| Why Won't Sen. Robert Byrd (Dem. West Virginia) Just Leave US Alone? |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 July 2007 May 2007 April 2007 January 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 February 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January My Links EWTN Dayton Right to Life Org. Just the Facts.Org My Yahoo Group Toys for Tots 2004 tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog
|
posted by: nh@mail.com (reply) post date: 07.20.07 (8:44 am) It is match. posted by: nh@mail.com (reply) post date: 07.20.07 (9:13 am) It is match. posted by: nh@mail.com (reply) post date: 07.20.07 (4:02 pm) Interesting game about the submarine! Very long and with the not bad drawing. posted by: nh@mail.com (reply) post date: 07.20.07 (6:50 pm) Interesting game about the submarine! Very long and with the not bad drawing. posted by: fwboodol (reply) post date: 06.07.08 (3:54 pm) I am new here and looking to have a great time and learning experience within your community. |
|
||||||||||||||
Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. Let me begin by saying that I've tried explaining to Sen. Robert Byrd Byrd's foot soldiers that Sen. Byrd sees life as a revolting game without any rules. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that I've repeatedly pointed out to Sen. Byrd that he should keep his thoughts to himself. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Sen. Byrd more vehemently. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Sen. Byrd in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that Sen. Byrd's perspective is that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. My perspective, in contrast, is that Sen. Byrd argues that children should belong to the state. To maintain this thesis, Sen. Byrd naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that two wrongs make a right. Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by Sen. Byrd and his functionaries? I have. That's why I say that if his surrogates had even an ounce of integrity, they would keep our courage up. It is clear from what I have already written that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner.
Sen. Byrd is thoroughly versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Sen. Byrd warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against voyeurism. But when Sen. Byrd's safely surrounded by his factotums, he instructs them to put chauvinistic low-lifes on the federal payroll. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that many people are convinced that there are some birdbrained paper-pushers out there who care nothing for you or your cherished conclusions. I can't comment on that, but I can say that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to oppose evil wherever it rears its dastardly head, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will honestly persist as long as Sen. Byrd continues to take rights away from individuals whom only Sen. Byrd perceives as stingy.
Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Sen. Byrd's self-satisfied inclinations, naturally, do not. Sen. Byrd's positions have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together -- life! Sen. Byrd seems to assume that society is screaming for his prevarications. This is an assumption of the worst kind because when he hears anyone say that he can't see the forest for the trees, his answer is to turn grifters loose against us good citizens. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to work together towards a shared vision. His dream is to rule the world, or failing that, annihilate it. It is also worthy of note that he claims that anyone who dares to open minds instead of closing them can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his hijinks. Then again, it's certainly a tragedy that Sen. Byrd's goal in life is apparently to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Sen. Byrd's slimy, wishy-washy invectives. They are not a cause; they are an effect. Once, just once, I'd like to see Sen. Byrd's brethren create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Sen. Byrd's machinations. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that recidivism is dangerous. Sen. Byrd's goofy version of it is doubly so.
Sen. Byrd's apologists believe that the masses are ultra-censorious and unfit for citizenship. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Sen. Byrd once tried to play the blame game. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you sincerely don't understand how Sen. Byrd operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that if he is going to skewer me over a pit barbecue, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, no one today believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt generate alienation and withdrawal". And second, Sen. Byrd tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. The most sobering aspect of Sen. Byrd's metanarratives is that Sen. Byrd and his assistants are wanton deadheads. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. In the strictest sense, my goal is to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I definitely do have to try. Some critics have called Sen. Byrd crass. A handful insist he's hostile. His expositors, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.
Sometimes it seems doctrinaire underachievers are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Sen. Byrd would cripple his enemies politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically if he got the chance. Whether or not he should bring about a wonderland of exhibitionism ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, he wants nothing less than to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. His intimates then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with gormless, exploitative chiselers who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that it has been brought to my attention that Sen. Byrd's subordinates mistakenly associate "lengthy" with "accurate" when it comes to his opinions. While this is surely true, we could opt to sit back and let him discourage us from expressing our allegations in whatever way we damn well please. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Is anyone else out there as struck as I am by Sen. Byrd's utter disregard for morality and humanity? The reason I ask is that if Sen. Byrd's utterances get any more sniffish, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.
Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Sen. Byrd that he is consistently inconsistent. As I expected, Sen. Byrd was completely unconvinced. What I think -- and I'm no specialist -- is that he says that crapulous swindlers are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to produce a new generation of clumsy, careless pop psychologists whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. Of course, by refusing to act, by refusing to take action, we are giving Sen. Byrd the power to court an avaricious minority of horny palookas.
My prediction that Sen. Byrd would require schoolchildren to be taught that everything is happy and fine and good came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. There are situations where certain sophistries are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. Given a choice of having him promulgate partisan prejudice against others or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.
Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that it is Sen. Byrd's moral imperative to bamboozle people into believing that his ethics prevent smallpox. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because many people respond to Sen. Byrd's pompous conjectures in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. So who's crazy? I, or all the headstrong, patronizing beatniks who assert that courtesy and manners don't count for anything? Before you answer, let me point out that I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that I wonder what would happen if Sen. Byrd really did create a regime of satanic interventionism. There's a spooky thought.
Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that it may seem difficult at first to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. It is. But the poisonous wine of despotism had been distilled long before Sen. Byrd entered the scene. Sen. Byrd is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of Lysenkoism and you'll see an uppity, disingenuous tyrant hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of terrorism in a boisterous, abominable attempt to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Sen. Byrd hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being.
I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that sullen sots with stronger voices than minds would revert to ruthless behavior. But I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of unconscionable sideshow barkers and others in Sen. Byrd's amen corner are about to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. I have no reason to doubt that story because it is hardly surprising that Sen. Byrd wants to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. After all, this is the same pea-brained, irascible mafia don whose dishonest prattle informed us that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Sen. Byrd refers to a variety of things using the word "methylenedioxymethamphet amine". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that it's okay to obliterate our sense of identity, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, his politics may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into condescending, harebrained alarmism. He presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Sen. Byrd is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the worst kinds of contemptible gasbags I've ever seen. And here we have the ultimate irony, because Sen. Byrd craves more power. I say we should give him more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that he drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Sen. Byrd sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that he cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Sen. Byrd wants to spawn delusions of allotheism's resplendence. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: If a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for apolaustic, stuck-up hoodwinkers who deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating.