Tuesday, November 05, 2013
A greater fuss is being made that Richie Incognito enunciated a racial slur against teammate Jonathan Martin than that Incognito threatened Martin’s life and expressed a desire to defecate in his mouth. But I guess that sort of thing is overlooked in the media since that’s the sort of thing a number of gays tend to enjoy anyway.
Monday, November 04, 2013
Pastor Expects Parents Of Dead Infants To Applaud God Tossing Babies Into Hell
Too bad World Net Daily does not take as hardline position against those that are setting dates regarding the return of Christ as the news outlet does against those that celebrate Halloween. Seems the one is explicitly frowned upon in the pages of Scripture whereas the second is a matter of personal interpretation.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
Friday, November 01, 2013
Grammar Marms Ignorant Of The Looming Genetic Tyranny
But instead of confronting one of the most profound issues that an advanced technological society will face in the years and decades ahead, smaller minds and those of limited imagination are focusing on whether or not the legislator's remarks were rhetorically footnoted with all of the punctuation put in the right place.
Those with too much time on their hands unable to substantially refute the Senator's remarks, such as Rachel Maddow, are claiming that he plagiarized his summary of the film Gattica from Wikipedia.
If truck drivers and hog farmers rather than academics and journalists were the ones that got all worked up over plagiarism, would this linguistic oversight be considered all that much of an outrage?
Snobs siding with Maddow flippantly query what does Gattica have to do with a political campaign stop.
After all, that distracts from much more important work such as the legalization of gay marriage and the distribution of subsidized birth control.
However, will these libertines keep singing the same tune when a test is developed possibly determining whether or not someone might be inclined towards the particular variety of temptation of which Rachel Maddow is herself afflicted as evidenced by her mannish appearance?
Perhaps Senator Paul should have been more careful in observing the protocols of scholastic attribution.
But isn't this response to his remarks akin to dismissing someone warning against the dangers of the looming Final Solution because the analyst in question forget to mention what review of Mein Kampf was being quoted from?
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 31, 2013
A fanatic homeschooler claims, without further explanation, that you can tell by the demeanor on someone's face whether they are committed to a vision of life or a vision of death. So does that mean I will be condemned as a heretic if I don't have the vacant brainwashed smile of one of the Oral Roberts singers plastered across my face?
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Sanford police to abolish the Neighborhood Watch there in favor of one brainwashed and manipulated by law enforcement. And what is to prevent citizens from banding together and forming their own unofficial neighborhood watch. Are we getting to the point of that old Ray Bradbury story where it will be illegal to walk outside of your home?
A pastor condemning Halloween insisted that one of the sins associated with that celebration consists of individuals pretending to be something that they are not. So does that mean that a child caught in any kind of imaginative play should be taken out and buggy whipped? Just as importantly, if that play is career based, should the child be fined for practicing that particular occupation without the proper authorization? For example, pretending to be a doctor or teacher without the proper government approved credential. In the idealized theocratic regime, could such a child face criminal charges for impersonating a police officer?
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
In a sermon on the seven sins of Halloween, a pastor listed as one of these transgressions the failure to think for yourself. By that, the pastor intended to mean the tendency to go along with the herd mentality rather than for the individual to come to a conclusion regarding a particular topic through a process of personal cogitation. However, in regards to a controversial topic such as this, don't we all have the tendency to degenerate that principle to condemnation of those that don't think as we have told them to in regards to the matter cf secondary doctrine under consideration?
In condemning the seven sins of Halloween, a fanatic Baptist pastor said that it was a sin if a man did not dress and act in a manly manner. While that is true in terms of obviously female articles of clothing such as frilly dresses and high heels, who is to make this determination in regards to less obvious items? For example, in the sermon, the pastor condemned any article of clothing purchased at Urban Outfitters or the Gap. The pastor went on to admonish that men were to talk and act like men. So is a man destined for Hell if he has a greater affinity for cats rather than dogs and wears a particular color on a distinctively male item of clothing?
Bravehearts No Less Offensive Than Redskins To Consistent Liberals
It is argued that the name upgrade is necessary because the name “Redskins” offends particular demographics.
But what about those that the new name might offend?
For example, Jews might not find the name all that kosher since one can't help but think of images of Mel Gibson upon hearing the name “Braveheart” because he starred in the popular movie of that title.
Secondly, shouldn't those calling for a return to civility and the renunciation of overly enthusiastic political responses and rhetoric be offended by allusions to this movie?
One of the film's major themes is that there are things worth fighting for even to the extent of what might be considered violence.
After all, critics of the Tea Party approach to the budget crisis on Capitol Hill constantly remind that compromise with one's fundamental beliefs and principles is the only way to prevent the entire nation from collapsing all around us.
Thirdly, shouldn't those such as the President that believe it is the role of the state to comprehensively control and monitor every last aspect of your existence oppose the name Bravehearts since the movie suggested that one of those things most worthy of laying one's life down for is one's very freedom?
By Frederick Meekins
