|
Real Class Warfare
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. -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But we have big huge government we can't afford... -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
Real Class Warfare
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... I really like Jerry Perry and his daughters video. If you hunt around on the channel, you'll find several of them by Jerry and his daughters. The first time they performed they did a Creedence song ... the audience gasped when they started harmonizing. |
Real Class Warfare
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:46:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:56:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message news:evydnTWeiYJeGQDTnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earthlink. com... On 10/18/11 9:40 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message eb.com... On 10/18/2011 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote: There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's pockets. You've found your NG rhythm. -------------------------------------------------- I guess. Guitar sales are slow. All your customers are down at Wall Street! :) ================================== Maybe. One thing this experience has taught me. There are many, many talented musicians in this world. Most are broke. ====================== I wonder if you might have an opportunity there as a part time talent scout/impressario? How about a weekly or monthly event at the store where you give people 10 minutes each to strut their best stuff? -------------------------------------------- We pretty much do that already. Every Thursday night we host an Open Mic from 6pm to 10:30 or so. Some performers are very, very good. Some should never quit their day jobs. But, it's all for fun. We also have hosted some mini-concerts for performers who are trying to take a serious step towards major recording contracts, etc. One young lady has just about made it. Another is doing a concert November 19th. I don't charge people for this. I actually enjoy having them perform and I get a kick out of recording them live and running the sound system to try and make them sound as good as possible. I get help from others in the industry also who really have a passion for this this stuff. I enjoy it, but I really am not a very good musician so, I stick to the amps, mixers, PA systems, etc. I occasionally sit in with a band either strumming a guitar or trying to play the Hammond to add a little effect. If you go to the shop's website and click on the "YouTube" logo, it will take you to the shop's YouTube channel. There you can view over 140 videos of various people performing on the shop stage, most from Open Mic nights, but some from mini-concerts. The video and audio varies from so-so to halfway decent, depending on what equipment I was using at the time and when it was done. The shop website URL is: www.re-tunes.net =================== Thanks for the link. Sounds like you are having fun with it. Next time we're up that way I'll try and stop by. |
Real Class Warfare
|
Real Class Warfare
On 10/18/2011 3:06 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:49:01 -0700, wrote: 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. CNN is corporate news. They're anything but in the middle. PBS and BBC are closer to real news. That simply reflects your views. I bet you think Rachel is fair and balanced too. He thinks Jon Stewart is "news"... |
Real Class Warfare
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"... |
Real Class Warfare
X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 9:36 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/18/2011 9:35 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 9:31 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/18/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 9:13 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/18/2011 8:47 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote: 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. I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every year, and in every course, safety is stressed. If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage. The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home burglars are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to pawn for cash. I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time burglar in NE Florida. ahhhh haaaa, is that the one who stood directly in the middle of the garage, against the wall, so you could sneak up on him with your Toyota Tundra and pin him perfectly against the wall till the cops got there? LOL, harry, nobody believes you, good Harrytale though... No, **** for brains, I pinned him between the bumper of his car, which was in my garage, and my *FORD* truck's bumper. It's too bad you don't ever get anything right. Yeah, uh.. What was the date on that, I bet the police report is a spectacular read? Was this before or after your father crossed the Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome, or did you wait till you graduated from Yale? snerk D'oh. The crossing was not in a "small skiff," **** for brains. Harry, you can't even keep up with your own lies. What was the date of that Fireboat Welcome, because somebody seems to have forgotten to note it anywhere? LOL! HarryTales...!!! It was pre-internet, **** for brains. I doubt it is "noted" anywhere. Why would it be? So was this... http://wechoosethemoon.org/ -HB(Scraps!) |
Real Class Warfare
On Oct 18, 8:56*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"X ` Man" *wrote in messagenews:evydnTWeiYJeGQDTnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@earth link.com... On 10/18/11 9:40 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Drifter" wrote in message web.com... On 10/18/2011 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote: There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's pockets. You've found your NG rhythm. -------------------------------------------------- I guess. Guitar sales are slow. All your customers are down at Wall Street! *:) ================================== Maybe. *One thing this experience has taught me. *There are many, many talented musicians in this world. Most are broke. You got that right! |
Real Class Warfare
|
Real Class Warfare
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. |
Real Class Warfare
In article om,
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. |
Real Class Warfare
In article ,
says... On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:31:01 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:45:32 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: In article , 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. |
Real Class Warfare
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. |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 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. Absolutely correct. |
Real Class Warfare
|
Real Class Warfare
In article ,
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? |
Real Class Warfare
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. My previous "smart" phone, an HTC Incredible that uses the Android OS, was nearing the end of its two year contract. I paid $199 for it and sold it over the weekend on a cell phone message board for about 75% of what I paid for it. It held its value because it is now an off-contract phone and you don't need a new contract to reinitialize it. I also had a $50 gift card from Apple. So, between the bucks I got for selling the old phone and the gift card, the new iPhone cost me only what I had to pay in sales tax. There's a lot to like about the new iPhones, but, as with all of these devices, there's quite a list of annoyances. The virtual keyboard is bigger and better on the iPhone than it was on the HTC, and the usenet app is somewhat better, too, though it is complicated. Such is life. |
Real Class Warfare
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... |
Real Class Warfare
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.... |
Real Class Warfare
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 |
Real Class Warfare
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.... |
Real Class Warfare
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. |
Real Class Warfare
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. |
Real Class Warfare
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... |
Real Class Warfare
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"? |
Real Class Warfare
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. |
Real Class Warfare
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... |
Real Class Warfare
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? |
Real Class Warfare
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... |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, says... On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote: In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her. Now that is serious class warfare. Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French" treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would provide quicker results. Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this line was interesting: "The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They still do. Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone... In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased, and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available to them, turnabout was seen as fair play. Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions. Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to murder you? Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*. The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified. Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder. The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it. It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such alternative when dealing with a home invader. You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting. Think about that, big boy. When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming for center mass you are in idiot. Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead instead of just having a broken rib... We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little **** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a non-violent mental disorder. Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your cowardly ways, I get it... It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness. |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/2011 10:27 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, says... On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote: In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her. Now that is serious class warfare. Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French" treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would provide quicker results. Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this line was interesting: "The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They still do. Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone... In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased, and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available to them, turnabout was seen as fair play. Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions. Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to murder you? Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*. The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified. Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder. The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it. It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such alternative when dealing with a home invader. You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting. Think about that, big boy. When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming for center mass you are in idiot. Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead instead of just having a broken rib... We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little **** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a non-violent mental disorder. Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your cowardly ways, I get it... It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness. Ha, ha.. More delusions of grandure.. It was dark, I was woken up by my door coming down, three feet from my head as I napped on the couch... And "the lady of your house" is probably as phony as your Yale degree... |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote: Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or may not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a study done about this some years ago. So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the core bull**** scheme. I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own money. In the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government, 10000% more effective too. And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the choice to the people. Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to feed their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they make better decisions than a corrupt government any day. Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do with it what is "needed" to be done. Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is what do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people alive and well, that helps the poor and the helpless. Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one religion to another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice. That's a donation, but it isn't charity. But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though you said you did right here... un, before Google;) snerk Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians into Atheists"? Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I waste my time? Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know. Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your nose...again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 10:29 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:27 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, says... On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote: In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her. Now that is serious class warfare. Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French" treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would provide quicker results. Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this line was interesting: "The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They still do. Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone... In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased, and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available to them, turnabout was seen as fair play. Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions. Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to murder you? Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*. The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified. Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder. The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it. It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such alternative when dealing with a home invader. You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting. Think about that, big boy. When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming for center mass you are in idiot. Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead instead of just having a broken rib... We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little **** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a non-violent mental disorder. Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your cowardly ways, I get it... It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness. Ha, ha.. More delusions of grandure.. It was dark, I was woken up by my door coming down, three feet from my head as I napped on the couch... And "the lady of your house" is probably as phony as your Yale degree... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 10:26 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:22 AM, Danny wrote: On 10/19/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote: Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now. Made non-union in China too. Unfortunately, most so-called "smart" phones, and most cell phones, are now assembled in the PRC, and many are manufactured there, too, even Nokias. In the last couple of years, nearly all cell phone assembly has been "outsourced" to the PRC. My rule against buying merchandise from the PRC is, "can I find a similar or better product manufactured elsewhere?" Since most "smart" phones are coming out of the PRC, the answer, sadly, is no. More hypocritical excuses. If you actually had a real conviction, you'd not use a cell phone. Your "rule" is very self accommodating. That is the progressive way, especially here in this group... "Danny" must be one of your brothers, because he's obviously as dumb as you are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE Who knew Jason Bourne could sing? |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote: Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or may not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a study done about this some years ago. So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the core bull**** scheme. I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own money. In the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government, 10000% more effective too. And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the choice to the people. Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to feed their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they make better decisions than a corrupt government any day. Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do with it what is "needed" to be done. Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is what do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people alive and well, that helps the poor and the helpless. Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one religion to another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice. That's a donation, but it isn't charity. But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though you said you did right here... un, before Google;) snerk Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians into Atheists"? Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I waste my time? Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know. Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your nose...again. But how can we believe you, you are a proven habitual liar here? What do you care, do you have something to add to the conversation or are you just trolling again Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America? Do you sit there all day long just waiting for someone you hate to post so you can make a one line comment or insult them? Wow, great life you have there... Does Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, know you have spent the last ten years here insulting and trolling the group as HtheK, HKrause, HarryK, Paul, x-man, sometimes posting as many as 100 one line, insult/troll posts in one 24 hour period? Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, you seem a lowlife parasite who spends his days and nights sharing your hate and misery here an all over then net. Anybody who has five minutes to look back at your posts over the last ten years will see that. I feel sorry for you, get out of the house man, step away from the keyboard... Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/2011 10:38 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/19/11 10:26 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:22 AM, Danny wrote: On 10/19/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote: Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now. Made non-union in China too. Unfortunately, most so-called "smart" phones, and most cell phones, are now assembled in the PRC, and many are manufactured there, too, even Nokias. In the last couple of years, nearly all cell phone assembly has been "outsourced" to the PRC. My rule against buying merchandise from the PRC is, "can I find a similar or better product manufactured elsewhere?" Since most "smart" phones are coming out of the PRC, the answer, sadly, is no. More hypocritical excuses. If you actually had a real conviction, you'd not use a cell phone. Your "rule" is very self accommodating. That is the progressive way, especially here in this group... "Danny" must be one of your brothers, because he's obviously as dumb as you are. What do you care, do you have something to add to the conversation or are you just trolling again Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America? Do you sit there all day long just waiting for someone you hate to post so you can make a one line comment or insult them? Wow, great life you have there... Does Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, know you have spent the last ten years here insulting and trolling the group as HtheK, HKrause, HarryK, Paul, x-man, sometimes posting as many as 100 one line, insult/troll posts in one 24 hour period? Mr. Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America, you seem a lowlife parasite who spends his days and nights sharing your hate and misery here an all over then net. Anybody who has five minutes to look back at your posts over the last ten years will see that. I feel sorry for you, get out of the house man, step away from the keyboard... Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America Dr. Karen Grear of Catholic University of America |
Real Class Warfare
In article ,
says... On 10/19/2011 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 10/18/2011 4:36 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/10/2011 5:56 PM, BAR wrote: In article1918022003340576426.748786evil- , says... wrote: On 10/17/2011 4:09 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 17/10/2011 4:30 AM, X ` Man wrote: In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her. Now that is serious class warfare. Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French" treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would provide quicker results. They already pay a higher tax rate. You should have worked harder and saved more and you would understand. Smart rich are leaving the USA, let the fleabaggers have nothing. Nice thing about todays money they didn't have in 1358 is it can be moved in seconds. Fact is these fleabaggers are lead by theory own envy and greed. In the end thy will loose. He'd leave except for one thing. His little darlin has a pretty decent job at union headquarters. He won't admit it but that's what lured him away from Florida. Can you imagine? Your imagination is leading you astray Crap, he's posting from his iPhone now. Made non-union in China too. well, he is a fleabagger, the party of Al (22x) Gore... Fleabaggers think "everyone else needs sacrifice, so they don't have to"... Who is attributed to that quote? Each and every progressive here.... Really? Every "progressive" has said that? That's pure bull****, you made it up and you know it. That's a Harry tactic. |
Real Class Warfare
On 10/19/11 10:51 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/19/2011 10:34 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:25 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:17 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:06 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:04 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 7:57 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 18/10/2011 7:23 AM, X ` Man wrote: Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or may not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a study done about this some years ago. So? Better than government ****ing it away on some corrupt to the core bull**** scheme. I have no trouble in letting the people decide with their own money. In the end they are usually 10000% more efficient than government, 10000% more effective too. And I am not particularly religious, but I respect leaving the choice to the people. Just fleabaggers want to use government and debt-tax slavery to feed their incompetence and delinquency. Leave people the choice, they make better decisions than a corrupt government any day. Harry's view is the Democrat/liberal view in that if the people are given the choice of what to do with their money they won't do with it what is "needed" to be done. Not at all, BertBrain. I was discussing charity. To me, charity is what do with your time or money to help people in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, et cetera, the human needs that keep people alive and well, that helps the poor and the helpless. Giving to an organization so it can convert people from one religion to another is not charity, in my mind...it is propagandizing. It also is not charity to give to a church so it can build a shiny new edifice. That's a donation, but it isn't charity. But you are fine in giving it to organizations that turn Christians to Atheists is just fine with you... Harry, you are a fraud, how is that Yale degree doing for you. Oh wait, you didn't go to Yale, even though you said you did right here... un, before Google;) snerk Just what organizations do you think I support that "turns Christians into Atheists"? Do you really expect me to answer a phony liar like you. Why would I waste my time? Translation: Once again, Scotty doesn't know. Here's a hint: there is no organization I support that turns Christians into atheists. You're just blowing made-up bull**** out your nose...again. But how can we believe you, you are a proven habitual liar here? You know, I'm not aware of an organization dedicated to converting Christians into atheists. You don't either. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE |
Real Class Warfare
In article ,
says... On 10/19/11 10:16 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 10:15 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/19/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/19/2011 8:05 AM, BAR wrote: In raweb.com, says... On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote: On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote: On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote: In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants attacked and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and roasted him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the serfs raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they killed her. Now that is serious class warfare. Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French" treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs would provide quicker results. Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought this line was interesting: "The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass. It is speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the cause of their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the world of nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs bent on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles. They still do. Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone... In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it pleased, and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available to them, turnabout was seen as fair play. Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions. Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to murder you? Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*. The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified. Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder. The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it. It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such alternative when dealing with a home invader. You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting. Think about that, big boy. When you point a gun at someone, like an intruder in your home, your intention is to kill them not to interview them. If you are not aiming for center mass you are in idiot. Had a young guy walk into my house a few years back, at 1:30 in the morning.. I used a baseball bat to remove him, not a gun. Turns out he was a escaped patient from a home down the street, and didn't know where he was... If Harry had had the same, a innocent person would be dead instead of just having a broken rib... We're smart enough down here to tell the difference between a little **** intent on violence (like you) and someone suffering from a non-violent mental disorder. Bull****, when someone breaks down your door at 1:30 am, you don't take time to check their intent.. but of course you have to defend your cowardly ways, I get it... It's fairly easy to tell a non-violent, unarmed, confused mental patient from a hot-tempered, sawed-off little **** like you, Snotty. Even easier when the lady of the house is a psychotherapist who did a year-old internship at one of Florida's huge forensic mental hospitals, has worked at several psych facilities, has been a licensed, practicing psychotherapist for more than 15 years, and has been recognized by courts in this area and several distant states as an expert witness. Oh, so Dr. Fourchin is going to do a patient intake exam before you decide to shoot or not? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com