Wisdom from the Realm
with 14 comments
When a society no longer seeks to vanquish evil, but instead condones, sanctions and exalts it, then that society is no longer worth defending and itself should be vanquished. — Lord Crimson
Written by Lord Crimson
May 16, 2008 at 8:53 am
Posted in California, Government, Life, News, Politics
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
I was wondering what to do with this story, but it looks like you’ve said all that needs saying. On the other hand, I just couldn’t resist playing with pictures of the Ca. Supreme Court Justices. Send me your email address and I’ll gift you with them.
May 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Can’t wait to see the Grit’s pictures!
California, the freak state.
May 16, 2008 at 11:41 pm
wait wait wait. what kinda self apointed god-king of the internet id this Lord Crimson that he justify creating such a discusting forum for hate mongers and blame casters? Truly a person who abuses there right of freedom of speach that spreads such discource through a peace seeking society should have to earn the right to broadcast his opinions on such a broad scale.
May 18, 2008 at 9:27 pm
“When a society no longer seeks to vanquish evil, but instead condones, sanctions and exalts it, then that society is no longer worth defending and itself should be vanquished. — Lord Crimson”
Awwww, shit, LC–
That is just entirely too profound.
As for “sound mind,” his (or her, or its) brain is obviously in his (or her, or its) butt and he (or she, or it) has had his (or her or its) backside thoroughly pounded enough to have obviously lost control of the language.
Learn how to spell and learn how to construct a rational thought before you consider limiting a literate person’s freedom of speech, dork.
This is precisely what rational thinkers have been warning about in considering the repercussions of rump ranger ascendancy. NOT gonna happen.
May 19, 2008 at 12:45 am
The Ca. judges are assuming more power than they actually possess and yet the people say little to nothing by way of dissension. The snowball continues…
I also am waiting to see the pictures. Given the Grits sense of humor they should be priceless.
Hi sound mind
god-king of the internet… forum of hate mongers… blame casters?
Early reports say that a direct hit has been scored.
Freedom of speech is a tricky concept for some to grasp. You seem to be for the freedom as long as it is used to support your opinion. But if said freedom is suddenly used against your views then it has been corrupted or unfairly used. As you so aptly prove this dissent usually includes name-calling and cries of abuse.
Freedom of speech also includes discussion… give it a try you might find it enlightening.
Your eloquence is beyond compare.
I could have gone on a scathing rant about this subject, but in the end decided that profound was the way to go. 🙂
May 19, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Of course you and your buddies’ brains aren’t evolved enough to tolorate the gay lifestyle, you can’t even accept the notion of having a black president!
That picture you posted means nothing. There’s straight man-woman porn that will churn your stomach more than that. The world is screwed up in many ways. Allowing gay people to get married is adding a positive element to the world and should be the least of our concerns.
June 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I have no problem at all with a black president. I have huge issues with Barack Obama as president. Cute attempt at playing the race card, though.
So liberals in the west are more evolved than the rest of the world? What a quaint notion. So if I evolve some more I can see the merits of crushing and dismembering innocent human beings, confiscating the money of others to give to my pet projects and calling it charity on my part, seeing the joys of sodomy, and so much more. How encouraging.
June 20, 2008 at 1:42 am
Your response makes no sense. Please explain yourself. Dismembering innocent human beings? Is that what happens after the pride parade?
June 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Liberals in general (and Obama in particular) are pro-legalized abortion. You were implying that once we evolve more we’ll tolerate the gay lifestyle, a rather liberal notion. I was just taking that “reasoning” to its logical conclusion, so that if we evolve to become more liberal we’ll do so across the board.
June 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm
That’s the problem with labels. You label me as a “liberal” because I am pro gay rights. But I am also against abortion. What happens now? Does your labeling machine overheat and breakdown?
I think everyone in America has the right to be treated equally and fairly. That includes homosexuals and unborn babies.
June 24, 2008 at 6:00 pm
If you are against abortion, that is great. I apologize for lumping you in with other liberals.
I don’t think my short-cut was too far-fetched, though. If you do the Venn diagrams I think you’ll find a rather high correlation between pro-gay and pro-legalized abortion.
Just curious – what do you think the best legal solutions are for abortion?
June 24, 2008 at 10:20 pm
That’s a tough question. If it’s going to remain legal, it should be out of the question as soon as there’s a heartbeat. But it’s not always realistic to expect a scared young teenage girl (for example) to make a decision like that within four weeks. I think special cases should be taken on individually.
So even though I personally am against it in any circumstance, I think some legal concessions have to be made sometimes.
That’s actually another great reason to allow gay people to marry; they won’t contribute to the abortion statistics. If anything, they will bring about more young mothers choosing to put their unwanted children up for adoption.
June 25, 2008 at 8:25 am
Thanks for responding to the abortion question. Are you saying that abortions after 4 wks. should be banned? I think the ban should be at conception, but I’m really after whether you have a firm line. I ask that because I’ve come across some folks who insist they are anti-abortion but refuse to do anything about it legally (i.e., vote for the President who’ll put the correct judges on the SC).
“That’s actually another great reason to allow gay people to marry; they won’t contribute to the abortion statistics.”
I don’t follow. Using that reasoning, gay people don’t have sexual relationships today and are “forced” to marry the opposite sex and have kids. I think we know that isn’t the case for homosexual or heterosexual couples.
The notion that the gov’t is preventing these long term, committed monogamous relationships is one of the myths the GLBTQ movement pushes. No one is stopping those. Go ahead and have one right now! Some apostate church will probably marry you. The gov’t just has no need to regulate those relationships, as by nature and design they don’t produce the next generation.
June 25, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I was just trying (badly) to touch on the point that the only children in same-sex parent households are wanted ones. And that if gay people were openly invited to get married, that would only add to the number of adoptions, the better alternative.
And before you start the arguement about children in gay households, I have known several children with same-sex parents (yes, I live in California if you couldn’t guess). Those kids were very level-headed, kind and, yes, straight.
June 26, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.