KKK Lynched 3,446 Blacks in 86 Years – Abortion Claims That Many Black Babies in ‘Less Than Four Days’

[J]

The numbers speak for themself.






http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kkk-lynched-3446-blacks-86-years-abortion-claims-many-black-babies-less-four-days





(CNSNews.com) – Over 86 years, the Ku Klux Klan lynched 3,446 blacks –
a figure matched in less than four days if tallying the number of
black babies who are aborted.






J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <oc7bp8l9ulr23mc7f...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> The numbers speak for themself.

Yes, they do.

3,446 death to 0 deaths.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[W.T.S.]

In article <oc7bp8l9ulr23mc7f...@4ax.com>, jdyoung1
@ymail.com says...

>
> The numbers speak for themself.

Your internet rag site, run by pro-liar loons, can lie for itself.
>
> http://www.CuntNutSuckingLies.biz/Lies/Bigotry/Hate/Intolerance/
>
> (CNSNews.com) ? Over 86 years, the Ku Klux Klan lynched 3,446 blacks ?

> a figure matched in less than four days if tallying the number of
> black babies who are aborted.

No baby is involved in any abortion, you lying sack of shit.
As for the Klan, you, "J", are the one that cheered at the lynchings!
Considering the huge number of racial slurs and insults you've posted,
you really have your nerve!
>
> Jerk Young
> Jerk...@Lies.biz
> Honesty. Decency. Integrity

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
The methodology of the Religious and the Right has always been:
1. Lie.
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible.
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible.
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie.
5. The lie will then be made into some form of law.
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie.
-> Slow thinkers --> Stay Right

[SkyEyes]

On May 16, 8:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The numbers speak for themself.
>

> http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kkk-lynched-3446-blacks-86-years-...

>
> (CNSNews.com) – Over 86 years, the Ku Klux Klan lynched 3,446 blacks –
> a figure matched in less than four days if tallying the number of
> black babies who are aborted.

And yet there are more black people in the U.S. now, by both absolute
count and by percentages, than there ever has been before.

If there's a concerted genocide against black people, somebody's not
doing a very good job of it.

-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-

[Dakota]

On 5/16/2013 11:29 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <oc7bp8l9ulr23mc7f...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> The numbers speak for themself.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> 3,446 death to 0 deaths.
>

When Nazi-loving J's not posting about Jews being murdered, he turns
into racist J again and posts about the lynching of blacks. Who will
vile J be bashing tomorrow?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <oc7bp8l9ulr23mc7f...@4ax.com>,
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> babbled:
...

>(CNSNews.com) – Over 86 years, the Ku Klux Klan lynched 3,446 blacks –
>a figure matched in less than four days if tallying the number of
>black babies who are aborted.

Do you know how many bacteria you kill every time you brush your teeth?

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

[Syd M.]

On May 16, 11:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The numbers speak for themself.
>
>

Liar.

PDW

[Davej]

On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> The numbers speak for themself.
>

"Themself?"

[PATRICK]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> The numbers speak for themself.
>>
>
>"Themself?"

Thyself?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <e659c76e-0718-4df1...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

You can't expect rightwing whackos with 6th grade educations to know about grammar.

Just not gonna happen...

--
The motto of the GOP "base": You can't *be* a billionaire, but at least you
can vote like one.

[Budikka666]

On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> The numbers speak for themself.

When did you last learn any grammar?

But here's the question you will RUN like diarrhea from:
How many people has religious zealotry killed during and since
Biblical times?

It's perfectly obvious that, assuming for the sake of argument that
there is a god, he doesn't give a damn about the lives of babies or
children. If he did, he wouldn't let millions of them die each year
from disease and starvation.

Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.

Budikka

[W.T.S.]

In article <8fd2f9a3-c73b-4785-b375-01eebca279c9
@z10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, budi...@netscape.net says...

"J", as the old saying goes, "is one sick puppy!" If you've followed
the postings and responses of "J" over the years you'll find his ugly,
hateful bigotry and intolerance knows no bounds. His hatred women is
particularly vile. His thinly veiled racial slurs and insults have set
new records, his religious and gender slurs are unmatched. His constant
uttering of lies, propaganda and disinformation is a full time hobby
with "J".
There is no dealing with "J" other than to respond to each and every one
of his degenerate writings, to never let even one go unchallenged. "J"
is like a cockroach, he gets out of sight quick when the light of day
shines in.

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>> The numbers speak for themself.
>>
>>When did you last learn any grammar?
>

> So what, Budikka? True, I would've said "thereself", but that little
> nuance of grammar doesn't mean anything when compared to the Truth of
> His Word.

>
>>
>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>>
>

> Brother J is not trash.

'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.

> You will learn the Truth at the Last Day,
> fool.
>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!
--
June G
# 364

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4lrfp899b6pti5ihb...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
> <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The numbers speak for themself.
>>>>
>>>>When did you last learn any grammar?
>>>
>>> So what, Budikka? True, I would've said "thereself", but that little
>>> nuance of grammar doesn't mean anything when compared to the Truth of
>>> His Word.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Brother J is not trash.
>>
>>'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
>>being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.
>>
>

> Your a lier.

It's a bit silly of you to claim that I'm lying when the post that J made is
there for all to see under the subject heading: 'A dog and cat playing
together in someone's backyard'. In case you missed it, I'll paste it in
below:

This column is dedicated to those who embrace felines as members of
their household.. I have provided a link for your enjoyment. Cats can
be such great fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiVDmU8yeFU

I would advise you _not_ to watch this video, because, far from a dog and a
cat playing, it shows the dog killing the cat.

>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

Do you and Jesus love cats too?

[J]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:13:01 -0400, Brother Love
<BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
><june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>

>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The numbers speak for themself.
>>>>
>>>>When did you last learn any grammar?
>>>
>>> So what, Budikka? True, I would've said "thereself", but that little
>>> nuance of grammar doesn't mean anything when compared to the Truth of
>>> His Word.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Brother J is not trash.
>>
>>'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
>>being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.
>>
>

>Your a lier.

>
>Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
>Yes! Each and every one of you!

Be aware 'Brother Love', it seems alt.atheism has once again been
invaded by a spinster in search of a real man possessed with the
qualities of family-values and decency. She will try to gain your
attention with posts attacking your character. We've seen her type
many times over the years. Eventually she'll give-up and disappear;
either that or settle for a loser like 'Syd' or 'Dakota'. Whatever
eventually happens, I know you can do a lot better than a desperate
woman who cares more about cats than babies.

[June G]

"J" <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:ifkgp85d287vg2b1h...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:13:01 -0400, Brother Love
> <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
>><june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The numbers speak for themself.
>>>>>
>>>>>When did you last learn any grammar?
>>>>
>>>> So what, Budikka? True, I would've said "thereself", but that little
>>>> nuance of grammar doesn't mean anything when compared to the Truth of
>>>> His Word.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brother J is not trash.
>>>
>>>'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
>>>being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.
>>>
>>
>>Your a lier.
>>
>>Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
>>Yes! Each and every one of you!
>
>
>
> Be aware 'Brother Love', it seems alt.atheism has once again been
> invaded by a spinster in search of a real man possessed with the
> qualities of family-values and decency.

A spinster? Well, if a woman who has been married for 54 years can be a
spinster, then that's me. Furthermore my husband really does have the
qualities you mentioned, amongst many others, and he doesn't consider it fun
to watch animals suffering.

She will try to gain your
> attention with posts attacking your character.

I don't recall ever attacking anyone's character before - it's not my style
... but for you, I'll make an exception. As for attention seeking - I'm not
the one who posts inflammatory material to these newsgroups ... you are.

We've seen her type
> many times over the years. Eventually she'll give-up and disappear;

I do 'disappear' from time to time, because I have a rather full life and
don't always have the time to get involved in long discussions on the Net.

> either that or settle for a loser like 'Syd' or 'Dakota'.

You characterising others as losers? Oh, that's rich.

Whatever
> eventually happens, I know you can do a lot better than a desperate
> woman who cares more about cats than babies.

I do care about cats ... and dogs, and about any creature that can suffer.
Most of all I care about babies, having had three myself, and of all the
things I can't bear, it's to see babies and children suffering. That is why
I am pro-choice, because for some poor wretches it would be better if they
had never been born.

>
> J Young
> jdyo...@ymail.com
>
> Honesty. Decency. Integrity

You have none of the above, but you do enjoy watching animals suffer, don't
you?

[SkyEyes]

On May 19, 12:46 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> I do care about cats ... and dogs, and about any creature that can suffer.
> Most of all I care about babies, having had three myself, and of all the
> things I can't bear, it's to see babies and children suffering.  That is why
> I am pro-choice, because for some poor wretches it would be better if they
> had never been born.

*This* is what the forced birthers do *not* grok: the fact that there
are fates far worse than merely not being allowed to exist. Death
can, for many, be (for want of a better word) a blessing.

[Thrinaxodon]

On May 18, 5:13 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>

wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Brother Love" <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The numbers speak for themself.
>
> >>>When did you last learn any grammar?
>
> >> So what, Budikka? True, I would've said "thereself", but that little
> >> nuance of grammar doesn't mean anything when compared to the Truth of
> >> His Word.
>
> >>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>
> >> Brother J is not trash.
>
> >'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
> >being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.
>

> Your a lier.

>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

Has it ever hurt you to wonder, "It's not 'e' in liar, it's 'a'"?

[walksalone]

"June G" <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:XZCdnRhwoKTr0wXM...@bt.com:

>
> "Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4lrfp899b6pti5ihb...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
>> <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>On May 16, 10:08 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The numbers speak for themself.

snip follow up set.

> I would advise you _not_ to watch this video, because, far from a dog
> and a cat playing, it shows the dog killing the cat.
>>
>> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
>> Yes! Each and every one of you!
>
> Do you and Jesus love cats too?

<SEAG> Morning you old broad, how the heck ypou doing?</SEAG>

Brothua love, a resident in the abyys, in the septic tank with J, loves
himself & is a variant of an ex full time poster pretending to be one
zacharis something or other.

& now you know, so if you wish to waste time with A poseur like J, have at
it con su permissio, or something like that. But I would recommend you try
to find his posting histgory. Not all sites honor a no archive request.

walksalone who never saw the sense of wasting what's left of my time here.
Better spent being constructive. Instead of posturing.

Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more
certain they are their own.
-- Aristotle

[•RLMeasures]

In article <ifkgp85d287vg2b1h...@4ax.com>, J

• I'm wondering if a doctoral candidate his ever written a thesis on the
mind of 'J'?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <K7idncClbOzmHgXM...@bt.com>, "June G"

• Indeed. chortle

>
> We've seen her type
> > many times over the years. Eventually she'll give-up and disappear;
>
> I do 'disappear' from time to time, because I have a rather full life and
> don't always have the time to get involved in long discussions on the Net.
>
> > either that or settle for a loser like 'Syd' or 'Dakota'.
>
> You characterising others as losers? Oh, that's rich.
>

• and it's a good clue as to what's going on between his ears.

> Whatever
> > eventually happens, I know you can do a lot better than a desperate
> > woman who cares more about cats than babies.
>
> I do care about cats ... and dogs, and about any creature that can suffer.
> Most of all I care about babies, having had three myself, and of all the
> things I can't bear, it's to see babies and children suffering. That is why
> I am pro-choice, because for some poor wretches it would be better if they
> had never been born.

• Indeed and some of them become serial-killers or serial kiddy diddlers.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <nbdip89uivp16m96i...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Of course I would never have any
> thing to do with a woman who wasn't born again

Which leaves all the good ones for everyone else.

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:pfdip899qqrtf894u...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:46:59 +0100, "June G"

> The best thing for you to do, June, is to except Christ into your
> heart & life & get born again.

Oh, would that make me enjoy watching animals suffer? In any case, been
there, done that. I was 'born again' when I was 13, so can I justifiably
knock 13 years off my age?

Theres nothing uglier then an old
> bitter woman who does nothing but hate there fellow man.

What about old. bitter men who do nothing but hate women? I'll admit to
being quite old (though 13 years off takes me out of that category), but I'm
not bitter, and I don't do nothing - I do plenty. As for hating my fellow
people, I don't, but I do hate some of the appalling behaviours that some of
them exhibit.

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:nbdip89uivp16m96i...@4ax.com...

> Thanks for the warning, Brother J. Of course I would never have any
> thing to do with a woman who wasn't born again.

Oh my! I'll bet that's caused lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth in
sororities all over the US.

BTW, who is the woman
> and what does she look like?

It's no good asking J - he'd only lie. June Gill is my real name. I'm a
retired Business Studies teacher and live in the UK. What do I look like?
Angelina Jolie (in my dreams!)

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:j4dip8ht5kvq62odi...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 05:00:51 +0100, "June G"

> You miss the point, dear June. Brother J was merely demonstrating for
> us all how badly God's creation has been corrupted because of our
> sins. You need to understand the meaning of the words "satire" and
> "irony", June. HTH. :)

I understand satire and irony all right, but J's post was neither. He
wasn't demonstrating anything other than the kind of material he likes to
watch. You avoided answering the question: do you and Jesus love cats?

>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <14flp89b2j42ei6bh...@4ax.com>,
Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:33 +0100, "June G"

> People like you sicken me, June, you know that?

What did she say that led you to make that statement?

Are you okay, Zachie?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:14flp89b2j42ei6bh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:33 +0100, "June G"

> People like you sicken me, June, you know that?

Why? I thought you loved me.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <upidnUSx9ovHfAfM...@bt.com>,

Nah! That's Jesus who loves you.

Brother Love is one of Zachie's weakest socks.

[June G]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-2E69AA...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <14flp89b2j42ei6bh...@4ax.com>,
> Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:33 +0100, "June G"
>> <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> >> Thanks for the warning, Brother J. Of course I would never have any
>> >> thing to do with a woman who wasn't born again.
>> >
>> >Oh my! I'll bet that's caused lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth in
>> >sororities all over the US.
>> >
>> >BTW, who is the woman
>> >> and what does she look like?
>> >
>> >It's no good asking J - he'd only lie. June Gill is my real name. I'm
>> >a
>> >retired Business Studies teacher and live in the UK. What do I look
>> >like?
>> >Angelina Jolie (in my dreams!)
>> >
>>
>> People like you sicken me, June, you know that?
>
> What did she say that led you to make that statement?
>
> Are you okay, Zachie?

It doesn't look like he's going to tell us, Jeanne, so let's do a little
detective work. Is it that he doesn't like people who have a month named
after them? Hardly. Does he disapprove of Business Studies being taught?
Possibly, but unlikely. Is he an Anglophobe? Probably. Is it that someone
would wish to look beautiful? Maybe. I can't think of anything else. Oh
wait, I have it! It's because I'm a woman.

[elizabeth]

On May 21, 6:45 pm, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-2E69AA...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <14flp89b2j42ei6bhi99eo6md17o0n0...@4ax.com>,

Well, there are quite a few trolls that have multiple handles, and
often try to confuse people by using someone else's handle. Heishman
is notorious for that.

[June G]

"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:modqp89gjqe3omfuk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 05:00:51 +0100, "June G"

> <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4lrfp899b6pti5ihb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"
>>> <june...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:r78dp81drnkan902c...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 11:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
>>>>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>>

[snip]

>>>>>>Get a clue you brain-dead piece of theist trash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brother J is not trash.
>>>>
>>>>'Brother J' is the worst kind of trash - he likes to watch small animals
>>>>being cruelly killed ... describes it as fun.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your a lier.
>>
>>It's a bit silly of you to claim that I'm lying when the post that J made
>>is
>>there for all to see under the subject heading: 'A dog and cat playing
>>together in someone's backyard'. In case you missed it, I'll paste it in
>>below:
>>
>> This column is dedicated to those who embrace felines as members of
>> their household.. I have provided a link for your enjoyment. Cats can
>> be such great fun.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiVDmU8yeFU
>>
>>I would advise you _not_ to watch this video, because, far from a dog and
>>a
>>cat playing, it shows the dog killing the cat.
>>>
>>> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
>>> Yes! Each and every one of you!
>>
>>Do you and Jesus love cats too?
>

> People like you make me sick.

But you still can't say why. Is it because you like to see animals suffer
as well as J?

>
> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

Except June Gill.

[Budikka666]

On May 22, 4:22 pm, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 05:00:51 +0100, "June G"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >"Brother Love" <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >news:4lrfp899b6pti5ihb...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:57:32 +0100, "June G"

> >> <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Brother Love" <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> People like you make me sick.
>

> Always remember: Jesus love's you and so do I!
> Yes! Each and every one of you!

The debate challenge was for you to post your five best items of
evidence for your god, or for your claims for a Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of that god, or for a Noahic flood.

Otherwise, what is there to debate other than your cowardice and
vacuity?

Budikka

[Robert H]

You say we have no soul, no spirit, right?
You say there is no God, right?
You say that we live, we die, we are worm food...that's it, nothing
else. Just born...exist...dust.

Where is your proof for that? Other than just you guessing?

[casey]

On 25 May, 13:51, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]

> You say we have no soul, no spirit, right?

Those thing were just made up there is no
evidence that any such things exist.
There is nothing wrong with making things
up to explain something, scientists do it
all the time, the difference is anything made
up by a scientist must be testable.

> You say there is no God, right?

Gods were a primitive "explanation" for the
things that happened in the natural world.

Thunder gods, sea gods, evolved into a
single God concept. But as we learnt
more about the natural world we found we
didn't need to conjure up a god that did
it there were more useful natural
explanations for these things. We didn't
need a sentient being to push the moon
across the sky, that was an innate property
of the natural world no gods required
best explained by a natural behaviour
of matter we called gravity.

> You say that we live, we die, we are worm food...that's it, nothing
> else. Just born...exist...dust.

This is what we observe do you deny it?
The rest is just made up stuff not something
we actually observe.

By the way we are not really made of dust,
it only appeared to be the case, most of
our body simply evaporates when we die.

> Where is your proof for that? Other than just
> you guessing?

Yes they are guessing that the things people
make up, things we have never observed
except as a subjective experience, probably
don't exist as anything other than neural
activity in the physical brain.

[Robert H]

On May 25, 5:34 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 25 May, 13:51, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > You say we have no soul, no spirit, right?
>
> Those thing were just made up there is no
> evidence that any such things exist.

Prove it.

> There is nothing wrong with making things
> up to explain something, scientists do it
> all the time, the difference is anything made
> up by a scientist must be testable.
>
> > You say there is no God, right?
>
> Gods were a primitive "explanation" for the
> things that happened in the natural world.

Prove it.

>
> Thunder gods, sea gods, evolved into a
> single God concept. But as we learnt
> more about the natural world we found we
> didn't need to conjure up a god that did
> it there were more useful natural
> explanations for these things. We didn't
> need a sentient being to push the moon
> across the sky, that was an innate property
> of the natural world no gods required
> best explained by a natural behaviour
> of matter we called gravity.

I don't want your opinion, I want proof.

>
> > You say that we live, we die, we are worm food...that's it, nothing
> > else. Just born...exist...dust.
>
> This is what we observe do you deny it?

Oh? You observe the physical part true. We all do, even the bible
says we turn to dust.

> The rest is just made up stuff not something
> we actually observe.

Prove it, other than just your "guess".

>
> By the way we are not really made of dust,
> it only appeared to be the case, most of
> our body simply evaporates when we die.
>
> > Where is your proof for that? Other than just
> > you guessing?
>
> Yes they are guessing that the things people
> make up, things we have never observed
> except as a subjective experience, probably
> don't exist as anything other than neural
> activity in the physical brain.

So you have no proof, other than your opinion and guess.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <a4r1q89o6f3qnk69i...@4ax.com>,

Brother Love <BrotherLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >The debate challenge was for you to post your five best items of
> >evidence for your god, or for your claims for a Jesus Christ, miracle-
> >working son of that god, or for a Noahic flood.
> >
> >Otherwise, what is there to debate other than your cowardice and
> >vacuity?
> >
> >Budikka
>

> I'm not running from you, looser, your running from me. I answered
> your debate challenge when I said the answers are in the Bible. If you
> want me to cite chapter and verse I will.

Claiming the answers are in the bible does not provide those answers.

I can as easily claim that disproofs of all your claimes answers appear
in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. And you cannot disprove that claim.

[Budikka666]

On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666

> I'm not running from you, looser

Looser? You claim you have a PhD and you can't spell loser?

Your own Bible tells you to judge not and here you are judging me as a
loser? Waht a sad little coweardly vacuous hypsocrite you are. At
least when I label you, I back up that label with evidence, something
which is clearly an alien concept to you creationists.

You claim you have a PhD and you don't know when to use an apostrophe?

You claim you have a PhD and you can't tell the differnece between
'your' and you're?

What the ehll colege did oyu get your PhD at? lol!

>\, your running from me.

So now your;e an out and out liar. I ahve never run form any
creaitonsit. The afct that i have psotreed repeated detailed
challgned to you ove rhte last few days proves to everyone on usenet
what a liar you are.

I answered
> your debate challenge

No you did not. The chalgne was to post five itens of seviecne for
your positon adn you ahve consistently faield to do so. I ahve
repeated that chalged in severla threads and you ahve faield ot heed
it.

I repeat it right here:
Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more of
the following:
1. The esixtence of a creator god
2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
3. The Noahic flood

> when I said the answers are in the Bible.

Only a moron would think he can use the Bible as evidence in support
of itself. I guess the concept of "scientific" and the concept of
"independent objective" are as alien to you as they are to all other
creationists.

But it makes no difference to me. You will not be the first nor the
last creationist I have taken down using only Biblical "evidence"

> If you
> want me to cite chapter and verse I will.

Then why haven't you done so since this is ***PERECISELY*** what I've
been demanding from you over many threads in many messages. How can
anyone be this blind and dumb How can a PhD be so ignroant and stupid
as to be unable to grasp that "post your five best items of evidence"
means that you post your five best items of evidence, and doesn;t mean
wave your cowardly hand vaguely at the very book I;ve demanded you
support, and claim it suppsoerts itself? lol!

Are you really thas dumb as Andrew-a-Blank?

ONCE AGAIN: Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one
or more of the following:
1. The esixtence of a creator god
2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
3. The Noahic flood

Budikka

[Budikka666]

On May 25, 3:51 pm, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You say we have no soul, no spirit, right?

I say that you believers say we have no soul by your inability to
offer a shred of positive scientific evidence showing that we have a
soul. You are the ones making the positive assertion that there
exists something outside of the realm of sure, commonly verified
knowledge. It's not up to me to disprove something, the existence of
which has never been demosntrated. Got it now?

> You say there is no God, right?

You really have no idea what atheism is all about do you? And yet you
hypocritically set yourself up as a critic of it. lol! I say that
you believers say there is no god by your inability to offer a shred
of positive scientific evidence showing that any god exists. You are
the ones making the positive assertion that there exists something
outside of the realm of sure, commonly verified knowledge. It's not
up to me to disprove something, the existence of which has never been
demonstrated. And you will agree with me in your response when you
fail to provide any as every other Usenet theist has failed. And you
call yourselves witnesses? lol! What a joke!

> You say that we live, we die, we are worm food...that's it, nothing

That's what all the available scientific evidence shows, and you
theists agree with me on that score since you cannot offer a shred of
positive scientific evidence nor of independent objective showing that
there's anything other than what we commonly see. And you will agree
with me in your response when you fail to provide any as every other
Usenet theist has failed. And you call yourselves witnesses? lol!
What a joke!

Budikka

[Robert H]

So?

I know people with a PhD, and they make grammar errors.

Is this all you got? Lets keep scrolling and hope you have more than
this.

>
> You claim you have a PhD and you can't tell the differnece between
> 'your' and you're?
>

Still nothing, you're pretending to be the grammar expert. This is
weak.

> What the ehll colege did oyu get your PhD at?  lol!
>
> >\, your running from me.
>
> So now your;e an out and out liar.  I ahve never run form any
> creaitonsit.

I hope that your spelling is intentional.

The afct that i have psotreed repeated detailed
> challgned to you ove rhte last few days proves to everyone on usenet
> what a liar you are.
>
>  I answered
>
> > your debate challenge
>
> No you did not.  The chalgne was to post five itens of seviecne for
> your positon adn you ahve consistently faield to do so. I ahve
> repeated that chalged in severla threads and you ahve faield ot heed
> it.
>
> I repeat it right here:
> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more of
> the following:
> 1.  The esixtence of a creator god

The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.

> 2.  The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god

The witnesses.

> 3. The Noahic flood

Science proves there was a flood.
The discovery of the Ark.

Archeologist are still discovering more and more findings that support
biblical passages.

>
> > when I said the answers are in the Bible.
>
> Only a moron would think he can use the Bible as evidence in support
> of itself.  I guess the concept of "scientific" and the concept of
> "independent objective" are as alien to you as they are to all other
> creationists.
>
> But it makes no difference to me.  You will not be the first nor the
> last creationist I have taken down using only Biblical "evidence"
>
> > If you
> > want me to cite chapter and verse I will.
>
> Then why haven't you done so since this is ***PERECISELY*** what I've
> been demanding from you over many threads in many messages. How can
> anyone be this blind and dumb  How can a PhD be so ignroant and stupid
> as to be unable to grasp that "post your five best items of evidence"
> means that you post your five best items of evidence, and doesn;t mean
> wave your cowardly hand vaguely at the very book I;ve demanded you
> support, and claim it suppsoerts itself?  lol!
>
> Are you really thas dumb as Andrew-a-Blank?
>
> ONCE AGAIN: Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one
> or more of the following:
> 1.  The esixtence of a creator god
> 2.  The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
> 3. The Noahic flood
>
> Budikka

All you got is ranting. You're a angry little fella aren't ya?

Did you hold your breath and stomp your feet too?

[Robert H]

Yep, you're a angry little guy..no doubt.

Hey, if you refuse to look and see, like most other atheist do; then
that's your problem isn't it?

I've provided three good sources, and not one...not ONE has been able
to prove them to be false.
All you can do is just attack the authors or the video instead. So why
bother or waste time with fools
who simply refuse and want someone to just hold their hands and lead
them around.

Keep stomping your feet and ranting.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

You know that not one of those sources offers any scientific evidence.
You know you are lying to us.

>All you can do is just attack the authors or the video instead. So why
>bother or waste time with fools
>who simply refuse and want someone to just hold their hands and lead
>them around.

We are pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you did. You are
repeatedly lying to us.

>Keep stomping your feet and ranting.

As long as you keep showing us that you are a liar, we can only do our
best to protect others from your immoral behavior.

[Robert H]

On May 26, 12:21 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:17:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Show me they are wrong!
Go ahead, I've been waiting and waiting. And you've not done so yet.

Oh, and while you're at it....learn the definition of lying.

>
> >All you can do is just attack the authors or the video instead. So why
> >bother or waste time with fools
> >who simply refuse and want someone to just hold their hands and lead
> >them around.
>
> We are pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you did. You are
> repeatedly lying to us.

Again, look up the definition of lying...prove that I lied, and then
get back to proving the sources wrong.

>
> >Keep stomping your feet and ranting.
>
> As long as you keep showing us that you are a liar, we can only do our
> best to protect others from your immoral behavior.

You have to prove I'm a liar.

Burden of proof is on you now.

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:4cebc871-409f-486f...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> I repeat it right here:
>> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more of
>> the following:
>> 1.  The esixtence of a creator god
>
> The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>
>> 2.  The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
>
> The witnesses.
>
>> 3. The Noahic flood
>
> Science proves there was a flood.

What science proves what global flood?

> The discovery of the Ark.
>

What discovery? People have been
climbing all over Ararat for centuries,
no Ark found.

[Robert H]

On May 26, 12:24 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:4cebc871-409f-486f...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> I repeat it right here:
> >> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more of
> >> the following:
> >> 1. The esixtence of a creator god
>
> > The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>
> >> 2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
>
> > The witnesses.
>
> >> 3. The Noahic flood
>
> > Science proves there was a flood.
>
>     What science proves what global flood?

It does not prove a "global" flood, it proves a catastrophic flood in
that region.
And you know full well that during those times, man did not know about
the "globe" and wrote it as if it was the entire world, because that
is exactly how it appeared to man who recorded it.

>
> > The discovery of the Ark.
>
>     What discovery? People have been
> climbing all over Ararat for centuries,
> no Ark found.

Bull, and you know it.

http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage21.htm

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

You tried to waste my time with your failure to identify a single fact
to support your claim. Instead, you sent me to some YouTube nonsense. If
you want me to respond, direct me to scientific evidence, not religious
silliness.

>Oh, and while you're at it....learn the definition of lying.

You have made it clear that you know that you never offered any
evidence.

>> >All you can do is just attack the authors or the video instead. So why
>> >bother or waste time with fools
>> >who simply refuse and want someone to just hold their hands and lead
>> >them around.
>>
>> We are pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you did. You are
>> repeatedly lying to us.
>
>Again, look up the definition of lying...prove that I lied, and then
>get back to proving the sources wrong.

You have proven that you lied with your reactions. You keep running
away. You refuse to identify a specific item that you consider evidence.
You just keep referring to some religious propaganda.

>> >Keep stomping your feet and ranting.
>>
>> As long as you keep showing us that you are a liar, we can only do our
>> best to protect others from your immoral behavior.
>
>You have to prove I'm a liar.
>
>Burden of proof is on you now.

As long as you cannot identify a specific item, you are showing us all
that you are lying.

[Robert H]

On May 26, 12:27 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

You've failed to show where any of the sources are incorrect.

>
> >Oh, and while you're at it....learn the definition of lying.
>
> You have made it clear that you know that you never offered any
> evidence.

Uh, son...get to the definition of lying and get back to me.
Because you are not only ignorant about evidence you are ignorant on
definitions.

You have some homework to do.

>
> >> >All you can do is just attack the authors or the video instead. So why
> >> >bother or waste time with fools
> >> >who simply refuse and want someone to just hold their hands and lead
> >> >them around.
>
> >> We are pointing out that you are misrepresenting what you did. You are
> >> repeatedly lying to us.
>
> >Again, look up the definition of lying...prove that I lied, and then
> >get back to proving the sources wrong.
>
> You have proven that you lied with your reactions.

Prove it

You keep running
> away.

Odd...here I am.

You refuse to identify a specific item that you consider evidence.
> You just keep referring to some religious propaganda.

That's a lie, I've provided you three very good sources.

>
> >> >Keep stomping your feet and ranting.
>
> >> As long as you keep showing us that you are a liar, we can only do our
> >> best to protect others from your immoral behavior.
>
> >You have to prove I'm a liar.
>
> >Burden of proof is on you now.
>
> As long as you cannot identify a specific item, you are showing us all
> that you are lying.

Son, learn what the definition of lying is.

Get back to me when you can prove I lied about anything.

I hate to see ignorance like yours, and to imagine you are out in the
public. I hope you have no supervision over others. You're not
competent.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
<cra...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On May 26, 12:24�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:4cebc871-409f-486f...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> I repeat it right here:
>> >> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more of
>> >> the following:
>> >> 1. The esixtence of a creator god
>>
>> > The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>>
>> >> 2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this god
>>
>> > The witnesses.
>>
>> >> 3. The Noahic flood
>>
>> > Science proves there was a flood.
>>
>> � � What science proves what global flood?
>
>It does not prove a "global" flood, it proves a catastrophic flood in
>that region.

The Bible claims a -global- flood, created by God himself, rightard.

You're saying that the Bible carries a reference to a purely
naturalistic event.

Big fucking deal.

That tells us -nothing- about any god, neither does it validate any of
the supernatural claims the Bible makes.

All you're really telling us is that the Bible, your source for
knowledge about God, is -wrong-, rightard.

>And you know full well that during those times, man did not know about
>the "globe" and wrote it as if it was the entire world, because that
>is exactly how it appeared to man who recorded it.

So what, rightard?

The Bible is supposed to be the divinely inspired word of God.

Either it is, or it is not.

If it's not that, then it's just an old book carrying no particular
wisdom about anything.

>> > The discovery of the Ark.
>>
>> � � What discovery? People have been
>> climbing all over Ararat for centuries,
>> no Ark found.
>
>Bull, and you know it.
>
>http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage21.htm

Aaaarrrrhhhhhhhhhggggg....

Sorry...

You're stupidity hurt my brain.

Owwwwww...

Did you even read the article, Heishman?

"Summary and Conclusion: the Durupinar Site is not Noah's Ark

The Durupinar site is an intriguing phenomenon that was discovered in
1959 by a Turkish army captain. It lies within the ancient Urartu
territory, as one would expect of Noah's ark, and it is even roughly
the same length as one would expect the ark to be.

On the other hand, the Durupinar site is not the width of the ark as
specified by the biblical account, nor does it fit the Bible's
description of the ark's resting place--as one of the higher
elevations in its region. In addition, Wyatt's characterization of the
small difference of the carbon content within and without the
formation is proof only of his lack of geological training, as is his
attempt to rewrite all geological understanding to explain why his
"pre-flood" wood has no growth rings. His reports of the results of
his subsurface radar have been disputed, even by sympathetic
scientists who have attempted them.

In short, Wyatt's "train-load" of evidence is in reality speculation
based on imagination not evidence. The Durupinar site is undoubtedly a
natural formation. Noah's ark has yet to be found."


Did you get that, rightard?

"Summary and Conclusion: the Durupinar Site is not Noah's Ark"

Read it again.

"Summary and Conclusion: the Durupinar Site is not Noah's Ark"

Did it sink in that time?

Mein Gott im himmel, but you're a moron, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[casey]

On 25 May, 14:55, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On May 25, 5:34 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On 25 May, 13:51, Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > You say we have no soul, no spirit, right?
>
> > Those thing were just made up there is no
> > evidence that any such things exist.
>
> Prove it.

I don't have to prove a claim I didn't make it
is up to those who claim there is evidence for
such things to provide the evidence just as
science provides evidence for its beliefs.

You theists really seem to have difficulty
understanding that just because you can't
prove x doesn't exist doesn't prove x exists.
It must be an innate flaw in your wiring.

> > There is nothing wrong with making things
> > up to explain something, scientists do it
> > all the time, the difference is anything made
> > up by a scientist must be testable.
>
> > > You say there is no God, right?
>
> > Gods were a primitive "explanation" for the
> > things that happened in the natural world.
>
> Prove it.

A silly childish response when you have nothing
better to say. The kind of tactic a child uses
thinking it is a clever way to counter any belief
they don't like.

Evidence rolls off your brain like water rolls
off a duck's back and you cry "wet me",
"wet me" while rubbing more oil in your
feathers. You are determined not to let
evidence and reason disturb your world.

< snip the same inane responses >

[Tom McDonald]

This site claims no ark found. How does that make what Mitchell wrote
'[b]ull'?

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On May 26, 12:24 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote

>> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85c4-bb43a
> e97...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> I repeat it right here:
>> >> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more
>> >> of the following:
>> >> 1. The esixtence of a creator god
>>
>> > The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>>
>> >> 2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this
>> >> god
>>
>> > The witnesses.
>>
>> >> 3. The Noahic flood
>>
>> > Science proves there was a flood.
>>
>>     What science proves what global flood?
>
> It does not prove a "global" flood,

The Noah flood was global. Is the Bible lying?

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters
upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the
breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing
that is in the earth shall die."
Genesis 6:17


"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon
the earth; and all the high hills, that were
under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen
cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the
mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died
that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every
man"
Genesis 7:19

> it proves a catastrophic flood in
> that region.
> And you know full well that during those times, man did not know about
> the "globe" and wrote it as if it was the entire world, because that
> is exactly how it appeared to man who recorded it.
>
>>
>> > The discovery of the Ark.
>>
>>     What discovery? People have been
>> climbing all over Ararat for centuries,
>> no Ark found.
>
> Bull, and you know it.
>
> http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage21.htm
>

"Summary and Conclusion: the Durupinar Site is not Noah's Ark"

Just so.................

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

I have chosen not to waste my time on a source that isn't doing any
science.

...

When you have scientific evidence, get back to me.

[PATRICK]

Lunchbox wrote something stupid, as usual.
Instead, I have decided to post a new subject:

EXPOSING CATHOLIC WHISTLEBLOWERS
Bill Donohue comments on reports of a new Catholic group:
There was a time when we needed a group called Catholic
Whistleblowers, but this assembly is a little too late: they missed
the boat by a half-century. The homosexual scandal began in the
mid-1960s and ended 20 years later. Today, it hardly exists. In 2012,
there were six credible allegations made against approximately 40,000
priests. To put it differently, if someone said in 1955 that we must
do something about polio, just after the approval of the Salk vaccine,
we'd think him nuts.
One might think that a group called Catholic Whistleblowers would blow
the whistle on bishops who are shielding molesting priests. But they
can't even name one. The best they can do is mention the arrest of
Father Michael Fugee in Newark for violating a judicial order. In the
12 years since his case was thrown out of court-for groping a teenager
while wrestling in front of family members-there have been no
complaints. No matter, this is all about getting Archbishop John
Myers, not Fugee.
Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability is responsible for forming
the new group. If she is in earnest, she can begin her whistleblowing
exercises by finally naming the 55 predator priests that her entity
says Cardinal Timothy Dolan is hiding. She knows the accusations are a
lie.
Sr. Maureen Turlish is another member, and she is known for calling
allegations made against priests in the Philadelphia grand juries as
"facts," even though more than 20 of them are patently untrue. Fr.
James Connell, now a hero to victims' groups, was himself charged with
covering up for the worst molester in the history of the Catholic
Church in America. Fr. Thomas Doyle believes that Jesus Christ did not
found the Catholic Church, and that the Mass is composed of "magic
words." Robert Hoatson, a former priest, picketed the building where
the Catholic League is housed wearing a sign, "Cath. Lg. Opposed to
Jesus."
What a motley crew. They are fighting a war that is long over. Though
it is not easy to do, it is time they let go. Let the healing begin.

[PATRICK]

Lunchbox wrote something stupid, as usual.
Instead, I have decided to post a new subject:

TWIN PHILLY SCANDALS
Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today:
There are two scandals going on in Philadelphia, and both involve
injustices done to the Catholic Church. One is legal, and the other is
journalistic.
The legal scandal involves the prosecution of three Catholic priests,
and one Catholic layman, in a case so incredible that it would be
turned down as too fictional a script for a TV crime show. The other
involves the Philadelphia Inquirer's decision to keep the public in
the dark about this case.
The statement that I wrote was submitted to the Philadelphia Inquirer
on May 14, 2013; it was to run as a two-page ad on May 20. On May 15,
we were told that a decision was made by those "at the top" not to run
it; when we asked for an explanation, we were told there would be
none.
By turning down the ad, the newspaper forfeited $58,000, not an
insignificant sum, especially for a paper that filed for bankruptcy in
2009. It suggests that those "at the top" would rather forego the
money before ever disseminating a defense about the way three Catholic
priests, and one Catholic layman, were treated in court.
One of the reasons why these Catholic men were treated so unjustly is
the failure of the Philadelphia media, led by the Inquirer, to raise
serious questions about what happened.
The Inquirer can stop us from running this statement as an ad in its
newspaper, but it cannot stop us from blanketing the print and
electronic media in Philadelphia and Harrisburg. Nor can it stop us
from getting it into the hands of every parish in the Philadelphia
Archdiocese. We are also going national with this story.

[PATRICK]

<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: his normal crap.

IRS TARGETED CATHOLIC LEAGUE
Bill Donohue has written a piece for Newsmax explaining, for the first
time, how the IRS targeted the Catholic League right after Barack
Obama was elected president in 2008. The lawyers who triggered the
complaint did so at the behest of a left-wing activist who worked for
a George Soros-funded organization; Donohue has the proof. The same
activist sought to get Donohue thrown off TV.

[PATRICK]

Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: his normal shit.


Catholic League probing Philly DA office
A series of legal problems attendant to a civil suit against the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia has led Catholic League president Bill
Donohue to call for an official investigation into the Philadelphia
District Attorney's office.
On May 9, Donohue sent a letter in the priority mail to Anthony P.
Sodroski, Disciplinary Counsel-in-Charge of the Disciplinary Board of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, requesting an investigation into
the Philadelphia District Attorney's office. Donohue said, "What needs
to be settled is whether someone from the office of D.A. Seth Williams
will be receiving a referral fee for his work in connection with the
'Billy Doe' civil suit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia [Billy
Doe v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al., No. 110702430 (Phila.
County Ct. of Common Pleas)]."
Enclosed in the mailing was a copy of the transcript that quotes an
exchange between alleged victim "Billy Doe" and attorney Michael J.
McGovern; the discussion centers on the D.A.'s office securing an
attorney for "Doe."
Donohue ended his letter by noting the following: "You should know
that we are pursuing other avenues of redress in this case. Never in
my 20 years as president of the Catholic League have I seen a more
egregious series of legal misconduct stemming from one case. All I am
asking from you is cooperation in this particular matter."
Donohue offered this comment today:
The Catholic League is not walking away from this issue. From what I
have learned from the crackerjack reporting by Ralph Cipriano, the
public has been kept in the dark on many aspects of what really
happened to three Catholic priests and one Catholic layman. That is
about to change. Stay tuned.

[PATRICK]

Boy Scouts vote to allow openly gay youths to belong to Scout troops

GRAPEVINE, Texas (CNS) -- The Boy Scouts of America's National Council
voted late May 23 to allow openly gay youths admittance as members
into the 103-year-old organization, effective Jan. 1, 2014. In a
statement, the organization said the decision to review the
organization's ban on accepting homosexuals as members was made based
on "growing input from within the Scouting family. Today, following
this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's
history, the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of
America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the
restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual
orientation alone," the statement said. The announcement was made at
the Boy Scouts of America's annual national meeting, held at the
Gaylord Texan Resort in Grapevine. The organization said it did not
reconsider its ban on homosexual adults as Scout leaders and that the
policy remains in place. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting
said that since the policy change does not take effect until next
January, it will have "adequate time to study its effects. The NCCS
will determine how it may impact Catholic chartered Scout units and
activities. In doing so, we will work within the teachings of our
Catholic faith and with the various local bishops and their diocesan
Scouting committees," the Catholic organization said in a statement.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 08:41:10 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

The Catholic League is clearly not a religious organization.

[Robert H]

Sorry, I had multiple sites up and put up the wrong link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/robert-ballard-evidence-noahs-ark-turkey-black-sea_n_2278004.html

[Robert H]

On May 26, 6:58 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 12:24 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85c4-bb43a

> > e972...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

And? That's how man recorded it.
There is evidence of a great flood.

Where does it say in the bible it was a "global" flood?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > it proves a catastrophic flood in
> > that region.
> > And you know full well that during those times, man did not know about
> > the "globe" and wrote it as if it was the entire world, because that
> > is exactly how it appeared to man who recorded it.
>
> >> > The discovery of the Ark.
>
> >>     What discovery? People have been
> >> climbing all over Ararat for centuries,
> >> no Ark found.
>
> > Bull, and you know it.
>
> >http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/archive/merling/newpage21.htm
>
> "Summary and Conclusion: the Durupinar Site is not Noah's Ark"
>
> Just so.................

[Robert H]

On May 26, 7:10 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 09:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Because you CAN'T refute it.

> ...
>
> When you have scientific evidence, get back to me.

Look who is running now.

[Tom McDonald]

Nothing to support any ark on Ararat in that link. Pretty much the
reverse, in fact.

The suspected Black Sea 'flood' certainly may be part of the notion that
led to the various flood stories in the region, but it doesn't support a
world-wide flood, an ark, or a need for an ark.

Got anything else?

[Good Morning]

In article <8d0b4e3b-204e-476d...@d10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Robert H says...
>
>On May 26, 6:58=A0pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e-8cba-5c908=
>8a1...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 12:24=A0pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
>> >> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85c4-bb43a
>> > e972...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> I repeat it right here:
>> >> >> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or more
>> >> >> of the following:
>> >> >> 1. The esixtence of a creator god
>>
>> >> > The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>>
>> >> >> 2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this
>> >> >> god
>>
>> >> > The witnesses.
>>
>> >> >> 3. The Noahic flood
>>
>> >> > Science proves there was a flood.
>>

>> >> =A0 =A0 What science proves what global flood?

>>
>> > It does not prove a "global" flood,
>>

>> =A0 =A0 The Noah flood was global. Is the Bible lying?

>http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/robert-ballard-evidence-noahs-ar=
>k-turkey-black-sea_n_2278004.html

So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
and support it with an article that contains this
sentence:

"It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
- Robert Ballard

Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

That says nothing about any ark.

It just talks about the Black Sea flood, a purely naturalistic event,
knowledge of which may have been preserved in the form of a myth.

No evidence of any God there, rightard, or that the Bible is anything
more than the collection of ancient myths that Atheists believe it to
be.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

There is evidence of -a- big flood, rightard.

Floods happen all the damn time.

What does that tell us about anything of religious significance?

Can you say "not a damned thing", rightard?

>Where does it say in the bible it was a "global" flood?

That's easily inferred from the description of the flood provided
above.

It the mountains were covered, and every animal killed, it had to be a
global event.

It it wasn't, then it wasn't miraculous and tells us nothing about any
god.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.







>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Robert H]

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/robert-ballard-evidence-no...

>
> Nothing to support any ark on Ararat in that link. Pretty much the
> reverse, in fact.

Not at all.

Why is it that the Turkish Government refuses to let anyone on the
mountain to further examine?

>
> The suspected Black Sea 'flood' certainly may be part of the notion that
> led to the various flood stories in the region, but it doesn't support a
> world-wide flood, an ark, or a need for an ark.
>
> Got anything else?

It's supported, that's enough for me.

Sorry bout your luck old man.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 11:46 am, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8d0b4e3b-204e-476d-8871-386f1cb0d...@d10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

> Robert H says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 26, 6:58=A0pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e-8cba-5c908=

> >8a1a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/robert-ballard-evidence-no...

> >k-turkey-black-sea_n_2278004.html
>
> So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
> and support it with an article that contains this
> sentence:
>
> "It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
> - Robert Ballard

Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
years intact.
However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

That is not the case, but it's a common lie told by crazy evangelicals
who believe total nonsense found in the Bible.

>> The suspected Black Sea 'flood' certainly may be part of the notion that
>> led to the various flood stories in the region, but it doesn't support a
>> world-wide flood, an ark, or a need for an ark.
>>
>> Got anything else?
>
>It's supported, that's enough for me.

The evidence is overwhelming that Noah's Flood did not happen. Only
people who worship ignorance think that it could have.

>Sorry bout your luck old man.

Sorry about your arrogant ignorance.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Evidence of the ark has never been found. All claims have been shown to
be lies.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 12:39 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

It is the case. Otherwise you would have had teams to be able to go up
there and say for a fact, that it is or isn't.

Evidence leads to it being the ark.

And you know that.

>
> >> The suspected Black Sea 'flood' certainly may be part of the notion that
> >> led to the various flood stories in the region, but it doesn't support a
> >> world-wide flood, an ark, or a need for an ark.
>
> >> Got anything else?
>
> >It's supported, that's enough for me.
>
> The evidence is overwhelming that Noah's Flood did not happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/11/robert-ballard-evidence-noahs-ark-turkey-black-sea_n_2278004.html

Try again.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 12:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

Show this.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

Can you name one that has not turned out to be false?

[Tom McDonald]

I'd almost forgotten your penchant for misguiding yourself and then
declaring victory. I'll try to remember in future.

[Good Morning]

In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Robert H says...
>
>On May 27, 11:46=A0am, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <8d0b4e3b-204e-476d-8871-386f1cb0d...@d10g2000yqi.googlegroups=

>.com>,
>> Robert H says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >On May 26, 6:58=3DA0pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e-8cba-5c=
>908=3D
>> >8a1a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> >> > On May 26, 12:24=3DA0pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
>> >> >> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85c4-bb43a
>> >> > e972...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > On May 26, 7:43 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

>> >> >> >> On May 25, 11:54 am, Brother Love <BrotherLove4TheL...@yahoo.com=

>>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> I repeat it right here:

>> >> >> >> Post your ***BEST*** ***FIVE*** items of evidence for one or mor=

>e
>> >> >> >> of the following:
>> >> >> >> 1. The esixtence of a creator god
>>
>> >> >> > The prophecies fulfilled in the bible. WAY more than five.
>>
>> >> >> >> 2. The existence of a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of this
>> >> >> >> god
>>
>> >> >> > The witnesses.
>>
>> >> >> >> 3. The Noahic flood
>>
>> >> >> > Science proves there was a flood.
>>

>> >> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 What science proves what global flood?

>>
>> >> > It does not prove a "global" flood,
>>

>> >> =3DA0 =3DA0 The Noah flood was global. Is the Bible lying?

>>
>> >> "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters
>> >> upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the
>> >> breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing
>> >> that is in the earth shall die."
>> >> Genesis 6:17
>>
>> >> "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon
>> >> the earth; and all the high hills, that were
>> >> under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen
>> >> cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the
>> >> mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died
>> >> that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
>> >> of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
>> >> thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every
>> >> man"
>> >> Genesis 7:19
>>
>> >And? That's how man recorded it.
>> >There is evidence of a great flood.
>>
>> >Where does it say in the bible it was a "global" flood?
>>
>> >> > it proves a catastrophic flood in
>> >> > that region.

>> >> > And you know full well that during those times, man did not know abo=

You have nothing to say about this?
You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
event -- a catastrophic flood -- is more than that merely
because the ancient account claims it is.
That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
You are failing miserably at demonstrating that there
must be some super-natural aspect to it.

[Free Lunch]

On 27 May 2013 11:38:35 -0700, Good Morning <Good_...@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>Robert H says...
>>
>>On May 27, 11:46=A0am, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

...

>>> So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
>>> and support it with an article that contains this
>>> sentence:
>>>
>>> "It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
>>> - Robert Ballard
>>
>>Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
>>years intact.

Since the evidence is absolutely clear that there never was such a flood
and never could have been. Science wins. Robert's false dogma loses.

>>However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.

There is no evidence that Noah's Ark has been found because there never
was such a flood and Noah never existed as portrayed. Reality wins.
Robert loses.

>>> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
>>> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
>>> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
>>> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
>>> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>>
>
>You have nothing to say about this?

He will deny that he is wrong. Facts do not change his mind.

>You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
>event -- a catastrophic flood -- is more than that merely
>because the ancient account claims it is.

But then he might have to admit that his religion contains other false
doctrines.

>That there was a flood event is generally conceded.

Floods happen, but they never have covered the whole world. Robert knows
that, but he refuses to bow to reality when it shows that his dogma is
false.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Rightard...

Would you let every yahoo with a Bible and a shovel dig around and
tear up one of your premier tourist attractions?

Imagine it was the Grand Canyon, and Turks wanted to go digging around
to prove that Mohammed once made a trip to the Americas.

Would you consider the refusal proof that the US is covering something
up?

Really, rightard...

Use your brain once in a while.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.


>

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <10l6q89daufqla3ad...@4ax.com>,

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Lunchbox wrote something stupid, as usual.
> Instead, I have decided to post a new subject:
>
> TWIN PHILLY SCANDALS
> Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today:

Thanks for warning us that what follows are lies which don't need to be
read.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <h1l6q895qpapbn25j...@4ax.com>,

Do you have any evidence for these ridiculous assertions?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <a3l6q81hc1qci1k1t...@4ax.com>,

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: his normal shit.
>
>
> Catholic League probing Philly DA office

Ahhhh, more drama from Drama Queen and Attention Whore Donahue.

[Joe Cooper]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:hlwdjsd2-
F5A478.143...@news.giganews.com:

>> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: his normal crap.
>>
>> IRS TARGETED CATHOLIC LEAGUE
>> Bill Donohue has written a piece for Newsmax explaining, for the first
>> time, how the IRS targeted the Catholic League right after Barack
>> Obama was elected president in 2008. The lawyers who triggered the
>> complaint did so at the behest of a left-wing activist who worked for
>> a George Soros-funded organization; Donohue has the proof. The same
>> activist sought to get Donohue thrown off TV.
>
>
> Do you have any evidence for these ridiculous assertions?

Here is the full text of Dr. William Donohue's article:

http://www.newsmax.com/BillDonohue/IRS-Catholic-League-
Soros/2013/05/16/id/504883

The problems with the IRS extend beyond playing politics with
conservative groups seeking a tax-exempt status. I have never made this
public before, but given the heightened interest in the way the IRS has
conducted itself, the time has come to disclose what happened.

Just weeks after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, I was
notified by the IRS that the Catholic League was under investigation for
violating the IRS Code on political activities as it relates to 501(c)(3)
organizations. What the IRS did not know was that I had proof who
contacted them to launch the investigation: Catholics United, a George
Soros-funded Catholic organization.

The IRS was contacted on June 5, 2008, to launch a probe of the Catholic
League, and the letter sent to me was dated Nov. 24, 2008. The June 5
letter was sent to the IRS by lawyers from Catholics United; it was
mailed to Director Marsha Ramirez, director of Exempt Organizations
Examinations, and to Lois G. Lerner, director of EO Division.

The "evidence" against me was nothing more than news releases and
articles I had written during the presidential campaign on various
issues. The lawyers also asked the IRS to question the source of new
funding we had received, implying that we received illegal contributions.

The timing is not coincidental. On Oct. 20, I issued a news release,
"George Soros Funds Catholic Left," and on Oct. 23, I wrote another one,
"Catholic Left Scandal Mounts"; both mentioned Catholics United. The same
day, Oct. 23, I was asked to go on CNN, and when Catholics United found
out, they contacted the station trying to spike the interview.

The person who did this was the head of Catholics United, Chris Korzen.
He said I was not "an authentic Catholic commentator and representative
of the Catholic Church," and that they should either drop me altogether
or put me on with Alexia Kelley of Catholics in Alliance for the Common
Good (Catholics United is listed on the 990 of Catholics in Alliance as a
related organization; Soros greases this group, and by extension,
Catholics United).

The bid to keep me off TV failed. But here's the key: Korzen was dumb
enough to share with CNN the complaint issued by his group to the IRS.
The document, which was leaked to me by someone at CNN, matches up
extraordinarily well with the IRS complaint of Nov. 24.

In the end, the IRS concluded that although the Catholic League had
"intervened in a political campaign," it was "unintentional, isolated,
non-egregious and non-recurring"; our tax-exempt status remained intact.
This is false: I intentionally addressed political issues, and did not
intervene in the campaign, unless, of course, my freedom to speak about
political issues is a violation of the IRS Code. If that is the case,
then this IRS unit should fold.

So the problem extends beyond the IRS. It extends to left-wing activists,
funded by left-wing tycoons, all for the purpose of silencing
conservatives. It's time someone was held accountable for this obscene
political game.

--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Mr. Obama, much too pure and innocent to be told about mistakes in his
administration, was too busy bathing the feet of the poor and tending
to lepers to be told that his administration was engaged in an
Orwellian attack on free speech. (Ben Stein)

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:b3013e10-8e7d-4b49...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:

> On May 27, 12:39 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
>> <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 27, 11:41 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 5/27/2013 9:50 AM, Robert H wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 26, 4:12 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 5/26/2013 11:27 AM, Robert H wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> On May 26, 12:24 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote

>> >> >>>> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85
> c4-bb43...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

Anyone can book a trip to climb all
over Ararat. Why aren't you signing up?


http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Ararat

http://www.mountararattrek.com/

[Mitchell Holman]

Robert H <cra...@comcast.net> wrote in

news:8d0b4e3b-204e-476d...@d10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On May 26, 6:58 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote

>> innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e-8cba-5c908
> 8a1...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

Genesis 7:23
And every living substance was destroyed
which was upon the face of the ground,
both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and
they were destroyed from the earth: and
Noah only remained alive, and they that
were with him in the ark.

[Robert H]

Damn, and I forgot how dishonest you are. I have to remember that.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 2:38 pm, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Say about what? They are finding more and more evidence supporting the
bible all of the time.

I'm comfortable with that.

> You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
> event -- a catastrophic flood --  is more than that merely
> because the ancient account claims it is.
> That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
> You are failing miserably at demonstrating that there
> must be some super-natural aspect to it.

You either believe there was or you don't.

Simple as that.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 2:54 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 27 May 2013 11:38:35 -0700, Good Morning  <Good_mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
> >In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> >Robert H says...
>
> >>On May 27, 11:46=A0am, Good Morning  <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> ...
> >>> So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
> >>> and support it with an article that contains this
> >>> sentence:
>
> >>> "It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
> >>> - Robert Ballard
>
> >>Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
> >>years intact.
>
> Since the evidence is absolutely clear that there never was such a flood
> and never could have been. Science wins. Robert's false dogma loses.
>
> >>However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.
>
> There is no evidence that Noah's Ark has been found because there never
> was such a flood and Noah never existed as portrayed. Reality wins.
> Robert loses.

Science has already proven there was such a flood. And evidence
supports findings of pieces of the ark.
You lose.

And science is finding evidence all of the time supporting many other
parts of the bible.
You lose again.

>
> >>> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
> >>> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
> >>> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
> >>> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
> >>> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>
> >You have nothing to say about this?
>
> He will deny that he is wrong. Facts do not change his mind.

You have none.

In fact, I have proven you are a coward.
And I have proven that YOU DON'T WANT evidence.

And I have proven you are a hypocrite.

You claim that the burden of proof is on the person making the
assertion right?

You made the assertion there is evidence that shows Washington crossed
the Delaware

Show the evidence and lets apply the same principles to that that you
want to apply to evidence on biblical matters.

You ran away from this.

>
> >You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
> >event -- a catastrophic flood --  is more than that merely
> >because the ancient account claims it is.
>
> But then he might have to admit that his religion contains other false
> doctrines.
>
> >That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
>
> Floods happen, but they never have covered the whole world.

The Bible does not say that.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 10:25 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:b3013e10-8e7d-4b49...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 12:39 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert H
> >> <craz...@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >On May 27, 11:41 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On 5/27/2013 9:50 AM, Robert H wrote:
>
> >> >> > On May 26, 4:12 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5/26/2013 11:27 AM, Robert H wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> On May 26, 12:24 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> >> >>>> innews:4cebc871-409f-486f-85

> > c4-bb43ae972...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

Then find me the science expedition team that was able to exam the
ark.

[Robert H]

On May 27, 10:28 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:

> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:8d0b4e3b-204e-476d...@d10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 6:58 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
> >> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> innews:0e99f256-d41a-4a3e-8cba-5c908

> > 8a1a...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

This is how they recorded it yes. But it does not say global.

And you got to remember, at one point in time ALL the continents were
joined. Science proves this with the plate movements.

Try again.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:39:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On May 27, 2:38 pm, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert H says...

...

>> >Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
>> >years intact.
>> >However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.
>>
>> >> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
>> >> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
>> >> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
>> >> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
>> >> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>>
>> You have nothing to say about this?
>
>Say about what? They are finding more and more evidence supporting the
>bible all of the time.

Not as much as they find showing that the Bible contains a huge number
of unreliable stories. Nothing in Moses is supported by any evidence.
Only the newer stories are sometimes connected to history, though
generally exaggerated.

>I'm comfortable with that.

You are comfortable misrepresenting reality so you can preach your false
religious claims.

>> You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
>> event -- a catastrophic flood --  is more than that merely
>> because the ancient account claims it is.
>> That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
>> You are failing miserably at demonstrating that there
>> must be some super-natural aspect to it.
>
>You either believe there was or you don't.
>
>Simple as that.

Belief is one thing, but when you claim that facts support you, you need
to have those facts.

[Robert H]

On May 28, 11:44 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:39:15 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >On May 27, 2:38 pm, Good Morning  <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert H says...
>
> ...
>
> >> >Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
> >> >years intact.
> >> >However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.
>
> >> >> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
> >> >> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
> >> >> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
> >> >> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
> >> >> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>
> >> You have nothing to say about this?
>
> >Say about what? They are finding more and more evidence supporting the
> >bible all of the time.
>
> Not as much as they find showing that the Bible contains a huge number
> of unreliable stories.

False again.

>Nothing in Moses is supported by any evidence.

Actually, not true. Science has proven how that particular area of the
water could have been separated.

> Only the newer stories are sometimes connected to history, though
> generally exaggerated.
>
> >I'm comfortable with that.
>
> You are comfortable misrepresenting reality so you can preach your false
> religious claims.

I am comfortable with you being a fool and a liar.

>
> >> You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
> >> event -- a catastrophic flood -- is more than that merely
> >> because the ancient account claims it is.
> >> That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
> >> You are failing miserably at demonstrating that there
> >> must be some super-natural aspect to it.
>
> >You either believe there was or you don't.
>
> >Simple as that.
>
> Belief is one thing, but when you claim that facts support you, you need
> to have those facts.

Where are those facts Washington crossed the Delaware?
You believe that right?

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:42:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On May 27, 2:54 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On 27 May 2013 11:38:35 -0700, Good Morning  <Good_mem...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Robert H says...
>>
>> >>On May 27, 11:46=A0am, Good Morning  <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> >>> So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
>> >>> and support it with an article that contains this
>> >>> sentence:
>>
>> >>> "It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
>> >>> - Robert Ballard
>>
>> >>Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
>> >>years intact.
>>
>> Since the evidence is absolutely clear that there never was such a flood
>> and never could have been. Science wins. Robert's false dogma loses.
>>
>> >>However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.
>>
>> There is no evidence that Noah's Ark has been found because there never
>> was such a flood and Noah never existed as portrayed. Reality wins.
>> Robert loses.
>
>Science has already proven there was such a flood.

You are lying. You cannot point to any science that shows that Noah's
Flood happened and you know it.

>And evidence supports findings of pieces of the ark.

More lies from you.

>You lose.

You can falsely declare victory all you want but it won't change the
facts. You preach falsehoods.

>And science is finding evidence all of the time supporting many other
>parts of the bible.
>You lose again.

More lies from you.

>> >>> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
>> >>> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
>> >>> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
>> >>> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
>> >>> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>>
>> >You have nothing to say about this?
>>
>> He will deny that he is wrong. Facts do not change his mind.
>
>You have none.
>
>In fact, I have proven you are a coward.
>And I have proven that YOU DON'T WANT evidence.

You have made it clear that you will tell any lie you can to excuse the
false doctrines you preach.

It is clear to all of us that you have never offered any evidence and
will never offer any evidence. You worship the lies you tell. You don't
give a damn about any gods or about history.

...

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:42:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:

>On May 27, 10:25 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>> Robert H <craz...@comcast.net> wrote innews:b3013e10-8e7d-4b49...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:

...

>> > It is the case. Otherwise you would have had teams to be able to go up
>> > there and say for a fact, that it is or isn't.
>>
>>    Anyone can book a trip to climb all
>> over Ararat. Why aren't you signing up?
>>
>> http://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Ararat
>>
>> http://www.mountararattrek.com/
>
>Then find me the science expedition team that was able to exam the
>ark.

There was no ark to examine. You know that.

Why do you expect anyone to believe your blatant lies?

[Robert H]

On May 28, 11:47 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:42:00 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <craz...@comcast.net>

> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 2:54 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2013 11:38:35 -0700, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >In article <93dfa70e-6ade-4d2a-bd4c-d5f327776...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >Robert H says...
>
> >> >>On May 27, 11:46=A0am, Good Morning <Good_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >>> So, you crowed about the "discovery of the Ark"
> >> >>> and support it with an article that contains this
> >> >>> sentence:
>
> >> >>> "It's foolish to think you will ever find the Ark."
> >> >>> - Robert Ballard
>
> >> >>Of course it's foolish to expect to find an ark after thousands of
> >> >>years intact.
>
> >> Since the evidence is absolutely clear that there never was such a flood
> >> and never could have been. Science wins. Robert's false dogma loses.
>
> >> >>However, that doesn't mean evidence of the ark hasn't been found.
>
> >> There is no evidence that Noah's Ark has been found because there never
> >> was such a flood and Noah never existed as portrayed. Reality wins.
> >> Robert loses.
>
> >Science has already proven there was such a flood.
>
> You are lying.

I've already provided you a science source that shows it did.

You cannot point to any science that shows that Noah's
> Flood happened and you know it.
>
> >And evidence supports findings of pieces of the ark.
>
> More lies from you.

Nope, evidence has been provided.

>
> >You lose.
>
> You can falsely declare victory all you want but it won't change the
> facts. You preach falsehoods.
>
> >And science is finding evidence all of the time supporting many other
> >parts of the bible.
> >You lose again.
>
> More lies from you.

More denial by you.

>
> >> >>> Face the facts. There is nothing amazing about there
> >> >>> being ancient accounts of catastrophic floods.
> >> >>> Ancient catastrophic floods don't need diety-involvment
> >> >>> in order to be explainable. Humans have developed
> >> >>> past such primitive attempts to explain extreme weather.
>
> >> >You have nothing to say about this?
>
> >> He will deny that he is wrong. Facts do not change his mind.
>
> >You have none.
>
> >In fact, I have proven you are a coward.
> >And I have proven that YOU DON'T WANT evidence.
>
> You have made it clear that you will tell any lie you can to excuse the
> false doctrines you preach.

You have made it clear you don't know the definition of the word lie.
I asked you once and you couldn't even provide the definition.
You misrepresent the word.

[Free Lunch]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:47:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert H <cra...@comcast.net>

No, it has not. Not that it matters since there never was a stay in
Egypt or an Exodus.

>> Only the newer stories are sometimes connected to history, though
>> generally exaggerated.
>>
>> >I'm comfortable with that.
>>
>> You are comfortable misrepresenting reality so you can preach your false
>> religious claims.
>
>I am comfortable with you being a fool and a liar.

You know that I am neither, but you cannot bring yourself to admit that
you preach falsehoods.

>> >> You are insisting that an ancient account of a common
>> >> event -- a catastrophic flood -- is more than that merely
>> >> because the ancient account claims it is.
>> >> That there was a flood event is generally conceded.
>> >> You are failing miserably at demonstrating that there
>> >> must be some super-natural aspect to it.
>>
>> >You either believe there was or you don't.
>>
>> >Simple as that.
>>
>> Belief is one thing, but when you claim that facts support you, you need
>> to have those facts.
>
>Where are those facts Washington crossed the Delaware?

He attacked the Hessians near Trenton after he had been encamped in
Pennsylvania. You have to cross the Delaware to do that.

>You believe that right?

There is evidence about the entire war. I had no idea that you were so
hopelessly ignorant.