OT? - Charity

[George Anthony]

How much did Obama take, er, give?

http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof

--
?"A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve,
not by the desire to beat others." - Ayn Rand

[nothermark]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:55:23 -0500, "George Anthony"
<gant...@gmail.net> wrote:

>How much did Obama take, er, give?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof

If he gave zero it would be OK with me. If he gives more I hope he is
careful who he gives it to.

[Bruce S]

On 9/21/2012 12:55 PM, George Anthony wrote:
> How much did Obama take, er, give?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof

I heard a couple times today that 0bama gave a whole 1%.


--
Bruce

"When it comes to individual rights, no number is greater than one. One
person, one hundred people, one thousand people, one million people do
not have any more rights than the individual. Nor are the rights of a
group greater or more precious than the rights of an individual --
because they don't exist. All rights are individual rights. There is no
such thing as "group" rights."

[George Anthony]

"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:505d0edd$0$44515$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com...

Well, he's a taker not a giver. Although, he "gives" it to the American
people on a daily basis.

[Hank]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 9:06:07 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 12:55 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>
> > How much did Obama take, er, give?
>
> >
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof
>
>
>
> I heard a couple times today that 0bama gave a whole 1%.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

It appears that your beliefs agree with the Obamas more than the Romneys. I thought you believed that if people needed any charity, it was always their fault and there is no excuse for needing charity. Which side of your two faces are you talking out of today?

Also, I like the way you post "facts" with your statment above starting with " I heard". You are really something.

Hank

[Bruce S]

On 9/22/2012 6:29 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 9:06:07 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>> On 9/21/2012 12:55 PM, George Anthony wrote:
>>
>>> How much did Obama take, er, give?
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof
>>
>> I heard a couple times today that 0bama gave a whole 1%.
>>

>> Bruce
>
>
> It appears that your beliefs agree with the Obamas more than the Romneys. I thought you believed that if people needed any charity, it was always their fault and there is no excuse for needing charity. Which side of your two faces are you talking out of today?

You really are too stupid to be part of any conversation. I have never
said that people never find themselves in a situation where they need
help - if you can find such a statement, quote it here, or admit that
you are a liar.

What I have said many, mamu times is that that help should NEVER come
out of tax money - it should come from family, friends, churches, civic
groups, and private charities. I realize you are too stupid to
understand the difference, but it is not charity for the government to
help the needy, it is theft.

>
> Also, I like the way you post "facts" with your statment above starting with " I heard". You are really something.
>
> Hank

I never claimed it was a fact - I reported exactly what information I
had, and where it came from - I heard it on the radio a couple different
times (may have heard it on TV too, can't recall for sure). Again, I
never claimed it as anything other than what it was - something I heard
on the radio.

And I don't need to hear that you are an idiot, you prove it here every
time you post.

[Hank]

It's not worth my time to find your posts, but.....

If Romney felt it was the right thing to do with so much of his own money, think of how much of our money he is going to give away.

I think you should vote for Obama who doesn't give so much of his money because that seems to fit your agenda.

It's gotta be really hard for you to see the world operate 180 degrees from what you want it to and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Hank <~~~~~ pictures Bruce sitting around chewing his finger nails all day long

[Bruce S]

On 9/22/2012 2:49 PM, Hank wrote:
> It's not worth my time to find your posts, but.....>
> If Romney felt it was the right thing to do with so much of his own money, think of how much of our money he is going to give away.>
> I think you should vote for Obama who doesn't give so much of his money because that seems to fit your agenda.>
> It's gotta be really hard for you to see the world operate 180 degrees from what you want it to and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
>
> Hank <~~~~~ pictures Bruce sitting around chewing his finger nails all day long

I can't figure out what it is that passes for thought in what passes for
a your brain that would make you think that because I oppose government
giveaways, I would also oppose private giving.

Are you completely incapable of seeing a difference between having
someone steal your money and you deciding to give it away?

Really, just how stupid are you?

By the way, the evidence demonstrates that people who believe in giving
their own money to charity don't feel compelled to steal other people's
money to give it away. That is why conservatives are more charitable
than liberals.

[Lone Haranguer]

He gave away HIS money.

>
> I think you should vote for Obama who doesn't give so much of his money because that seems to fit your agenda.

Obama only gives away other people's money.

>
> It's gotta be really hard for you to see the world operate 180 degrees from what you want it to and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

He can vote the socialist out of the White House and elect
someone who understands how an economy functions.

Hank <~~~~~ pictures Bruce sitting around chewing his finger
nails all day long

Naw. I think he spends his spare time putting photos of Obama in
bus station urinals.
LZ

[Larry]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 06:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Also, I like the way you post "facts" with your statment above starting with " I heard". You are really something.
>
>Hank

I did not see you post anything about Harry when he said he heard
Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years! You are really something.

[Hank]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:57:37 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:

>
> He gave away HIS money.

>

> Naw. I think he spends his spare time putting photos of Obama in
>
> bus station urinals.
>
> LZ

You and other blind RORT conservatives missed my point. My point was... If he gives that much of his own money, think how much he will give away of yours".

I don't know about the Obama photos, but I will agree that Bruce probably does hang around bus station urinals. :-)

Hank

[Hank]

Whoose! Right over your head.

Hank

[Mike Simmons]

"nothermark" wrote in message
news:mblp58p9g79ef0rgh...@4ax.com...

Liberals are pretty generous with other folks (read taxpayers) money. With
their own dough.... not so much.

Mike

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Hank" wrote in message You and other blind RORT

conservatives missed my point. My point was... If he
gives that much of his own money, think how much
he will give away of yours".<<<<<<

Why do you think there should be a correlation
between what someone did with HIS money and
what hey did/will do with OUR MONEY ?

There is no record of Obama EVER giving away any
of HIS money and he spent 5 trillion OF OUR
MONEY, in 3+ years.

If the correlation is the same as Obama, (doing
the opposite with our money as he did with his)
Romney will not spend ANY of our money.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[nothermark]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:32:55 -0500, "Mike Simmons" <mik...@yhti.net>
wrote:

Not the same thing. Assuming the proper point of view there would be
little need for charity if one just paid their taxes and the
government did it's job of caring for the people.

Thinking about that I wonder if one reason a lot of folks are so
charity oriented beause they like to lord it over folks. I got mine
so I can toss you a crumb.

Then there is the money is power issue. The Mormon Church is big on
tithing because that gives them the resources to do a lot for their
folks. romney tithes and donates a chunk to the Children's hospital
in Boston. If it was not for that he would be the same as Obama.

[Lone Haranguer]

Hank wrote:
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:57:37 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> He gave away HIS money.
>> Naw. I think he spends his spare time putting photos of Obama in
>>
>> bus station urinals.
>>
>> LZ
> You and other blind RORT conservatives missed my point. My point was... If he gives that much of his own money, think how much he will give away of yours".

But your "logic" is non-existent. Romney has a habit of
VOLUNTARILY giving away his money. Obama has a habit of giving
away money that he did not earn and belongs to someone else.

LZ

[Frank Howell]

nothermark wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:32:55 -0500, "Mike Simmons" <mik...@yhti.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "nothermark" wrote in message
>> news:mblp58p9g79ef0rgh...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:55:23 -0500, "George Anthony"
>> <gant...@gmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> How much did Obama take, er, give?
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof
>>
>> If he gave zero it would be OK with me. If he gives more I hope he
>> is careful who he gives it to.
>>
>> Liberals are pretty generous with other folks (read taxpayers)
>> money. With their own dough.... not so much.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> Not the same thing. Assuming the proper point of view there would be
> little need for charity if one just paid their taxes and the
> government did it's job of caring for the people.

Where is it written that government's job is caring for the people?

>
> Thinking about that I wonder if one reason a lot of folks are so
> charity oriented beause they like to lord it over folks. I got mine
> so I can toss you a crumb.

Well isn't that charitable of you!

>
> Then there is the money is power issue. The Mormon Church is big on
> tithing because that gives them the resources to do a lot for their
> folks. romney tithes and donates a chunk to the Children's hospital
> in Boston. If it was not for that he would be the same as Obama.

But he does do it! That's what matters, not some hypothetical imaginary
wishful thinking "stream of conscience" by a 14 year bubble gumming,
schooled by "keeping up with the Kardasions," twittering airhead.

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

Hank wrote:
> On Saturday, September 22, 2012 6:57:37 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> He gave away HIS money.
>
>>
>> Naw. I think he spends his spare time putting photos of Obama in
>>
>> bus station urinals.
>>
>> LZ
>
> You and other blind RORT conservatives missed my point. My point
> was... If he gives that much of his own money, think how much he will
> give away of yours".

> Hank

Maybe none as Romney understands private property rights verses Obama's
philosophy of taxing the rich in order to fund the poor.

That said I don't understand what the correlation is between the two actions
you described. Do you have any evidence that lead you to your conclusion?

--
Frank Howell

[Bruce S]

No, I understood the point you thought you were making - you were just
completely wrong. You are too stupid to figure out that people who give
their own money don't feel it is necessary to steal from others and give
their money too. You are easily the stupidest person posting here.

[Hank]

Whereas, you and your Libertarian views are so far out of touch with the real world of today, you are a complete and total dumbass that can't seem to get a grip on society.

Also, I don't call people names just because they don't agree with me.

Hank

[nothermark]

He does it and so does every other person in good standing with a
Church that pushes tithing. It's about like brushing teeth.

Who are the Kardasions and why would anyone care about them?

[Bruce S]

On 9/23/2012 12:31 PM, Hank wrote:n't seem to get a grip on society.

>
> Also, I don't call people names just because they don't agree with me.
>
> Hank

I don't call you names just because you don't agree with me, I call you
stupid because you are stupid.

[Don Lampson]

Poor old Juicy Brucie must really be unhappy with his new home, and
his lot in life? Over the past several months he's became the
nastiest poster on RORT! I'll bet he's getting fat, which is common
in people suffering from depression as well? What's worse, there's
no indication that anything will change to cheer him up? HawHawHaw!

Dr. Kildare

[Max]

Maybe this is the reason we post.

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/257904/scitech/socialmedia/social-media-rewards-are-like-food-sex-ndash-harvard-study

[Clinton Callahan]

How do I fix a small plastic swimming pool?

Whenever we break a pool toy, there are strong plastic stickers which
fix up holes or rips.... if you have a hole or rip, you can get some
of these at most stores... I live in australia, so we get ours from
Kmart.

[Jan Orme]

On Sep 23, 5:33 am, "Mike Simmons" <mike...@yhti.net> wrote:
> "nothermark"  wrote in message
>
> news:mblp58p9g79ef0rgh...@4ax.com...
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:55:23 -0500, "George Anthony"
>

> <ganth...@gmail.net> wrote:
> >How much did Obama take, er, give?
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ch5eeof
>
> If he gave zero it would be OK with me.  If he gives more I hope he is
> careful who he gives it to.
>
> Liberals are pretty generous with other folks (read taxpayers) money.  With
> their own dough.... not so much.
>
> Mike

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. Mike!

http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/09/romney-paid-more-in-taxes-than-99...

Romney Paid More in Taxes than 99% of all Americans

This came as a shock even to me. The media have been doing a great
job
in propagandizing for Team Obama by making a campaign issue out of
the
fact that Mitt Romney “only” paid around 14 percent in taxes.
Consider
the following from the mostly liberal Washington Post: “[A]bout 96
percent of all taxpayers have a lower average [Federal income] tax
rate than Romney.”

“More precisely, in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of
Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9
percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans
had
a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at
least
according to the latest IRS data from 2010.”

Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes — millions — and liberals
like Harry Reid, who has not released his tax returns, still say that
Romney is not paying his “fair share.” Consider these amazing tax
statistics:

“The most recent Complete Report of Individual Tax Returns for 2010
from the IRS has a nice table on page 25 showing average tax rates by
income group from 1986 to 2010. In 2010, the average income tax rate
paid by all taxpayers was 11.8 percent — clearly less than the
roughly
14 percent average income tax rate Romney paid last year. Most
taxpayers earning under $100,000 pay an average rate of less than 9%.
Those earning between $50,000 and $60,000 pay an average income tax
rate of 6.5 percent.”

This is all because 47 percent (58 million) of all people who get a
pay check don’t pay any federal income taxes. The claim that the
“rich” are not paying “their fair share” is one of the biggest
liberal
lies out there, nearly as bad as “We’re from the government and are
here to help you.”

Another thing. Because the Romneys are millionaires, they buy a lot
of
stuff. Every time they purchase something, they pay sales taxes,
excise taxes, and other mandated taxes that consumers never see but
are tacked on to motel and hotel bills, telephone bills, gasoline,
and
nearly everything we buy. Moreover, every time they buy or build
something, their purchases go a long way to employ people as their
spent money ripples through the economy.

It would be interesting to see the effect that a spent dollar has on
the economy as compared to a taxed dollar.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which also means that he stimulated our economy more than 99% of All
Americans. Did Obama?

Nope! And never will because he will never give like Romney does.

Meanwhile, here on RORT, we even have Trolls trying to sell patches
for used condoms to raise money for the DNC.

Jan Eric Orme

[Hank]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:20:24 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 12:31 PM, Hank wrote:n't seem to get a grip on society.
>
> >
>
> > Also, I don't call people names just because they don't agree with me.
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> I don't call you names just because you don't agree with me, I call you
>
> stupid because you are stupid.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce
>

Since you are unable to hold a conversation without your school yard tactics of calling people names, I'll respond in elementary language you MIGHT understand... "It takes one to know one".

Hank <~~~~ shaking head

[Bruce S]

On 9/25/2012 4:51 AM, Hank wrote:
> On Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:20:24 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>>
>> I don't call you names just because you don't agree with me, I call you
>> stupid because you are stupid.
>>

>> Bruce
>
> Since you are unable to hold a conversation without your school yard tactics of calling people names, I'll respond in elementary language you MIGHT understand... "It takes one to know one".
>
> Hank <~~~~ shaking head

I already told you that you don't need to prove your stupidity with
every post, you can stop any time. But as long as you insist on being
wrong, being wrong on an elementary level is appropriate.

[Hank]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
> On 9/25/2012 4:51 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:20:24 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't call you names just because you don't agree with me, I call you
>
> >> stupid because you are stupid.
>
> >>
>
> >> Bruce
>
> >
>
> > Since you are unable to hold a conversation without your school yard tactics of calling people names, I'll respond in elementary language you MIGHT understand... "It takes one to know one".
>
> >
>
> > Hank <~~~~ shaking head
>
>
>
> I already told you that you don't need to prove your stupidity with
>
> every post, you can stop any time. But as long as you insist on being
>
> wrong, being wrong on an elementary level is appropriate.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce

You obviously don't know the difference between "being wrong" and "difference of opinion".

You can now continue with your mental masterbation.

Hank

[Bruce S]

You really aren't worth the keystrokes to correct, but you are wrong
once again. When you say "It takes one to know one" - that is not a
matter of opinion, it is a claim of fact, and is WRONG - simply on it's
face, it is wrong. It does not take a dog to know a dog, it does not
take a tree to know a tree, and it does not take a moron to know that
you are a moron. In fact, smarter people will recognize your stupidity
much faster than stupid people - so, you, as always, are wrong.

Secondly, you really shouldn't get into a discussion about about
smart/stupid if you can't spell a simple word like "masturbation."

[nothermark]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

If it's only mental it spares the keyboard. ;-)

[Hank]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:03:10 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>
> >
>
> > You obviously don't know the difference between "being wrong" and "difference of opinion".
>
> >
>
> > You can now continue with your mental masterbation.
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
>
>
> You really aren't worth the keystrokes to correct, but you are wrong
>
> once again. When you say "It takes one to know one" - that is not a
>
> matter of opinion, it is a claim of fact, and is WRONG - simply on it's
>
> face, it is wrong. It does not take a dog to know a dog, it does not
>
> take a tree to know a tree, and it does not take a moron to know that
>
> you are a moron. In fact, smarter people will recognize your stupidity
>
> much faster than stupid people - so, you, as always, are wrong.
>
>

Seriously? You went on a rant trying to explain what "It takes one to know one" means? roflmao

>
> Secondly, you really shouldn't get into a discussion about about
>
> smart/stupid if you can't spell a simple word like "masturbation."
>

> Bruce

I knew it looked wrong when i typed it. :-) I obviously don't use that word as much you do.

Hank