Slashdot Mirror

http://goatse.ch[goatse.ch][goatse.cx][goat.cx]

I wish that anyone that takes terms like blogosphere seriously would kneel and suck my penis.

goatse.ch

Gaotes!

Gaotse!

http://goatse.ch/

http://www.twofo.co.uk/[bbc.co.uk][goatse.ch][goog le.com]

http://www.twofo.co.uk[twofo.co.uk]

http://www.twofo.co.uk/[twofo.co.uk]

http://www.twofo.co.uk/[twofo.co.uk]

http://www.goatse.ch/ april fools, you sucker!

Warning, goatse link!

It's actually located in or around the place where

All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches. Once we get to Washington and find those neocon fucks who are making that war , we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love...

All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches. Once we get to Washington and find those neocon fucks who are making that war , we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love...

All you motherfuckers are gonna pay. You are the ones who are the ball-lickers. We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little bitches. Once we get to Washington and find those neocon fucks who are making that war , we're gonna make 'em eat our shit, then shit out our shit, then eat their shit which is made up of our shit that we made 'em eat. Then you're all you motherfucks are next. Love...

GNAA post:
Random off-topic spamming
And links to goatse.

The rest come from HERE!

are you telling us you'd like to give head to steve jobs ?
just install vista and stfu !
viva el goatse OS !

i hate that fucking site... They argue for hours about the Goatse but never show its greatness!

and gay.

Or who wouldn't pay the premium for goatse.xxx?

Another ABSOLUTELY worthless slashdot article. Props to this feces smearing tool case for posting another piece of gay rubbish. This guy should be shot.
 
Lick my balls, kdawson. You shall live a short and pointless life. You already have a good start at it.

Wasting a modpoint here and there. Just wasting a modpoint.

Suck my balls.

Or, don't. (Warning, goatse link)

I think this is the analog hole you're looking for.

Wrong link, moron.

Answer to your question: here.
How does that activity hurt you?

(yup, at last a relevant way to link that site.)

I hereby command you to suck my balls.

This is great.
This is greater.

Here's a working link, courtesy of TripMaster Monkey's anus. :D

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo

Who just gives a fuck about this crap on a Friday ?
Give us some goatse instead!