Paul Schilter wrote:

Dave,
I take exception to your term of "liberal", I may be more liberal than
yourself, but no where near where Harry is at. Perhaps you should use the
term "Extreme" as a definer, just so you don't paint such a wide swatch. I
guess this is a problem with labels, we wear so many different ones on
different issues. I rather doubt that when we vote for someone, we vote for
a person that believes just like we do.All of life is a compromise.


Point taken. And you are correct. Harry displays a form of liberalism
that is equivilent in position to Jerry Falwell on the opposite side.

Dave

In article ,
says...
Paul Schilter wrote:

Dave,
I take exception to your term of "liberal", I may be more liberal than
yourself, but no where near where Harry is at. Perhaps you should use the
term "Extreme" as a definer, just so you don't paint such a wide swatch. I
guess this is a problem with labels, we wear so many different ones on
different issues. I rather doubt that when we vote for someone, we vote for
a person that believes just like we do.All of life is a compromise.


Point taken. And you are correct. Harry displays a form of liberalism
that is equivilent in position to Jerry Falwell on the opposite side.

Dave

Oh my God. You don't refer to yourself as a Chrisitian do you?

Jesus was a socialist.

Oh my God. You don't refer to yourself as a Chrisitian do you?

Jesus was a socialist.

No he wasn't, he was a compassionate Conservative.

In article ,
says...

Oh my God. You don't refer to yourself as a Chrisitian do you?

Jesus was a socialist.

No he wasn't, he was a compassionate Conservative.


Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!

He would laugh at the irony of "conservative christians" assuming his
mantle, or be incredibly saddened.

He was a socialist. He wanted to spread the wealth. Compassionate
conservatives want to horde the wealth. They're anything but Christian.

His agenda is served far more effectively by the left. He was an "all
ships" sort of guy.

The devil, however, is a much better fit for compassionate
conservatives, for, as you know, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Oh my God. You don't refer to yourself as a Chrisitian do you?

Jesus was a socialist.

No he wasn't, he was a compassionate Conservative.

Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!

He would laugh at the irony of "conservative christians" assuming his
mantle, or be incredibly saddened.

Doubtful


He was a socialist. He wanted to spread the wealth.

Through the kindness of charity, not the iron fist of government.



Compassionate
conservatives want to horde the wealth.

Not "horde" just "keep". We believe that we have the right to decide who
is needy and who deserves our kindness. It's counterproductive to prop
up people who have no incentive to better themselves. People who run
into a temporary setback are a whole different story.

They're anything but Christian.

And you're suddenly an expert on religion?



His agenda is served far more effectively by the left. He was an "all
ships" sort of guy.

The left wants to use the government to strong arm their agenda onto
everybody, whether they like it or not. Charity and faith are not about
mandates, but about choice.


The devil, however, is a much better fit for compassionate
conservatives, for, as you know, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

And we all know that those on the left feel that they're doing the
"right" thing, and that conservatives are just blind to those "good
intentions". You can look at it either way.

Dave

jps,
Well at least we can agree that Jesus was a Carpenter. So to the
question a lot of tree huggers have been asking; What would Jesus drive? I
answer: A Pickup Truck. Hopefully an F-150 at least. I just don't see Him
driving an Eco box.
Paul

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Oh my God. You don't refer to yourself as a Chrisitian do you?

Jesus was a socialist.

No he wasn't, he was a compassionate Conservative.


Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!!!

He would laugh at the irony of "conservative christians" assuming his
mantle, or be incredibly saddened.

He was a socialist. He wanted to spread the wealth. Compassionate
conservatives want to horde the wealth. They're anything but Christian.

His agenda is served far more effectively by the left. He was an "all
ships" sort of guy.

The devil, however, is a much better fit for compassionate
conservatives, for, as you know, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

In article , paulschilter@comcast
says...
jps,
Well at least we can agree that Jesus was a Carpenter. So to the
question a lot of tree huggers have been asking; What would Jesus drive? I
answer: A Pickup Truck. Hopefully an F-150 at least. I just don't see Him
driving an Eco box.
Paul

I say he drives a late sixties C 10 3/4 ton with three on the column and
a 327. No four wheelin' for Jesus. He's a carpenter remember.

The box'd have dump bed on it for easy unloading of demo stuff from
remodels and it'd be in need of paint.

jps

I say he drives a late sixties C 10 3/4 ton with three on the column and
a 327. No four wheelin' for Jesus. He's a carpenter remember.

The box'd have dump bed on it for easy unloading of demo stuff from
remodels and it'd be in need of paint.

jps


He'd never have to stop for gas.

If a guy can turn water into wine, gasoline can't be that much tougher. :-)

jps,
I don't know, some of them job sites are muddy, 4X4 is a pretty popular
option these days. :-)
Paul

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article , paulschilter@comcast
says...
jps,
Well at least we can agree that Jesus was a Carpenter. So to the
question a lot of tree huggers have been asking; What would Jesus drive?
I
answer: A Pickup Truck. Hopefully an F-150 at least. I just don't see
Him
driving an Eco box.
Paul

I say he drives a late sixties C 10 3/4 ton with three on the column and
a 327. No four wheelin' for Jesus. He's a carpenter remember.

The box'd have dump bed on it for easy unloading of demo stuff from
remodels and it'd be in need of paint.

jps

Dave Hall wrote:
Paul Schilter wrote:

Dave,
I take exception to your term of "liberal", I may be more liberal than
yourself, but no where near where Harry is at. Perhaps you should use the
term "Extreme" as a definer, just so you don't paint such a wide swatch. I
guess this is a problem with labels, we wear so many different ones on
different issues. I rather doubt that when we vote for someone, we vote for
a person that believes just like we do.All of life is a compromise.


Point taken. And you are correct. Harry displays a form of liberalism
that is equivilent in position to Jerry Falwell on the opposite side.

Dave



You know, Dave, you are such an intellectual numnutz, you're pathetic.
On a legitimate scale of liberal to conservative, with moderate as the
center, I'd fall a few hairs left of moderate.

What views do you think I hold that would put me "opposite" the Rev. Mr.
Falwell on the political scale?

That I'm pro-choice? I'd say about half of Americans are pro-choice.

That I think George W. Bush is not worthy of being POTUS? More voters
thought that way than thought he was suitable.

That I think Bush's Iraq policies are so much crap? That's the position
held by at least half of America.

That I'm in favor of many government programs that aid the needy? Well,
so are most Americans.

That I think our system of providing decent medical care to every
American sucks big time? Well, so do most Americans.

That I think that the UN, despite its faults, is the best bet for doing
what it does, despite the efforts of the right to demonize it? So do
most Americans.

That I think people like you, who hold far-right extremist views,
represent a real danger to our democracy? Well, so do most Americans who
think about such issues.

You're the extremist, Dave. I'm pretty much a centrist.


--
Email sent to is never read.