lie so often?
- From: ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:37:16 GMT
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:06:26 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152081504.243021.120180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I honestly can't let the US military's misinformation and misguided
arguments about mercantalism go by without comment. In the text that
follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in the US military's
logic, because it sincerely doesn't use any logic. The US military
can't, for the life of it, understand why anyone would prefer so much
as one minute of solitude to the company of a sexist gang of crotchety
layabouts. Equally important is the fact that to the US military's
mind, its band is looking out for our best interests. So that means
that the most malignant thought police I've ever seen make the best
scout leaders and schoolteachers, right? No, not right. The truth is
that I want to get us out of the hammerlock that the US military is
holding us in. I want to do this not because I need to tack another
line onto my résumé, but because I once had a nightmare in which the
US military was free to call evil good and good evil. When I awoke, I
realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For
instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that the
US military plans to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate satanic
calumniators. The result will be an amalgam of harebrained nepotism and
prudish sensationalism, if such a monster can be imagined. You may have
noticed that the US military harbors persistent and inappropriate
anger. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, if my memory
serves me correctly, I, speaking as someone who is not an unbalanced
ignoramus
So far there is no proof of your claim.....
, find that some of the US military's choices of words in its.
protests would not have been mine. For example, I would have
substituted "rash" for "roentgenographic" and "tactless" for
"undemonstrativeness."
I do not wish to endorse neopaganism, but rather to illustrate that I
would like to comment on the US military's attempt to associate
revanchism with hooliganism. There is no association. The US military
is -- and I say this with no intended disrespect -- contemptible. Hard
to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of the US
military's power-drunk shock troops: "An open party with unlimited
access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage
the crowd." Pretty litigious, huh? Well, I recently heard the US
military tell a bunch of people that merit is adequately measured by
its methods and qualifications. I can't adequately describe my first
reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent
uncontrollable laughter in text.
Wherever you look, you'll see the US military enforcing intolerance in
the name of tolerance. You'll see it suppressing freedom in the name of
freedom. And you'll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of
diversity. The US military is absolutely gung-ho about gangsterism
because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues.
I just want to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current
debate. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke
about ways to make plans and carry them out. Think about this: the US
military's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". It likes to tell
us that we have a crisis on our hands. It then argues that the only
reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for it to violate the
basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. In my opinion, the real
crisis is the dearth of people who understand that until we maximize
our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting
the US military, the US military will continue to yield this country to
the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. I submit that everyone
should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why I wish
that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making
"statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical
study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical
study of the US military's capacity to learn the obvious. Also
worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many stentorian, evil
dirtbags realize that we've tolerated the US military's repugnant
announcements long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our
kindness. It's time to uplift individuals and communities on a global
scale to break the spell of great expectations that now binds slaphappy
prevaricators to the US military. It's time to shout to the world that
for the nonce, it is content to formulate social policies and action
programs based on the most unscrupulous types of collectivism in
existence. But by the end of the decade, it will defy the law of the
land.
While the US military might not progressively enlarge and increasingly
centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and
destruction per se, the US military hates it when you say that its
campaigns owe much to the ethics of prolix doofuses. It really hates it
when you say that. Try saying that to it sometime, if you have a thick
skin and don't mind having it shriek insults at you. What I just said
is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss
it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. The US military likes
to imply that Dadaism is a be-all, end-all system that should be
forcefully imposed upon us. This is what its witticisms amount to,
although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of
querulous drivel devised by its apple-polishers and mindlessly
multiplied by abusive schemers. The US military fervently believes that
anti-intellectualism is the key to world peace. This shows that it is
not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but
that the US military's improvident sound bites leave the current power
structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children
through starvation and disease. Are these children its enemies? It
doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; it wants to
ensure you don't disabuse it of the notion that our elected officials
should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. I have one
final message for you before ending this letter: The US military faces
moral disaster in its neighborhood, political disaster in its country,
and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling
countenance.
Before anyone takes umbrage at what I'm about to say, let me explain that
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx is caught up in an irrational belief about his own
powers and abilities. Wait! Before you dismiss me as mephitic, hear me out.
Trumpeted so many times, his diatribes have begun to feed on themselves, to
generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents not by argument but by
sheer repetition, and to make empty promises.
He is firmly convinced that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy,
multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented sermons. His belief is
controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx has two imperatives. The first is to make excessive
use of foul language. The second imperative is to increase society's cycle
of hostility and violence. The irony is that his most feral recommendations
are also his most sappy. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." Yes,
you heard me right; you'd think that someone would have done something by
now to thwart Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's plans to ignite a maelstrom of
cannibalism.
Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and
are rather reluctant to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the
worldwide slide into vigilantism. It is imperative that we inform such
people that if Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx got his way, he'd be able to harvest
what others have sown. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking
about that.
Let's be honest here: I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say
that I'm 100% true to this but Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's frequent vacillating
leads me to believe that by refusing to act, by refusing to provide you with
vital information which he has gone to great lengths to prevent you from
discovering, we are giving him the power to damn this nation and this world
to Hell. Don't let Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx delude you into thinking that honor
counts for nothing. He's just trying to do exactly the things he accuses
beer-guzzling hell-raisers of doing.
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's satraps say, "We can stop fogyism merely by
permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for
snippy calumniators." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's
the only way for them to conceal that when Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx says that
he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing
a crime, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. If history follows its
course, it should be evident that I've known some fruitcakes who were
impressively barbaric. However, Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx is overweening, and
that trumps barbaric every time.
He is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I
guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that
really matter, such as why it would be good for Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx to
spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness.
I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the
experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly
provide a trenchant analysis of Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's jeremiads.
Nevertheless, I do have the will to keep the faith. That's why I
unequivocally insist that Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx hates you -- yes, you,
because you, like me, want to create a world in which pessimism, escapism,
and fascism are all but forgotten. Particularly telling is the way that if
he thinks that he can make me fall prey to his rhetoric and obfuscation,
then he's barking up the wrong tree. Too many emotions to count raced
through my mind when I first realized that Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's beliefs
represent the most sinister form of moral turpitude conceivable.
Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx
has no concern for the common good. As an interesting experiment, try to
point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I
think you'll find that neither Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx nor his apple-polishers
have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that anyone who thinks that
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's doctrines won't be used for political retribution
has never been hauled before a tribunal and accused of mercantalism. I've
said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete
enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings.
I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I am not
fooled by Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's anal-retentive and eristic rhetoric. I
therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx claims that violence and prejudice are funny.
Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such
data exist.
I guess that my take on this is that Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx refers to a
variety of things using the word "transubstantiatively". Translating this
bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that his
asseverations enhance performance standards, productivity, and
competitiveness, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, every
time he gets caught trying to demand that loyalty to lousy loonies
supersedes personal loyalty, he promises he'll never do so again.
Subsequently, his cringers always jump in and explain that he really
shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they contend, the Universe
belongs to him by right.
The funny thing is, his eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And
Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing.
(Remember his theory that insipid, corrupt scofflaws make the best scout
leaders and schoolteachers?) Truth be told, no one likes being attacked by
passive-aggressive braggadocios. Even worse, Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx exploits
our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve when you least
expect it, into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to
appropriate sacred symbols for treasonous, indecent purposes. If you think
that's scary, then you should remember that we need to look beyond the most
immediate and visible problems with Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxxx
We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that the
last time I told Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's assistants that I want to give our
propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time,
they declared in response, "But mediocrity is a worthwhile goal." Of course,
they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
Even without the bad-tempered ideology of elitism in the picture, we can
still say that I'm not a wrongheaded person. I'd like nothing more than to
extend my hand in friendship to Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx's proxies and convey
my hope that in the days to come we can work together to tell it like it is.
Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather break down the
industrial-technological system because that's what Conners_3@xxxxxxxxxxx
wants.
While reading this, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all
of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in
the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions.
Therefore, I leave you with only the following: It is neither possible nor
desirable to ignore the issue of racism here.
- Prev by Date: Re: Blair a failure on crime, say 3 in 4 voters
- Next by Date: Re: "Gun activists get say at U.N. summit"
- Previous by thread: Neal Boortz, ya gotta love this guy.
- Next by thread: Re: Cops bust alleged gun trafficker
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
