Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Do you think those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve
ridicule or should their ministries be granted the same tax-free
status as the Catholic Church.

How about the Church of Anti-Secular Humanism (CASH). Should they be
granted tax free status? I think they worship the dollar.

What's more valid about Christianity than either of these two?

Would you ridicule either sect for their beliefs?

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:07:17 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:17:21 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

......seem to get your jollies attempting to ridicule the
religious beliefs of others.

Two edged sword, dude.....

Yesterday, we had a [my wife's] family outing to the planetarium....

I ended up apologizing to the presenter because those family members
that believe in Jayzus and KNOW that the world is only 6,000 years old
because of the infallible word of Gawd.... ostentatiously giggled
their way through the presentation because of how ignorant and wrong
the presenter was. It seems that the idiot had read scientific
material instead of the Wurd and was educated instead of
indoctrinated.

There's that Ox again...

There are assholes on both sides of the coin.

I hope you used words like 'Jayzus and Gawd' to express your
displeasure and show which side of the coin you were on.

Dude.

Adjust your blinkers, they're obviously covering your eyes completely.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

That damned Clinton
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.
He never threatened the US and he would have been more than happy to
sell us all the oil he could pump at bargain basement prices to build
up his military capability. As long as he was aiming it at Iran we
were happy to let him do it, even selling him technology. As soon as
he started saying he was going after Israel, we went to war with him.
You can't even say we were protecting democracy in kuwait since there
isn't any.
Whether protecting Israel is a good thing or not is worth the debate
but the government will not frame the question that way. It is totally
ignored when we talk about Iraq and, increasingly, Iran.
It is easier to just say this is all about oil.
The fact is we don't even get the majority of our oil from anywhere in
the middle east.

Country May-09 Apr-09 YTD 2009 May-08 YTD 2008

CANADA 1,746 1,854 1,860 1,846 1,923
VENEZUELA 1,228 803 1,025 1,030 994
MEXICO 1,088 1,177 1,174 1,116 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 996 1,021 1,079 1,579 1,528
NIGERIA 552 673 608 851 1,053

Saddam threatened the US big time. If he had got control of Kuwait in the
first war, he would have set up a really bad for us Oil Cartel, and force
the petrodollar to the Euro. But would have caused massive upheavels in
this country. As well as maybe triggered another world war.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:13:02 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Do you think those who worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster deserve
ridicule or should their ministries be granted the same tax-free
status as the Catholic Church.

How about the Church of Anti-Secular Humanism (CASH). Should they be
granted tax free status? I think they worship the dollar.

What's more valid about Christianity than either of these two?

Would you ridicule either sect for their beliefs?

Key word: beliefs.

I wouldn't ridicule anyone for their religious *beliefs*.

That addresses any case you can throw up. Of course, I wouldn't
ridicule you for your beliefs either.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:10:14 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:13:55 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:30:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:06:43 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:04:06 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:53 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:40:29 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:13:36 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

You side-stepped that one.

I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From
what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to
acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower.

What does the ownership of a weapon have to do with the life Jesus
would model? He didn't drive a BMW or buy German screwdrivers either.
Hell, his house probably wasn't even air-conditioned.

Which of the above is Obama? You've commented frequently enough on the
irrationality of religious beliefs. Go for it.

I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to
walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord
and savior.

Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47?

I'm happy that you are proud of following the path of Jesus. Spread
the word. It's not a bad path to follow.

I've no idea where your silly AK 47 question came from. Who would
Jesus kill with a BMW or German screwdrivers?

Screwdrivers are used for screwing screws.

BMWs are used for transportation.

AK47s are used for killing.

Well, I don't think Jesus was into any of them, so why the stupid
question?

It's easy to answer, if you have a brain.

Jesus would use a screwdriver to screw screws.
Jesus would use a BMW for transportation.
Jesus wouldn't use an AK47 for its designed intent.

Is this difficult for you to understand?

You've presented nothing to 'understand'. You asked a stupid question
about Jesus and AK 47s.

And answered. Who'd Jesus kill with an AK 47? It's no different than
asking if he'd pick up a knife to either attack or defend himself
against an aggressor. The answer is no.

You're a silly old man who's as stiff in his head as he is in his
bones.

Filter me. I told you I wasn't good for your serenity and that you'd
soon be calling names.

QED
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

That damned Clinton
 

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:44:01 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:58:11 -0400, NotNow wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:25:36 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Did you know that Bush signed more laws and executive orders
amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history?
FDR changed the country from "united states" to a federal republic
and
changed "promote the general welfare" to "guaranteed welfare" (at
least for those over 65). That was the most significant change in our
history. In fact the
SCOTUS ruled that some of his changes went too far.
Yep, as expected.....it's all the liberals fault.

There is no "fault" involved here, just facts.
Righhhhhhhht.....


The allegation was that Bush changed the meaning of the Constitution
the most, it is simply not true. Most of what Bush did could be
rectified in a stroke of the pen by Obama. If you are right, why
hasn't Obama fixed it all by now. OTOH the FDR programs like SS and LBJ's
Medicare are still here and
getting ready to bankrupt us. Medicare is already upside down. SS will
be in about 6 years.

Barry Goldwater predicted this in 1964 and wanted to put SS on a path
to sustainability then (when the boomers could have done it). He lost
the election, partially over that issue.


No, I said that Bush signed more laws and executive orders to amend the
Constitution than any other president.

Name one admendment to the Constitution that Bush made.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

A one man crusade.

Again, wow!

You're a regular Rosie.

Congratulations.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:33:18 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:10:14 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:13:55 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:30:10 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:06:43 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:04:06 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:53:53 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:40:29 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:14 -0400, Another John
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:13:36 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

I would guess that in your eyes, Obama must be a raging hypocrite, an
irrationale 'believer', or just a good liar.

I'm an admirer of Christians who walk the path. AK47 ownership for
some reason doesn't seem to fit with the life Jesus would model.

I'm also an admirer of Republicans who walk the path. It's about
individual responsibility. There are simply too few of them to make
the vision work.

You side-stepped that one.

I didn't sidestep anything. I don't see Obama as a hypocrite. From
what I can tell, he takes his faith seriously and is much closer to
acting like a true Christian than any president since Eisenhower.

What does the ownership of a weapon have to do with the life Jesus
would model? He didn't drive a BMW or buy German screwdrivers either.
Hell, his house probably wasn't even air-conditioned.

Which of the above is Obama? You've commented frequently enough on the
irrationality of religious beliefs. Go for it.

I don't claim to be a follower of Jesus but I'm a lot closer to
walking his path than most of the idiots who claim him as their lord
and savior.

Who would Jesus kill with an AK 47?

I'm happy that you are proud of following the path of Jesus. Spread
the word. It's not a bad path to follow.

I've no idea where your silly AK 47 question came from. Who would
Jesus kill with a BMW or German screwdrivers?

Screwdrivers are used for screwing screws.

BMWs are used for transportation.

AK47s are used for killing.

Well, I don't think Jesus was into any of them, so why the stupid
question?

It's easy to answer, if you have a brain.

Jesus would use a screwdriver to screw screws.
Jesus would use a BMW for transportation.
Jesus wouldn't use an AK47 for its designed intent.

Is this difficult for you to understand?

You've presented nothing to 'understand'. You asked a stupid question
about Jesus and AK 47s.

And answered. Who'd Jesus kill with an AK 47? It's no different than
asking if he'd pick up a knife to either attack or defend himself
against an aggressor. The answer is no.

You're a silly old man who's as stiff in his head as he is in his
bones.

Filter me. I told you I wasn't good for your serenity and that you'd
soon be calling names.

QED

Good luck breaking 100. Maybe a ladies executive course?

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 19:35:12 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:15:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:37:35 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:44:23 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:20:34 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.

Excuse me for objecting but I think that's hooey.

Bush didn't engage with Israel (or than to maintain status quo) until
his fourth or fifth year in office.

Cheney was after the oil and Bush was after retribution for Saddam
threatening his daddy. He was going to finish what his daddy couldn't
(because his daddy knew it was going to result in a Bagdhad
bloodbath).

It was also a Christian crusade, as is now being revealed. Fits right
into Bush's little brain and it's why Rumsfeld put bible quotes on his
daily briefings to Bush.

Chalk it up to Jesus for Bush, oil for Cheney. They were doing no
favors for Israel, since everyone knew Iran was the much bigger
problem.

A 'Christian crusade'? Wow!

Were these the same Christians who planned 9/11and planted the charges
in the buildings? You and Rosie go well together!

Look up the latest Blackwater news. Eric Prince's mission was to kill
Muslims. He's a conservative Christian from a conservative Christian
family that believes we're in a war of religions.

That's the very definition of Crusade. But what would you know?

A one man crusade.

Again, wow!

You're a regular Rosie.

Congratulations.

I expect that Eric Prince and the Federal Government would be
surprised he was running a one man crusade.

We've paid him and his firm billions of dollars to conduct a religious
crusade in the name of our country.

Maybe you'll open your eyes some day but I doubt it.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:31:08 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:17 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

That was funny the first time you said it. It's even funnier now.

Where's the oil?

Don't you know that they (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) ****ed
the whole thing up?

They didn't have a plan other than to destabelize the country and
attempt to be the country's resource broker. They had long term
objectives but didn't have a plan. They were stupid.


We took out Saddam so Israel wouldn't have to.
He never threatened the US and he would have been more than happy to
sell us all the oil he could pump at bargain basement prices to build
up his military capability. As long as he was aiming it at Iran we
were happy to let him do it, even selling him technology. As soon as
he started saying he was going after Israel, we went to war with him.
You can't even say we were protecting democracy in kuwait since there
isn't any.
Whether protecting Israel is a good thing or not is worth the debate
but the government will not frame the question that way. It is totally
ignored when we talk about Iraq and, increasingly, Iran.
It is easier to just say this is all about oil.
The fact is we don't even get the majority of our oil from anywhere in
the middle east.

Country May-09 Apr-09 YTD 2009 May-08 YTD 2008

CANADA 1,746 1,854 1,860 1,846 1,923
VENEZUELA 1,228 803 1,025 1,030 994
MEXICO 1,088 1,177 1,174 1,116 1,210
SAUDI ARABIA 996 1,021 1,079 1,579 1,528
NIGERIA 552 673 608 851 1,053

Saddam threatened the US big time. If he had got control of Kuwait in the
first war, he would have set up a really bad for us Oil Cartel, and force
the petrodollar to the Euro. But would have caused massive upheavels in
this country. As well as maybe triggered another world war.

He thought he had our blessing. We were allies before his invasion of
Kuwait.

Do I need to direct you to the long history of our mutual business?

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:10:02 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:46:09 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:00:36 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:41:21 -0700, jps wrote:

As for JPs allegation that Bush ignored Israel, why does he think we
are in Iraq in the first place?

Oil.

If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now

We don't have any good excuse to invade Venezuela. Our history is to
undermine power in South America, we don't invade other than Grenada.

Aren't you the people who say we didn't have an excuse to invade Iraq
either? (something I agree with BTW)

Yes, but they ginned one up anyway from the scraps they had.

What scraps do we have on Venezuela other than a mouthy president?

That damned Clinton
 

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:56:41 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:25:36 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Did you know that Bush signed more laws and executive orders amending
the Constitution than any president in U.S. history?

FDR changed the country from "united states" to a federal republic and
changed "promote the general welfare" to "guaranteed welfare" (at
least for those over 65).
That was the most significant change in our history. In fact the
SCOTUS ruled that some of his changes went too far.

What's this "guaranteed welfare" stuff?. Plenty of old folks don't
even have SS. Not sure about Medicare.
You can look up the Constitution on Wiki.
Here's the last amendment.
"Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified
5/7/1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened."

Nothing in the Constitution about SS and Medicare.
That's legislation, and can be easily repealed.
You should vote for candidates who would repeal those if that's how
you feel.
Good luck.

--Vic

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:03:47 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:46:35 -0700, jps wrote:

If this was just about oil we would have invaded Venezuela by now

We don't have any good excuse to invade Venezuela. Our history is to
undermine power in South America, we don't invade other than Grenada.

Aren't you the people who say we didn't have an excuse to invade Iraq
either? (something I agree with BTW)

Yes, but they ginned one up anyway from the scraps they had.

What scraps do we have on Venezuela other than a mouthy president?

After the last 50 years I wonder, do we really need a valid excuse to
start a war.We have a long rich history of starting wars over lies.
I could probably include every war WE started in that.
(The Mexican war, Spanish American war, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq or
Afghanistan)
We just create a villain, create a provocation out of a minor incident
that may not have even happened, demonize the enemy in the press and
then go get him.

It may have something to do with how many ex-pats we have living here.
There's a pretty big Venezuelan population in the states. Can't
afford to alienate the Venezuelan ballplayers in MLB.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:01:20 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Can you ridicule someone's beliefs by quoting them? I know I've been
accused of heresy for repeating, verbatim, what they said. Then,
accused of "twisting their words." (They didn't even like what they
said!)

Funny, what appears in a mirror! Huh?

If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...

And if you live in FL and seek salvation, I've got a minister headed
your way.......

When you are quoting them, is it your intention to ridicule them? If
so, then the answer to your question is 'yes'.

I don't want more. I have no desire to participate in the ridicule of
others based on their religious *beliefs*.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:11:27 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:07:17 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:17:21 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

......seem to get your jollies attempting to ridicule the
religious beliefs of others.

Two edged sword, dude.....

Yesterday, we had a [my wife's] family outing to the planetarium....

I ended up apologizing to the presenter because those family members
that believe in Jayzus and KNOW that the world is only 6,000 years old
because of the infallible word of Gawd.... ostentatiously giggled
their way through the presentation because of how ignorant and wrong
the presenter was. It seems that the idiot had read scientific
material instead of the Wurd and was educated instead of
indoctrinated.

There's that Ox again...

There are assholes on both sides of the coin.

I hope you used words like 'Jayzus and Gawd' to express your
displeasure and show which side of the coin you were on.

Dude.

I did and I make no apologies. It expresses a regional dialect and
attitude. You folks are, apparently, too far from this to understand.

If you believe in Gawd and feel that it is your duty to the Lawrd...
should you and your children handle snakes and drink poison to prove
your luv and commitment to the Lawrd? You should or you just don't
*REALLY* believe.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUdc5h10zTo

And if you have to resort to ridicule to get your jollies, go for it.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

That damned Clinton
 

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:23:14 -0400, wrote:



The point with the FDR programs is that they expanded the scope of the
federal government far beyond anything authorized in the constitution.
They were not "promoting the general welfare" they were mandating it
in a federal program.

Personally, I think keeping old folks from living in gutters "promotes
the general welfare." Social programs are legislation, not a change
to the Constitution.
Besides, income taxes and the space program weren't in the
Constitution either. It was, after all, written late in the 1700's.
Horse and buggy, water from an oaken bucket, etc.
Constitution works just fine most the time, if the pols are kept in
check. Worst thing to fear is Imperial Presidency executive powers.
There oughta be a law.

If you want another unconstitutional power grab look at the Nixon
55MPH speed limit. That is treading on the 9th and 10th amendment. The
other things were all of the federal drug laws that came about in his
administration. Prior to that, drug laws imposed taxes ... that you
couldn't really pay.
It is similar to the way they regulate machine guns.. That is a tax
too, not a ban. They tell you if they will let you buy that $200
stamp.

All that might have bothered Jim Bridger, Kit Carson and Daniel Boone.
Nowadays they would hire lobbyists to shape the law to their liking.
The Framers did a bang-up job on the Constitution, and didn't discuss
55 mph limits, or where a horse was allowed to crap.
Good for them. Their masterpiece has stood the test of time.

--Vic

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

Gene wrote:

If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...

It sounds like you have issues with YOUR parents. The fact that your
parents abused you, in your eyes, is no reason to assume that all
parents abused their children.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:35:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...
It sounds like you have issues with YOUR parents. The fact that your
parents abused you, in your eyes, is no reason to assume that all
parents abused their children.

I know some of you are challenged with following the facts, so....
please re-read for content. None of these fruities are my blood
kin..... nor did I ever say or imply so.....

You want to raise my children? Be careful what you ask for because you
are going to be facing some hefty college tuition bills soon. The older
one has eyes on a couple of ivy league schools.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:22:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:35:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...
It sounds like you have issues with YOUR parents. The fact that your
parents abused you, in your eyes, is no reason to assume that all
parents abused their children.
I know some of you are challenged with following the facts, so....
please re-read for content. None of these fruities are my blood
kin..... nor did I ever say or imply so.....
You want to raise my children? Be careful what you ask for because you
are going to be facing some hefty college tuition bills soon. The older
one has eyes on a couple of ivy league schools.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I'm quite sure it isn't
labeled. When you sober up and can carry on a coherent conversation,
let me know.....

I thought you were in favor of the village raising the child? If the
village is going to raise the child then the village should want to kick
in for the full cost of raising the child.

Do you want the government or your neighbors telling you how to live,
how to raise your children, where to work, what to drive, what to wear
and what to think? You just can't let people live their own lives can you.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 15:51:25 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

I trust my Church, but I pretty much hate the people that go there...

Well...... Uh.......... OK...........

What is so difficult? I subscribe to most of the teachings of my church
to some extent, but I really hate the people who attend. So I don't deal
with them.

Hey, I hate the French too, especially Parisians, and I am half
French...

--
Wafa free since 2009

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:09:24 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:58:09 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:31:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

.....unless you married into one of those "fundie" families....

When I married my wife, these folks weren't fundies, they were
reasonably normal (as far as in-laws can be, anyway).

They found Gawd, and changed everything about their lives, turning
their back on education (some holding advanced degrees) and assuming
radical religious and political positions. They travel in packs of
like thinking "believers" and will tolerate other folks only so far as
their potential to conversion to the "right" side. How do you respond
to things such as, "even the Jews are seeing the light and coming over
to *our* side"?

You don't. You accept that there are fools in the world. Again,
ridicule of someone's religious beliefs just puts a asshole on both
sides of the coin.

Can you ridicule someone's beliefs by quoting them? I know I've been
accused of heresy for repeating, verbatim, what they said. Then,
accused of "twisting their words." (They didn't even like what they
said!)

Funny, what appears in a mirror! Huh?

If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...

And if you live in FL and seek salvation, I've got a minister headed
your way.......

Sounds like you need to remind these ass clowns that the lord gave us
Free Agency... And as soon as they start telling you how the Lord is
going to judge you and for what, they should be dismissed...

--
Wafa free since 2009

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:07:17 -0400, John Leo
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:17:21 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:21:47 -0400, Little John
wrote:

......seem to get your jollies attempting to ridicule the
religious beliefs of others.

Two edged sword, dude.....

Yesterday, we had a [my wife's] family outing to the planetarium....

I ended up apologizing to the presenter because those family members
that believe in Jayzus and KNOW that the world is only 6,000 years old
because of the infallible word of Gawd.... ostentatiously giggled
their way through the presentation because of how ignorant and wrong
the presenter was. It seems that the idiot had read scientific
material instead of the Wurd and was educated instead of
indoctrinated.

There's that Ox again...

There are assholes on both sides of the coin.

I hope you used words like 'Jayzus and Gawd' to express your
displeasure and show which side of the coin you were on.

Dude.

I did and I make no apologies. It expresses a regional dialect and
attitude. You folks are, apparently, too far from this to understand.

If you believe in Gawd and feel that it is your duty to the Lawrd...
should you and your children handle snakes and drink poison to prove
your luv and commitment to the Lawrd? You should or you just don't
*REALLY* believe.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUdc5h10zTo

You really need to stop reading this ****...

--
Wafa free since 2009

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:49:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:22:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:35:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...
It sounds like you have issues with YOUR parents. The fact that your
parents abused you, in your eyes, is no reason to assume that all
parents abused their children.
I know some of you are challenged with following the facts, so....
please re-read for content. None of these fruities are my blood
kin..... nor did I ever say or imply so.....
You want to raise my children? Be careful what you ask for because you
are going to be facing some hefty college tuition bills soon. The older
one has eyes on a couple of ivy league schools.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I'm quite sure it isn't
labeled. When you sober up and can carry on a coherent conversation,
let me know.....

I thought you were in favor of the village raising the child? If the
village is going to raise the child then the village should want to kick
in for the full cost of raising the child.

Do you want the government or your neighbors telling you how to live,
how to raise your children, where to work, what to drive, what to wear
and what to think? You just can't let people live their own lives can you.

It takes a village doesn't refer to someone else taking responsibility
for your children. It says that other people look out for your kids
too. If you're indeed a parent, you know that friends and family can
help reinforce good behavior and goals when perhaps your voice isn't
heard as well.

Republicans like to use it to refer to the welfare state and mommy
government. Co-opting language is an old Republican trick.

Yo jps - religious ridicule
 

jps wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:49:21 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 17:22:37 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:35:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
If you want more, I got some really choice... believe this or go to
hell stuff over supper...
It sounds like you have issues with YOUR parents. The fact that your
parents abused you, in your eyes, is no reason to assume that all
parents abused their children.
I know some of you are challenged with following the facts, so....
please re-read for content. None of these fruities are my blood
kin..... nor did I ever say or imply so.....
You want to raise my children? Be careful what you ask for because you
are going to be facing some hefty college tuition bills soon. The older
one has eyes on a couple of ivy league schools.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I'm quite sure it isn't
labeled. When you sober up and can carry on a coherent conversation,
let me know.....
I thought you were in favor of the village raising the child? If the
village is going to raise the child then the village should want to kick
in for the full cost of raising the child.

Do you want the government or your neighbors telling you how to live,
how to raise your children, where to work, what to drive, what to wear
and what to think? You just can't let people live their own lives can you.

It takes a village doesn't refer to someone else taking responsibility
for your children. It says that other people look out for your kids
too. If you're indeed a parent, you know that friends and family can
help reinforce good behavior and goals when perhaps your voice isn't
heard as well.

Republicans like to use it to refer to the welfare state and mommy
government. Co-opting language is an old Republican trick.

Even funnier, BAR "thinks" no one is telling him what to think.