On 3/14/2013 7:31 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring

wrote:

I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He
probably
equates abortions with the killing
of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with
cutting
down a weed in your yard.

You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it.

===

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the
world.

Think about that.

There is always birth control and the morning after pill.


Salmonbait

There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on
the
right that would ban those things also.



There are several listings of drug stores whose religious
proprietors
won't sell the morning after pill.

When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs
(with a
work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week
working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a
small,
family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda
fountain
jerk.

Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor,
too,
mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable
variety.
The
booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that
selling
the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. That didn't
bother
me at
all.

I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought
was a
hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about
selling
birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that.
Anyway,
that's my memory.

I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of
prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one
afternoon
I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a
quart of
ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door
and I
looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who
recently
had acquired a lady friend.

We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor
as it
was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I
guess
everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close
down
and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood.

Life was simpler back in the day.


You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a
store
doesn't carry something I need,
I go to another store.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!


Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless,
and
public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store
around
is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L.

It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or
take
the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done.
Now we
have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms
anywhere.


Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are
plenty of
places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail
stores.

At least mine life experience isn't made up...


Why would you need condoms?

What the hell kind of question is that perv?



Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife
likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the
canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason
for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with
condoms...can you guess what it is?

So, why would you need condoms?



Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your
question...

There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here.

Well, is she or isn't she?

He brings up my family all the time...

On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote:

bull**** snipped

My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still
not as

selfish as the wingers in rec.boats.

Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the
left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right
and everyone in between.

Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your
prostate
is fine.

These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at
business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't
been as
lucky.

The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you.

Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than
conservatives?


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their
churches,
but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor.

Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer?
What about conservatives who
aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'.
In fact, I don't believe I know
one in that category.

But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals,
in general, are more charitable
than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent
allegation made by jps.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for
edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity
supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care,
clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian
charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the
poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down.

Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central
and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable
giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians.
It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't
be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction.

And the question remains unanswered.

Never mind.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!


No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate
charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the
homeless.



Then you truly are uninformed...

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:22:42 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/14/2013 8:24 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

====

Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few
instances of rape and incest.

How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who
falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the
Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of
civilization.


Or let her walk into a planned parenthood office.. Might be a bit more
realistic than your loogieism above...

===

The religious right is doing everything they can to put planned
parenthood out of business.

On 3/14/13 9:23 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 7:31 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring

wrote:

I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He
probably
equates abortions with the killing
of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with
cutting
down a weed in your yard.

You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it.

===

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the
world.

Think about that.

There is always birth control and the morning after pill.


Salmonbait

There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on
the
right that would ban those things also.



There are several listings of drug stores whose religious
proprietors
won't sell the morning after pill.

When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs
(with a
work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a
week
working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a
small,
family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda
fountain
jerk.

Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor,
too,
mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable
variety.
The
booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that
selling
the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. That didn't
bother
me at
all.

I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I
thought
was a
hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about
selling
birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that.
Anyway,
that's my memory.

I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of
prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one
afternoon
I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a
quart of
ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door
and I
looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who
recently
had acquired a lady friend.

We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor
as it
was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I
guess
everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just
close
down
and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood.

Life was simpler back in the day.


You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a
store
doesn't carry something I need,
I go to another store.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!


Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless,
and
public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store
around
is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L.

It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or
take
the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done.
Now we
have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms
anywhere.


Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are
plenty of
places where there is no public transportation or a variety of
retail
stores.

At least mine life experience isn't made up...


Why would you need condoms?

What the hell kind of question is that perv?



Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife
likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the
canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason
for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with
condoms...can you guess what it is?

So, why would you need condoms?



Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your
question...

There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here.

Well, is she or isn't she?

He brings up my family all the time...


You really are an ignorant, classless little putz. You said you used
condoms. All I did was ask why, at your age, you were using them, since
most couples your ages are beyond their fertile years.

My guess was that *you* have some sort of Sexually Transmitted Disease,
and your wife is smart enough to make you use a condom so she doesn't
get it, too.

On 3/14/13 9:25 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote:

bull**** snipped

My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still
not as

selfish as the wingers in rec.boats.

Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the
left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right
and everyone in between.

Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your
prostate
is fine.

These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at
business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't
been as
lucky.

The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you.

Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than
conservatives?


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their
churches,
but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor.

Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer?
What about conservatives who
aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'.
In fact, I don't believe I know
one in that category.

But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals,
in general, are more charitable
than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent
allegation made by jps.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for
edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity
supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care,
clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian
charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the
poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down.

Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central
and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't
charitable
giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians.
It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes
shouldn't
be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction.

And the question remains unanswered.

Never mind.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!


No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate
charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the
homeless.



Then you truly are uninformed...


Cites that show what percentage of the charitable contributions of
religious righties go to the needy and not to their religious
institutions for buildings, salaries and proselytizing?

Oh, wait...you don't know.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:21:00 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/14/2013 7:59 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:02:52 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/14/2013 4:56 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote:

On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world.

Think about that.

There is always birth control and the morning after pill.


====

Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have
access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited
access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress
availability.


Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the
old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access
to remedies for their sins.

====

And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a
punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been
carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the
ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running
around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me
why anyone would wish for more.


You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion
or childbirth unnecessary.

Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting
them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too,
then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no
value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit...

You call others intolerant when it's the Christians that don't want to
give a woman a right to choose?????


You have the right to choose.. The only ones effected are women who
"choose" the church... but then again, we know you don't want to give
folks the choice in that matter...

Women barely have the right. It's being eroded every day. Of course, a
****forbrains like you don't actually know that because you watch fake
news. I mean fox news.

On 3/14/2013 9:47 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:22:42 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/14/2013 8:24 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

====

Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few
instances of rape and incest.

How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who
falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the
Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of
civilization.


Or let her walk into a planned parenthood office.. Might be a bit more
realistic than your loogieism above...

===

The religious right is doing everything they can to put planned
parenthood out of business.


How's that going for them? How many women can't get birth control
because of Christians.. Nazi's want to take over the country, so do the
Muslims, but they don't have the votes either... You want to keep
Planned Abortionhood open, keep voting Democrat, simple... The fact
still remains, no women in the US are unable to get birth control
because of "the church", period...

On 3/14/2013 10:25 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 9:25 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole

wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote:

bull**** snipped

My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still
not as

selfish as the wingers in rec.boats.

Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the
left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right
and everyone in between.

Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your
prostate
is fine.

These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at
business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't
been as
lucky.

The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you.

Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than
conservatives?


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their
churches,
but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor.

Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer?
What about conservatives who
aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'.
In fact, I don't believe I know
one in that category.

But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals,
in general, are more charitable
than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent
allegation made by jps.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!



I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for
edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity
supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care,
clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian
charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the
poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down.

Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central
and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't
charitable
giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians.
It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes
shouldn't
be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction.

And the question remains unanswered.

Never mind.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!


No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate
charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the
homeless.



Then you truly are uninformed...


Cites that show what percentage of the charitable contributions of
religious righties go to the needy and not to their religious
institutions for buildings, salaries and proselytizing?

Oh, wait...you don't know.

You are the one making the false accusation, you prove it.

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

Women barely have the right. It's being eroded every day. Of course, a
****forbrains like you don't actually know that because you watch fake
news. I mean fox news.

-------------------------------

You forgot three or four "****s".

In article ,
says...

On 3/14/2013 4:33 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:04:06 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote:

On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world.

Think about that.

There is always birth control and the morning after pill.


====

Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have
access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited
access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress
availability.


Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the
old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access
to remedies for their sins.

====

And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a
punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been
carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the
ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running
around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me
why anyone would wish for more.


You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion
or childbirth unnecessary.

And they are available to everybody, period...

No they aren't ****forbrains.


Yeah they are sperm breath...

Gee, who can be the lowest vulgar trash?