On 4/1/2013 6:55 AM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:44 am, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:









On Mar 31, 8:40 pm, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:50 am, Urin Asshole wrote:

You don't have a clue who said these things do you.

The same guy that said: "If children prayed together, would they not
understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring
them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that
those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be
tolerant at all. "

And this....

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the
conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world
that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a
coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and
cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."

And your point?

The point is that despite the other things said, this is a necessity
as well:

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
remain, separate."

My 'point' was I knew who said it.

#40 was the last of the real ones by every measure that matters.

On 3/31/13 10:22 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:40 pm, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:50 am, Urin Asshole wrote:



You don't have a clue who said these things do you.

The same guy that said: "If children prayed together, would they not
understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring
them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that
those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be
tolerant at all. "

And this....


"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the
conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world
that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a
coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and
cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."


Selling arms to the Iranians and using the proceeds to fund the
Nicaraguan Contras was certainly virtuous and a prompting of conscience,
about as pure as, say, a major church's highest officials hiding the
pedophilia rampant among its priesthood.

As an agnostic, I can state without hesitation that whether there is a
god is and shall remain beyond my knowledge. But there is no question
that organized religion is bull****.

On 4/1/2013 10:54 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

As an agnostic, I can state without hesitation that whether there is a
god is and shall remain beyond my knowledge. But there is no question
that organized religion is bull****.
The uncertainty must be killing you.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 03:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 1, 12:44*am, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:









On Mar 31, 8:40*pm, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:50*am, Urin Asshole wrote:

You don't have a clue who said these things do you.

The same guy that said: "If children prayed together, would they not
understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring
them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that
those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be
tolerant at all. "

And this....

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the
conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world
that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a
coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and
cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."

And your point?

The point is that despite the other things said, this is a necessity
as well:

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
remain, separate."

My 'point' was I knew who said it.

Not much of a point, given this is about separation of church and
state and less about who said it.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:35:47 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 4/1/2013 6:55 AM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:44 am, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 19:22:19 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:









On Mar 31, 8:40 pm, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:50 am, Urin Asshole wrote:

You don't have a clue who said these things do you.

The same guy that said: "If children prayed together, would they not
understand what they have in common, and would this not, indeed, bring
them closer, and is this not to be desired? So, I submit to you that
those who claim to be fighting for tolerance on this issue may not be
tolerant at all. "

And this....

"Without God, there is no virtue, because there's no prompting of the
conscience. Without God, we're mired in the material, that flat world
that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a
coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and
cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."

And your point?

The point is that despite the other things said, this is a necessity
as well:

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
remain, separate."

My 'point' was I knew who said it.

#40 was the last of the real ones by every measure that matters.

You're a ****ing idiot.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:51:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:45:26 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:37:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:49:45 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher
consideration."

That is only true when you are talking about the labor of the person
who starts the enterprise. Labor without the infrastructure to charge
for it is called a hobby, volunteering or charity. It might be noble
but it doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't contribute to the economy.

So, you don't know who said it.

Lincoln ... so what

Only the ones who "starts" the enterprise? Bull****.

So why don't you use your line about only the person that starts the
enterprise has valuable labor.

Nice google. You didn't know.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:59:59 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:40 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:51:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:45:26 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:37:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 19:49:45 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher
consideration."

That is only true when you are talking about the labor of the person
who starts the enterprise. Labor without the infrastructure to charge
for it is called a hobby, volunteering or charity. It might be noble
but it doesn't pay the bills and it doesn't contribute to the economy.

So, you don't know who said it.

Lincoln ... so what

Only the ones who "starts" the enterprise? Bull****.

So why don't you use your line about only the person that starts the
enterprise has valuable labor.

Read your quote
The labor prior to and independent of capital is the guy who is
creating the enterprise. Everyone he hires is a result of capital.

So, basically you don't know how to read or analyze.

Nice google. You didn't know.

You didn't either until you stumbled into it.

Huh? It's a quote that I found and copied. Are you insane?

BTW is this the same Lincoln who said

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of
bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the
white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of
making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in
addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white
and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races
living together on terms of social and political equality."

The 4th Lincoln- Douglas debate

Then, he fought a war to free them. Bummer about that huh.

Everything he said is not golden, in fact the man really knew nothing
about business beyond being a store clerk for a few months. He
declared himself a lawyer and went into politics.

Where did I say it was. Of course, that's not true of Reagan, right?
Can't ****ing criticize that ****head.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:42:49 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:16:59 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 13:59:59 -0400, wrote:


BTW is this the same Lincoln who said

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of
bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the
white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of
making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in
addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white
and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races
living together on terms of social and political equality."

The 4th Lincoln- Douglas debate

Then, he fought a war to free them. Bummer about that huh.


The war was supposed to be to preserve the union at least that is what
Lincoln said about it.

There is still plenty of evidence that he remained a racist.

Plenty of evidence in your little mind. **** even Bill Oreally got it
right in his book about Lincoln.

Everything he said is not golden, in fact the man really knew nothing
about business beyond being a store clerk for a few months. He
declared himself a lawyer and went into politics.

Where did I say it was. Of course, that's not true of Reagan, right?
Can't ****ing criticize that ****head.

Have you seen me saying Reagan was infallible?
He was just another big government politician who racked up big
deficits but nothing compared to his successions.

Reagan was a decent guy who didn't know **** about the economy. He cut
and ran in Lebannon, and he traded arms for hostages in Iran. He was a
homophobe and allowed thousands to die, because he couldn't bring
himself to say the word AIDS in public. **** Reagan.

In article ,
says...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher
consideration."

That's all correct. Abraham Lincoln wrote that. I looked it up.
It's obvious, but sometimes you have to say it to knock assholes off of
high horses.
You can start a business with just labor, no capital.
Knock on doors after a snowstorm. "Let me use your shovel, pay me 20
bucks and I'll clear your sidewalks and driveway." Grow from there.
It's your labor that has generated capital.
Sales work is labor. Knock on 100 doors making the same offer, and hire
5 guys to do the labor, keeping a cut for yourself.
It's your labor that has generated capital.
Now ****ing try to do that legally without the labor part.
Even if you're Tom Sawyer and get the homeowner to do the labor, it was
labor that generated that 20 bucks.
All "real" capital starts as labor. There's other capital such as
inherited capital, stolen capital, printing press capital, and
"unearned" capital. But even all that started with labor.
No way around it.



"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
remain, separate."

That's all correct. Peggy Noonan wrote that. I looked it up.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:13:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher
consideration."

That's all correct. Abraham Lincoln wrote that. I looked it up.
It's obvious, but sometimes you have to say it to knock assholes off of
high horses.
You can start a business with just labor, no capital.
Knock on doors after a snowstorm. "Let me use your shovel, pay me 20
bucks and I'll clear your sidewalks and driveway." Grow from there.
It's your labor that has generated capital.
Sales work is labor. Knock on 100 doors making the same offer, and hire
5 guys to do the labor, keeping a cut for yourself.
It's your labor that has generated capital.
Now ****ing try to do that legally without the labor part.
Even if you're Tom Sawyer and get the homeowner to do the labor, it was
labor that generated that 20 bucks.
All "real" capital starts as labor. There's other capital such as
inherited capital, stolen capital, printing press capital, and
"unearned" capital. But even all that started with labor.
No way around it.

Yup, but this doesn't make a dent on the brainless... well, maybe with
the shovel upside the head.


"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we
mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must
remain, separate."

That's all correct. Peggy Noonan wrote that. I looked it up.

That commie.