The evidence to suggest collective criminal insanity on the part of the general citizenry of the state of Massachusetts is quickly mounting. Of course, many of us need no further evidence to convince us that this is indeed the case and has been the case for some time now, but one wonders how much evidence it will take to begin to convince everyone else?
I was already aware of and anticipating this Massachusetts Senate vote this week, and that's the reason I went in search of this story this morning. What the People of Massachusetts are basically saying here is this, "we do not respect, and we're under no obligation to respect, the opinions, nor the laws reflecting those opinions, of the forty nine other states in this Union."
The audacity of leftists in their collective capacities literally knows no bounds.
But what does this say about the body of the citizenry of Massachusetts as it exists now? What it says to me is that the geographical territory which we call Massachusetts is now occupied by a collection of homo sapiens so utterly devoid of any common standards of moral decency that they're collectively rendered incapable of even making an unprincipled exception, which is likely a sign of their imminent demise. Such a people the Bible refers to as "reprobate." I'm probably going too light in imputing to them the condition of "criminal insanity."
And by the way, for all of you who retain some kind of sympathy for the depraved People of Massachusetts, let us not forget that this is not some oligarchy imposing its will on an unsuspecting citizenry. This is a duly elected legislative body doing the business of the people it represents; a body of elected representatives appointed long after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued its ruling on "gay marriage" several years ago. In other words, had the people of Massachusetts any sense of self-restraint and moral responsibility, they would have already installed a legislature which would reflect it. In my personal opinion the state of Massachusetts now represents the most odious mass collection of human scum that ever existed on this continent.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Is the state of Massachusetts beyond help?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I second that opinion, if they are descendants of the Original Christian Puritian, Bradford, Woods and Ensign and others.
It's been going down since even before Thoreau wrote about the pristeen country that used to be.....the abundance of forest and animals and plant food, can you imagine strawberries two inch in diameter and that was before Miracle Grow, can you imagaine that this was in the 1600's.
It must have been a paradise to live before you know who came.....
Why do White People like the cement jungle more than nature?
Anonymous,
I'm going to allow your comments to stand this time. But don't get the impression that I'll tolerate any more bashing of my Pilgrim forefathers from you. I've not once shown you that kind of disrespect, and I would appreciate your returning the favor. Otherwise, I'll simply delete your offensive comments. Fair enough?
Mass insanity (pun intended, as usual).
Other than New York City, I can't think of a better candidate for independence from the rest of the country, and the sooner the better. Perhaps we could should agitate for an amendment to the Constitution allowing voluntary secession, or on a two-thirds vote by the rest of the states, forced secesssion.
Oh Sir,
I must have hit a sore spot, yes sir, I will cease.
Does that mean there will be no more speaking of the Native Americans on your Blogspot either. Seems you and yeagly have more in common than you first let on. He is a direct descendant of the Original Puritans. Your forefathers were Pilgrims....and YOU it seems will not stand for others point of views...We were writing of the forefathers....not today...but YOU were talking about ME today, as though I am not allowed an opinion...I only seconded your opinion about your blog and asked you why you as "White" prefer the cement jungle to Nature, which is being distroyed, beginning in the 1600s.
Everything I have writen was writen by a white person, its history. I merely repeated it. I've quoted no Native Author. These words, if it is in fact bashing as you say, it is also a history that should be told, yes it hurts doesn't it?
What about MASS insanity? HuH?
Oh well life goes on, we all bleed the same color blood.
If you wish...you may take ALL my comments off your whole Blog...no sense in spreading the truth from a Native Americans perspective.
Anonymous,
This site is not designed as a forum for dysfunctional Indians to state their grievances against the white devil invaders, never has been and never will be. If that's what you want then go look elsewhere, or start your own blog and have at it.
But you have inadvertently stumbled upon the truth in at least one particular, it is my prerogative, as the owner/operator of this site, to delete whichever comments I choose to on whatever grounds I wish. If you have a problem with abiding by my rules, then I suggest, as I said before, that you go elsewhere.
Rick, thanks for stopping by. I always enjoy your wit and your insights.
It will be interesting to see how the federal courts deal with this issue when the inevitable takes place. It may be necessary to amend the federal constitution to prevent one state from imposing its view on the rest of the United States.
Terry,
When you say the inevitable, do you mean the secession of parts of the United States?
I can see all kinds of practical problems … but it just might be the only solution to the endless political and cultural standoff. We are no longer a United States. We are two fundamentally different cultures. (And, of course, subcultures within those two, which is part of the difficulty.)
Still, Belgium will break up in the next few years, and so will the United Kingdom (possibly not pro forma, but in reality).
If you know of any serious, non-crackpot movements for a nonviolent secession, please let me know about them.
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
~ Benjamin Franklin
It seems to me that the job of government (at least one of them) is to establish and enforce laws that allow us to live together in a civilized manner.
Although, if I were the people in those coastal states, living on fault lines as they do, I wouldn't count on the Lord's continued patience with their behavior.
Rick,
I wasn't referring to secession, but to the inevitability of out-of-state homosexuals flocking to Massachusetts to get a marriage license, then returning to their respective states of residency demanding that their 'marriage' be recognized in those states in an attempt to effect national recognition of 'same-sex marriages.'
Of course, this has already happened before on a relatively small scale (after the ruling of the SJC of Mass.), but then Governor Romney (temporarily) stayed the issue by invoking the 1913 law. The rogue state of Massachusetts reacted by initiating a campaign to strike down the 1913 law, showing its contempt for the terms of the voluntary agreement which has long existed between us and them, and served to maintain our peaceful cohabitation within the same broad geographical boundaries.
I only know of one semi-organized secessionist movement, but if I ever run across one that isn't infused with crackpottery, I'll let you know. And if you find one before I do, would you kindly return the favor?
Mom,
Yes; as Mr. Locke put it, no civil society can exist where there is not a common established law with a judicature to appeal to. But the rogue state of Massachusetts obviously has no intention to live civilly with the rest of the country, confining their own deviant behaviorisms within the confines of their own borders and political constitutions.
Good leftists like the people of Massachusetts think that government's responsibility is to impose their will on others who they see as wrong, immoral, racist, homophobic and whatever. This, to leftists, is a more important, a much more important responsibility of government than the secondary responsibility of ensuring domestic tranquility.
I think Rick may be on to something when he speaks of forcing them out of this union. They are indeed a dangerous lot.
AN OBVIOUS WHITE MAN REMARK, AND I WILL ADD RACISTS.
You got offended because of what I repeated about your ancestors, you know your history, but you don't want to read the other views, which you call dysfunctional.
The more "WE SPEAK, THE LESS YOU LIKE US".
I feel sorry your children if they carry your views.
GOD BLESS your Father for he has the complete opposite views of yeagleys' Father...............GOOD BY.
Anonymous,
Here's a piece of friendly advice from one person with native ancestry to another:
If you want anyone that matters to take you seriously, you're going to have to stop using all caps in your emotionally charged messages. If you want to emphasize a point, it's not necessary, nor effective to engage the written equivalent of screaming it, as if this results in anything other than satisfying your own passion, and securing in the minds of others reading you that you are indeed an irrational person.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you don't know how to emphasize a written statement without using all caps. In the event that this is the case, I'll inform you that you can use "tags." For instance, when italicizing a word or phrase add this tag in front of the word or phrase, and this closing tag at the end of whatever it is you're trying to emphasize. If you wish to emphasize it in bold, then replace the "i" with a "b".
oops!
Here are the elements of a tag:
lesser-than symbol (<) followed by a lower case i (i) followed by a greater-than symbol (>), with no spacing between each element to "open" the tag. To "close" the tag, the elements are lesser-than symbol followed by a slash (/) followed by a lower case i, followed by a greater-than symbol with no spacing between. The word or phrase you're trying to emphasize goes between the two tags (open and close).
In any event, though, you'll be well served to follow my additional advice of emphasizing your statements sparingly; more sparingly than you're apparently accustomed to doing. As I've said many many times before, "anything taken to the extreme is bad." In your case it doesn't reflect well on you or your position that you feel it necessary to emphasize that which needs no emphasis.
Anonymous,
Ah, yes, it must have been a paradise before you know who came.
Because, of course, you know who is the cause of all your problems, not a single one of them comes from anywhere else.
And, since you know who, is obviously not part of nature in any sense of the word, they are clearly also totally responsible for any damage to nature because native Americans never ever did anything that would be wasteful or harmful to the land in any way.
You seem very positive of those "facts", perhaps you would also believe that I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that I'll sell you for cheap.
Or perhaps you'd like to rejoin the real world and live in the "now" instead of whining about how wonderful life would be for you if you know who had never set foot on these shores.
My apologies, Mr. Morris, for addressing this person on your blog. I am becoming exasperated with their continual taunts and misrepresentations.
Yes, native Americans were killed and yes, they were treated badly, but perhaps you might like to spend your time comtemplating what your fate would have been had people other than Christians had been the ones to take over this nation.
Maybe you should start counting your blessings and get on about making things better.
Momma,
Calm down now, take a deep breath. Don't worry yourself about me. This is the last you will hear from me, since its clear you are a whites only site, just as yeagleys is.
"The American Indian is the Least understood and the most misunderstood of All Americans"
John F.Kennedy
I always get a good chuckle whenever liberals purposely try to provoke conservatives with insults, and as soon as conservatives respond, merely defending themselves and their ancestors as it were, the liberal, casting insult upon insult as liberals are prone to do, declares himself/herself to be the more calm, more rational person in the conversation, presuming to tell her opponent to "calm down and take a deep breath."
Anonymous, you forgot to add one or more of the favorite liberal retorts: "take a chill pill"; "seek help," and the like. Of course, these are always followed by three to four exclamation marks to solidify the point.
Perhaps you would enjoy the democratunderground site? Google it.
I wonder why anonymous thought that I was not calm? It is difficult to convey emotional content in this format, but I assure you that I was not upset over such simple observations.
It is also amusing to see that anonymous has assumed I am of a white - "Christian Puritian, Bradford, Woods" heritage. Oops! Did I say that? How insensitive of me to imply that anyone would have judged my heritage,(to say nothing of the content of my character) by my appearance.
Mom,
I will venture a guess that Anonymous, given that she was intentionally trying to provoke and elicit fiery irrational responses from us, expected nothing less and took, therefore, your response as exactly that. But again, it's only a suspicion. For what rational person can truly get into the heads of the Anonymous's of the world?
"Yes, native Americans were killed and yes, they were treated badly, but perhaps you might like to spend your time comtemplating what your fate would have been had people other than Christians had been the ones to take over this nation."
I realize that I am a little late to the dance. However, is it just me or does anyone else find it hard to fathom that any proud person or nation of proud people would be greatful towards their conqueror? Perhpas, I am not fully understanding MOM's statement. However, if I am conquered (and by conquered, I mean no longer able to live life as I see fit), I'm not going to be grateful that I was conquered by
the Roman's as opposed to say Ghengis Kahn. But, that's just me.
Flatulent,
I think you've made a fair point about one being grateful towards his conqueror. I want to give Mom a chance to respond, but in the meantime let me ask, how is it, following your definition of "the conquered", that Anonymous is not able to live her life as she pleases due to the fact that her ancestors were conquered by whites?
My recollection may be wrong, and Anonymous is welcome to correct me if it is, but I don't recall her saying anything, in this thread or any other that she's commented to, that she's unable to live her life the way she wishes to live it because the conquerers (whites) have prevented it.
I was not speaking directly to the ability of "anonymous" to live life as she deems fit today. I was speaking to the initial conquering of a tribe, nation etc... And I'm not speaking just to American Indians. Throughout history, I think that we can all agree, that once conquered, many cultures have been forced to abandon their beliefs or traditions and take on those of there conqueror. Whether or not "anonymous" can live her life as she deems fit today is a topic for another discussion.
I apologize for not stating my thoughts more clearly.
Fuzz, (No, I am not going to call you flatulent - lol.)
Your point is well taken. I would not be particularly fond of anyone that conquered my nation either-assuming I was still alive to be offended by their presence in MY country.
And that's the point, really, isn't it?
You said " I'm not going to be grateful that I was conquered by
the Roman's as opposed to say Ghengis Kahn." Really? I would think there would be advantages to either scenario as well as disadvantages depending on what kind of slavery they found me useful for, assuming I was kept as a slave and not killed outright. But I would still be a slave in either of those scenarios, something which anonymous is not.
Where would Anonymous be today if this continent was discovered by adherents to Islam? or Genghis Khan? Does she really think that any other conquerors would have given her nation an independent sovereign nation status within their borders plus the full rights of citizenship?
Show me one example where that has happened elsewhere.
If she chooses to live her life whining about how much better things would be in her idealized "what if no whites ever came here" construction, that's her business. But perhaps she ought to take a moment to ask, "what if those who conquered my nation were not those who would balk at complete extermination of their enemies?"
And she shouldn't ask me to believe her nonsense about how all Native Americans lived in harmony with nature and the world would be better if they still did. In my understanding , it was a hard and harsh life where people lived on the edge of survival. I no more want to live like that than I want to go back to the days of feudalism in Europe. I live here and now. I may not like everything about it, but I recognize the advantages and I am thankful to be here now.
We have the greatest gifts, here in this nation. Freedom, the ability to speak one's mind without worrying about going to jail for it. The duty to govern ourselves, if we take it. The freedom to worship as we believe and not as the government dictates. Anonymous can embrace those gifts and live her life to the fullest, or she can spend her time bewailing a life that she never knew and thinks she has lost.
Anonymous,
In order for any environment to be tolerable and non-chaotic, certain rules must be established, and when necessary enforced. Imagine how quickly a third grade classroom would transition from a learning environment to its opposite were unruly name-calling children allowed to disrupt the class with impunity.
Your comments were deleted to preserve good order.
Indians stiffled again, understood in the present company, you should not be afraid of me, like I said there are more of you.
Momma can say I'm whining, and call my observations and input "simple" and nonsense, but I say she is White, and you don't like it... rules do not apply to the white people do they?
As long as the rules apply to you...not the uncivilized ones...you will be the only ones who will be able to live together in a civilized manner...forget any people of color...right?
Like most things must come to and end....you guys continue to have a lovely life.....I just tried to give you something to think about.....some things you just have to "Let go..let God".
Anonymous wrote:
"Momma can say I'm whining, and call my observations and input "simple" and nonsense, but I say she is White, and you don't like it... rules do not apply to the white people do they? (emphasis added)"
How many readers of this thread actually believe Anon's assertion that I deleted her comments because she called Mom "white"?
Terry,
I know better and so does Anon. Makes me glad I was out of town whenever that was posted so I didn't see it.
I think you and I both know that Anon could have labeled me any section of the visible electromagnetic spectrum and, as long as it's the truth,(which, looking at my family tree it probably would be) I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Nor would you have deleted it.
"Does she really think that any other conquerors would have given her nation an independent sovereign nation status within their borders plus the full rights of citizenship?"
Perhaps, Anon didn't feel like her ancestors should have been given anything given that it was their land to begin with.
Having said that, I certainly don't want to speak for Anon. And, I can't really say that I disagree with your reply. However, much of what you say is based on sane, rational thinking. While you and I are quite obviously sane and rational (and good looking I would add), we can't presume that anyone else, let alone Anon, thinks as we do.
Flatulent Fuzz
Flatulent Fuzz for President!
Fuzz, you said:
"Perhaps, Anon didn't feel like her ancestors should have been given anything given that it was their land to begin with."
That goes right to the heart of the matter doesn't it? Historically, when a nation has been conquered by another, the people of the conquered nation have been subjected to brutal oppression or extermination. What is a conquered people to do when their conquerors are relatively benevolent?
If the good looking remark was directed towards me, my teenage self (who sat for that portrait) thanks you for your kind remarks. (My much older self wishes I still looked like that-lol.)
I would like to return the compliment, but have no visual representation upon which to judge your level of facial symmetry. ;)
I think the sticking point here is "relatively benevolent." In my experience, people tend to remember the negative experiences much more prominently than they do the positive ones. After all, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.. or so they say.
And in the future, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using words that I have to look up in the dictionary (such as benevolent). :-)
Oh, and I was referring to myself, when I mentioned good looking. :-O
Flatulent Fuzz for President
Fuzz,
I will say the same to you as I tell the 6-11 year olds I've been working with: "If you don't know what a word means, ask me or look it up. You will need to know how to communicate with adults at some point, so you may as well get started on improving your vocabulary now. It's exercise for your brain. You can do it."
Alternatively, in the words of Captain Barbossa:" I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request."
My statement was intended as a joke. Just in case it was not taken as such. I kid. I kid.
Rest easy, I took is as such. :)
Hey there, if you want intercompany solutions is an innovative new provider of corporate services. With partners and locations in the
Netherlands, Malta and Poland, our company is inherently driven to provide corporate solutions for companies worldwide
see at our website: Inter.Corp
Post a Comment