i got two evils in this one.i didnt recognise anybody in the first one.either i'm slow, or overworked.
Actions speak louder than photos.
Well, it's not really a quiz, Gino. You'll see where I'm going in a minute.K-Rod, you're still correct. I'm getting to the point of all this soon.
I recognize Tiller. He is (was) pretty evil if you ask me.
Not gonna disagree with you on that, Dan. I chose these people carefully, as you'll see eventually.
But it is so assuring that our current "leaders" are so darn good looking and sound so compassionate and tell us they are here to help. What was it that Sen. Reed said about Obama?
In that case I am issuing Dan and Mark some actual evil.
Tiller and Roeder. Evil-dee and Evil-dum.
I walked away after that last comment, but "some actual evil" walked with me. There's a certain implication there, is there not? The other thing being alluded to is not "actual evil." And while we could have a discussion about whether abortionists are evil or not, that doesn't strike me as very interesting. We've all been in that kind of debate before.No, "some actual evil" is interesting because it implies that evil is clearly seen, unambiguous, empirical. "Some actual evil" is something that gets pointed out in the other. "Some actual evil" is rare, but absolutely repulsive. I look forward to your coming post Mr D. It is right that we think about such things.
Amanda,I don't disagree with you about Roeder -- whatever you think about George Tiller, there was zero justification for what Roeder did and it was an evil act. I was actually thinking about using Roeder's picture, too.WBP,Yes, we need to talk about evil. And right now is an excellent time to talk about such things.
and 'evil' spelled backwards is 'live'.which can pronounced two different ways, for two different words.just goes to show you, when dealing with evil, even when its not actually spelled evil, it may not always be clear in its context.
heh, was that deep, or what?
Weakland ... evil.
Post a Comment