Re: Palestinians Under Attack
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>And you even clip away much of Hemi's text
>>>
>>>I see no need to repeat the sleazy rantings of bigots.
>>
>> That's because in your self-righteous bigotry you actually
>> believe that YOU are the judge of such things. All the while
>> you shout to the world, "I am the mighty Ray, a sleazy person
>> who ignores what people say while trying to shout everybody down
>> with insults and lame personal attacks."
>>
>I get called a bigot all the time for telling the truth. In this
>case, I guess I'm a bigot for being on the side of the oppressed and
>against the opressor. That is typical Liberal/Socialist thinking, as
>is that of a couple of the more vocal manglers of truth in this
>thread.
>
>It has always interested me that Liberals are 4-square for freedom of
>speech, so long that is, said speech does not disagree with their
>warped views of the world. It seems that around here, there's a
>distinct lack of how to do independent research or even mundane
>things like how to watch various viewpoints on cable news and decide
>for oneself which is biased or in what direction. But, clipping and
>snipping almost assures that correctness and truth will be sacrificed
>in yet another vain attempt at calling people vile names for the
>"crime" of disagreeing with those who, in reality, are the REAL
>racists, bigots, and xenophobes among us.
Exactly.
The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True liberalism,
that is, where all ideas are given equal status and the best float to
the top during the course of the political process. The problem is
that modern liberalism not true liberalism. It is as you say, it
talks the talk of liberty and freedom of speech, but God help you if
in your exercise of free speech you disagree with the those liberals
who think they have the moral high ground.
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>And you even clip away much of Hemi's text
>>>
>>>I see no need to repeat the sleazy rantings of bigots.
>>
>> That's because in your self-righteous bigotry you actually
>> believe that YOU are the judge of such things. All the while
>> you shout to the world, "I am the mighty Ray, a sleazy person
>> who ignores what people say while trying to shout everybody down
>> with insults and lame personal attacks."
>>
>I get called a bigot all the time for telling the truth.
Pretty much EVERY bigot thinks the same thing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
> the best float to the top during the course of the political
> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
> the moral high ground.
>
Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
Politics has one thing which is a sure thing: what goes around,
comes around and when either major party forgets who they work for
and becomes arrogant and complacent, there WILL be a turnover in
Congress and the White House. As I said earlier, our country was
overdue for a change in thinking and I really hoped that there
would be a resurgence of truth in politics vs. the old Washington
insider "politics as usual." But sadly, it is not to be this time.
Hell, our new Treasury Secretary isn't smart enough to even run
Turbo Tax so how's he going to run our economy? And the HHS
designate has exactly the same problem, only 3X larger so how's he
going to run such big entitlements such as Medicare or manage a
useful, cost-effective national healthcare system?
I had to do a major guffaw today, in a black comedy sort of way
naturally, that the Green Nazis in Kalyfornia aren't done outlawing
things they don't like such as cars, now they're after both large
flat-screen plasma and LCD TVs because they use too much energy!
Gee, why not develop NEW energy schemes which can provide the power
and not hurt the environment at the same time? Isn't this what the
environmental community keeps screaming about?
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>> the moral high ground.
>>
>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
What propaganda are you listening to? Exactly how is it you think
that Jesus was a liberal? While he pointed out the hypocrisy of his
day, he was very much a conservative (if such a thing could be
compared to what that word means today.) He said that he came to
fulfill the law, not abolish it. He taught that we should take care
of the poor, not that the government should do that. In the famous
confrontation with the men who were about to stone a woman for
adultery, after pointing out their hypocrisy he charged that woman to
"go and sin no more." He constantly taught about submitting to a
higher authority. He was very clear about what it means to obey the
Ten Commandments, which in the minds of today's liberals is more like
the "Ten Suggestions."
Or perhaps you think that Jesus would be on the side of today's
liberals insisting on a woman's right to an abortion?
The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a very
liberal idea in that day. But they would be aghast at what the
liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution they
hammered out. They were for very limited government control over our
lives, while today's liberals look to the government to do
everything... except for those things they don't agree with, of
course. The liberals of that day would be model conservatives of
today.
Stephen Bishop
Well, you should certainly know about that, Ray.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost
>>>never gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se.
>>>But, just as conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for
>>>our country overall, so too is social engineering where the
>>>idea seems to be that the government somehow can spend our
>>>money better than we can.
>>
>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this
>>country.
>
> Or perhaps you think that Jesus would be on the side of today's
> liberals insisting on a woman's right to an abortion?
I've always wondered why those so passionately in favor of
"choice" for the woman, why they always seem to "choose" death for
the innocent fetus? How come NO Far Left Loons ever CHOOSE life?!
Personally, I believe life begins at conception where a sperm cell
fertilizes an egg. As such, shouldn't even a one-cell fetus have
ALL the rights, freedoms, and protections of our Constitution?
Ever notice, too, how the kinds of "freedoms" that the ACLU
promotes and seemingly defends are always the kind that the
Liberals approve of and virtually never what Conservatives or
Evangelicals agree with? Strange, how these Bill of Rights freedoms
change depending on whose talking about them.
> The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
> king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a
> very liberal idea in that day. But they would be aghast at what
> the liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution
> they hammered out. They were for very limited government
> control over our lives, while today's liberals look to the
> government to do everything... except for those things they
> don't agree with, of course. The liberals of that day would be
> model conservatives of today.
>
One could rightly described the Founding Fathers as "radicals" and
"anarchists" since their aim was literally the violent overthrow of
the Crown in the Colonies. My HS American History teacher used to
point out that the difference between a rebellion and a revolution
is that a revolution is a rebellion that WON.
Now, as to the Founding Fathers and Constitution Framers political
views, I think we could safely say that they ran the gamut from
very liberal to very conservative and everything in between. The
very notion of the Bill of Rights was NOT, NOT, NOT to give power
to the central government but to protect the people FROM the
central government. This would SEEM to make them ACLU-style Loons
but the Framers ideas of freedoms, rights, and protections are what
people today call "traditional values" and NOT what the Far Left
Loons espouse.
Then, too, was the entire mess involving slavery which even caused
rancor during the First Continental Congress drafting the
Declaration of Independence. I think we'll stay away from that
debate for now ...
Through our long and storied history, we have seen the political
pendulum swing from liberal to conservative to centrist to liberal
and back again, MANY times not only for presidential elections and
Congressional races that coincided with them but also in mid-terms
where the party in power almost always lost seats in Congress. I
believe the American people throughout history have been extremely
fortunate to have had just the right mix of ideologies at the right
times during most of our most controversial foreign and domestic
policy debates.
As I've said, the fastest way for the Liberals to wind up back as
the MINORITY party again as soon as 2010 is to FORGET what their
oathes of office requires them to do and go back to the old ways of
arrogance that has precipitated so many political turnovers,
including that away from Reagan Conservatism starting in 2006. We
were ripe for a change, and we got it. Now, let us ALL hope that
the Left can govern as well as it talks and that it puts the
American people FIRST and NOT ideology.
Chris H
<nospam...@now.com> writes
>On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>jour ...
>>>
>>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>>> the moral high ground.
>>>>
>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>>
>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
>
>What propaganda are you listening to? Exactly how is it you think
>that Jesus was a liberal?
HE was closer to Socialist.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stephen Bishop
>In message <utldo4hoet3qkdthn...@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospam...@now.com> writes
>>On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>jour ...
>>>>
>>>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>>>> the moral high ground.
>>>>>
>>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>>>
>>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
>>
>>What propaganda are you listening to? Exactly how is it you think
>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>
>HE was closer to Socialist.
Not at all. Why would you even think so? (But I see you are
following Ray's lead by clipping away all the text that already
refuted that statement.)
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Exactly. That reminds me of the famous line from Shogun when Toranaga
angrily asks the Englishman when it is ever right to rebel against
your liege lord... the answer he gave was , "When you win." To that,
Toranaga agreed that that was indeed the one condition when rebellion
was acceptable.
>
>Now, as to the Founding Fathers and Constitution Framers political
>views, I think we could safely say that they ran the gamut from
>very liberal to very conservative and everything in between. The
>very notion of the Bill of Rights was NOT, NOT, NOT to give power
>to the central government but to protect the people FROM the
>central government. This would SEEM to make them ACLU-style Loons
>but the Framers ideas of freedoms, rights, and protections are what
>people today call "traditional values" and NOT what the Far Left
>Loons espouse.
Exactly. The Bill of Rights is at the very core of conservatism, as
is the entire concept of limited government powers spelled out in the
constitution.
Ray Fischer
>On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>jour ...
>>>
>>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>>> the moral high ground.
>>>>
>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>>
>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
>
>What propaganda are you listening to?
It's the facts, rightward.
> Exactly how is it you think
>that Jesus was a liberal?
Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
> While he pointed out the hypocrisy of his
>day, he was very much a conservative (if such a thing could be
>compared to what that word means today.) He said that he came to
>fulfill the law, not abolish it.
Which law? The Pharisee's law?
> He taught that we should take care
>of the poor, not that the government should do that.
We ARE the government.
> In the famous
>confrontation with the men who were about to stone a woman for
>adultery, after pointing out their hypocrisy he charged that woman to
>"go and sin no more."
Whereas the cnservatives would be trowing the first stones.
> He constantly taught about submitting to a
>higher authority.
Which higher authority is that?
> He was very clear about what it means to obey the
>Ten Commandments, which in the minds of today's liberals is more like
>the "Ten Suggestions."
And so you resort to the usual hatred of anybody who doesn't
goose-step to your rightist agenda.
>The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
>king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a very
>liberal idea in that day.
How about that.
> But they would be aghast at what the
>liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution they
Your rank bigotry isn't the truth, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost
>>>>never gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se.
>>>>But, just as conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for
>>>>our country overall, so too is social engineering where the
>>>>idea seems to be that the government somehow can spend our
>>>>money better than we can.
>>>
>>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this
>>>country.
>>
>> Or perhaps you think that Jesus would be on the side of today's
>> liberals insisting on a woman's right to an abortion?
>
>I've always wondered why those so passionately in favor of
>"choice" for the woman, why they always seem to "choose" death for
>the innocent fetus?
Why do YOU choose death for children, hypocrite? Or is it that only
women should be enslaved by the government?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
There goes clueless Ray again, diverting his own murderous hatred by
trying to accuse others of the same thing.
Watch out for those black helicopters, Ray. If some woman is
unfortunate enough to be married to you, they're after her, too. We
need more slaves to breed more right wingers with... What a looney
toon you are.
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>>jour ...
>>>>
>>>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>>>> the moral high ground.
>>>>>
>>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>>>
>>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
>>
>>What propaganda are you listening to?
>
>It's the facts, rightward.
What facts, left-tard?
>
>> Exactly how is it you think
>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>
>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
All good conservative values. We should all help the poor, be
critical of the established order if it isn't serving the people, and
we should also be forgiving. If you understand the biblical concept
of forgiveness, it is always accompanied by repentance and changing
one's ways. A good place for you to start might be in cleaning up
your language and being more tolerant of other people's opinions.
Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to give
more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love to give
away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight with their own.
Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and Obama and see how little
either of them gave of their own income.
And just look at all the nominees in Obama's new administration who
are being busted for dodging their taxes? There is where the true
hypocrisy is. The typical bigoted and biased "do as I say, not as I
do" liberal left.
>> While he pointed out the hypocrisy of his
>>day, he was very much a conservative (if such a thing could be
>>compared to what that word means today.) He said that he came to
>>fulfill the law, not abolish it.
>
>Which law? The Pharisee's law?
The Ten Commandments. God's law. The Pharisees were more like
today's liberals in that they wanted to force everyone to do things
*their* way with endless rules and regulations that went way beyond
God's law.
>
>> He taught that we should take care
>>of the poor, not that the government should do that.
>
>We ARE the government.
What office do you hold, Ray? Minister of propaganda and paranoid
left-wing fantasy?
>
>> In the famous
>>confrontation with the men who were about to stone a woman for
>>adultery, after pointing out their hypocrisy he charged that woman to
>>"go and sin no more."
>
>Whereas the cnservatives would be trowing the first stones.
That's your opinion, but you are sadly misinformed. There are just
as many liberal hypocrites as there are conservative ones.
>
>> He constantly taught about submitting to a
>>higher authority.
>
>Which higher authority is that?
God. Don't you know that?
>
>> He was very clear about what it means to obey the
>>Ten Commandments, which in the minds of today's liberals is more like
>>the "Ten Suggestions."
>
>And so you resort to the usual hatred of anybody who doesn't
>goose-step to your rightist agenda.
How did you come to that nonsensical conclusion? Oh, that's right,
you have a pathalogical reaction to anyone who isn't as far left as
you are. You must think Jesus was also a Nazi for actually expecting
people to obey the laws of God and threatening that hell awaited those
who don't.
>>The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
>>king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a very
>>liberal idea in that day.
>
>How about that.
>
>> But they would be aghast at what the
>>liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution they
>
>Your rank bigotry isn't the truth, asshole.
And again the bigoted Ray has rectal things on his mind when he
attempts to take the moral high road.
Your rank bigotry again causes you to delete text and respond to the
truth in frustration with lame accusations and insults.
You are such a hypocrite, Ray.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>
>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>
>All good conservative values.
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>
>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>
>>All good conservative values.
>
>Liar.
You're the liar, Ray.
And the sleazy text clipper who hides his lies.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to
> give more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love
> to give away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight
> with their own. Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and
> Obama and see how little either of them gave of their own
> income.
This was fully exposed by Fox News. Rather than view Fox as a right
wing conspiracy, if people would only WATCH it and decide for
themselves, they MIGHT be better informed. But, you are Spot On
that our most (in)famous Democrats have truly dismal charitible
giving records in light of the millions they earn.
> And just look at all the nominees in Obama's new administration
> who are being busted for dodging their taxes? There is where
> the true hypocrisy is. The typical bigoted and biased "do as I
> say, not as I do" liberal left.
>
I think it is downright humorous for "change we can believe in"
with it's special questionaire and ultra-high bar for rooting out
corruption would get hoisted on it's own petard so quickly. Too bad
that Tim Geithner didn't also drop out.
Now, does anyone really believe that the president didn't know
about these tax indescretions WAY in advance? Come on! I think what
happened is that the Obama transition team, and likely the
president-elect as well, thought they could simply slip the ex-
lobbyists and tax dodgers past the American people, but it didn't
work.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>>
>>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>>
>>>All good conservative values.
>>
>>Liar.
>
>You're the liar, Ray.
Tell us, asshole: Is killing hundreds of innocent people the sort of
thing that Jesus would have supported?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to
>> give more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love
>> to give away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight
>> with their own. Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and
>> Obama and see how little either of them gave of their own
>> income.
>
>This was fully exposed by Fox News. Rather than view Fox as a right
>wing conspiracy, if people would only WATCH it and decide for
>themselves, they MIGHT be better informed. But, you are Spot On
>that our most (in)famous Democrats have truly dismal charitible
>giving records in light of the millions they earn.
Of course, a LOT of conservative charity goes to building churches
that they then enjoy the use of.
Charity to oneself isn't much charity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>>>
>>>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>>>
>>>>All good conservative values.
>>>
>>>Liar.
>>
>>You're the liar, Ray.
>
>Tell us, asshole: Is killing hundreds of innocent people the sort of
>thing that Jesus would have supported?
Tell us, rectally-obsessed bigot, are you still molesting young boys?
But giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually think your
question was serious; no, Jesus would most defininately not have
supported what the Palestinians have been doing to Israeli civilians
for decades.
Ray Fischer
>On 04 Feb 2009 18:41:57 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>>>>
>>>>>All good conservative values.
>>>>
>>>>Liar.
>>>
>>>You're the liar, Ray.
>>
>>Tell us, asshole: Is killing hundreds of innocent people the sort of
>>thing that Jesus would have supported?
>
>Tell us, rectally-obsessed bigot, are you still molesting young boys?
Run away, asshole. Just like you always do.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
Nonsense. You could also say that much of what little liberals give
to charity goes to their pet causes that don't do anything to help
others in a substantial way.
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>On 04 Feb 2009 18:41:57 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly how is it you think
>>>>>>>>that Jesus was a liberal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Help the poor, critical of the established order, forgiving ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All good conservative values.
>>>>>
>>>>>Liar.
>>>>
>>>>You're the liar, Ray.
>>>
>>>Tell us, asshole: Is killing hundreds of innocent people the sort of
>>>thing that Jesus would have supported?
>>
>>Tell us, rectally-obsessed bigot, are you still molesting young boys?
>
>Run away, asshole. Just like you always do.
Clip away text and tell others to run away when you have nothing to
say, rectally-obsessed bigot. Just like you always do.
Here, I'll answer your question again since you clipped it away:
HEMI-Powered
Biden's contributions to charity have been consistently UNDER 1%
for decades. Obama's were in the 1% range UNTIL he was elected to
the US Senate and it became obvious he wanted to run for president.
Then, he started contributing more. But, it is instructive to also
look at the POLITICAL soft and hard money contributions that
liberals do vs. conservatives to see their true agendas.
I think that 2008 saw the sad death of a truly independent media in
this country. They got fully enamored with the New Left, especially
Obama, and basically STOPPED doing their jobs - which is to be
WATCHDOGS for the American people to make sure that even when the
government is trying to keep secrets, that the MEDIA exposes their
deceit. In fact, the ENTIRE reason that the First Amendment even
exists, especially the "free press" part, is because the Framers
felt SO strongly that a FREE press is essential to maintaining a
FREE society. If the Framers were truly fearful of anything in
writing the Constitution, it was that the central government would
usurp TOO MUCH power to the detriment of "we the people." And, they
have been proven right over and over and over again thoughout
history.
Easy examples abound: Sarah Palin was subjected to minute scrutiny
yet Barack Obama got almost ZERO investigative reporting air time
and print space. And, the presidents recent hiccups in trying to
slide known tax dodgers past the American people MIGHT have been
discovered even during the initial vetting process IF the media had
at all been interested in doing their jobs.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>jour ...
>>>
>>>> Have you ever noticed how it is the conservatives who tend to
>>>> give more to charities than the liberals do? The liberals love
>>>> to give away *other people's money,* but they are QUITE tight
>>>> with their own. Just look at the tax records of Joe Biden and
>>>> Obama and see how little either of them gave of their own
>>>> income.
>>>
>>>This was fully exposed by Fox News. Rather than view Fox as a right
>>>wing conspiracy, if people would only WATCH it and decide for
>>>themselves, they MIGHT be better informed. But, you are Spot On
>>>that our most (in)famous Democrats have truly dismal charitible
>>>giving records in light of the millions they earn.
>>
>>Of course, a LOT of conservative charity goes to building churches
>>that they then enjoy the use of.
>>
>>Charity to oneself isn't much charity.
>
>Nonsense.
Spending $100,000,000 on cathedrals really helps the poor and
needy, doesn't it asshole?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
Again, rayhole, you twist facts out of context and make totally
irrelevant points. But trying to divert attention from your own moral
bankruptcy is one thing you are good at. Notice I said "trying." You
really aren't successful at it.
Ray Fischer
Stephen Bishop
Which is your standard response every time you are caught dodging and
weaving by trying to make an irrelevent point that is merely another
vent for your bigoted hatred. In this case, you were merely venting
your hatred of churches.
Ray Fischer
Stephen Bishop
Your hatred of the Church is pathetic, rayhole.
BTW, are you still molesting young boys? That's just as valid a
question as the one you asked.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>Of course, a LOT of conservative charity goes to building churches
>>>>>>>>that they then enjoy the use of.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Charity to oneself isn't much charity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Spending $100,000,000 on cathedrals really helps the poor and
>>>>>>needy, doesn't it asshole?
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, rayhole, you twist facts out of context and make totally
>>>>>irrelevant points.
>>>>
>>>>Dodge and weave, squirm and whine. It's what you do.
>>>
>>>Which is your standard response every time you are caught dodging and
>>
>>Spending $100,000,000 on cathedrals really helps the poor and needy,
>>doesn't it asshole?
>
>Your hatred of the Church is pathetic, rayhole.
What "hatred", asshole? I'm stating facts.
The Los Angeles cathedral cost about $190,000,000.
The Oakland cathedral also cost about $190,000,000.
They were paid for by donations that are counted as "charity".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
J. Clarke
Do you have a point?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ray Fischer
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>Spending $100,000,000 on cathedrals really helps the poor and
>>needy, doesn't it asshole?
>
> Your hatred of the Church is pathetic, rayhole.
>
> BTW, are you still molesting young boys? That's just as valid
> a question as the one you asked.
>
I'm not going to enter THIS cat fight, but, in MY minimal
investigation of what's in the various versions of the stimulus
package, there ARE not millions but tens or even hundreds of BILLIONS
in highly questionable support for churches, ACORN, Planned
Parenthood, yada, yada, yada. This bill is perhaps not only the
largest "Christmas tree" bill ever conceived but certainly the
LARGEST liberal agenda funding scheme even devised.
Never mind the partisan crap, people, just LOOK at what is IN the
bill and decide for yourself, will it or will it NOT improve our
economy by creating jobs? I say NOT, just as TARP has been a total
failure in freeing up the credit markets. And, speaking of TARP, SO
FAR, over $78B has already been found to have been literally
squandered on toxic assets purchased by our government with OUR money
than their true value. Since only $350B has been authorized so far,
that represents what, close to 22%?! So, if the approx $800B stimulus
package is enacted and signed into law, as seems likely, we'd maybe
waste $180B or so of THAT? Egad!