Tag Archives: george soros

Rape Tree Idiot’s Psychotic Temper Tantrum

My last Post  Rape Tree Idiots  rebutted a delusional poster who equated rapes on illegal alien smuggling routes with debauchery at luxury ski resorts. Instead of a civilized response, the author posted this on her website, also saying that she doubted I would approve it from moderation here. Normally I delete comments containing vulgarities, but this person’s comment says so much about her that I am posting it so you can all see the character of people who attempt to play down the horrors of illegal immigration and generally criticise laws and law enforcement. Here is her temper tantrum:

__________________

Because my comment is awaiting moderation at her site and I’m not sure that it’ll be published, here’s my response to Ruthtalks.

Dear sister,

Your rebuttal was entertaining but I must ask, “Are you listening to too much Rush?” A few items of note:

1) I didn’t compare the route of an illegal alien to a ski resort. I was poking fun of the idiot in a You Tube video who said wrongly that women don’t show their underwear.

2) Where in the world would you get the idea I’m a progressive liberal? While it’s truly none of your fucking business, I’m what would be called classically liberal or a Goldwater conservative. If you don’t know what that means, perhaps you should turn off the idiot box and pick up a book.

3) Nothing in my post glamorized criminal activity. Now that I think of it, perhaps you aren’t yet ready for a book. Learn to read.

4) Show me the law enforcement files. All I’ve seen on the subject comes from one of two sources. The first being neo-con border nazis with an agenda or the human rights suppressor masquerading as bringer of equality called the UN. That the WSJ or NYT picks up an article based on those sources does not prove anything. Here’s an interesting source on trafficking. Get somebody to help you read it; you might learn something.

5) I am a female and you’d have known that if you’d read my post with a critical mind rather than knee-jerk haughtiness. Generalizations such as yours underscore the point of my post.

Of course, based on your poorly written rebuttal, I don’t suspect that you possess the capability to understand any of this comment.

___________________

Wow! Civilized discourse, where art thou? This looks more like a temper tantrum of a jerk infuriated that a serious author exposed her lack of the ability for rational thought.

Item 1. “I didn’t compare the route of illegal alien to a ski resort.” You write many words, but you need to work on logic. The overriding logical proposition of your offfending article, once one strips out the excess verbiage, is to deny the existence of Rape Trees because you saw bras in trees at luxury resorts. If you cannot understand what you wrote, our schools are in real trouble.

Consider this contradiction in her lies: After she says “none of your f—-ing business” shes lies that she is a Goldwater Conservative!” Why do we know this is a lie?

Because in Item 4 she uses the two terms “neo-con border nazi” and “human rights suppressor” in reference to authors who decry the Rape Trees and illegal alien smuggling! Barry Goldwater would never say that.

Does anyone doubt that Barry Goldwater would be raising hell about the Rape Trees? Instead of denying their existence by references to  bras in trees at luxury resorts? 

In contrast, the entire theme of her original post was that bras in trees on illegal alien smuggling routes cannot possibly be described as Rape Trees because there are bras in trees at luxury ski resorts and in the rafters of grossly tasteless restaurants with vulgar names. But of course she has shown that she likes vulgarity.

Item 3. “Nothing in my post glamorized criminal activity.” When you dispute the existence of Rape Trees by reference to debauchery in luxury ski resorts, that is implied glorification of the illegal aliens smuggling and the rapes committed therein.

Silly Lying Liberal, your entire lengthy post is entirely in defiance of logic and in defiance of the facts.

Item 4. “All I’ve seen on the subject comes from one of two sources.” Haa! First, this implies you did not bother to read your second source! Second, you threw a temper tantrum laced with (A) vulgarities and (B) ad hominem personal insults (neither of which are acceptable in public blogging) because a logical and well researched author disputes your misinterpretation of what you admit to be your only source, since you say you only used one source!

Perhaps if you did serious research using more than one source you (A) would not have committed your errors of fact and logic, and (B) would not insult serious authors whose only offense is exposing how your biases and delusions warp your perception of reality.

Please understand, this is not meant as an insult, but as a diagnosis. You are seriously out of touch with reality. If you decline emotional help, at least read a book or two on how to perform serious journalistic research including “representative sourcing” which is different from selecting only a single source that support one’s own delusions biases, and another on logic.

Since you speak of my comment as “entertaining,” perhaps you might be entertained by reviewing a comment from others on your own post:

Useful idiots”

This saying is much older than 1980s, it originates from Lenin who was describing idealists in the West (such as GB Shaw) helping Soviet propaganda in the 1920s and 30s. It is a phrase well known and casually used in ex-communist countries.”

Perhaps you might ruminate about whether your are a “Useful Idiot.”

 

Finally, I canot resist a comment on the dishonesty of extreme liberal progressives:

As part of the Karl Marx/George Soros/Bill Ayres/Barack Obama style of subversion, extremists are instructed to disguise themselves. Nobody in America will admit to being a Communist or the equivalent: an extreme liberal progressive.

This strategy is intended to deceive the public into thinking that the most extreme propaganda is not extreme, but to falsely think it is mainstream because the subversives lie and say they are “independents” or “conservatives” or even “Goldwater Conservatives.”  Then they deny the existence of Rape Trees because they wish to increase illegal immigration, with the concurrent drug smuggling, rape trees, sexual slavery and infiltration of terrorists.

 

Fortunately most Useful Idiots are also idiots, and give themselves away by using terms that my opponent did: she uses the two terms “neo-con border nazi” and “human rights suppressor” which are in direct contradiction to her lie that she is a Goldwater Conservative. In her original post she even promotes legalization of drugs.

The truth will set you free, unless you are psychotic or liberal progressive, in which case you cannot distinguish between reality and biased delusions.