| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Deadbeats have no right
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 10/4/18 8:31 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/3/18 9:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:37:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/3/18 7:59 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:40:51 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:08:55 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:12:21 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:11:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/2/18 6:34 PM, justan wrote: To determine what happens or doesn't happen on public property. President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found. Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help. But The Times?s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father?s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day. Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents? real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president?s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show. Shame on them for following the law. Gosh, I circumvent paying taxes by contributing to charity. Shame on me for taking the deduction! Harry would say you are establishing religion. I'll admit some goes to religion, but most goes elsewhere. The reality is religious organizations as a rule return more of their contributions to the charity they support than the normal 501(C)(3) that we hear about (Red Cross, United Way etc) Their "directors" are not making 6 figure salaries. Folks like Harry would rather promote egregious greed than admit someone was promoting God And there you go, offering up another example of one the reasons why I don't think it worthwhile to engage in "debate" with you. You have no idea what I would "rather promote." I suspect churches spend more on promoting and paying themselves, their superstitions, their staffs, and their building funds than they do on pure charitable donations. Realistically, they consider themselves their own best charitable donation. We have a surprisingly large number of what might be called "mega-churches" around here, churches with fairly new or brand new huge fortresses of buildings, with large staffs, highly paid ministers, assistants, cars, even airplanes for the ministers. It takes a lot of money to support that sort of largess. It is unclear what real charities...helping the poor, those in need of shelter, medical care, the necessities of life, as it were...these organizations support. One thing most of them do, though, is pay for "missions" to search and bring in converts. Just the other day, I drove past a fundie church whose minister and some of its acolytes who were busy setting up their anti-abortion display to attract attention during the upcoming elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the unwanted children who result from their efforts. And, once again, though you never seem to "get it," I don't care what churches do, so long as they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't try to force in any way their beliefs on others who believe differently or not at all. Nice diversion into your atheism And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal education. I am highly skeptical about the existence of a superior being that goes beyond the imagination and superstition of humans. That makes me agnostic, not an atheist.* I am, however, anti-religious. Religion is based entirely upon superstition and passed-along folk tales. And, once again, though you refuse to believe it...I don't care what religions do in their churches with their crop of believers. I only care when they attempt to push those beliefs onto society, onto those who believe differently, and on those who don't believe at all. * I don't have any problems with atheism. It certainly is more logical than religious beliefs. What's it going to take to make a believer out of you, shmuck? We know that your mind is maleable. Example: That klown kollege and unions have totally disrupted your logical thought process. They turned you into a radical liberal with no common sense or ability to take care of yourself. Thank GOD for Karen, eh Fat Harry? A believer in what, ****-for-brains? And if you are going to use a word, you should learn how to spell it, eh, schmuck? Refer to your dictionary for the proper spellings of shmuck -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
|
#43
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On 10/4/18 8:42 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/4/18 8:21 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over the Trumps' ass. He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (that this article describes) are you? Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater. Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the Trumps' ass." supposed to imply? The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns. The Dems are. It's their next hit attack. Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes. 1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the irony was lost on you, as usual. 2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns, what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually paid in taxes. Let's have the "skinny" on your finances. How well to do are you? We know exactly how Karen is doing but your life of lies is still a mystery except for what we see in public record. The details of which have never even been acknowleged by you. What are you trying to hide from us Fat Harry? My daddy "loaned" me a million dollars when I was young and through family tax schemes, many of which were illegal, I got the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars more from my daddy's real estate success. There's that "my daddy" thing again. How come you rarely speak of your mother? Whatever inheritance you got went down the ****ter. . You are ruled by your ignorance. |
|
#44
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over the Trumps' ass. He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you? Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater. Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the Trumps' ass." supposed to imply? The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are. It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes. 1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the irony was lost on you, as usual. 2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns, what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually paid in taxes. You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns, huh? Wow. |
|
#45
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On 10/4/18 9:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over the Trumps' ass. He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you? Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater. Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the Trumps' ass." supposed to imply? The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are. It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes. 1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the irony was lost on you, as usual. 2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns, what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually paid in taxes. You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns, huh?Â*Â* Wow. Just about every other POTUS and POTUS wannabe has released their tax info. Trump has something big to hide. |
|
#46
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 05:52:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over the Trumps' ass. He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (that this article describes) are you? Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater. Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the Trumps' ass." supposed to imply? The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns. The Dems are. It's their next hit attack. Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes. I am not sure what they hope to find out. If there was actually a problem with his reporting the IRS is very capable of finding and prosecuting fraud. I assuming they are only looking for something there that might be embarrassing or politically incorrect. The article itself seems to be talking about things that happened 50 or 60 years ago. |
|
#47
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:18:25 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/3/18 9:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:37:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/3/18 7:59 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:40:51 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:08:55 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:12:21 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:11:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/2/18 6:34 PM, justan wrote: To determine what happens or doesn't happen on public property. President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found. Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help. But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day. Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show. Shame on them for following the law. Gosh, I circumvent paying taxes by contributing to charity. Shame on me for taking the deduction! Harry would say you are establishing religion. I'll admit some goes to religion, but most goes elsewhere. The reality is religious organizations as a rule return more of their contributions to the charity they support than the normal 501(C)(3) that we hear about (Red Cross, United Way etc) Their "directors" are not making 6 figure salaries. Folks like Harry would rather promote egregious greed than admit someone was promoting God And there you go, offering up another example of one the reasons why I don't think it worthwhile to engage in "debate" with you. You have no idea what I would "rather promote." I suspect churches spend more on promoting and paying themselves, their superstitions, their staffs, and their building funds than they do on pure charitable donations. Realistically, they consider themselves their own best charitable donation. We have a surprisingly large number of what might be called "mega-churches" around here, churches with fairly new or brand new huge fortresses of buildings, with large staffs, highly paid ministers, assistants, cars, even airplanes for the ministers. It takes a lot of money to support that sort of largess. It is unclear what real charities...helping the poor, those in need of shelter, medical care, the necessities of life, as it were...these organizations support. One thing most of them do, though, is pay for "missions" to search and bring in converts. Just the other day, I drove past a fundie church whose minister and some of its acolytes who were busy setting up their anti-abortion display to attract attention during the upcoming elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the unwanted children who result from their efforts. And, once again, though you never seem to "get it," I don't care what churches do, so long as they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't try to force in any way their beliefs on others who believe differently or not at all. Nice diversion into your atheism And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal education. I am highly skeptical about the existence of a superior being that goes beyond the imagination and superstition of humans. That makes me agnostic, not an atheist.* I am, however, anti-religious. Religion is based entirely upon superstition and passed-along folk tales. And, once again, though you refuse to believe it...I don't care what religions do in their churches with their crop of believers. I only care when they attempt to push those beliefs onto society, onto those who believe differently, and on those who don't believe at all. * I don't have any problems with atheism. It certainly is more logical than religious beliefs. Your atheism is as offensive to most people as religion is to you and your cohorts certainly make plenty of public displays on public property about it during your protests. It has become a religion as much as any other. I also reject the idea that you attending some tertiary institution for a few years five decades ago makes you any smarter than me., You have not seemed to learn much since. |
|
#48
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:28:42 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 8:21 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over the Trumps' ass. He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (that this article describes) are you? Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater. Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the Trumps' ass." supposed to imply? The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns. The Dems are. It's their next hit attack. Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes. 1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the irony was lost on you, as usual. 2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns, what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually paid in taxes. Let's have the "skinny" on your finances. How well to do are you? We know exactly how Karen is doing but your life of lies is still a mystery except for what we see in public record. The details of which have never even been acknowleged by you. What are you trying to hide from us Fat Harry? My daddy "loaned" me a million dollars when I was young and through family tax schemes, many of which were illegal, I got the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars more from my daddy's real estate success. So what was it that made you as broke as you are today, gambling or drugs? |
|
#49
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:41:39 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 8:31 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/3/18 9:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:37:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/3/18 7:59 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:40:51 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:08:55 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:12:21 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:11:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/2/18 6:34 PM, justan wrote: To determine what happens or doesn't happen on public property. President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found. Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help. But The Times?s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father?s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day. Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents? real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president?s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show. Shame on them for following the law. Gosh, I circumvent paying taxes by contributing to charity. Shame on me for taking the deduction! Harry would say you are establishing religion. I'll admit some goes to religion, but most goes elsewhere. The reality is religious organizations as a rule return more of their contributions to the charity they support than the normal 501(C)(3) that we hear about (Red Cross, United Way etc) Their "directors" are not making 6 figure salaries. Folks like Harry would rather promote egregious greed than admit someone was promoting God And there you go, offering up another example of one the reasons why I don't think it worthwhile to engage in "debate" with you. You have no idea what I would "rather promote." I suspect churches spend more on promoting and paying themselves, their superstitions, their staffs, and their building funds than they do on pure charitable donations. Realistically, they consider themselves their own best charitable donation. We have a surprisingly large number of what might be called "mega-churches" around here, churches with fairly new or brand new huge fortresses of buildings, with large staffs, highly paid ministers, assistants, cars, even airplanes for the ministers. It takes a lot of money to support that sort of largess. It is unclear what real charities...helping the poor, those in need of shelter, medical care, the necessities of life, as it were...these organizations support. One thing most of them do, though, is pay for "missions" to search and bring in converts. Just the other day, I drove past a fundie church whose minister and some of its acolytes who were busy setting up their anti-abortion display to attract attention during the upcoming elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the unwanted children who result from their efforts. And, once again, though you never seem to "get it," I don't care what churches do, so long as they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't try to force in any way their beliefs on others who believe differently or not at all. Nice diversion into your atheism And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal education. I am highly skeptical about the existence of a superior being that goes beyond the imagination and superstition of humans. That makes me agnostic, not an atheist.* I am, however, anti-religious. Religion is based entirely upon superstition and passed-along folk tales. And, once again, though you refuse to believe it...I don't care what religions do in their churches with their crop of believers. I only care when they attempt to push those beliefs onto society, onto those who believe differently, and on those who don't believe at all. * I don't have any problems with atheism. It certainly is more logical than religious beliefs. What's it going to take to make a believer out of you, shmuck? We know that your mind is maleable. Example: That klown kollege and unions have totally disrupted your logical thought process. They turned you into a radical liberal with no common sense or ability to take care of yourself. Thank GOD for Karen, eh Fat Harry? A believer in what, ****-for-brains? And if you are going to use a word, you should learn how to spell it, eh, schmuck? A lot of people are not as well versed in Yiddish as a self hating Jew like you. |
|
#50
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Deadbeats have no right
wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:41:39 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/4/18 8:31 AM, justan wrote: Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 10/3/18 9:24 PM, wrote: On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:37:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/3/18 7:59 PM, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:40:51 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:08:55 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:12:21 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:11:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 10/2/18 6:34 PM, justan wrote: To determine what happens or doesn't happen on public property. President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York Times has found. Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help. But The Times?s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father?s real estate empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day. Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy to undervalue his parents? real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service, The Times found. The president?s parents, Fred and Mary Trump, transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55 percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances. The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax records show. Shame on them for following the law. Gosh, I circumvent paying taxes by contributing to charity. Shame on me for taking the deduction! Harry would say you are establishing religion. I'll admit some goes to religion, but most goes elsewhere. The reality is religious organizations as a rule return more of their contributions to the charity they support than the normal 501(C)(3) that we hear about (Red Cross, United Way etc) Their "directors" are not making 6 figure salaries. Folks like Harry would rather promote egregious greed than admit someone was promoting God And there you go, offering up another example of one the reasons why I don't think it worthwhile to engage in "debate" with you. You have no idea what I would "rather promote." I suspect churches spend more on promoting and paying themselves, their superstitions, their staffs, and their building funds than they do on pure charitable donations. Realistically, they consider themselves their own best charitable donation. We have a surprisingly large number of what might be called "mega-churches" around here, churches with fairly new or brand new huge fortresses of buildings, with large staffs, highly paid ministers, assistants, cars, even airplanes for the ministers. It takes a lot of money to support that sort of largess. It is unclear what real charities...helping the poor, those in need of shelter, medical care, the necessities of life, as it were...these organizations support. One thing most of them do, though, is pay for "missions" to search and bring in converts. Just the other day, I drove past a fundie church whose minister and some of its acolytes who were busy setting up their anti-abortion display to attract attention during the upcoming elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the unwanted children who result from their efforts. And, once again, though you never seem to "get it," I don't care what churches do, so long as they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't try to force in any way their beliefs on others who believe differently or not at all. Nice diversion into your atheism And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal education. I am highly skeptical about the existence of a superior being that goes beyond the imagination and superstition of humans. That makes me agnostic, not an atheist.* I am, however, anti-religious. Religion is based entirely upon superstition and passed-along folk tales. And, once again, though you refuse to believe it...I don't care what religions do in their churches with their crop of believers. I only care when they attempt to push those beliefs onto society, onto those who believe differently, and on those who don't believe at all. * I don't have any problems with atheism. It certainly is more logical than religious beliefs. What's it going to take to make a believer out of you, shmuck? We know that your mind is maleable. Example: That klown kollege and unions have totally disrupted your logical thought process. They turned you into a radical liberal with no common sense or ability to take care of yourself. Thank GOD for Karen, eh Fat Harry? A believer in what, ****-for-brains? And if you are going to use a word, you should learn how to spell it, eh, schmuck? A lot of people are not as well versed in Yiddish as a self hating Jew like you. There you go again. -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Responsible credit-card users to “subsidize” deadbeats | General | |||
Linear Mode
