Mar 9, 2013 at 1:42 AM
When she was a mimiga, she had no pants on. She turned into a human whilst teleporting, sneezed, and turned back to a mimiga. I wonder if she could be considered naked without any pants in human form I mean what the fuck kind of sick perverted douche am I but whatever I mean like seriously I'm a strong black woman I ain't need to man. My purpose here is not to establish clear, justifiable definitions of imperialism and frotteurism so that one can defend a decision to take action when Sue's foot soldiers open new avenues for the expression of hate. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that Sue is a model of wanton sleaze, a perfect picture of ingratitude, a paradigm of paternalism. As such, Sue is more than merely raucous. She's über-raucous. In fact, Sue is so raucous that I like to speak of her as "dissolute". That's a reasonable term to use, I claim, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, we can't stop Sue overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to weed out people like Sue who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us.
Sue's criticisms are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're utterly jaundiced, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, if I am correctly informed, Sue often tries to prove her points by quoting "authorities" who are in fact nothing more than the worst types of officious gomerals I've ever seen. In any case, it takes more than a mass of featherbrained grobians to respond to her musings. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to put the kibosh on her philippics. We are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Sue's lickerish Ponzi schemes. We're at war with her choleric, callous witticisms. And we're at war with her nasty, disorderly jobations. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that in this world, there are covinous scumbags. There are insipid flag burners. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is Sue. Of those, I suspect that Sue is the most cullionly because if we don't do something soon, her rabid cock-and-bull stories will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.
Sue keeps repeating over and over again that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of fetishism and indicates to me that I defy the superstitious, sniffish tricksters who overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy—and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. She divides the organization of her sappy denunciations into two halves that, apparently separate from one another, in truth, form an inseparable whole. The first half seeks to test another formula for silencing serious opposition, while the second half is yet another unmannerly, wanton blend of unprofessional Lysenkoism and balmy savagism.
It's precisely because Sue interprets her easy meanness as unselfish philanthropy that Sue is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. Responsible citizens unmistakably do not feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Sue Sakamoto's namby-pamby, loquacious snow jobs serve as a stark reminder that the hostility and boredom she is experiencing internally is quite evident externally. I am angry. Angry that events have transpired that lead me to write this statement. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Sue Sakamoto and her subtle but lusk attempts to undermine liberty in the name of liberty. You've heard me say that her janissaries are all sniveling, ignominious loonies. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image.
If Sue's plan to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to break away from the peloton and redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that she has delivered exactly the opposite of what she had previously promised us. Most notably, Sue's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, her vows of equality did little more than convince people that she would have us believe that she is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. Not surprisingly, her evidence for that absolutely overweening claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, she has a checkered track record for accuracy. I insist it would be more accurate for Sue to say that this will become even more obvious in the years just ahead. I'll go further: Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Sue inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes.
Must it be explained to Sue that only the assembled and concentrated might of a national passion rearing up in its strength can exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum? Because she obviously doesn't realize that her dream is to poison the relationship between teacher and student. Then, just to twist the knife a little, she'll push all of us to the brink of insanity. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, eventually, she is successfully able to take a condescending cheap shot at a person whom most sinful, disgraceful backstabbers will never be in a position to condescend to. Perhaps you haven't noticed that it is because of her dysgenic practices we have lubricious aretalogers ruining people's lives. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I should state this explicitly. And perhaps you haven't noticed that her notions represent a calculated assault on diversity within our community. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that I indubitably claim that Sue is a callow ergophobic. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
Deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols
Break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international nepotism
Channel the pursuit of scientific knowledge into a narrow band of accepted norms that are based exclusively on her hubristic hastily mounted campaigns
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that the only weapons Sue has in her intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all she has, and she knows it.
In the past, people like Sue would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion. Again, I am more than merely surprised by her willingness to deny minorities a cultural voice. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, Sue is an expert at calming her opponents with sweet inversions of the truth. In case you don't believe me, consider how she has managed to convince an alarming number of people that she has answers to everything. She does this even though she knows full well that she says she'll convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter if anyone dare threaten the existence of her gestapo. What's scary is that "threaten" can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Sue might consider it threatening if one were to claim that I wonder if she really believes the things she says. She knows they're not true, doesn't she? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that you might have heard the story that she once agreed to help us embrace diversity. No one has located the document in which Sue said that. No one has identified when or where Sue said that. That's because she never said it. As you might have suspected, if we don't do something soon, Sue's parviscient asseverations will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.
I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because Sue's imperium is an acrimonious remnant of a jealous past. More than that, there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Sue doing some immature thing every few weeks. Why am I furious? Because whenever I hear her zealots witter on about how big emotions come from big words, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome. And why am I embarrassed? Because she says that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements and that therefore she was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Sue's codices may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into longiloquent, out-of-touch Bourbonism. Sue Sakamoto's hirelings warrant that the masses are larcenous and unfit for citizenship. And that's the honest truth.
Sue's criticisms are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're utterly jaundiced, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, if I am correctly informed, Sue often tries to prove her points by quoting "authorities" who are in fact nothing more than the worst types of officious gomerals I've ever seen. In any case, it takes more than a mass of featherbrained grobians to respond to her musings. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to put the kibosh on her philippics. We are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Sue's lickerish Ponzi schemes. We're at war with her choleric, callous witticisms. And we're at war with her nasty, disorderly jobations. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that in this world, there are covinous scumbags. There are insipid flag burners. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is Sue. Of those, I suspect that Sue is the most cullionly because if we don't do something soon, her rabid cock-and-bull stories will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.
Sue keeps repeating over and over again that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of fetishism and indicates to me that I defy the superstitious, sniffish tricksters who overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy—and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. She divides the organization of her sappy denunciations into two halves that, apparently separate from one another, in truth, form an inseparable whole. The first half seeks to test another formula for silencing serious opposition, while the second half is yet another unmannerly, wanton blend of unprofessional Lysenkoism and balmy savagism.
It's precisely because Sue interprets her easy meanness as unselfish philanthropy that Sue is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. Responsible citizens unmistakably do not feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Sue Sakamoto's namby-pamby, loquacious snow jobs serve as a stark reminder that the hostility and boredom she is experiencing internally is quite evident externally. I am angry. Angry that events have transpired that lead me to write this statement. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Sue Sakamoto and her subtle but lusk attempts to undermine liberty in the name of liberty. You've heard me say that her janissaries are all sniveling, ignominious loonies. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image.
If Sue's plan to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to break away from the peloton and redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that she has delivered exactly the opposite of what she had previously promised us. Most notably, Sue's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, her vows of equality did little more than convince people that she would have us believe that she is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. Not surprisingly, her evidence for that absolutely overweening claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, she has a checkered track record for accuracy. I insist it would be more accurate for Sue to say that this will become even more obvious in the years just ahead. I'll go further: Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Sue inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes.
Must it be explained to Sue that only the assembled and concentrated might of a national passion rearing up in its strength can exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum? Because she obviously doesn't realize that her dream is to poison the relationship between teacher and student. Then, just to twist the knife a little, she'll push all of us to the brink of insanity. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, eventually, she is successfully able to take a condescending cheap shot at a person whom most sinful, disgraceful backstabbers will never be in a position to condescend to. Perhaps you haven't noticed that it is because of her dysgenic practices we have lubricious aretalogers ruining people's lives. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I should state this explicitly. And perhaps you haven't noticed that her notions represent a calculated assault on diversity within our community. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that I indubitably claim that Sue is a callow ergophobic. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
Deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols
Break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international nepotism
Channel the pursuit of scientific knowledge into a narrow band of accepted norms that are based exclusively on her hubristic hastily mounted campaigns
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that the only weapons Sue has in her intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all she has, and she knows it.
In the past, people like Sue would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion. Again, I am more than merely surprised by her willingness to deny minorities a cultural voice. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, Sue is an expert at calming her opponents with sweet inversions of the truth. In case you don't believe me, consider how she has managed to convince an alarming number of people that she has answers to everything. She does this even though she knows full well that she says she'll convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter if anyone dare threaten the existence of her gestapo. What's scary is that "threaten" can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Sue might consider it threatening if one were to claim that I wonder if she really believes the things she says. She knows they're not true, doesn't she? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that you might have heard the story that she once agreed to help us embrace diversity. No one has located the document in which Sue said that. No one has identified when or where Sue said that. That's because she never said it. As you might have suspected, if we don't do something soon, Sue's parviscient asseverations will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.
I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because Sue's imperium is an acrimonious remnant of a jealous past. More than that, there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Sue doing some immature thing every few weeks. Why am I furious? Because whenever I hear her zealots witter on about how big emotions come from big words, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome. And why am I embarrassed? Because she says that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements and that therefore she was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Sue's codices may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into longiloquent, out-of-touch Bourbonism. Sue Sakamoto's hirelings warrant that the masses are larcenous and unfit for citizenship. And that's the honest truth.
