While no statement I'm about to make should be construed as suggesting or recommending that any person commit an illegal act of any kind, you should realize that Romney's smears are a farraginous amalgam of totalism and sadism. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that I like to say that Romney's few "original" comments in fact owe their origins to the search-and-replace school of authoring. He never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like Democrats are saying that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. I guess that version better fits his styleor should I say, "agenda"? To put it another way, in my view, everyone should be aware of the history of Romney's posse. Although his posse began as a splinter faction of his clueless coalition of unsavory thieves and wishy-washy, flagitious ingrates, it rapidly morphed into Romney's primary mechanism for offering stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. The significance of this transformation is that Romney's remarks are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of Marxism. More emphatically, he will stop at nothing to bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, whenever Romney attempts to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in America, he looks around waiting for applause as if he's done something decent and moral rather than venom-spouting and chthonic.
I beg of you: Use your head for something more meaningful than being a delivery system for Romney's treasonous viewpoints. Use it for thinking about how a free and open society should be able to tolerate a diversity of beliefs and practices, even when they are at odds with Romney's arrogant missivesperhaps especially when they are at odds with Romney's arrogant missives. Romney's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, while his stinking tracts contribute to inflame his wild lust of pelf and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition. Put simply, I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that we must do everything we can to fight Romney with everything we've got. Fortunately, disabusing him of the notion that it is his moral imperative to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that I have a New Year's resolution for Romney: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the immoral conclusion that he values our perspectives.
Did Romney cancel his plans to put our liberties at risk by a shallow and pharisaical rush to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his obiter dicta because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. It's in his blood to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. Given that we cannot absolutely nullify the prodigality of nature, try as hard as we may, I'm afraid I have to conclude that Romney was a frowsy freebooter as governor. Romney is a frowsy freebooter now. And there is no more reason for believing that Romney will ever cease to be a frowsy freebooter than there is for supposing that he is entitled to precipitate riots.
Romney's encomiasts are quick to point out that because Romney is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Romney is a victim of his own successa success that enables Romney to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation. Even though he was voted "most likely to sow the seeds of discord" by his peers, this does not negate the fact that he likes to argue that sin is good for the soul. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that I'm not saying it'll be easy to mention a bit about insensitive judgmental-types such as Romney. In fact, it might turn out to be quite painful to do something like that. However, facing temporary pain is better than suffering from a permanent ailment, and that's why you need to hear that it is not uncommon for Romney to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole stupid affair as some great benefit to humanity.
The one thing that's central to all of Romney's callous biases is a desire to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all races. I call this the New Deconstructionism. The old deconstructionism was concerned only with touring the country promoting abominable commercialism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. Although that was bad enough, Romney thinks that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. He sells the supposed merits of recidivism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that Romney's insinuations raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, "Is Man to be free to follow his conscience and worship as he sees fit, or must he accept a conscience and god provided to him by Romney?" It's questions like that that get people thinking about how Romney can't attack liberal ideas, so he attacks liberals. It could be worse, I suppose. He could violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. The take-away message of this post is that Romney exploits people's nationalistic views and religious fervor to trick them into trivializing the issue. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another post four years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by Romney's raffish "compromises", reminding you that you were warned.
I beg of you: Use your head for something more meaningful than being a delivery system for Romney's treasonous viewpoints. Use it for thinking about how a free and open society should be able to tolerate a diversity of beliefs and practices, even when they are at odds with Romney's arrogant missivesperhaps especially when they are at odds with Romney's arrogant missives. Romney's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, while his stinking tracts contribute to inflame his wild lust of pelf and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition. Put simply, I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that we must do everything we can to fight Romney with everything we've got. Fortunately, disabusing him of the notion that it is his moral imperative to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that I have a New Year's resolution for Romney: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the immoral conclusion that he values our perspectives.
Did Romney cancel his plans to put our liberties at risk by a shallow and pharisaical rush to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his obiter dicta because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. It's in his blood to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. Given that we cannot absolutely nullify the prodigality of nature, try as hard as we may, I'm afraid I have to conclude that Romney was a frowsy freebooter as governor. Romney is a frowsy freebooter now. And there is no more reason for believing that Romney will ever cease to be a frowsy freebooter than there is for supposing that he is entitled to precipitate riots.
Romney's encomiasts are quick to point out that because Romney is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Romney is a victim of his own successa success that enables Romney to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation. Even though he was voted "most likely to sow the seeds of discord" by his peers, this does not negate the fact that he likes to argue that sin is good for the soul. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that I'm not saying it'll be easy to mention a bit about insensitive judgmental-types such as Romney. In fact, it might turn out to be quite painful to do something like that. However, facing temporary pain is better than suffering from a permanent ailment, and that's why you need to hear that it is not uncommon for Romney to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole stupid affair as some great benefit to humanity.
The one thing that's central to all of Romney's callous biases is a desire to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all races. I call this the New Deconstructionism. The old deconstructionism was concerned only with touring the country promoting abominable commercialism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. Although that was bad enough, Romney thinks that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. He sells the supposed merits of recidivism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that Romney's insinuations raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, "Is Man to be free to follow his conscience and worship as he sees fit, or must he accept a conscience and god provided to him by Romney?" It's questions like that that get people thinking about how Romney can't attack liberal ideas, so he attacks liberals. It could be worse, I suppose. He could violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. The take-away message of this post is that Romney exploits people's nationalistic views and religious fervor to trick them into trivializing the issue. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another post four years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by Romney's raffish "compromises", reminding you that you were warned.
