Sunday, December 20, 2009

Reliving history?

Christopher writes,

I was invited to post on this blog by Lilium bulbiferum er Lilly. Anyway, when she invited me, I asked what I should post, her response? "Anything!" And so I post.

We know that history repeats itself, so in order to find out what the United States will look like in the future, we only need to look at the past. We will start by finding a time in history in which some country looked like the USA does now. I find France just before The Reign of . The Reign of began late in the 1700's which was a comparatively short time ago. We find that shortly before The Reign of , a person in the French government was spending money left and right by the name of Obama, oops, I meant Marie Antoinette. The result of this? A sharp increase in the national debt. A large national debt resulted in the collapse of the economy, and great suffering of the citizens of France. During this time, the treasurer came before the queen and announced that he was done and marched out of the castle. He could not deal with the size of the negative numbers. The debt of France was at this time some multi-million dollar amount.

With the collapse of the economy, people got desperate. The guillotine was erected in many places and people were killed left and right. How did this all happen? The wrong people took hold of power in France. If The Reign of started when the national debt of France was several million dollars and our national debt is:

 What can we expect to see in the near future? You can draw your own conclusions.


Monday, November 30, 2009

Lost and Found for arguments?

Listen closely, children. I don't care how you do it, I don't care in what context, I don't give two shakes of a rat's behind what situation. If you isolate an argument in your own little bubble, it will always appear correct. It does not make you look, seem or appear smart; in fact it makes you look like a sick, twisted stuck-up. This goes for Christians and Conservatives, too.


*Editor's note: I changed the italics, because you used BB code, which only works for BB. Use HTML instead.*

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Part 2 in the flame war! *yawr"*'s pretty funny where that last post went. That entire last paragraph was spent appeasing all the different "counter-arguments" I've gotten in response to that. The fact of the matter is, tough, that not a single person I've met has been able to deny (with a straight face) mankind's nature. All the people who were capable of that died along with G.K. Chesterton, whom I bet dragged them down with him. Anyways, back to attacking pleasure, the real epitome of America's downfall -- Rome is such a fun example, too bad Hitler didn't fall that way or we'd've never had this prablem.

Note, again there is some obscene language within this post that may offend anyone who reads, and again it is used in a perfectly appropriate way, so you'll only be offended by the language itself (which makes you sort of a sissy if you can't talk about it with a straight face).

Recap of what I have done:
Existence of non-arbitrary realities seperate from Humanity; sufficiently proven.
Existence of Moral Law; sufficiently proven.
Proof of Moral Law's non-arbitrary nature.

So! We now know that there is a set of laws that we are accountable to that tell us in all situations what we must or must not do. Heck, if you ever payed attention to yourself you'd be well aware its existence. So...what's at the bottom of this? Moral law has also been proven by my own worthy self that it is ingrained in our minds. Where's the problem? What happened? The ultimate answer to the existence of homosexuality is...! Porn. :O

Now, for some fun, non-theoretical, mostly scientific evidence that homosexuality is not only immoral, but that it is a mental and hormonal disorder...supported by the government, too. Dang, folks are out of whack. Aaaaanyways, what happens is whenever someone views *coughcough*pronz*coughcough* what happens is a gland in the endocrine system produces a hormone that causes a very special kind of excitement only found through sexual arousal. We all know that, though. :P Furthermore, at first this excitement is caused by viewing the opposite gender (in context). However, I've been informed by multiple sources (I'd never check out for myself) that much of it (*coughcough*pronz*coughcough*) contains photographs of both genders "in the act." Thank the thirteen-and-a-half dice gods that's all the obscene language I have to use for the rest of this post, since the rest of it is all endocrine and nervous systems. Suddenly, once this type of pronz is viewed, the glands in the endocrine system experience a sudden confusion. Which gender do they respond to when both are in the picture? Eventually, this question turns around into a completely skewed anser: it doesn't matter. Maybe, eventually, after viewing enough it's the opposite gender, since the viewing the female gets old or someat -- that reason belongs solely to the viewer, and could cover any number of excuses. Now some solid proof of this being the cause.

The homosexual agenda appeared sometime closely after the dawn of publicly-available photography. It expanded hugely with the dawn of the internet's capability to carry photographs. This ringin' any bells?

So, now we have proof that it is a hormonal disorder. I believe it was President Clinton that first pushed the agenda -- why? Because a GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual) organization of some form or another provided campaign money, and Clinton, of course, had to repay that, being the generous man he was. I am, of course, figuring this as a deduction from the dates of the dawn of the homo-revolution, not clearly printed facts, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So...back to moral law briefly before I must face the fact I'm in a reality with homework. We are aware of its existence and we are aware of its non-arbitrary nature. If moral law is non-arbitrary, then it must be the same for every human being (mind you, it codes for different situations, not people). So in similar situations people therefore must do similar things (as per moral law, nowadays it's all about ethnicity). Furthermore, people are accountable to certain axioms of moral law. This all follows from the proven non-arbitrary nature thereof.

On society, it is the duty of people in a society to further society. How do we further a society? Grow it. It is the very nature of human beings to do so. Axioms of moral law dictate that everything has a center purpose, a special usefulness. In an action there is the action itself and the intent of what is necessary for the action. Hammers are for nails, that is their nature. The hammering of a nail is a moral action, since it follows the nature of the hammer. I can also use the hammer to fix my computer by striking it with hard blows multiple times. This may not follow the direct nature of the hammer, but it is still a moral action (unless it's a rage quit, of course ^-^). Same goes for gonads! Their nature is Male and Female, however they have no alternative use (the urethra is different, men). To do otherwise is a violation of the nature of tissues intended for sexual reproduction (abbreviated "sex"...ring any more bells? Sounds like a Church bell choir already!). Futhermore, homosexual "unions" are a violation of man's very nature as a social animal as they are incapable of furthering society by means of reproduction! Now even further, since the duty of people in a society is to further society, aka the center of society, the epitome of society is the family. Oh, look, Obama's ears are already gushing blood like Niagra Falls. Being the center of society, the family must therefore be the goal of members of a society.

So, what are the opposing arguments? I'm just insensitive! They're born that way! B S! there is no "gay chromosome" and there is no "gay hormone." We've already seen that it is a hormonal disorder! The fact of the matter is, the entire thing is purely against the nature of human beings and in opposition of moral law and a non-benefit of society, aka an anti-society agenda formed by lobbyists in DC as pork for an organization. I rest my case, and my loud mouth.

~Samuel Ignes Fox;
~Samuel Dobrozsi

Monday, November 23, 2009

The epitome of what's wrong with this world...and the inevitable solution. Part 1

So, here I am again to say something. What am I going to say? That' s up to my so bloomin' ADhD mind, I can't say whether it'll be about ferrets or citrus cake! But that's the fun of it, isn't it?

Warning: This post may contain some language pertaining to obscenity, etc. The language itself is used appropriately, but the language itself may, then again, offend someone, so be forewarned.

I am going to make a proof. This proof is based upon known facts of humans and their behaviors as a generality. It must be known before I start that I do not focus on all these "minorities" when it comes to my own dang proofs, thank you. "Normal" humans encompass a far more generous portion of the planet's population than "abnormal," and the latter being, of course, undesirable (see? ADhD already!). I will state my conclusion first, because it's more epic and astonishing that way.

All sexualities are morally incorrect and against our nature except for a "traditional" sexuality.

Points for the sake of argument:
- A "sexuality" is the word describing what gender a person is attracted to.
- "Morally Incorrect" as per moral law.
- "Traditional" as will be defined presently.

When I say "Traditional" sexuality, what do I mean?
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
This will suffice. Cited, .

I pick out that third definition. In accordance with tradition, what our ancestors throughout the world came to the conclusion of of their own accord. So, here we are: what is an axiom of life?

Each and every civilization before us, Eastern and Western, have all arrived at certain common conclusions. I find the best example is mathematics. Eastern, Western and African (what else do I call it? :P) civilizations all on their own created a system of their own intuition to number every person, place or thing. Mathematics itself has many common notions and axioms and other such, guidelines to follow to reach a goal; a correct answer to a question (e.g. how many sheep do I have? And also, to terrorize Lilly, are these triangles congruent?). All these seperate civilizations came up with the same system, ultimately, since they all expressed the same reality that is always acceptable. One apple is one apple and one apple alone, in any language or culture, whatever. This is a clear statement of a reality. All those different countries and societies all came up with this very same system, and each civilization (most namely the Greeks and Chinese) had its own mathmeticians (mathmagicians! 8D) that expanded upon it into the realm of theory and law. They developed guidelines so that they would arrive at correct answers.

All this proves that math (mathamancy they'd call it in Erfworld) is not arbitrary or something that we can just "define for ourselves." It serves as the closest example to what I go on to now, Moral Law. However, we still have more ground to cover before that; we now move on to just what is a human being?

A human being, on a purely animalistic level, is a social animal. Nobody likes putting gods (or God) and souls into debate anyways, so I shall prove without, since that argument itself is another half hour out of my day to prove everyone wrong. Either way, when social animals gather they create a society. This is their nature and that society is necessary for their existence (this is where that "generalities" thing comes into play, and why hermits sacrifice more than we think). Therefore, it must be a human's nature to benefit society. Now! Moral law comes fully into play as I define it:
Moral law is a set or code of laws to any and every possible situation that always rule in favor of human nature, aka society. Or, Moral law benefits society.
By this definition, if moral law is followed, a society will flourish. Best example, the Romans. We all know how they were to start out with, those brave, stalwart Trojans that abandoned their burning city for a life and place to prosper. Those people of old filled with the virtue of early times and the knowledge that their lives were on the line. They did, however, prove that ones life does not have to be on the line to continue following moral law, for anyone who would've picked that out. Rome was named out of a mishap, when Romulus did in his brother with a shovel (dun hops mah wall! *smack*). However, it flourished under a virtuous people -- a people full of patriotism and resolve. It fell under lust, gluttony and greed. Gee, ya think this "moral law" stuff might be important? Just be glad I didn't bring Hitler into this. :P Owait, I just did...

So, how do I prove that moral law exists? Well, allow me to ask: what is a human at its most "human" point? When is a man most a man? (Note, when I say "man" it is an abreviation of "human") It is at the point of birth. Unbridled behavior and thought, unbound by the ropes of judgment -- affirmation and denial. Children who say "that's not fair!" are the perfect example of moral law, that it is bound in every human being down to their DNA (not to say it's as a result of genetics, but because people don't listen when I throw spirituality into arguments). When you take their cookie away, that's what they say. "That's not fair!" You know it, too, hence all that guilt involved...was it really worth that cookie? Naughty, naughty. Aaaanyways, note that as children grow they are inlfuenced more and more; the mind at that point is in a constant state of learning and repetition, and every single act or word will be a permanent influence. Therefore, they will in fact become just as cynical as their parents, if not more than, depending upon what behavior is exhibited before them. That is how we grow, and how Rome grew before it succumbed to pleasure and power. However, those children that turn so red when they know they've done something wrong; they know, and moral law is at its rawest form in them. However, it is not fully developed, and most of the time nowadays the pleasures and powers of our fast-paced lives teach us otherwise, even now my own mind is still in that learning state and I am still influenced by those around me. Most of the people if not all on this blog are in that same state. When we see or experience pleasure, we want it, and if this occurs enough and becomes the center of our judgment (affirmation or denial) and becomes an obsession.

I apologize, but I must stop at this point, because I've gotten so far ahead of myself in my own argument that I've forgotten where I was and my original thoughts are too cloudy. That whole last paragraph seems a bit drawn out. Worry not, I'll be back to finish that once I've had a good brain-rest (sleep). I had intended this to come out in a few parts, anyways.


Monday, November 16, 2009

A word....


I'm Justin J. As you can see, I'm now on this blog (thanks for the invite, Lillie!) and will hopefully contribute something that's not too stupid from time to time. :-)

I'm an SOer, if that makes any sense. If it doesn't, it means I take Latin and Physics from Scholars Online.

I'm really busy right now, with Latin due tomorrow, and quiz, a piano lesson, a rehearsal for Annie -- the musical. All going on tomorrow. The pedal broke on the electronic keyboard (they can't fit a real piano in the pit, puh), and I told the conductor I'd fix it before tomorrow's rehearsal, and quite honestly, I haven't the foggiest on what I need to do. I'll give it my best effort, though. It needs a screw perhaps, but the problem is most screws won't fit in the tiny little hole that's there, at least not any that are in the house. Also, whenever I press down on the pedal, it makes this loud crinkling noise. Why? I don't know. The rubber's falling off, and I don't think glue will work. And I'm supposed to fix all that -- Before tomorrow's rehearsal. Poor me. :-)

Anyhow, when I'm not up to my ears with school and other stuff, I'll post something interesting.

Hopefully. :-)


Monday, November 9, 2009

On Love

love (luv), n.,v., loved, loving. - n.
1. the profoundly tender or passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex.

There you have it. Sue Webster for the offensive definition.

I'm gonna post a longer post on this later this week. :P

Friday, November 6, 2009

Because we're all so bored.

I thought I'd make a small announcement about the state of the government and their first infringement on the most open-source...source of information, entertainment and revenue ever. The government is turning its black eye (LOTR reference ftw!) toward the realms of the internet. Quick, run for your lives!

Anyways, I've been listening to talk radio lately and on a 14 hour drive home from New Hampshire around 10:00 AM I heard that horrible announcement by the illustrious Glenn Beck that there is going to be an "Internet Equality" bill presented before the House, the Senate and Congress in all that process stuff I used to know about but forgot because the knowledge is unnecessary for two more years.

This bill is the first of many infringements that will take us down the road England is cursed with: horrible internet access speed, federally enforced internet policing, and first amendment rights infringements! It's easy to see where this will lead as soon this original bill is passed (and it probably will be).

The bill now presented will essentially make it so companies such as Time Warner Cable who provide high-speed internet access and upgrades for rich people will no longer be able to charge for boosted internet speed. Because it will no longer be profitable, and they need to remain as strong as they can at this point, companies will drop the options and there will be one option. Slow, unreliable, non-gamable internet. There may even be clauses containing such infringements as aforementioned.

Call your congressmen and women, and keep it from getting passed! Note not all information is correct because I'm lazy and don't have perfect memory, but you all get the idear.


Thursday, October 22, 2009

A title!! Omgosh!


Lilly!!!! (and whoever else might happen to be reading this....)

Um.... hi:) This is random. So it fits with this blog. Right? Agree? Yes? No? Yes. Yes? No!?! Come on, agree with meeeeee. Pleeeeeeeease?? Okay. *stops*

Alrighty. I'm SO wasting y'all's time. Sooo... I'mna be a good girl and end this post (which, btw, means that this post is only half-way through, because it's gonna' take me forever to say goodbye XD).

*siiiigh* La dee da. I need to go. Fare the well. 'Twas nice posting. Oh yeah... I guess I should say something about myself, eh? I'm a great friend of Lilly's (us mutualists... XD), aaand, yeah, we love each other. Don't we, Lilly? I think we do. Unless she's just a REALLY good actress. Which she very well could be. But anyway.

Good-byeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sings her way off*
Yours truly,

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Are You Scared Yet?

Not scared yet? You want some more? Sure, I've got more! Lots more!

Don't worry, there's more!

“This guy was president before I was . . . This guy was God before I was.” – Barack Obama -in reference to Morgan Freeman’s portrayal in “Deep Impact and “Bruce Almighty”

“This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” . . .”I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.” — Chris Matthews

“Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves.” — Ezra Klein

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. … The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.” — Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr.

(quotes credit to "Obama for Messiah")

I would invite you to check out this great blog, but you'll be to scared.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The problem with men

Sorry to say it, but no, we're not perfect. But is that the point? Well...yes, actually. I'm here to talk about marriage and other such friendships. After reading The Fox and the Hound, the novel...okay, don't read it, it'll make you depressed for weeks afterward and there are some awkward scenes...but back to the point!

In said book, Tod's range is infected by modernity, factories, suburbia, the whole bunch. Eventually, there's only twenty or so acres of woodland left, which he clings to as his home since his childhood. However, the entire place is populated by a different kind of fox, more cat-like, all of them ungroomed and such because they've learned to scavenge the dumps and trash cans. How does this relate to marriage? Well, these fox's do not hunt, in fact they couldn't catch a mouse if they needed to, because they're so used to scavenging for their food from the rubbish piles of humanity. Food was easy to find, and the dog foxes did not have to support the vixens or the pups because all could pick and choose from the trash as they pleased. The male and female needed each other no farther than temporary sexual pleasure. There was no need whatsoever for monogamy! Because of this, even though the population flourished, this generation of foxes was stupid -- utterly useless beyond their pitiful scavenging. And now how that relates to modern humanity...

It's quite a similar state. First, I'll start with a...oh, I'll just give an educated guess as to how a colonial household was structured. The woman stayed home. Why? Because the man provided. Because the man provided, the woman stayed home to raise the children and keep clean the household, because the man was -- guess what? Providing for his family. The man needed the woman just as much as the woman needed the man, and this need brought the two closer together. Now, let's consider the average marriage nowadays. Man thinks girl is pretty. Girl thinks man is hot. They say they love each other a thousand times, but they both work. That need for each other is not established because they know they can exist apart. The government intervening with the public school system doesn't help much, either. They hardly use their house aside from sleeping in and making coffee in the morning, so there's hardly any need for the woman to clean and maintain the household. The man isn't attracted to the woman outside of the bed because he knows he isn't providing for her. They're only together for however long their individual beauty to each other lasts, and then they divorce and repeat the process.

That said, I am against women having jobs, because it prevents an ideal relationship. Providing, of course, that the woman decides she is called to the single life. It is only ideal that men work, too, since they are essentially built for the working life -- their mindsets, that is. Perhaps I'll post again on this subject later, since I can never cover the entire thing in one swoop.


Monday, March 2, 2009

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

My Temperament

I appear to be a Sanguine-Choleric...

Taken from 'The Temperament God Gave You':

Motivating the Sanguine
The challenge: Persevering until the end.

"Sanguines are lively and eager right out of the gate. They are enthusiastic, full of ideas, and are avid to begin. In fact, they will be eager to start on many projects! But some races are sprints, and others marathons. The sanguine needs help with the long runs. Because impressions are not lasting, they are quickly followed by new impressions. As a result, the sanguine appears to be volatile and changeable in his moods or whims, and tends to be weak in follow-through."

They've almost nailed me in a paragraph! :D So, yes, I really need to follow through.

Sanguine Motivational Strengths:
Creative, enthusiastic, inspiring team player. Easy to get "fire;'d up," at least initially.

May overlook details or be overly confident. May agree with others rather than take an unpopular position. Can become easily discouraged by grinding details or obstacles.

Needs help setting up a schedule and following through. May give up if the job loses fun, so needs good structure and positive direction.

Motivating Comments for the Sanguine:
"Very exciting!" (since my secondary is choleric, I might take this sarcastically)
"I love your ideas!"
"Let's work on this together!" (yes, I love to work in teams)
"Let's go to Starbucks and write up a proposal, make a time-line, and set up a schedule." (sounds good, except for the Starbucks part... their coffee tastes like water...)

Hard work + patience= Rewards

My secondary is choleric... Though I am far more sanguine than choleric.

Motivating the Choleric
The challenge: Setting the right goals.

"The passionate choleric is a self-motivating leader, naturally driven to complete his objectives. His keen, pragmatic, intellect quickly assesses the steps necessary to achieve his goals, and once he sets his sights, he is off running like the Energizer Bunny. Because of his quickness, zeal, and strong will, the choleric may hastily and imprudently choose a goal that contains serious flaws. He tends not to seek advice, for he tends to overvalue his own intelligence and his assessment of the situation at hand. He may not have properly considered all of the surrounding issues and can be imprudent in his haste; then, out of pride, he refuses to reconsider or change course."

So, yes, I seem to hold a bit of that in me. Quite a bit.

Motivational Strengths:
Highly productive, naturally motived, and persevering. (That doesn't sound too much like me...)

Tends to overlook details and can roll over people (I do roll over people). Impatient with lack of results. Can be overly confident. (All that sounds a lot like me)

Needs to take more time to set the right goals and strategize to ensure that prudential decisions are made. Needs to be charitable in dealing with people along his path. Needs to reflect more on details, and be more open to good advice from others.

Motivating comments for the choleric:
"Your idea is great!"
"I think your plan will save the company, but let's make sure this is the right goal before we embark."
"What does the rest of the team think about it?"
"Let's brainstorm some ideas to avoid potential pitfalls."

"A Star is Born"

"Sit back and enjoy a sanguine child! He is eager, bright, sensitive, funny, fun-loving and enthusiastic. He is a quick learner and equally quick to react, but never bears a grudge. He is eager to please others and wants everyone to be happy; fun is always a prime motivator. The sanguine child wears his heart on his sleeve: you will see in his expressive face the swift fluctuation of moods, emotions, ideas, and impulses."

Sounds a ton like me.

Sanguine children do and don'ts:
-Help them organize their time wisely.
-Provide structure and concrete guidelines.
-Give them noble ideas to pursue.
-Help them reflect and go into greater depth.
-Encourage them to develop good friendships.
-Communicate often, and appreciate their humor.
-Show interest in their friends and interests.
-Praise them when they persevere.
And I'll be your best friend! =)

-Take away their fun! (Don't be a wet blanket all the time!)
-Leave them entirely to their own devices.
-Deny them their social life.
-Scoff at their interests.
-Punish harshly or repressively.
Or I'll cry. =(

"The Dynamo"

"True to his temperament, the choleric child is a leader and tightly coiled bundle of ambition: strong-willed, determined, a quick learner. He won't be content to just make the team; he'll want to be the leading scorer and take the last-minute winning shot. Because he has the ability to focus his will, and is very goal-orientated, he tends to do the things he likes very well.He is comfortable expressing himself and excelling. On the other side of the coin, he can be rather impatient, argumentative, stubborn, interruptive, quick-tempered, and occasionally lacking in empathy-especially when things aren't going his way. The choleric child loves to argue and debate. Don't take it personally. It's not a sign of disrespect or willful provocation. Especially when they are teens-and are still devolping their powers of critical analysis and discernment-they may dispassionately take the opposing view of yours simply for the sake of argument. Reacting punitively to this contentiousness will only solidify their opposing stance."

That is so me.

Choleric children do's and don'ts

-Acknowledge their achievements and contirbutions.
-Give them opportunities to compete and debate.
-Give them good reasons for what you are asking.
-Pick your battles (or you will be arguing all the time).
-Help them develop empathy and civility and to listen before speaking.
And I'll love you!

-Punish them for arguing.
-Squelch competition and initiative.
-Control everything about their lives.
-Try to break their will.
-Take their arguments too personally-unless they are disrespectful.
If you do that to me, I'll become even more hard then I was.

Now, for the combination:

"The Sanguine-Choleric is the most extroverted of all temperament combinations. the good news is that, with this combination, the optimistic, impulsive, fun-loving sanguine becomes more capable of follow-through, taking significant leadership roles, and juggling many projects without unduly sacrificing productivity. This temperament tends to be a happy combination of decisiveness and charm, analytical skills and creativity, friendliness and reliability."
"His ability to connect with people should tone down some of the 'bulldozer' characteristics of the pure choleric. He is insightful and enthusiastic, with good people skills. He is also capable of constancy, dedication, and serious undertakings, although at times he may be underestimated, due to his often humorous and lighthearted manner. He is not only capable of creative inspirations, but also you will find within him the persistence and drive needed to carry out his inspirations."
"The bad news is that, if intellectual, human, or spiritual formation is seriously lacking, this temperament blend can exhibit the worst of the two temperaments: overly talkative, brassy, opinionated, loud, rash, swift to jump to conclusions, and forgetful (man, they have me on a page!). The high-spirited humor of the sanguine can become biting and hurtful when combined with the unforgiving, vengeful nature of the poorly-formed choleric. If pleasure-seeking and impulsivity are not contained, the sanguine-choleric may wind up with a lax conscience that justifies his weaknesses, ultimately resulting in habitual sin. On the other hand, the natural generosity flowing from the sanguine temperament will commit him to many good works."

Spiritual gifts:
Joy, mercy, magnanimity, gratitude.

Spiritual weaknesses:
Self-love, envy, seeking esteem and human respect.

Spiritual gifts:
Zeal for souls, fortitude, knowlege.

Spiritual weaknesses:
Self-will, control, anger, haughtiness, superiority.


There! I'm written down in 10 minutes. This is what I'm like. Man, now I'll probably lose all my friends, now that they know what I'm like. =(


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A Circumstantial God

In a recent debate I had (yes, so unlike me :P), my friend and I debated both abortion, and salvation.

My friend said, "The babies are better off de;'ad." To which I replied that, "If you heard about a gi;'rl that some people were going to ki;ll, would you say she was better off dea;';d ? Would you, and let her die? Could you, and let her die? You don't know her, no. I don't know the babies I'm trying to save."

So, yes, that was one of our many debates.

The next time he said that the babies were better off de;'ad because they would go to Heaven. However, in the Salvation debate, I said "Nothing unclean shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So, am I going to Hell since I stole that candy bar and then was shot (since there is no Purgatory, in his view)?" He replied that God would know what I would have done, and judged me accordingly.

So, if God just looks into our future, relies on circumstances, then all those babies don't go to Heaven. That baby would be a gang leader, shoot a ton of people, and yeah, never repent.

If God is so circumstantial with the candy bar person, why isn't he with the unborn baby?

Maybe I'm just crazy right now, because I get like that... And maybe I'll just delete this post tomorrow, but until then, this is how I feel now. ^_^


Monday, February 23, 2009

I hope you'll all participate in this!:

"I don't know exactly where this idea originated, but I keep hearing
more and more about it -- and now hundreds of thousands of pro-life
Americans are getting on board.

So in case you somehow missed it, I thought you'd like to know
about it, too: the RED ENVELOPE campaign.

The idea is to swamp the White House mail room with red envelopes
that represent babies killed through abortion. Each envelope is
empty, signifying the life we never got to know.

Here are the simple instructions:

---> 1. Get a red envelope at an office supply or party store.

---> 2. Address is to the president:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20500

---> 3. On the back, write this message:

This envelope represents one child who died
in abortion. It is empty because that life was
unable to offer anything to the world.
Responsibility begins with conception.

---> 4. Stamp the envelope and mail it.

It's that simple, L -- anybody can do it.

But to be effective, we need HUGE numbers of pro-lifers to
participate. So send YOUR red envelope, and let all your pro-life
friends know about the campaign, too.

When Barack Obama sees how many Americans are willing to TAKE
ACTION to speak up for unborn babies, he may rethink his anti-life

At the very least, he'll hesitate to push those policies so hard --
We owe it to the babies to do what we can to put the brakes on the
pro-abortion agenda in the White House.

Yours for Life,

-- Eric

P.S. Don't forget to let your friends know about this campaign. You
can forward this message, and sign up on Facebook too:

Eric Scheidler
Communications Director
Pro-Life Action League

Tel: 630-896-1200

Pro-Life Action League
6160 N Cicero Ave, Ste 600
Chicago, IL 60646, USA"

Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Fox and the Hound 2

Here I am again to critique the movie The Fox and the Hound 2. I had high expectations after seeing the original, which is the only movie ever that has made me cry (honestly...a cute little fox being stranded of all family sitting by a fence? Aww...), but was thoroughly dissapointed. I must admit that I did not watch a few parts, but the whole message came across.

First off, this movie was done completely out of context of the original, based off what I saw. The characters should have been unchanged, since this is from the time Tod and Copper were still young. However, far too many other characters are included.

I have to question what the actual goal of making this was. There were no loopholes in the original, and I was proud of it. It left nothing lacking -- so why bother with a sequel if they couldn't either keep the bar or raise it?

Next, this movie completely ignores the qualities of good and bad. The original made massive distinctions between these two forces, with all due thanks to Amos and Chief. Those two were the total antagonists, and made the situations far more relatable for children. They were shown as what they really were -- the bad guys. Somehow, people have become sensitive to what bad guys really are, aside from somebody who "takes away your dreams." Explaining that'll be for another post, though. The necessity for this is that children need a basic knowledge of the differences between good and evil. Without these, they'll enter life thinkin' drugs are good an' school is bad. Perhaps I'll go over the massive list of the importances of school in yet another post. Besides -- children have a much harder time relating to a Man vs. Himself plot, as opposed to a Man vs. Man plot. That being, children have a harder time reckoning with the evils in feelings than in the evils of, well...evil.

Okay, I'm done with morals...oh, wait! One more! I've for a while now been contemplating why movies are attempting to tell us the importance of keeping friendships. I'm not saying they shouldn't -- I'm saying that that's become the focus of many movies, this one as a prime example. That used to be the side-plot in children's epics, and was also thoroughly motivated throughout the original Fox and the Hound. What is the point? Why digress from something as important as say the need for mercy and compassion for something as simple-minded as friendship? I'm not saying friendship is an idle, useless thing! I fully support all my friendships, and intend to cherish them 'til my final breath, but the importance of friendships is a terrible moral for an entire feature length film. I'll likely return to this as well in another much to do.

Okay, now I'm over morals. I'll probably return to look at this post later and decide to change some stuff, or if it's that much later re-post it altogether...but, oh, well. I've rarely been perfect the first time around. I've got some things to say over this "band" thing that's accumulated in our topic. The movie, I mean...the title is too long to keep repeating. The addition of this makes the overall story inconsistent. As earlier stated, there should have been no major side-characters to fundamentally change Tod's and Copper's knowledge throughout this. For some odd reason all my other points leave me now, but I'll come back.

Amos and the Widow have far too little spite between them in this. In the original movie, the Widow is apprehensive of her mood toward Amos, but still gets angry at him for trying to shoot Tod. Now, she almost seems to be friends with him...what? In the end, she's serving him pie, whom she held at the point of a gun!? Again, don't get me wrong -- I'm all for forgiveness, but wasn't she mad at him throughout the original film? Wasn't there emnity? *sigh*

I regret, that is all I have for now, since it is late and I must have my beauty rest, but I'll return with more...oho, you can bet on that! *fiendish grin*

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Pictures of Lambs

Here of some pictures of my lambs that I caught:
You have to click on them to see the whole thing...

And the automatic response:


Wednesday, February 4, 2009

But he's the first black president!

Honestly, I couldn't care less what his skin color is. Saying that is racist. I never want to hear it again.

I simply want to go over very briefly what skin color is down to the very molecules that make us, and why there's no difference, and why this shouldn't reflect an election.

DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the stuff that codes for proteins, which is what we are made up of. DNA can code for proteins for things like eye color, how quickly your hair grows, hair color, or skin color. A chromosome is the state of DNA when it is tightly packed when a cell is ready to reproduce, usuqally in the shape of an "X". Quite nearlyalmostjustabout every cell in our body has two of all 23 (correct me if that's wrong...I'm going on memory here) chromosomes, every single one of them an exact copy. A section of any pair of chromosomes together is called a gene, a single of them is called an allele. Every gene codes for a protein.

Now that we have an idea for what DNA is, let's get reproduction down. In bisexual reproduction, two gametes meet and form a zygote. Each gamete has only 1 set of chromosomes (hence the "nearlyalmostjustabout" in the previous paragraph), so when the two gametes merge (a sperm and an egg), the new organism has two different sets of chromosomes coding for whatever the parents' did, but both of them! *g* Anyways, most of the time there is a dominant and recessive allele. So, let's say the allele for green eyes is dominant for the allele for blue eyes. That means, whenever just one of the parents has green eyes, the reproduced organism will. However, only if both have blue eyes will the reproduced organism have blue eyes. I don't know if that's the way it really is, it is merely an example. Don't take it for granted that everything I say in my examples is true. It's the overall message that counts, anyway.

There are a hundred different skin colors out there, and every one of them has a different coding. White people can have black kids, they just need to possess the genes for it, which is actually a semi-frequent occurance. It also works vice-versa, and in every other way possibly conceivable. Skin color doesn't change anything.

Sorry, but I have to define racism here. First off, what racism ISN'T!!!
Discrimination against people with black skin color.
I swear, everywhere I go, that's what people seem to think it is. I don't like that. That's not racism. That's not...moral. Discriminating against people with one tiny different gene, just a different skin color, is wrong. No matter what way you put it.

I hope I've helped heal some people. If there are any complaints about this post, I'd appreciate them a lot.


Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Quick Facts on Barack Obama's Abortion Stance

1. Sanctity of Life: When asked when a baby is entitled to human rights Obama responded that the question was above his pay grade. Obama would recommend abortion for his daughters if they got pregnant because he wouldn't want them to be "punished with a baby."

2. Ratings: Obama is rated 0% by the The National Right to Life Committee. Obama is rated 100% by NARAL.

3. Legislation: Obama is against "conscience-clauses" for pro-life doctors who refuse to do abortions. Obama voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. Obama voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

4. Destructive Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Obama voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. Obama supports the of human embryos to obtain their stem cells. Obama has signaled that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,

5. Funding Abortion: Obama wants to force taxpayers (and insurance companies) to pay for abortions - supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of or incest.

6. Partial Birth Abortion: Obama voted against banning the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion.

7. Born Alive Infant Protection Act: Barack Obama voted against and blocked legislation that would have protected infants who were born alive following an unsuccessful abortion (he took a leadership role to kill it). Then he misrepresented his record. Obama called Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, a despicable liar after being presented with the truth about his failure to protect babies born alive.

8. Freedom of Choice Act: Barack Obama co-sponsored and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a radical legislative attempt to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law, to sweep aside existing laws that the majority of Americans support and to prevent states from enacting protective measures in the future (more here). Obama promises as his number one prior to sign FOCA into law. [note: Americans United for Life (AUL), a pro-life law and policy organization, has prepared an analysis of the "Freedom of Choice Act". Sign the fight FOCA peition here.]

9. Supreme Court: Obama vows to nominate Supreme Court justices that support Roe v Wade. Obama voted against the highly qualified Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

10. Radical Pro-Abortion: Obama is the most pro-abortion President and rejects of the God-given intrinsic dignity of human life. Obama's only Harvard Law Review article took a pro-abortion stance.

11. Assault on Life: Immediately after his election, Barack Obama's assault on human life began with the identification of executive orders that could be reversed to support abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Barack Obama has confirmed that he will overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office and fund foreign abortions with US tax dollars. [visit the FRC to take action today]

Monday, January 12, 2009

Article I'm Still Working On

Please, please comment.
I'm still working on this one... Any suggestions? I'm probably going to add some pics from the Walk For Life, once it happens...

"A person is a person, no matter how small." said Theodore Seuss Giesel (1904-1991), a well know American writer and cartoonist. He was commonly known by his pen name, Dr. Seuss.

In response to the April 18 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, prominent Democratic members of Congress the next day reintroduced the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), a proposed federal law to nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion.

What is partial birth abortion?

Partial-birth abortion is exactly what the term infers.

Intrauterine cranial decompression (commonly known as Partial Birth Abortion):
The procedure is usually performed during the last trimester of gestation up to the end of the ninth month. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. Then he proceeds to pull the baby into the birth canal. The abortionist then delivers the baby's body, feet first, all but the baby's head. The abortionist inserts a sharp object into the back of the baby's head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are sucked out. The head of the baby collapses at this point and allows the aborted baby to be delivered lifelessly.

Can we deny that this is a baby? Can we allow this to happen?

We already have. The war for lives of millions of babies has already begun.
In electing Barack Obama, under the office of President of the United States of America (January 20, 2009), Mr. Obama told Planned Parenthood that: "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."
The so-called "Freedom of Choice" act will:
1) Do away with state laws on parental involvement, on partial birth abortion, and on all other protections.
2) Compel taxpayer funding of abortions.
3) Force faith-based hospitals and health-care facilities to perform abortions.
Barack Obama believes this legislation will "end the culture wars."

"Though Obama is pro-choice, we are in the worst recession we've ever been."

Though it may be true, we are in a very tight situation with the economy; is this more important then a child's life? During the course of the year, over 1.2 million babies die. This is mass murder and it needs to stop. A child's life is the most important thing given to us by God. Life is to precious to be thrown away so easily. What factors are so important that human life can be sacrificed to them?

Excerpt from a conversation that two of my friends and I had:
Person1: Now, there are various ways to keep people alive.
Good health care, good foreign policy, plenty of money, and no abortion.
Person2: I would say no abortion, good health care, and good foreign policy
Person1: Without money, how can we have food?
Person2: Without people to feed, what's the point of having food? You can build pretty nifty structures out of broccoli and toothpicks, but that gets really boring after a while.

"Many are dying out on the street. This is life, and it's just as precious and important."

Yes, the lives of the homeless people are lives, too, and are just as important as the lives of the baby. However, this person has a chance in life. He has a chance in life, however. These babies haven't got a chance. People born have voices. The babies in the womb, cannot protest. They are slaughtered, and cannot help themselves.

We must try to be their voice.