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

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....

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.

On 10/19/11 10:02 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:10 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:01 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:32 -0400, wrote:

In ,

says...

CNN is a dripping wet liberal-socialism farce propaganda machine.

Not nearly as bad as MSNBC, or PBS. CNN lies by omission, the
other two
just make it up as they go along...

And Fox is fair and balanced and would never "lie by
omission"....right?

CNN may be the most balanced, based on the fact that both sides are
****ed at them. ;-)

CNN is corporate news. They're anything but in the middle. PBS and
BBC are closer to real news.

PBS and BBC are left leaning at best and communist at worst.




snerk You demonstrate the lack of formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

I am sure he has more education than you Harry, and is probably more
secure about his since he doesn't have to come here and lie about it.
You said you graduated Yale here years ago, and it was proven to be a
lie....

You are sure? Bertie joined the marines after high school and never
continued his formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

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...

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"?

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.

On 10/19/2011 10:16 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:02 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 8:10 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 8:06 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:01 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:32 -0400, wrote:

In ,

says...

CNN is a dripping wet liberal-socialism farce propaganda machine.

Not nearly as bad as MSNBC, or PBS. CNN lies by omission, the
other two
just make it up as they go along...

And Fox is fair and balanced and would never "lie by
omission"....right?

CNN may be the most balanced, based on the fact that both sides are
****ed at them. ;-)

CNN is corporate news. They're anything but in the middle. PBS and
BBC are closer to real news.

PBS and BBC are left leaning at best and communist at worst.




snerk You demonstrate the lack of formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

I am sure he has more education than you Harry, and is probably more
secure about his since he doesn't have to come here and lie about it.
You said you graduated Yale here years ago, and it was proven to be a
lie....

You are sure? Bertie joined the marines after high school and never
continued his formal edu-ma-ca-tion.

And you cried until your daddy bought you into the first university that
would take his money to let you in, so you didn't have to serve your
country like the sniveling coward that you are... You live off your
daddy's inheritance, and your sisters salary. You have never shown one
iota of evidence here of ever having a job... You are a phony shut in,
with a lying problem...

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?

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...