On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

On 10/19/2011 10:27 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there
and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured
mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax
collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its
actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a
shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know
where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

Ha, ha.. More delusions of grandure.. It was dark, I was woken up by my
door coming down, three feet from my head as I napped on the couch...
And "the lady of your house" is probably as phony as your Yale degree...

On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or
may
not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a
study
done about this some years ago.

So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the
core
bull**** scheme.

I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own
money. In
the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government,
10000%
more effective too.

And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the
choice to
the people.

Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to feed
their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they
make
better decisions than a corrupt government any day.

Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are
given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do with it
what is "needed" to be done.



Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is what
do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing,
shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people
alive
and well, that helps the poor and the helpless.

Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one religion to
another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is
not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice.
That's a donation, but it isn't charity.

But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to
Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that
Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though
you said you did right here... un, before Google snerk


Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians
into Atheists"?

Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I
waste my time?


Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know.

Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians
into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your nose...again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE

On 10/19/11 10:29 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:27 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there
and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked
any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured
mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax
collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to
inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses
and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official
murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its
actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists.
You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull
the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a
shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not
aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know
where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

Ha, ha.. More delusions of grandure.. It was dark, I was woken up by my
door coming down, three feet from my head as I napped on the couch...
And "the lady of your house" is probably as phony as your Yale degree...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE

On 10/19/11 10:26 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:22 AM, Danny wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote:

Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now.

Made non-union in China too.

Unfortunately, most so-called "smart" phones, and most cell phones, are
now assembled in the PRC, and many are manufactured there, too, even
Nokias. In the last couple of years, nearly all cell phone assembly has
been "outsourced" to the PRC. My rule against buying merchandise from
the PRC is, "can I find a similar or better product manufactured
elsewhere?" Since most "smart" phones are coming out of the PRC, the
answer, sadly, is no.

More hypocritical excuses.

If you actually had a real conviction, you'd not use a cell phone.

Your "rule" is very self accommodating.

That is the progressive way, especially here in this group...


"Danny" must be one of your brothers, because he's obviously as dumb as
you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE

Who knew Jason Bourne could sing?

On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which
may or
may
not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a
study
done about this some years ago.

So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the
core
bull**** scheme.

I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own
money. In
the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government,
10000%
more effective too.

And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the
choice to
the people.

Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to feed
their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they
make
better decisions than a corrupt government any day.

Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are
given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do with it
what is "needed" to be done.



Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is
what
do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing,
shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people
alive
and well, that helps the poor and the helpless.

Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one
religion to
another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is
not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice.
That's a donation, but it isn't charity.

But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to
Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that
Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though
you said you did right here... un, before Google snerk


Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians
into Atheists"?

Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I
waste my time?


Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know.

Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians
into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your nose...again.

But how can we believe you, you are a proven habitual liar here?

What do you care, do you have something to add to the conversation or
are you just trolling again Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University
of America? Do you sit there all day long just waiting for someone you
hate to post so you can make a one line comment or insult them? Wow,
great life you have there... Does Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University
of America, know you have spent the last ten years here insulting and
trolling the group as HtheK, HKrause, HarryK, Paul, x-man, sometimes
posting as many as 100 one line, insult/troll posts in one 24 hour
period? Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, you seem
a lowlife parasite who spends his days and nights sharing your hate and
misery here an all over then net. Anybody who has five minutes to look
back at your posts over the last ten years will see that. I feel sorry
for you, get out of the house man, step away from the keyboard...

Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America

On 10/19/2011 10:38 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:26 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:22 AM, Danny wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote:

Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now.

Made non-union in China too.

Unfortunately, most so-called "smart" phones, and most cell phones, are
now assembled in the PRC, and many are manufactured there, too, even
Nokias. In the last couple of years, nearly all cell phone assembly has
been "outsourced" to the PRC. My rule against buying merchandise from
the PRC is, "can I find a similar or better product manufactured
elsewhere?" Since most "smart" phones are coming out of the PRC, the
answer, sadly, is no.

More hypocritical excuses.

If you actually had a real conviction, you'd not use a cell phone.

Your "rule" is very self accommodating.

That is the progressive way, especially here in this group...


"Danny" must be one of your brothers, because he's obviously as dumb as
you are.


What do you care, do you have something to add to the conversation or
are you just trolling again Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University
of America? Do you sit there all day long just waiting for someone you
hate to post so you can make a one line comment or insult them? Wow,
great life you have there... Does Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University
of America, know you have spent the last ten years here insulting and
trolling the group as HtheK, HKrause, HarryK, Paul, x-man, sometimes
posting as many as 100 one line, insult/troll posts in one 24 hour
period? Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, you seem
a lowlife parasite who spends his days and nights sharing your hate and
misery here an all over then net. Anybody who has five minutes to look
back at your posts over the last ten years will see that. I feel sorry
for you, get out of the house man, step away from the keyboard...

Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America
Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote:
In article1918022003340576426.748786evil-
, says...

wrote:
On 10/17/2011 4:09 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/10/2011 4:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

They already pay a higher tax rate. You should have worked harder and
saved more and you would understand.

Smart rich are leaving the USA, let the fleabaggers have nothing. Nice
thing about todays money they didn't have in 1358 is it can be
moved in
seconds.

Fact is these fleabaggers are lead by theory own envy and greed. In
the
end thy will loose.

He'd leave except for one thing. His little darlin has a pretty decent
job at union headquarters. He won't admit it but that's what lured him
away from Florida. Can you imagine?

Your imagination is leading you astray

Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now.

Made non-union in China too.


well, he is a fleabagger, the party of Al (22x) Gore... Fleabaggers
think "everyone else needs sacrifice, so they don't have to"...

Who is attributed to that quote?

Each and every progressive here....

Really? Every "progressive" has said that? That's pure bull****, you
made it up and you know it. That's a Harry tactic.

On 10/19/11 10:51 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote:

Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which
may or
may
not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a
study
done about this some years ago.

So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the
core
bull**** scheme.

I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own
money. In
the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government,
10000%
more effective too.

And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the
choice to
the people.

Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to
feed
their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they
make
better decisions than a corrupt government any day.

Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are
given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do
with it
what is "needed" to be done.



Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is
what
do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing,
shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people
alive
and well, that helps the poor and the helpless.

Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one
religion to
another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is
not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice.
That's a donation, but it isn't charity.

But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to
Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that
Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though
you said you did right here... un, before Google snerk


Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians
into Atheists"?

Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I
waste my time?


Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know.

Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians
into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your
nose...again.

But how can we believe you, you are a proven habitual liar here?



You know, I'm not aware of an organization dedicated to converting
Christians into atheists. You don't either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I
thought this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems
that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder
nobles. They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.

When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your
intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming
for center mass you are in idiot.

Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the
morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he
was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where
he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead
instead of just having a broken rib...


We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little
**** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a
non-violent mental disorder.

Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take
time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your
cowardly ways, I get it...


It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient
from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier
when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old
internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has
worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing
psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by
courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness.

Oh, so Dr. Fourchin is going to do a patient intake exam before you
decide to shoot or not?