Robert E. Lee day
|
Posted by Glenn in
Debates and Discussions, Morality |
Robert E. Lee was born January 19, 1807. Christian, patriot, and leader, this man of character is an example we should learn from.
I would recommend General Lee: A Biography of Robert E. Lee
This biography of General E. Lee and his part in the American Civil War is written by his nephew who was a cavalry officer in the war under his command. His exposition of Lee's achievements at Sharpsburg, Gettysburg and other fields of war are enhanced by his access to Lee's private papers.
Last year, R.E. Lee Day also fell on MLK Day. Brit Hume made a brief mention of Lee's birthday, demonstrating that he is not content to let the MSM and other forces of politicalpersecution correctness completely revise history. For our part, we did a unit on the civil war. To culminate our study, we attended a "Robert E. Lee Sunday" service at a local church.
The pastor dressed as a Civil War chaplain and church members were in 1860s-period dress. The morning service consisted of readings and music from the Civil War era, followed by professional Civil War re-enactors from the 12th Texas Cavalry and 11th Texas Infantry, who performed a live Civil War re-enactment.
A descendent of General Lee was present. He described the spiritual significance of the elements of General Lee's camp flag.
I would recommend General Lee: A Biography of Robert E. Lee
This biography of General E. Lee and his part in the American Civil War is written by his nephew who was a cavalry officer in the war under his command. His exposition of Lee's achievements at Sharpsburg, Gettysburg and other fields of war are enhanced by his access to Lee's private papers.
Last year, R.E. Lee Day also fell on MLK Day. Brit Hume made a brief mention of Lee's birthday, demonstrating that he is not content to let the MSM and other forces of political
The pastor dressed as a Civil War chaplain and church members were in 1860s-period dress. The morning service consisted of readings and music from the Civil War era, followed by professional Civil War re-enactors from the 12th Texas Cavalry and 11th Texas Infantry, who performed a live Civil War re-enactment.
A descendent of General Lee was present. He described the spiritual significance of the elements of General Lee's camp flag.
*** UPDATE ***
I did not intend for this post to degenerate into the "all confederates were pro-slavery" argument, but I should have anticipated that. Nevertheless, David Marcoe has been looking at some interesting facts relating to the war of seccession. Unfortunately, modern debate does not seem to allow for facts to be considered in the place of broad generalizations.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
hmmmm I'm curious.I've noticed you have a strong opinion regarding right to life, but you also seem to have some shortcommings in the department of racial equality.
So, I gotta ask do you have any problems with the abortion of minority children?
Forgive me if I misunderstand the racist undertones here but as a Christian aren't you required to view all life as equal?
I wonder where you get the idea that I am opposed to the idea of racial equality? I believe that white, black, red, or yellow, we are all children of God, formed in his image, yet fallen in sin.Perhaps you think that recognizing the character of Robert E. Lee is racist... How so? Lee was personally opposed to slavery. He longed to see the instituition ended under a peaceful transition. After the war, he stood up for racial integration within his own church, when none others did. His decision to fight for Virginia was not based on a desire to continue slavery, but to defend the rights and sovereignty of his beloved Virginia.
We all stand equally before God, regardless of our race. Abortion is wrong, regardless of race.
Well then let me ask you what is your problem with MLK.You've got to admit your comment sounds a little racist or at the very least could be seen as racist.
I have no problem with MLK. Many folks would disparage his character based on claims of womanizing or association with communist ideals, but that I don't have enough facts to speak to that part of his character.Asides from that, though, Mr. King was certainly a couragous leader, and was willing to make great personal sacrifices in the interest of overcoming a great social injustice that was happening. In that regard, I have the utmost of admiration for what he did.
Does that mean we should have a national holiday on his behalf? I don't neccessarily agree. Does that make me a racist? I don't think so.
Can you tell me exactly which words give a racists tone? I sincerely want to know so I can make any appropriate correction.
Well for starters examine the second sentence he wrote."Many folks would disparage his character basded on claims of womanizing or association with communist ideals"
What about Robert E. Lee. He was fighting for a cause that supported the rape, toruture, and enslavement of an entire race of people.
You say he was fighting for Virginia, but lets be serious here.
I live in Iowa, and if Iowan farmers started raping, torturing, selling, and enslaving people for their own profit I would be the last person standing up to defend them from invaders that wanted to put a stop to that.
I'd also like to bring your attention to your statement where you refer to Martin Luther King day celebrations as a form of political persecution?
Assuming he was a "womanizer", and he was a "communist" does that really make the accomplishments that he made any less valid.
What are your views on JFK? He was a womanizer as well. If I'm not mistaken most of our presidents were womanizers according to our history books. Look at Thomas Jefferson for example.
Do you think we should remove womanizing presidents from our money? Or what about stripping them of their titles?
Just a question. Curious about how you view those people, who just happen to white, but also immoral, that are also enjoying their own holidays.
I mean we have streets name after JFK as well as MLK should we rename these because they were both illeged womanizers?
You say he was fighting for Virginia, but lets be serious here.Let's be... As regarding racism at the time of the civil war, the folks up north were racist as well. Virginia was not invaded for the express purpose of freeing the slaves, but rather to force reunion upon the seccessionist south. Even Lincoln's accaimed Emancipation Proclamation, which came late in the war, did not proclaim emancipation for slaves in several states. If his great goal was to end slavery, why did he not free the slaves in the states fighting for the union?
I would be the last person standing up to defend them from invaders that wanted to put a stop to that.
As well you should. But what if the invaders were only wanting to enforce higher taxes on corn exports to pay for their new airports? The southern states were being taxed at unmerciful rates to pay for northern railroads.
you refer to Martin Luther King day celebrations as a form of political persecution?
I apologize for not being more clear on that point. I do not consider the MLK day (or the naming of streets after him) to be a form of political persecution. MLK has earned a place of honor in history. I do not dispute that. The political "persecution" I refer to are those myriad forces that try to squeeze out any memory of the equally honorable and nobel character and accomplishments of southern white christian men. This is not to say that we are without fault or flaw, because we are. As are people of all races and creeds.
we have streets name after JFK as well as MLK should we rename these
I'm not suggesting we rename streets or take back holidays. What I am suggesting is that we don't try to erase the memory of some other honorable (though flawed) people to make some people feel better. That would be rewriting history, and that is nothing less than telling a lie.
**Ed.- I miss-spoke. "because we are." should read "because we are flawed." I was not saying we are without flaw.**
I fear the debat over what the "real" reasons for the civil war will go on forever, but there is no denying the the freedom of slaves would result from a northern victory.Though racism is bad, it's not nearly as bad as slavery.
And, I am willing to bet that if it was us white people being enslaved in Iowa the "higher taxes on corn" would be a much lesser issue.
If you ask most of us how much support we would have for a man that fought to help prolong the rape and torture of little white girls I don't think any other reason.. no matter how noble... would trump helping whoever wanted to get in there and stop it even if they did have other motives as well.
If there had been anything honrable about the position of the south during the civil war they should have just freed the slaves. Being a general Lee could have suggested and maybe even implemented that. Then the North would have been left with no justification to invade the southern states.
So, I guess I just have a hard time finding honor in a man that to me makes my people look bad.
I fear the debat over what the "real" reasons for the civil war will go on forever, but there is no denying the the freedom of slaves would result from a northern victory.True on both counts. Reconstruction didn't help matters much, but that's another issue (although it did help foster the continuation of the racial divide that resulted in the circumstances MLK rose up against.)
Though racism is bad, it's not nearly as bad as slavery.
Also true. Unfortunately, many people seem to equate the two. To try to understand and appreciate the heritage of the south is often considered to be racist and pro-slavery.
And, I am willing to bet that if it was us white people being enslaved in Iowa the "higher taxes on corn" would be a much lesser issue.
Please allow me to present another analogy. I do not know your position on abortion, but let us pretend that you are staunchly pro-life. As you may know, Mexico has long resented losing the southwest territiories of the US. Suppose Mexico is taken over by a catholic government bent on ending abortion through out the world, and launches an invasion of Texas.
There is no question that a mexican victory would result in an end to abortion in Texas. It is also debatable about what the true intention of the mexican government is in starting the war. My question is, though, would George Bush be in the right or wrong to defend Texas against the invading abortion abolitionists?
If there had been anything honrable about the position of the south during the civil war they should have just freed the slaves.
Abolition was one of the north's greatest fears... they did not want a mass exodus of blacks moving north, taking their jobs and living in their towns anymore than they wanted the irish or chinese. The north did not want to end slavery, only contain it. Why do you think they did not declare war for the express purpose of abolishing slavery? They went to war to force reunion.
So, I guess I just have a hard time finding honor in a man that to me makes my people look bad.
Fair enough. But who would you hold up as one that makes us look good? You cite Jefferson as being tarnished, and Lincoln was as racist as the southern leadership... Where is there an honorable man to be found? Alas, for all have sinned...
Well I'm not pro-life so I'll use my analogy again. If Texas was raping and murdering, and torturing white women I wouldn’t give a flying **** who took them over. Be it Mexico or whatever...And to address your comment about George Bush... yes he would be wrong if he defended Texas from Mexico, while at the same time refusing to stop the rape and torture of the young white girls.
If he were to first stop the torture and rape of white girls by throwing the oppressors and rapists in jail, and then stood up to defend Texas from Mexico well then that would be ok.
But, having the balls to defend Texas but refusing to first stop the atrocities in Texas well that just doesn't make any sense logically or morally.
If every family in Texas was having 100 to 200 abortions that would be better equated to what was going on with the slaves in the south. Many times the white masters would kill the mixed children of their black rape victims. Is that any better than abortion?
People can debate the abortion issue all day long, but no one is debating the fact that once the child is born it is a person.
A leader is responsible for the atrocities in his country. You and I both know we would all hold bush responsible if he just let an entire state rape and torture little white girls, and then kill their babies once they came out. I don't think another country would have to invade us. We would be invading ourselves, and if Bush wasn't on the same side as those vowing to stop the atrocities Bush would probably find the white house getting marched on by a bunch of gun toting crazed Americans.
The point is there is nothing honorable about General Lee. He could have used his same influence to force the south to stop slavery. You can say that the abolition of slavery was the biggest fear of the north, but even if it was they still accomplished that. The south had no intentions of doing that, and using an argument that the north was racist too as a defense for that is again not morally or logically sound.
As far as finding a white man to look up to. I'll probably have a hard time finding one that is morally perfect, but if I have to choose between Hitler and say Einstein or Robert Lee, and I don't know any one of the white WWII heroes, or maybe one of the white members of the supreme court that helped over turn laws like bans on interracial marriage and segregation.
I guess for me the choice is obvious. There are plenty of my people that I can be proud of even if I don't know them by name. White men and women who marched with MLK, the poor white boy that was killed in Mississippi along with some poor black kids that were trying to help put an end to segregation.
Or, if all else fails I look up to my father who taught me to treat all people as equal. To refuse any group or any idea that promotes anything but the equality of all men.
I'm not going to hold someone up to a higher place than they deserve just because they happen to be white.
Adam I think you're wasting your time arguing this point with him. Check out his post on sponge bob.To him morality is like an elastic band....
Meant to be bent and twisted in which ever way suits....
Some people first form an opinion, and then look for the facts to back it up. Thus causing them to have many contradicting beliefs and philosophies.
Sometimes the best evidence you'll find against the validty of the "crackpot" christians is in fact themselves.....
Adam-Though you and I may not agree, your arguments have certainly given me cause to reflect on my postion. It's likely that I may not have given it much more thought otherwise, so I thank you for that.
If anything in my argument has given you the idea that I approve of or defend the slavery of the south and the evils done under it, I apologize.
It is easy for me to pontificate about the evils of northern agression some century and a half later, but that does not alter the facts as you have so bluntly put them. The evils perputrated under slavery were indeed nothing less than evil. Murder, rape, and slavery are evil deeds, and it is the duty of every human, being children of God all, to oppose these deeds and any system that would support or tolerate them. I think you and I would find agreement here.
As to the internal character of RE Lee, the disagreement seems to be this; I have looked beyond the thumbnail sketch and found a depth of character not commonly known regarding the man. You have stopped at the thumbnail and said that is enough for you to pass judgement.
That's fair enough. My goal is not to convince you that he was a fine gentleman, which I'm sure would never happen. I do think it is good to look to the examples of men in history for notable characteristics that can or should be emulated. As you mentioned, there are countless unsung heroes in this regard. Even so, I don't know a one that is without blemish or spot.
The only historical figure without such a blemish was nailed to a cross. His is the ultimate standard we should look to, and measured against him Robert E. Lee does not hold a candle.
SNF-To him morality is like an elastic band....
Meant to be bent and twisted in which ever way suits....
I don't think this is the case, but I could be wrong... can you tell me how it is you see it this way?
1. It seems to me from your previous comments as it apparently does to Adam as well that you have a surprising tolerance for personal short comings when looking at us white men, but seem almost completely intolerant of those found in a great black man like MLK.
2. Killing the "helpless" and "innocent" is wrong only if that life happens to be still directly involved with a women's reproductive cycle.
i.e. no arguments for ppl on life support or in comas... (many of them babies themselves)
3. The sponge bob thing just leaves me speechless......
Is it wrong to pass judgment on everyone except minorities and homosexuals?
On point #1-I never expressed an intolerance “for the personal short comings” of MLK. I quote myself;
“I have no problem with MLK…
Mr. King was certainly a couragous leader, and was willing to make great personal sacrifices…
In that regard, I have the utmost of admiration for what he did...
MLK has earned a place of honor in history. "
Like Adam, you seem to have read something into my post that was not there.
On point #2-
I am not going to run down every rabbit hole you point to (i.e., masturbation is murder.) For your part, you have never given an argument for why a parasite ought not be considered human.
On point #3-
Perhaps you are speechless because your knee-jerk hostility to Dr. Dobson specifically and evangelical Christianity in general has left you ignorant of what the issue really is about.
I don't have hostility towards evangelical Christianity per se. My hostility is towards ignorance. I have great contempt for things that are not logical because I feel they are a waste of time. EDITED FOR BREVITY
The jist is that because christians have faith they are not logical, and they want to impose their faith on the populace by law. Also, his definition of personhood (that he holds by faith?) ought to be the one imposed by law.
Yet again you’ve completely missed the point!But, it's easy to summarize anything to appear the way that you want it to when you do not post it in its entirety.
Also I find it intriguing how you feel you have the ability to summarize what I meant when you’ve not yet shown any ability to understand the fundamentals of my arguments.
the point of the post was simply this.
Currently a fetus is not a person as defined by law. This is why abortions are legal.
since you cannot prove that a fetus is a person I see no reason why we should stop abortion.
So, no I am not saying that my definition of personhood SHOULD be put into law; I am saying that it already is...
that's why abortions are legal. If we want to make them illegal we have to first prove that a fetus is different than a brain dead person who
Yet again you’ve completely missed the point!
But, it's easy to summarize anything to appear the way that you want it to when you do not post it in its entirety.
Also I find it intriguing how you feel you have the ability to summarize what I meant when you’ve not yet shown any ability to understand the fundamentals of my arguments.
the point of the post was simply this.
Currently a fetus is not a person as defined by law. This is why abortions are legal.
since you cannot prove that a fetus is a person I see no reason why we should stop abortion.
So, no I am not saying that my definition of personhood SHOULD be put into law; I am saying that it already is...
that's why abortions are legal. If we want to make them illegal we have to first prove that a fetus is different than a brain dead person who
1. isn't aware of their own existence
2. cannot sustain their own life.
[url= http://unitelater.com/s9y/index.php?/archives/43-SNF-condensed.html]EDITED FOR BREVITY[/url]
The rest of his comment is a redundant argument that the fetus is not a person because it is the same as a comatose person or a person on a respirator. Science, not faith, should inform our law making process. His final comment equates criminals with brain dead patients with the unborn. Well, see for yourself.
But, lots of things ARE NOT believed to have “personhood”, and that is why we execute criminals and turn off the life support of brain dead patients, and yes, that is why women can abort a fetus.
Currently a fetus is not a person as defined by law. This is why abortions are legal.Actually, abortion is legal because a handful of supreme court justices decided that an unborn child is not deserving of legal protection until the third trimester.
since you cannot prove that a fetus is a person I see no reason why we should stop abortion.
I see no reason why I ought to accept your definition of personhood.
we have to first prove that a fetus is different than a brain dead person who
1. isn't aware of their own existence
2. cannot sustain their own life.
Easy enough. A “brain dead person” is a DEAD PERSON.
An unborn child is NOT DEAD. How does that make the unborn person not a person?
If we want to make them illegal we have to prove a fetus IS a "person"
Once again, by what definition, and why should I accept the term as you define it?
But, lots of things ARE NOT believed to have “personhood”, and that is why we execute criminals and turn off the life support of brain dead patients, and yes, that is why women can abort a fetus.
By your scientific (?) definition (?), a death row inmate is still a living person, and a brain dead person is a dead person. Abortion is legal because of the arbitrary whim of a handful of supreme court justices.
I really am begging you to actually read something before you continue to debate this issue. Inmates on death row no longer have LEGAL rights as a person. Consult a criminal psychology text book if you need an explanation for why.
We are talking about the LEGAL PROHIBITION of ABORTION not the morality of it, because morality is now and always will be RELATIVE! Unless you’re going to provide proof that your god exists (Oh, how I would love to listen in on that debate.)
Abortion is LEGAL because the fetus does not have rights ergo "personhood" under the law. This is what prolifers are currently trying to change.
"Personhood"
As our society defines it is much more complicated than simply being comprised of human genetic material.
Death row inmates fail to maintain "personhood" under the LAW because they have detached themselves socially from our communal laws, beliefs, and systems. They have proven that they CANNOT function in our society...
- consult a law book, a psychology book, an ethics book, and a criminology book for the clarification you lack on this issue.
“Actually, abortion is legal because a handful of Supreme Court justices decided that an unborn child is not deserving of legal protection until the third trimester" - Glenn
- Yes this is true because as I have said a fetus does not have "personhood" under the law
"If we want to make them illegal we have to prove a fetus IS a "person"
Once again, by what definition, and why should I accept the term as you define it?" - Glenn
- A definition that is based on fact, research, and scientific evidence is what should be applied in any LEGAL discussion of this topic.
I don't care what YOU accept but the LAW should accept a scientific definition because science is objective, proven, individually corroborated, and not clouded by religion and faith (because religion as we all know is RELATIVE this is why there are so many sects in Christianity. All of which swear they are the CHOSEN ones.)
You have difficulty with my arguments because you lack the knowledge to fully understand them. I suggest you consult some legal journals and first understand what personhood is as defined by the law, and then maybe you can understand why to me there is no LEGAL difference between a “living” fetus with no brain, and a "living" brain dead person with a brain that doesn’t work.
Both should be defined in the same manner under the LAW, and therefore given the same rights, or the criteria for said definition of "brain death" should be redefined.
-Neither has a functioning brain (one has no brain at all) and neither can exist without being hooked up to outside sources.
Under the LAW defining what something may potentially become is irrelevant
LEGAL definitions must define what something IS not what it has the POTENTIAL to become.
A separate sperm and egg is not a fetus, a fetus is not a baby, a baby is not a child, and a child is not an adult. Even though all 3 are comprised of human genetic material or are “human beings”.
We cannot LEGALY define a child as an adult just because it has the potential to become one. We all know there are inherent differences between the mind of a child and that of an adult. This is why the rights and status of the 2 differ.
Children cannot vote and are subject to the will of their parents.
Just as a fetus is currently subject to the will of its mother.
There are different stages of human development. Each stage is unique and always “living” and “human” (even in its limited stages ergo sperm and egg cells), each stage of human life is separate and does not deserve the same LEGAL status and protection as human life in the later stages....
YOU are free to do as you wish, and teach and preach to YOUR children as you wish, but if you are talking about something that LEGALLY affects us all (and you are) then the standards must be raised to objective ones.
No exceptions. Not even for bible thumping evangelical fanatics.
And, if YOUR god disagrees let him come down here and tell us himself!
Add Comment
Link List Thingy
Link List Recently Hosed!
Please Stand By...
Want your link here?
ESV Bible Search
Comments
about Disassembly
Sun, 10/11/09
Thank you thank you thank you
for these pictures. I would ha
ve NEVER gotten this overly co
mplicated toilet back to [...]
Sun, 10/11/09
Thank you thank you thank you
for these pictures. I would ha
ve NEVER gotten this overly co
mplicated toilet back to [...] about Freeze a Yankee...
Mon, 07/06/09
Yes I had the River song too.
It was really funny also.
Something like
Lots of thi
ngs in Texas, that we al [...]
Mon, 07/06/09
Yes I had the River song too.
It was really funny also.
Something like
Lots of thi
ngs in Texas, that we al [...] about Stupidest News Item Ever (Part 1)
Fri, 07/03/09
Leith Kristin Merrow is immatu
re and arrogant. She's read a
couple of rock & roll books, a
nd now wants to be the n [...]
Fri, 07/03/09
Leith Kristin Merrow is immatu
re and arrogant. She's read a
couple of rock & roll books, a
nd now wants to be the n [...] about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
Thu, 06/18/09
the claim you make there is un substantiated. Christians inde ed do not worship the same God as mulsims and hindus, [...]
Thu, 06/18/09
the claim you make there is un substantiated. Christians inde ed do not worship the same God as mulsims and hindus, [...]
about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Tue, 06/16/09
Mario-
Dude, check the comm
ent policy before you come aro
und here calling me names. How
rude of you.
Speaki [...]
Tue, 06/16/09
Mario-
Dude, check the comm
ent policy before you come aro
und here calling me names. How
rude of you.
Speaki [...] about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Mon, 06/15/09
Your a F@#$ing idiot!!!! none of this is evidence of anythi ng. oh, the eagle must be tryi ng to attack him. Who [...]
Mon, 06/15/09
Your a F@#$ing idiot!!!! none of this is evidence of anythi ng. oh, the eagle must be tryi ng to attack him. Who [...]
about Jihad Watch: Letters from a mujahid
Mon, 06/08/09
alrighty here who the hell do
u think u r to make fun and ri
dicule ISLAM and its PEOPLE??!
! do u not know that isl [...]
Mon, 06/08/09
alrighty here who the hell do
u think u r to make fun and ri
dicule ISLAM and its PEOPLE??!
! do u not know that isl [...] about Twenty Dollar Bill Conspiracy Revisited
Mon, 06/01/09
Ok i belived the whole twin to
wers and hte pentagon thing bu
t this ... this is just stupid
. cyclopsis dont exsist [...]
Mon, 06/01/09
Ok i belived the whole twin to
wers and hte pentagon thing bu
t this ... this is just stupid
. cyclopsis dont exsist [...] about Is Joel Osteen teaching a false doctrine?
Thu, 04/16/09
Be serious now. Joel Osteen is
not a "Prosperity Preacher" h
e's a False Teacher. His writi
ng, TV show and Intervie [...]
Thu, 04/16/09
Be serious now. Joel Osteen is
not a "Prosperity Preacher" h
e's a False Teacher. His writi
ng, TV show and Intervie [...] about Comments policy
Sat, 03/21/09
in the name of allah, the merc
ifull, all precious be to alla
h and dont forget 2 our phroph
et muhammad
in the na [...]
Sat, 03/21/09
in the name of allah, the merc
ifull, all precious be to alla
h and dont forget 2 our phroph
et muhammad
in the na [...]Categories
- Important Things (10)
- Faith (22)
- Family (15)
- Home School (9)
- Morality (9)
- Issues and Events (15)
- Debates and Discussions (27)
- Politics (22)
- Technology (12)
- War (9)
- Miscellany (35)
- Challies Watch (5)
- Divergences (4)
- Home Repair (12)
- Linkatash (18)
- Poetry, Music and Arts (6)
- Things Not Desirable (1)
- Abortionism (6)
- Atheism, Secularism (2)
- Heresy, Hypocrisy (7)
- Islamism (11)
- Leftism (7)
- Media Idiocy (17)
- Stupidification (4)
Choose Your Template
Quick link
Deep Thought of the Day
Theology-
God good, devil bad.
Jesus saves, Allah kills.
God good, devil bad.
Jesus saves, Allah kills.
Calendar
|
June '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Coming Events
Archives
Quicksearch
Archives
Recent Entries
Kitty, Reloaded
Got Sarah?
President Pantywaist
Twenty Word Reviews, Apologetics and Design
Twenty Word Reviews, Heroes and Fiction
Excuses and apologies
Response to Sara
What marriage is not...
Lapin/McCain
View From the Bird Cage
04/14/10 at 0:22 AM
Got Sarah?
07/19/09 at 22:59 PM
President Pantywaist
04/10/09 at 16:15 PM
Twenty Word Reviews, Apologetics and Design
01/09/09 at 2:10 AM
Twenty Word Reviews, Heroes and Fiction
01/09/09 at 1:16 AM
Excuses and apologies
12/09/08 at 1:00 AM
Response to Sara
12/02/08 at 21:23 PM
What marriage is not...
11/13/08 at 3:40 AM
Lapin/McCain
08/30/08 at 2:37 AM
View From the Bird Cage
07/10/08 at 2:14 AM
What others are saying...
Ogre says...
"NOT Evil Glennn"
Pseudo-Polymath
"...our procrastinator got off his duff and moved his site..."
Two or Three dot Net
"... great writing, sharp layout... the main reason why I like this blog is ... I laugh everytime I see the title..."
Gun Toting Liberal
"Hates me, but links here."
Powered by
PROCRASTINATION!
FREE and SPAM-PROOF!
CLICK HERE to sign up for Fred Langa's award-winning e-newsletter. You'll see how to get LOTS more from your hardware, software, and time online!
About Me
By way of background, I'm a homeschool dad in College Station, TX. Southern Baptist, with tendencies for somewhat reformed views on various subjects. I'm registered independent, but I vote Republican. I'm an employer, a Sunday School teacher, and a heterosexual white male. I am living proof that God uses the foolish things... Polls
Do you do blog polls?
Archives
Archives