Re: Homosexuals and Crime and Patrick's Plagiarism

[PATRICK]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:03:25 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:e30bhb9n4de4b0bl1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:10:31 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7lj9hbpfjd4mj8pe4...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 05:39:43 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:dnj7hbpqoveb52ei7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 09:11:22 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:dcf5hb9dthpr76470...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 08:12:39 +1000, "Dechucka"
>>>>>>>> <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Noooooooo. You brought that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Sadam did have WMD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>DID being the operative word, he didn't when Iraq was invaded, he
>>>>>>>>>>>had
>>>>>>>>>>>complied with the UN resolutions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not according to the UN Inspectors who attempted to inspect
>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>> areas and were denied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He didn't have any WMD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't feel chemical weapons are wmd?
>>>>>>>> Or scud missiles?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear,
>>>>>>>> radiological,
>>>>>>>> chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring
>>>>>>>> significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g.
>>>>>>>> mountains), or the biosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are a moron he didn't have them or they would of been found after
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>invasion which resulted in the destabilisation of the ME
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are buried - to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL, truefaith
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove that I am wrong.
>>>>>> Are you also going to deny that Syria had chemical weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>>WTF has that got to do with anything. The US has WMDs
>>>>
>>>> You claimed Iraq didn't have any.
>>>
>>>not when invadeded
>>>
>>>> I call you a liar.
>>>
>>>incorrectly
>>>
>>>> Any more questions?
>>>
>>>Why did you raise Syria?
>>
>> I'm merely wondering if you think Syria has WMD.
>
>Why?

I just want to know if you have a proper definition of WMD.
I know you do not.



>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> At one time, Salvador Allende was considered our ally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Exactly morals and US policy are opposites
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now you are discovering this?
>>>>>> Perhaps we should elect another democreep into office.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lot of the time the hypocrisy,y like when Saddam was a US ally, was
>>>>>under
>>>>>Republicans
>>>>
>>>> He just thinks he was an ally.
>>>
>>>So did the Americans
>>
>> Is that why we armed the Iranians in their war against Iraq?
>
>Oh so Reagan broke the law via North

Reagan broke the law?
What law?

[Dechucka]

snip

>>>>Why did you raise Syria?
>>>
>>> I'm merely wondering if you think Syria has WMD.
>>
>>Why?
>
> I just want to know if you have a proper definition of WMD.
> I know you

give it to the group for their enlightment.

snip

[PATRICK]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:45:37 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I did just recently.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <80fdhbpgbi1tp0m09...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

АА Another WMD is a horny teenage female - a.k.a. a "Lolita".

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-1904161...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)
wrote:

> €€ Another WMD is a horny teenage female - a.k.a. a "Lolita".

What are you talking about?

--

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-C538E4...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> In article <r-1904161...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <80fdhbpgbi1tp0m09...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
> > <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:45:37 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >snip
> > > >>>>>Why did you raise Syria?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm merely wondering if you think Syria has WMD.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Why?
> > > >>
> > > >> I just want to know if you have a proper definition of WMD.
> > > >> I know you
> > > >
> > > >give it to the group for their enlightment.
> > >
> > > I did just recently.
> > > A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological,
> > > chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring
> > > significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to
> > > human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g.
> > > mountains), or the biosphere.
> >
> > €€ Another WMD is a horny teenage female - a.k.a. a "Lolita".
>
> What are you talking about?

€€€ Hetero homo sapiens in estrus.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-2004160...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)

Still no clue.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-B4AD5A...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

4€ Line €€€ ia as good as I can do.
cheers JD

[Jeanne Douglas]

What does that line have to do with WMD?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-3C3553...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

> > 4€ Line €€€ it's as good as I can do.

> > cheers JD
>
>
> What does that line have to do with WMD?

5€ It describes the type of human who becomes one. In my life I've known
c. 5 of them. One of them used to work for me processing mail orders. A
few years ago she told me that her hobby is hunting males.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-2004161...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)

And what does that have to do with WMD?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-818176...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

6€ Each of them was a bringer of mass destruction - mainly to male/female
relationships. including married couples. It seemed to me that seducing a
married man was a trophy conquest.

[Dechucka]

"PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message

news:80fdhbpgbi1tp0m09...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:45:37 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>snip
>>>>>>Why did you raise Syria?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm merely wondering if you think Syria has WMD.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>
>>> I just want to know if you have a proper definition of WMD.
>>> I know you
>>
>>give it to the group for their enlightment.
>
> I did just recently.

No you didn't

> A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological,
> chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring
> significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to
> human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g.
> mountains), or the biosphere.

Not a bad definition. Yes Syria has them in the form of gas. Yes Saddam HAD
them and used them when he was a US good guy countering the Iran threat to
the ME

[Jeanne Douglas]

You act like the man has no part in the "sin".

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <x-adnUsIFfGhuIXK...@westnet.com.au>,

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "PATRICK" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:80fdhbpgbi1tp0m09...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:45:37 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>snip
> >>>>>>Why did you raise Syria?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm merely wondering if you think Syria has WMD.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why?
> >>>
> >>> I just want to know if you have a proper definition of WMD.
> >>> I know you
> >>
> >>give it to the group for their enlightment.
> >
> > I did just recently.
>
> No you didn't
>
> > A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological,
> > chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring
> > significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to
> > human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g.
> > mountains), or the biosphere.
>
> Not a bad definition. Yes Syria has them in the form of gas.

Not anymore. It's been removed and destroyed.

> Yes Saddam HAD
> them and used them when he was a US good guy countering the Iran threat to
> the ME

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-67F3FF...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

7€ When I was younger I was stupider and I unserstood less about female
pheremones' ability to control the male brain. It's not that the male has
no part in the "sin", it's just that he's easily outgunned by unclothed
females when he's young. Also, females definitely have a leg up on males
since they use both hemispheres of the brain in functions where males use
only one hemispere. Another male disadvantage is that females alone have
intuition. Yet another female advantage is that women have olfactory
senses that allow them to detect the Bartholin's gland and Skeen's gland
lubricants of other women. Intuition combined with females' schnozz
advantage puts males at a considerable disadvantag.e

cheers J.D,

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:10:23 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

Contrarily, you act like the woman is all free of guilt.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-2104160...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)

You're blaming women.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-BCEF50...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

8€ No man or woman is to blame for the Y chromosome. If you don't have
one JD consider yourself fortunate.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-2104162...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)

But you're excusing men for behaving badly. Why can't men control
themselves?

[Dechucka]

snip

>> 8? No man or woman is to blame for the Y chromosome. If you don't have

>> one JD consider yourself fortunate.
>
>
> But you're excusing men for behaving badly. Why can't men control
> themselves?

The majority of us can, we aren't turned into sex maniacs because of
pheromones just as women aren't to male ones

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <YLydndoRisjRXITK...@westnet.com.au>,

But RL is saying they are and he's a man.

[PATRICK]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:29:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <YLydndoRisjRXITK...@westnet.com.au>,
> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> snip
>>
>> >> 8? No man or woman is to blame for the Y chromosome. If you don't have
>> >> one JD consider yourself fortunate.
>> >
>> >
>> > But you're excusing men for behaving badly. Why can't men control
>> > themselves?
>>
>> The majority of us can, we aren't turned into sex maniacs because of
>> pheromones just as women aren't to male ones
>
>But RL is saying they are and he's a man.

Hey Jeanne, I'd love to continue this conversation, but.
I'm getting hungry. What's for breakfast?
Quick! Hop like a bunny.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-AB66FB...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

9€ I'm not excusing men. Some of the worst miscreants I know are males.
Even the 2 witches I used to date weren't as bad.

>Why can't men control themselves?

9€ Men are simply outgunned visually and olfactorly by some women. I
used to sit behind a Jewish girl in 7th Grade who could cause erections at
distances of c. 30-ft indoors. . . Had our Creator not made women that
way the population of this planet might be only one billion instead of
seven+.

[Dechucka]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-3BF1A2...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <YLydndoRisjRXITK...@westnet.com.au>,
> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> snip
>>
>> >> 8? No man or woman is to blame for the Y chromosome. If you don't
>> >> have
>> >> one JD consider yourself fortunate.
>> >
>> >
>> > But you're excusing men for behaving badly. Why can't men control
>> > themselves?
>>
>> The majority of us can, we aren't turned into sex maniacs because of
>> pheromones just as women aren't to male ones
>
> But RL is saying they are and he's a man.

He doesn't speak for us all

[Dechucka]

snip

>> > 8? No man or woman is to blame for the Y chromosome. If you don't

>> > have
>> > one JD consider yourself fortunate.
>>
>>
>> But you're excusing men for behaving badly.
>

> 9? I'm not excusing men. Some of the worst miscreants I know are males.

> Even the 2 witches I used to date weren't as bad.

Ah now it comes out. With your attitudes no wonder you got dumped

[PATRICK]

Atheists are angry

keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
I suppose it may be because you have come to a conclusion that
you experience ongoing discrimination because of your disbelief in
gods. You have to hide your atheism from family, friends and
coworkers.
You don't know any atheists except those online. You have to listen to
others make disparaging comments about disbelief without being able
to respond. This kind of pressure isn't healthy, psychologically or
emotionally, and can readily lead to a person becoming angry.

So you seek others on line that can give you support and high fives.
You learn quickly that the bigger the insult you can spew, the better
you feel.
This really isn't very healthy for your emotional well being.

Why do some people assume that atheists as a group are angry?
One reason is the obvious: there are enough angry atheists, especially
online, one can honestly get the impression that this is how atheists
normally are. This is, however, a bit like assuming that all
Christians
reason very poorly and know nothing at all about logic or critical
thinking
- an impression which many atheists get after dealing with family
members.

Perhaps you should lighten up a bit.
What is the particular sin that you own?
Why do you try to blame Christians for their belief that your
sin is against God's will?
Are you a fag? Do you enjoy your immoral lifestyle?
Do you believe that abortion is an answer to an inconvenience?
What is it with you?

[PATRICK]

Crusades-misconceptions are all too common.
Current interest is an opportunity to explain the Crusades while
people are actually listening.

What were the Crusades? When were they? In other words, aren't the
Crusades really to blame for all the terrorists plotting against
Christianity?

As I said, misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The
Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against
Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They
are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and
intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in
particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of
proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the
peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture,
leaving it in ruins.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working
some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For
starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars.
They were a direct response to Muslim aggression-an attempt to turn
back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims
really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was
born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the
means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides
the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.
Christianity-and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion-has no
abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state
under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish
states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was
waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the
dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman
Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle
East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime
target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim
leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the
Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely
successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt-once the most heavily
Christian areas in the world-quickly succumbed. By the eighth century,
Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain.
In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern
Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old
Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was
reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in
Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking
them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild
of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than
four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured
two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as
a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.
The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the
conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response
was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross
and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question
has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was
usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and
ne'er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage
in a faraway land. The Crusaders' expressed sentiments of piety,
self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken
seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have
demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading
knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in
Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake
the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could
easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade.
They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of
them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where
rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their
sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a
penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands
of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which
these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they
were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth
is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people
got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain
central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue
the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later
wrote:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as
himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name
are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed
down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to
the task of freeing them? …Is it by chance that you do not know that
many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by
the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was
understood as an "an act of love"-in this case, the love of one's
neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a
terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar,
"You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than
this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"
he second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places
made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval
Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness
on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they
received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This
goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth
Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:
Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king
was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when
he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for
dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and
traitors…unless they had committed not only their property but also
their persons to the task of freeing him? …And similarly will not
Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you
cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you
with the Precious Blood…condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and
the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The reconquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act
of restoration and an open declaration of one's love of God.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced
conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the
truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the
enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat
and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in
Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their
property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout
the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants
far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that
the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were
mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts
were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.
This article originally appeared in the March 2002 issue of Crisis
Magazine.

[PATRICK]

Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected
by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach
4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids
about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own
money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports
certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too
high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are
more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert
E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very
nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,
and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right
wing conspiracy.

[PATRICK]

Things you have to believe to be a Democrat today:
Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and
understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative talk show host.

The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our
highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a
collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N.
charter.

Government should relax drug laws regardless of the potential for
abuse, but should pass new and unConstitutional anti-gun laws because
of the potential for abuse.

Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political
opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree
killing is "a logical solution."

"It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except
creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.

Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil,
lawless terrorists and other thugs.

Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb
is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to
death is good. Quickly killing terrorists, convicted murderers and
rapists is BAD.

Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the
name of diversity, so long as that religion isn't Christianity.

The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move.
This will let them know they're thought of often.

Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the
governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the
United States.

Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed
choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will
turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.

Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist; women are
blameless for the hatred of the rapist; but America is entirely at
fault for the hatred of Islamofascists.

Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al
Qaeda are typically U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and
luxury.

The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but
anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order
9066 must be regarded "reasonable precautions."

We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even
when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested
economic interests in propping up our enemies.

Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend
every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get
quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical
community can't provide.

Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified
to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton
Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.

John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk
science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun
control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to
research misconduct over his book "Arming America").

Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's
lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the
Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."

A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who
references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be
dragged through the streets naked.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and
shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't
pass in any legislature.

"The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in
the Fourth Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Ninth
Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Tenth Amendment means
The People; but "the People" in the Second Amendment (ratified in
1791) means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in
1903).

You support a woman's "right to choose" to kill her unborn child, but
don't believe that same woman is competent enough to homeschool the
children she bears.

Proven draft-dodging is irrelevant, but baseless claims of AWOL status
is crucial to national security.

Threatening to boycott Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's advertisers is
exercising Freedom of Speech, but threatening to boycott CBS's "The
Reagans" and Liberal actors over their asinine anti-American remarks
is censorship and McCarthyist blacklisting.

[PATRICK]

THE BROTHERS OF JESUS

Did Jesus have biological brothers as some non-Catholics claim? Or is
this just another attack on the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Since the early days of the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the
perpetual virginity of Mary has been asserted and defended.

First of all, I will explain to you the Biblical meaning of the
"brothers of Jesus." In today's society, as it was in the days of
Jesus, the word "brother" had another meaning other than being a
biological brother. The Natives of North America call each other
"brothers", although in most cases, they are not related. When
watching television, we notice how the black people call each other
"brothers," although they are not related. The moslems in Canada often
called each other "brothers" although they are not related. Prisoners
call each other "bro" or "brothers" although they are not related.
Members of religious groups call each other "brothers." Even those who
are involved in illegal drug activities, they call each other
"brothers." Yet none of these groups are really blood related to each
other.

Why do these groups of people call each other "brothers?" It is
because the word "brother" in these cases has a totally different
meaning. The usage of the word "brother" in these cases has to do with
association by culture, peers, race or religion. Some people like to
emphasize that they belong to the same race. Equally, some like to
emphasize that they belong to the same culture, a particular peer
group or the same Church.

All of us, sometime in life, will experience being introduced as a
"brother" or "sister" to someone. It might be because of the
friendship between two persons or the manner in which one is
introduced to a certain group. At the same time, one knows that truly,
he is not the "brother" or "sister" of the other person.

It was the same in the Jewish culture. The Jewish people, not
belonging to the gentile nations, made reference to each other as
"brothers" and "sisters." When introduced, this identified them as
"one of them," as a Jewish person. When something was written about
the Jewish people, they were referred to as "brothers" as a means of
saying they were Jewish.

To complicate the matter, the Hebrew language did not contain a word
that meant "cousin." Instead, the word "brother" was used for both,
the words "brother" and "cousin." When the Jewish scholars translated
the early Church writings from Hebrew to Greek, they literally
translated the word "brother" as "brother." Since they were accustomed
to the word that could mean either "brother" or "cousin," they did not
believe that it was necessary to define when it means "brother" or
when it means "cousin." Therefore, in instance where a reference might
be made to a cousin of Jesus, the word "brother" was applied. While
this person may have been a blood relative, he was not a biological
brother.

Now, let us review the claim that James was the brother of Jesus. In
Mark 15:40, we read, "There were also women looking on from a
distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James
the younger and of Joses, and Salome." It is clear from this verse
that Mary, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary, the mother of
Jesus. The Bible makes reference to more than one Mary.

To conclude, I want to present some logical facts that clearly
indicate that Jesus could not have had brothers. These are:

1) If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that
the descendants from Jesus's mother would be proud of it? And
accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful
place as descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!

2) The Catholic Church has always proclaimed that Mary was
ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children
and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary
as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of
Mary.

3) If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as
popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the
promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old
Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew
where it states, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken
by the Lord through the prophoet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and
bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is
with us.'" [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the
prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew
would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been
recognized as being the Messiah.

4) In the Gospel of John, we read, "When Jesus saw his mother and the
disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother,
'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your
mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."
[Jn. 19:26-27]

If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom,
they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died.
But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary,
into the hands of the Apostle John.

5) In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel
said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be
holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of
Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This
union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she
was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth
of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of
Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.

6) In Mark 6:3, we read, "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his
sisters here with us?' And they were offense at him." Notice here that
there is only one reference to "the son of Mary," that being Jesus.
The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of
Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they
too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.

Knowing that Jesus had no biological brothers, we can speculate
regarding the status of his brothers. They could have members of
Jesus' religious group. The could have been cousins. They could have
been adopted by Joseph and Mary. Or, if Joseph had fathered children
from a previous marriage and was a widower, then the brothers would
actually be half-brothers of Jesus. While all of these speculations
are possible, they do not contradict the fact that Jesus had no
biological brothers who shared Mary and Joseph as parents. Those who
claim otherwise, they have failed to thoroughly study the facts that
are found in the Holy Bible.

[PATRICK]

evolution is NOT a fact.

We need to emphasize up front that - despite many claims - evolution
is NOT a fact. Neither evolution nor creation is a natural law or a
scientific fact, but each is merely a model. What does this mean? The
process of evolution, just as the act of creation, cannot be observed
or repeated, so both models remain unproved by science. Therefore
neither can be called a natural law (such as the law of gravity or the
laws of thermodynamics, which describe well proved and observed
behavior subject to laws of nature) nor a scientific theory (which
requires the possibility and evidence of repeated observations). So
evolution - just as creation - is only a model used to explain the
observations in the world as we know it. It is not a fact, not a
natural law, not even a scientific theory, but just a model!
I would also like to emphasize, that there are only two possible
models for the origins of life: evolution or creation. There is no
alternative, and these two are mutually exclusive. Either our
space/time based universe needed a Creator God or it did not. This
has an important implication: If we can prove that evolution is NOT a
viable model/explanation, than we have indirectly found proof that God
exists! Therefore in studying the evidences we will focus both on
evidence to show that evolution is a faulty model as well as evidence
pointing to the existence of a Creator God.
The basic elements of the evolutionary model remain:
" Change over long periods of time: entities/organisms change
over time. These changes are random and are only based on pure chance.
" Natural Selection: positive changes strengthen the organism
and increase its chances for survival. Therefore (random) positive
changes will be preserved and even favored over the original organism.
" The only forces at work are random change (chance) and (long
periods of) time: evolution is completely controlled by natural
processes and the natural environment. There is no controlling power
or other influence.

[PATRICK]

FREE HOUSE?

A bit long, but thought provoking.
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind
a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation
of the health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is
what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard
the young man exclaim, "Isn't Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after
all, he is healing the sick." The young woman enthusiastically
proclaimed, "Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone
would think that a free market would work for health care. Another
said, 'The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they
can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what
he did for those of us less fortunate." At this, I had more than
enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could
find, and approached their table. "Please excuse me; may I impose upon
you for one moment?" They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation.
I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an
experiment.

"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money
and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live
there. Anyone interested?" They looked at each other in
astonishment. "Why would you do something like that?" asked a young
man, "There isn't anything for free in this world." They began to
laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.
"I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so
ever. Anyone interested?" In unison, a resounding "Hell Yeah" fills
the room.

"Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to
who receives this money-free bargain." I noticed an elderly couple
was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the
old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. "I tell you what; I
will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules." Again,
they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their
faces. The perky young woman asked, "What are the rules?" I smiled
and said, "I don't know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is
a free home that I offer you." They giggled amongst themselves, the
youngest of which said, "What an old coot. He must be crazy to give
away his home. Go take your meds, old man." I smiled and leaned into
the table a bit further. "I am serious, this is a legitimate offer."
They gaped at me for a moment.

"I'll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?" boasted the youngest
among them. "Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?" I
asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they
watched from the privacy of their table. "Oh hell yeah! Where do I
sign up?" I took a napkin and wrote, "I give this man my home,
without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and
abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this
transaction." I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly
scratched out his signature. "Where are the keys to my new house?" he
asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped
back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them
before the excited new homeowner.

"Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all
of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated
to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for
one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You
will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete
loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will
accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature.
Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do,
think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here
are your keys." I reached the keys forward and the young man looked
at me dumbfounded.

"Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous
terms?" the young man appeared irritated. "You did when you signed
this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full
knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed
to the agreement." The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to
restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of
people. "You can shove that stupid deal up you're a** old man, I want
no part of it" exclaimed the now infuriated young man. 'You have
committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you
cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to
let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed
to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave
yourself to. In short, I am your Master." At this, the table of
celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness
of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my
true intent. "What I did to you is what this administration and
congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily
suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your
folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn;
that you are entitled to, and that which you did not earn; that you
willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to
research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you.
You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only
chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom
that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom."
With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished
young man. "This is the nature of your new health care legislation."

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was
surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly
entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, "Thank you Sir,
these kids don't understand Liberty." He refused to allow me to pay
my bill as he said, "You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up
the tab." I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat
humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country. Use
reason, Remember, four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot
box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

[PATRICK]

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in
the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total
of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000
soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the
same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capitol which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United
States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with
the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581
terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
1, Clinton and Bush 2.. We cannot fault either the Republicans or
Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or
their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under
the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also "Christian"), that
made no difference. You either went along with the administration or
you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by
the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).

[PATRICK]

Hillary
Hillary Clinton is entering the presidential race in a cloud of
scandal surrounding foreign contributions to the Clinton family
foundation and her use of a private email account and server to
conduct official business while secretary of state. But she and her
husband are no strangers to scandal.
Travelgate
Soon after her husband became president in 1993, first lady Hillary
Clinton allegedly engineered the firing of seven employees of the
White House travel office and the hiring of a firm with ties to the
Clintons to replace them. Multiple investigations absolved the
president of involvement but Hillary Clinton was found to have made
false statements to investigators.
Hillarycare secrecy
When first lady Hillary Clinton convened her task force to create her
husband's national healthcare program, it included multiple
representatives from government, the health and insurance industries
and academics. Despite the obvious potential for conflicts of interest
in closed deliberations, the task force's meetings were kept secret
throughout its existence.
Whitewater
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Bill and Hillary Clinton were
associates of Jim and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development
Corp., an Arkansas real estate investment firm that went under when
McDougal's Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was closed by federal
regulators for illegal accounting. Taxpayers lost $73 million due to
Guaranty. The Clintons lost an estimated $67,000 on their investment,
but McDougal helped pay off Bill Clinton's campaign debts, and Hillary
Clinton's law firm received an unknown sum in fees for representing a
Guaranty project that also failed.
Filegate
Hundreds of FBI background files on officials in previous Republican
presidential administrations were improperly given in 1993 and 1994 to
Craig Livingstone, the director of White House security who was a
Hillary Clinton favorite. No illegal activity was ever proven, and
Livingstone ultimately resigned.
Removing files from Vince Foster's office
Vince Foster was President Clinton's deputy White House counsel and
long-time friend of Hillary Clinton. He committed suicide in 1993, and
his body was found in a park just across the Potomac River from the
White House. Files were also allegedly removed from his White House
office before investigators were able to secure it as part of the
official probe into his death.
Lost Rose Law Firm billing records
Congressional and Justice Department investigators began issuing
subpoenas in 1994 for Hillary Clinton's billing records as a partner
in the Rose law firm at the center of the Whitewater scandal. She said
her role was incidental, but when the records mysteriously turned up
in the White House in 1996, they showed she met repeatedly with key
figures in the scandal.
Commerce Department's "pay to play" junkets

Seats on Commerce Department international trade missions were sold to
corporate figures in return for big contributions to President
Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who
was reported to have opposed the scheme, died when one of the missions
crashed in Croatia, leading independent counsel Daniel Pearson to
leave his investigation unfinished.
Renting Lincoln Bedroom
More than 800 people stayed overnight in the Lincoln bedroom of the
White House during President Bill Clinton's tenure. At least $5.4
million in campaign contributions from many of those guests went into
Clinton's re-election effort. Among the paying guests were movie
producer Steven Spielberg, Dreamworks SKG head David Geffen and
long-time Hollywood powerhouse Lew Wasserman.
John Huang
A close associate of Indonesian industrialist James Riady, Huang
initially was appointed deputy secretary of commerce in 1993. By 1995,
however, he moved to the Democratic National Committee where he
generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal contributions
from foreign sources. Huang later pleaded guilty to one felony count
of campaign finance violations.
Charlie Trie
Like John Huang, Trie raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in
illegal contributions from foreign sources to Democratic campaign
entities. He was a regular White House visitor and arranged meetings
of foreign operators with Clinton, including one who was a Chinese
arms dealer. His $450,000 contribution to Clinton's legal defense fund
was returned after it was found to have been largely funded by Asian
interests. Trie was convicted of violating campaign finance laws in
1998.
Johnny Chung
Gave more than $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee prior to
the 1996 campaign, but it was returned after officials learned it came
from illegal foreign sources. Chung later told a special Senate
committee investigating 1996 Clinton campaign fund-raising that
$35,000 of his contributions came from individuals in Chinese
intelligence. Chung pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion and
campaign finance violations.
No controlling legal authority
Then-Vice President Al Gore repeated the phrase "there is no
controlling legal authority" at least seven times during a news
conference called to explain his multiple telephone calls from the
White House to solicit contributions to the Clinton-Gore re-election
campaign in 1996. In fact, the law was and remains clear that partisan
campaign contributions cannot be solicited on or using federal
property.
Monica Lewinsky and impeachment
President Clinton became only the second chief executive ever
impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998 after being found
guilty of obstructing justice and committing perjury in connection
with a grand jury investigation of his sexual relationship in the
White House with intern Monica Lewinsky. He remained in office,
however, after the Senate failed to convict him. When the news of the
Lewinsky scandal broke, Hillary famously blamed a "vast right-wing
conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day
he announced for president."
Pardongate
Shortly before leaving the Oval Office, Bill Clinton issued a number
of controversial pardons for controversial individuals represented by
lawyers with ties to the administration. The most controversial was
convicted tax evader Marc Rich who was pardoned after his former wife
made big contributions to the Clinton presidential library and to
Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign.
The Bosnia airport sniper lie
During her unsuccessful 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential
campaign, Hillary Clinton claimed to have come under sniper fire
during her arrival as first lady at an airport in Bosnia in 1996. She
recanted her claim after CBS News broadcast video of the arrival that
demonstrated there was no sniper fire.
The email scandal
While serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Hillary Clinton
used a private email account and a server located at her residence in
Chappaqua, N.Y., to conduct official government business. In a March
10, 2015, news conference at the United Nations, she said she did this
as a matter of personal "convenience" and that she deleted thousands
of emails she considered personal. Federal laws and regulations
require government employees to preserve personal emails that deal
with official business.
The Clinton Foundation
After leaving the White House in 2001, Bill Clinton established a
foundation in his name to raise funds for his presidential library. In
the years since, the foundation - now known as the "Bill, Hillary and
Chelsea Clinton Foundation" - has raised hundreds of millions of
dollars for worthy causes, with much of it coming from foreign
governments, corporations and individuals. Critics claim the
foundation is a tool for special interests to cultivate favorable
relationships with the former and possible future president.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and
prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2012 list of
Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians." The list, in
alphabetical order, includes:
" Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
" Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan
Rice
" Attorney General Eric Holder
" Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
" Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
" President Barack Obama
" Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
" Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
" Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/12/31/10-most-corrupt-politicians-of-2012/

*Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most corrupt Secretary of State in
American history. The Clinton Foundation was getting massive windfalls
from foreign governments and entities at the same time that Hillary
was doing favors for them.
* For Hillary Clinton to base her presidential campaign on "toppling
the 1%" is like her husband campaigning in favor of sexual abstinence.
Hillary is apparently basing her presidential hopes on the unlimited
gullibility of American voters.
* The real 1% issue is how the Federal Reserve has rigged the economic
game to crucify the middle class with zero interest rates. Folks who
relied on their savings have been devastated at the same time the
Federal Reserve artificially inflates stock values to benefit the
richest Americans.
* Instead of fixing this injustice, Hillary wants politicians to have
even more power to dictate who gets what. But Hillary's entire career
proves that politicians cannot be trusted with arbitrary power.
For as long as Hillary Clinton has been on the national scene, she has
left a path of destruction and wreckage in her wake that is both
impressive and terrible to behold. She is a testament to the extent
of damage that can be done by one person determined to conquer
everything before her in the quest for unlimited power and
self-gratification. The only prize left to her in American politics
is the presidency, which she has always felt is hers by right. Indeed,
she would have attained it were it not for the upstart community
organizer, a fellow admirer of Saul Alinsky, who spoke in volumes but
said nothing.


Before accompanying her husband to the White House as our first
co-president, Mrs. Clinton was working hard on becoming the person we
now know her to be. As with her husband, the goal has always been the
attainment of power masquerading as public service. Setting an
example for the Obamas to emulate, the Clintons put self-absorption
and personal victory before all else. The Clintons have always served
themselves, and nothing else.
Do you recall the slime that was Whitewater, in which the Clintons
dissembled and lied while their former business partners went to jail?
Do you remember Mrs. Clinton earning $100,000 in profit in 1979 on a
$1,000 investment over the course of only 9 months in volatile cattle
futures, about which she knew nothing, thanks to help from a highly
placed Tyson Foods connection? Tyson profited handsomely in Arkansas,
with state loans and appointments. We are to believe that Clinton
studied the Wall Street Journal to achieve a feat against which the
odds were one in 250 million. Do you recall the Rose Law Firm billing
records that magically appeared in Mrs. Clinton's White House office,
years after they had been subpoenaed? Or the death of Vince Foster
under rather extraordinary and inexplicable circumstances, and the
lies and cover-up that followed? Do you recall that while testifying
before congressional investigators as first lady, she answered "I
don't know" or "I don't remember" 250 times?
Do you recall Travelgate, in which the Clintons destroyed reputations
and careers to reward campaign donors? What about the endless parade
of women, long known to Mrs. Clinton and laughably passed off by her
as "ministering" to a troubled young woman in the matter of Miss
Lewinsky? Nevertheless, when the truth came out, she was entirely
happy to exploit the illusion of victimhood for her own martyrdom in
the cause of political advancement.
Wherever Mrs. Clinton goes, destruction follows. Of course, like the
current president, nothing is ever her fault. She knows nothing. She
is the innocent victim of all around her, endlessly bemoaning her fate
as the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy that somehow has
directed the events of her life even before there was a vast
right-wing conspiracy.
Make no mistake: the Clintons, and Hillary Clinton in particular, hold
the American public in utter contempt, but especially so their own
supporters. How else to explain the countless frauds, crimes, and
lies they perpetrate upon their devotees, whose own intellectual
honesty is devalued to nothing by their loyalty? And how else besides
intellectual dishonesty to rationalize somehow being a Hillary Clinton
supporter?
As if Benghazi was not enough, and it should have been even with the
little that has come to light thus far, news broke this week about the
culture of pure corruption, decay, immorality, criminality, and
scandal that has been our Department of State under Mrs. Clinton. We
were regaled with liberal celebrations of the mythical "Greatest
Secretary of State" ever, while those paying attention could not
identify a single advancement in the image or policies of the United
States during her tenure. Certainly the blame for that does not fall
entirely upon her, given whose policies she was advocating, but she
still opted to be the person who advanced those destructive policies,
putting our country at risk and lowering its standing throughout the
world. This reality was recently driven home by the revelation that
the Clintons and President Obama struck a deal under which she
accepted the post of secretary of state in exchange for Obama's
support in 2016.
Regardless of the means, we are now being provided a window into what
actually occurred under Mrs. Clinton's stewardship. No doubt we will
once again be treated to a river of alibis. Like the president, we
will be asked by Mrs. Clinton's public relations mercenaries to
believe that the structure over which she presided was entirely
foreign to her, and that despite her zeal to take credit for any
exercise of power as head of that structure, any wrongdoing by those
carrying out her organizational mission statement is somehow not
attachable to her. Like the president, her good name has been
hijacked by those actively doing wrong under her very nose. Also like
the president, rampant wrongdoing and criminality occurring in her
very presence met with no censure whatsoever, which is becoming
increasingly difficult to reconcile with the real world in which the
rest of us live. Either she entirely failed morally as a leader
because she knew what was happening and ignored it (or worse, actively
participated in it), or she entirely failed in terms of competence for
not even being that pathetic.
For those paying attention, we are being treated to a preview of
coming attractions. Indeed, every day under President Obama is a
preview of the presidency of Hillary Clinton, if we are so reckless as
to accept her self-serving proposal of figurative marriage. Unlike
Mr. Obama, however, about whom we knew nothing before his rise, the
Hillary Clinton preview of coming attractions has been running on a
near-continuous loop for the better part of 30 years.
As the State Department scandal deepens, and as more people
potentially refuse to take the fall for the advancement of an utterly
corrupt politician, perhaps our knowledge of Mrs. Clinton will deepen
-- as if we really needed to know more to understand who and what she
is. We should be grateful as a nation for the gift of foresight. May
it finally enlighten those who so far have proved poor excuses for
sensible American citizens.

[PATRICK]

HOW MOSES GOT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS...

God went to the Arabs and said,
'I have Commandments for you that will make your lives better.'

The Arabs asked, 'What are Commandments?'
And the Lord said, 'They are rules for living.'

'Can you give us an example?'

'Thou shall not kill.'
'Not kill? We're not interested..'


So He went to the Blacks and said, 'I have Commandments.'

The Blacks wanted an example, and the Lord said,
'Honor thy Father and Mother.'

'Father? We don't know who our fathers are.
We're not interested.'


Then He went to the Mexicans and said,
'I have Commandments.'

The Mexicans also wanted an example, and the Lord said 'Thou shall not
steal.'

'Not steal? We're not interested.'

Then He went to the French and said,
'I have Commandments.'

The French too wanted an example and the Lord said, 'Thou shall not
commit adultery.'

'Sacre bleu!!! Not commit adultery? We're not interested.'

Finally, He went to the Jews and said,
'I have Commandments..'

'Commandments?' They said, 'How much are they?'

'They're free.'

'We'll take 10.'



There. That, should piss off just about everybody...

[PATRICK]

I Don't Care
'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002,
and in New York Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so
since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in
London , and in downtown Manhattan , and in a field in Pennsylvania ?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible,
burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be
tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are
fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents
for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime
punishable by beheading in Afghanistan
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking
off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed
throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come
out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by
hiding in mosques and behind women and children.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their
suicide bombs.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a soldier roughing up an
Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told
not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to
the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining
that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe
in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran'
and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! you guessed it ...... I
don't care!!
And may I add:
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a
difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.'
I have another quote that I would like to add

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The British Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <edsnhb1hs61l4650k...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

АА chortle

[•RLMeasures]

In article <vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

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

> Atheists are angry
>
> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

АА The most common complaint from them is crossposting.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <uqrnhb5cfjj10t78q...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

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

> Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat
>
> 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
> demand.
>
> 2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> governments create prosperity.
>
> 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
> are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
> of Chinese and North Korean communists.
>
> 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
>
> 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected
> by soccer moms driving SUV's.
>
> 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
> homosexual is natural.

АА That's more of a "family values" thing PB. Democrats tend to get
involved in heterosexual scandals.
End

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:

> In article <vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
> <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists are angry

Angry?

ROTFLOL!
You demo on utter religious stupidity makes me cry...with joy!
Keep this up mate, keep this up!

No argument from any atheist could damage the religious nuts more than a
post from a loon like you!

>> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

They aren't! You present them their daily entertainment!

> The most common complaint .... is crossposting.

That is a completely different issue.
There are plenty of the religious faithful around in most newsgroups who
do object to your Xposting crusade because they recognise it for what it
really is: a total embarrassment!

BTW how many convert have you to show up for your Xposting efforts.....
I bet *NONE*. So there you go.

--
Ördög
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies."
Bernard Shaw

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:

> €€

Still a YAWN!

[%]

Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan wrote:
> r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:
>
>> €€
>
> Still a YAWN!

maybe you should hire a personal entertainment director ,
no one here is going to be one for you

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:

> Democrats tend to get
> involved in heterosexual scandals.
> End

Well, well well!
You are fighting the Bible Belt US election campaign in Australia....???

Typical Xtian loon! ROTFLOL!
Better than a circus!

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

"%", the sockpuppet <per...@gmail.com> live on stage:

Why should I hire anyone....you and your ilk provides that service for
free and without asking.....

However, I expect better jokes in the future!
So far they are more pathetic than funny!

[%]

Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan wrote:
> "%", the sockpuppet <per...@gmail.com> live on stage:
>
>> Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan wrote:
>>> r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:
>>>
>>>> €€
>>>
>>> Still a YAWN!
>>
>> maybe you should hire a personal entertainment director ,
>> no one here is going to be one for you
>
> Why should I hire anyone....you and your ilk provides that service for
> free and without asking.....
>
> However, I expect better jokes in the future!
> So far they are more pathetic than funny!

if you have expectations you need an entertainment director ,
right now you're providing all the laugh i need

[RamRodOz]

Anyone want to see how PATRICK invents things?
Here is what I found.
https://www.reddit.com/r/thatHappened/comments/1o5gsj/man_strikes_down_obamacare_worshippers_can/

It is word for word what PATRICK wrote.


Look here is the first few lines :-

//I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a

group of jubilant individuals celebrating the coming implementation of the
health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued: They

were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man

exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing

the sick.”
A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I
cannot believe anyone would think that a free market wouldn't work for
health care.”\\


On the original list where I found this it was dated Oct 10, 2013

If you want to see that do a search for I was in my neighborhood restaurant
this morning and was seated behind.

==========================

Here is what PATRICK wrote, we can see how little we can believe him :-






"PATRICK" wrote in message
news:j3snhb1dbct86iq83...@4ax.com...

//FREE HOUSE?

box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.\\


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <r-2304161...@10.0.1.9>, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)
wrote:

> In article <uqrnhb5cfjj10t78q...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
> <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat
> >
> > 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
> > demand.

What does one have to do with the other?

> > 2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> > governments create prosperity.

NOBODY believes anything so stupid.

> > 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
> > are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
> > of Chinese and North Korean communists.

They most certainly are.

But Republicans have proven they can't do math.

> > 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

Nonsense. We know that art has ALWAYS been supported by the government.
It's just that the government was usually some kind of monarch or other
nobility.

> > 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> > cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected
> > by soccer moms driving SUV's.

No, we have the facts to prove it.

> > 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
> > homosexual is natural.

Yep, we're not disgusting bigotsd.


> €€ That's more of a "family values" thing PB. Democrats tend to get
> involved in heterosexual scandals.

--

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

[RamRodOz]

Another of PATRICK's stolen notes.

The original was on this :-

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-brief-guide-to-clinton-scandals-from-travelgate-to-emailgate/article/2562906

Here is the first paragraph

//Hillary Clinton is entering the presidential race in a cloud of scandal

surrounding foreign contributions to the Clinton family foundation and her
use of a private email account and server to conduct official business while

secretary of state. But she and her husband are no strangers to scandal.\\

Here is what PATRICK wrote, the original above was written April 15th 2016,
he wrote this 24th April 2016





"PATRICK" wrote in message
news:0bsnhbdt6rrso98o7...@4ax.com...

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:97snhbhemq1hv0qum...@4ax.com:

>
> 2. Why were we attacked?
> Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.

American support for Israel. And the Shah, and
Saddam, and the Saudi Royalty. Basically meddling in
places the US has no place in.


http://www.visionandvalues.org/2004/08/bin-ladens-manifesto-for-americans/

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:j3snhb1dbct86iq83...@4ax.com:

The preceding was lifted in it's entirety from:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1246568/full_content

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:ournhbttejbt1n6io...@4ax.com:

The preceding was lifted in its entirety from:


http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/brothersofjesus.htm

[Truth and honesty]

What did the English say?

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:k0snhbhqvn8rlilos...@4ax.com:

The preceding has been lifted in its entirety from:


http://tinyurl.com/hk52gfz

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> live on stage:

> Yep, we're not disgusting bigots.

>> €€ That's more of....blaaahhh!

Just a question....
Why do you give oxygen to this particular troll specimen by trying to
counter *it* with sane and rational arguments.
After all, that is the kind of attention *it* wants. Don't let *it* set
the tone and the topic....set your own agenda or better, make *it* look
the ridiculous piece of nutjob *it* really is!

Try pointing out that US electioneering in aus.politics is beyond just
being pointless, it is an exercise in utter ridiculous stupidity.

--
Ördög
Ut sementem feceris, ita metes (Cicero)

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:uqrnhb5cfjj10t78q...@4ax.com:

> Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat
>
> 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
> demand.

If you don't like abortion don't get one.

Why do you hate freedom?

>
> 2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> governments create prosperity.
>

"No Jews Need Apply" said no government agency ever.

> 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
> are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
> of Chinese and North Korean communists.

How many Americans have been killed by Americans
with guns vs Chinese nukes?

>
> 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

How many of your local museums are totally private?

>
> 8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach
> 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids
> about sex.
>

If abstinence education is so great why cannot
the Palin family make it work?



> 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
> activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
>

Ted Nugent's canned bear hunts. Let's hear
more about that consevative "love of nature"

>
> 16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very
> nice person.


Hillary has fewer criminal convictions than
"tough on crime" Bush and Cheney. Do explain.


>
> 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
> anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
> charge.


Does that mean you will be sending back
your "socialist" SSI checks?

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com:

> Atheists are angry

>
> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

Because you stalk an atheism group with
your religious tripe?

[Newsgroup Janitor]

RamRodOz stuffed the Usenet toilet again:

> Anyone want to see how PATRICK invents things?

No one who is sane wants this, that I know!

I've been keep kill filing these idiotic threads for weeks now but morons
like are you keep dragging it back for more of the same idiotic wanking.

US elections and related crap have nothing to do with Australian politics.
Put up or shut up!

--
FLUSH!

[Newsgroup Janitor]

RamRodOz stuffed the Usenet toilet again:

> Another of PATRICK's stolen notes.

aus.politics does not need to know!

> //Hillary Clinton is ..

...not entering Australian politics. You can't tick a box to elect her as
Australian PM....so bugger off, moron! Keep this off topic nonsense in US
newsgroups.

--
FLUSH!

[s.knight]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:52:54 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Atheists are angry
>
>keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

You mistake satire and ridicule for anger. Your ilk has no sense of
irony or critical thinking skills.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

s.knight <Ba...@Baawa.nut> live on stage:

He demonstrates so clearly what is wrong with religious fundies.
We just sit back mildly amused watching that silly comedy!

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> live on stage:

He is on a mission! Let him be!
He, like most religious zealots, has got some cheap entertainment comedy
value. And he also provides the best advertising for atheism.

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

"%" <per...@gmail.com> live on stage:

> Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan wrote:
>> "%", the sockpuppet <per...@gmail.com> live on stage:
>>
>>> Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan wrote:
>>>> r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:
>>>>
>>>>> €€
>>>>
>>>> Still a YAWN!
>>>
>>> maybe you should hire a personal entertainment director ,
>>> no one here is going to be one for you
>>
>> Why should I hire anyone....you and your ilk provides that service for
>> free and without asking.....
>>
>> However, I expect better jokes in the future!
>> So far they are more pathetic than funny!
>
> if you have expectations you need an entertainment director ,

On a preordained mission and no fun? Sorry lot you are!

> right now you're providing all the laugh i need

Really!
Than why do rational people get the feeling, sockpuppet, that you ain't
particularly amused at all by my most "annoying" comments!

LOL!

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:58:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

1. You should learn to post attributions. You didn't come up with this
nonsense yourself.

2. The process of evolution has in fact been observed and repeated in
a lab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

Michigan State University has a long-term experimental evolution
project site that has recently celebrated 50,000 generations.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Thanks again for pointing out your stupidity, Patrick. Keep up the
good work.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:52:54 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Atheists are angry
>
>keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

were not

>I suppose it may be because you have come to a conclusion that
>you experience ongoing discrimination because of your disbelief in

no

>gods. You have to hide your atheism from family, friends and

there is no disbelief.... I dont know why your dumb fucking ass cant
get that straight.... THERE ARE NO GODS YOU IGINORANT FUCK
and BTW this is not the 60s 70s 80s or even the 90s I di\ont fucking
care who knows that I am an atheist, in fact that is one of the first
things I tell people that I first meet.

>coworkers.
>You don't know any atheists except those online. You have to listen to

I actually know several. Fact is I dont know any atheists on line, I
know of a few but I still dont know them.

>others make disparaging comments about disbelief without being able

also incorrect, I am very verbal, when someone, anyone mentiones a
fairy I will call him out as a fairy believer, ya know kinda like you.


>to respond. This kind of pressure isn't healthy, psychologically or
>emotionally, and can readily lead to a person becoming angry.
>

The pressure is on you, fool. havent you heard, your god is dead and
no one cares

>So you seek others on line that can give you support and high fives.

not quite, I just like fucking with the idiots like you

>You learn quickly that the bigger the insult you can spew, the better
>you feel.

nah thats not it, when I make a theist (like you) feel like a complete
moron <like I am doing right now to you> it gives me a little bit of
happiness... but then it fades quickly, so then I do it again and
again....

>This really isn't very healthy for your emotional well being.

wanna bet.... making you feel like an idiot just makes my day


>
>Why do some people assume that atheists as a group are angry?

only theists because they are idiots


>One reason is the obvious:

they are theists....

> there are enough angry atheists, especially

only in your world because you fear the atheist, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Pussy, you are scared of the truth


>online, one can honestly get the impression that this is how atheists
>normally are. This is, however, a bit like assuming that all
>Christians
>reason very poorly

they do

>and know nothing at all about logic or critical
>thinking

they dont
>- an impression which many atheists get after dealing with family
>members.

what the hell are you even talking about?
>
>Perhaps you should lighten up a bit.

Nah, you are a fucking moron and I will show you that you are every
day that you come and intrude into this group


>What is the particular sin that you own?

Sin is only a theist problem

>Why do you try to blame Christians for their belief that your
>sin is against God's will?

Beecfause idiot you believe in fairies


>Are you a fag? Do you enjoy your immoral lifestyle?

No and no but you continue to show you stupidity and lack of education

>Do you believe that abortion is an answer to an inconvenience?

no but you continue to show you stupidity and lack of education


>What is it with you?

there is nothing with me or the other theists.. you see, the problem
here is you, just like the christians of long ago, they were
prejudiced, uneducated, incredibly stupid, and fearful of everything,
so they went around making a bunch of slanerous lies and Murdering
people, all in the name of thier lord <god> and savior <jesus>.

so patty, is that what you are all about? are you going to start
commiting genocide because someone thinks differently than you do?
becasue someone wants people to know the truth and does not believe
your bullshit....

Cmon patty, tell us we want to know.....



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you fucking pussy

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 22:44:31 +0000 (UTC), Ördög Mephisto Belphegor
Lucifer Satan <Belp...@Hell.biz> wrote:

>r...@somis.org (?RLMeasures) live on stage:

>
>> In article <vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
>> <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists are angry
>
>Angry?
>
>ROTFLOL!
>You demo on utter religious stupidity makes me cry...with joy!
>Keep this up mate, keep this up!
>
>No argument from any atheist could damage the religious nuts more than a
>post from a loon like you!

well said

>
>>> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
>
>They aren't! You present them their daily entertainment!

again, very well said

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:05:50 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

wrote:

>HOW MOSES GOT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS...

Well considering that moses was a fairy and the ten commandments are
from an old story, this leads me to the conclusion that you are a
complete moron....
Oh wait it is patrick... ahh of course... he is the known fool that
believes in fairies

[Olrik]

And angels! Don't forget the angels! Pink ones! I bet Pat likes unicorns
too! Pink ones! With sparkling dust!

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Gordon Levi]

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

>FREE HOUSE?
[plagiarised content snipped]

You should know that copying material that someone else wrote and
pretending it is your own contravenes the basic principles of
Christianity. In case you don't understand that plagiarism is stealing
you should read this
<http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-plagiarism>.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <f1nohbhhl9fp92ru4...@4ax.com>,

АА It's not that Patrick is stupid it's just that he was inculcated from
an early age by virulent theists who believe every ignorant thing in
Genesis.

[PATRICK]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:55:43 +1000, "RamRodOz"
<RamR...@truthonly.com> wrote:

>Another of PATRICK's stolen notes.
>The original was on this :-
>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-brief-guide-to-clinton-scandals-from-travelgate-to-emailgate/article/2562906

Hey, thanks.
I never knew where it came from.
Someone sent it to me in an e-mail.

[PATRICK]

RamRodOz" <RamR...@truthonly.com> wrote:

>On the original list where I found this it was dated Oct 10, 2013

Another e-mail someone sent to me.

[PATRICK]

Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The preceding was lifted in it's entirety from:
>http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1246568/full_content

Actually it is from am e-mail sent to me.

[PATRICK]

I'll pass.
BTW, you just said: "plagiarism is stealing."

Where did you snatch that phrase from?
Did you make it up yourself?
Or did you steal it from someone.

Did you steal it from one of the following sources:

http://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit08/credit08_03.phtml

https://www.clic.edu/plagiarism

https://www.geneseo.edu/psychology/plagarism

http://nhs.gilesk12.org/library/pdf/What%20is%20Plagiarism.pdf

[PATRICK]

Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in

>> THE BROTHERS OF JESUS

> The preceding was lifted in its entirety from:
>http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/brothersofjesus.htm

OK.

[PATRICK]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:33:55 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <uqrnhb5cfjj10t78q...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat
>>
>> 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
>> demand.
>>

>> 2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
>> governments create prosperity.
>>

>> 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
>> are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
>> of Chinese and North Korean communists.
>>

>> 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
>>

>> 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
>> cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected
>> by soccer moms driving SUV's.
>>
>> 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
>> homosexual is natural.
>
>€€ That's more of a "family values" thing PB. Democrats tend to get
>involved in heterosexual scandals.
>End

Tell that to barney frank.

[PATRICK]

Just providing a little entertainment for myself.
It was getting quiet around here, and I figured it was
time to stir some shit.
Are you disappointed?

[PATRICK]

Not meant for critical thinking skills.
Meant to piss you off.
Did I succeed?

[PATRICK]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 00:53:38 -0500, bil...@m.nu wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:52:54 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Atheists are angry
>>
>>keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
>
>were not

OK then.
Stop reading.

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:psfphb1u459k9sanb...@4ax.com:

Blaming others for your plagiarism?

That's pretty low, even for you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <t7gphbdbquond0jai...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

€€€ He already knows it. Congress has had a number of "family values"
congressmen who had a BF in the closet and heterosexual congressmen with a
DC GF. Bill Clinton banged Gennifer Flowers for 12 years before he moved
to DC so it was no surprise that he didn't control his trouser snake in
the White House. . Remember Senator Joe McCarthy?? He was eventually
toppled because he tried to get a draft exemption for his BF. Forrest
Gump was right: "Shit happens".

[•RLMeasures]

In article <66gphb9ns99pbms3b...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

АА The RCC can never give up on Mary's perpetual virginity because Mary's
supposed virginity is THE key to mariology. This despite the evidence
that all 4 Gospels say that Jesus had 4 (half) brothers and an unstsated
number of (half) sisters,

[Ted&Alice]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Subject: 21 Ways to be a good Democrat
>
> 1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
> demand.

Bullshit. Apples and oranges. Otherwise, I like most of the rest of your
list.

>
> 2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
> governments create prosperity.
>
> 3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
> are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
> of Chinese and North Korean communists.
>
> 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
>
> 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
> cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected
> by soccer moms driving SUV's.
>
> 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
> homosexual is natural.
>

> 7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
> federal funding.
>
> 8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach
> 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids
> about sex.
>
> 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
> activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
>
> 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
> actually doing something to earn it.
>
> 11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own
> money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.
>
> 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain
> parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports
> certain parts of the Constitution.
>
> 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too
> high.
>
> 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are
> more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert
> E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.
>
> 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
> quotas and set-asides are not.
>
> 16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very
> nice person.
>
> 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
> anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
> charge.
>
> 18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in
> jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
>
> 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
> transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,
> and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
>
> 20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
> Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United
> States.
>
> 21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right
> wing conspiracy.

[Ted&Alice]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Atheists are angry
>
> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.

> I suppose it may be because you have come to a conclusion that
> you experience ongoing discrimination because of your disbelief in

> gods. You have to hide your atheism from family, friends and

> coworkers.
> You don't know any atheists except those online. You have to listen to

> others make disparaging comments about disbelief without being able

> to respond. This kind of pressure isn't healthy, psychologically or
> emotionally, and can readily lead to a person becoming angry.
>

> So you seek others on line that can give you support and high fives.

> You learn quickly that the bigger the insult you can spew, the better
> you feel.

> This really isn't very healthy for your emotional well being.
>

> Why do some people assume that atheists as a group are angry?

> One reason is the obvious: there are enough angry atheists, especially

> online, one can honestly get the impression that this is how atheists
> normally are. This is, however, a bit like assuming that all
> Christians

> reason very poorly and know nothing at all about logic or critical
> thinking

> - an impression which many atheists get after dealing with family
> members.
>

> Perhaps you should lighten up a bit.

> What is the particular sin that you own?

> Why do you try to blame Christians for their belief that your
> sin is against God's will?

> Are you a fag? Do you enjoy your immoral lifestyle?

> Do you believe that abortion is an answer to an inconvenience?

> What is it with you?

Jesus was homosexual. Read the Gospel of John.

http://tinyurl.com/gvqbg6j

[Gordon Levi]

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

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:09:25 +1000, Gordon Levi
><gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>FREE HOUSE?
>>[plagiarised content snipped]
>>
>>You should know that copying material that someone else wrote and
>>pretending it is your own contravenes the basic principles of
>>Christianity. In case you don't understand that plagiarism is stealing
>>you should read this
>><http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-plagiarism>.
>
>I'll pass.

Don't pass. Stop sinning!

>BTW, you just said: "plagiarism is stealing."
>
>Where did you snatch that phrase from?
>Did you make it up yourself?
>Or did you steal it from someone.

You can fix your plagiarism by simply adding your source to your
quotes. There is no easy fix for your failure to read and/or
understand the source I provided above that clearly states that
plagiarism is stealing.

[raven1]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 17:52:54 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Atheists are angry

Sorry, I'm too busy laughing at you to have time to be angry.

[dolf]

I commented on Google Groups today the following argument that Jesus of
Nazareth indirectly supported same sex marriage as a civil right of State.

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that
which is God's" [Luke 20:25]

Nero was Emperor from 54 to 68 CE and was first Caesar to introduce same
sex marriages as both a civil right right of State and an ecclesiastical
right.

In himself being married to a male in additional to the conventional form
of marriage to a female and which continued for some 300 years.

At the time he had ascribed to himself infallibility, the notion of being
the son of God, a power of veto over any decision of a magistrate, assembly
or Senate. And had the titles of Pontifex Maximus, Pontifex and Father, as
status and titles later adopted by the pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Can anybody say: Hypocrisy.

- dolf

[dolf]

On 23/04/2016 22:02, PATRICK wrote:
>
> Excellent. Would you like to kiss my ring?
>

Kiss your ring? Not on such a loose arsehole as you Patrick--You'd
probably have such little muscle control left of your geriatric
sphincter, that a little pucker would be just a jostle too far and one
would likely be drenched in faecal debris as the douche-bag you are.

ring
• vulgar slang a person's anus.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:54:31 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Aww does someone feel stupid??

WELL YOU SHOULD BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:0ofphbh3s7nrh26o9...@4ax.com:

Patrick is too chickenshit to even
admit the plagiarism he is caught with,
now blames it on others.

Gads what a weenie......

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <XnsA5F48105995...@216.166.97.131>,
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
...

> Patrick is too chickenshit to even
>admit the plagiarism he is caught with,
>now blames it on others.

1) That Patrick makes tree stumps look intelligent by comparison is not
exactly news.

2) We all have friends (generally of the geriatric set) who mindlessly
forward everything that comes to them. Don't we?

--
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out
from demanding more flag burning laws, more abortion
laws, more drug laws, more obscenity laws, and more
police authority to make warrantless arrests to remind
us that we need to "get the government off our backs".

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:27:33 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists are angry
>>
>> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
>

>€€ The most common complaint from them is crossposting.

Then quit it.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 21:10:15 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:

>PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com:

>
>> Atheists are angry
>>
>> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
>
>

> Because you stalk an atheism group with
>your religious tripe?

Truth.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:54:31 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

ok patty first of all someone is going to read the response to thier
post <if it is not too lengthy> and mine was not,
Second you have just shown that I was correct

>You learn quickly that the bigger the insult you can spew, the better
>you feel.

nah thats not it, when I make a theist (like you) feel like a complete
moron <like I am doing right now to you> it gives me a little bit of
happiness... but then it fades quickly, so then I do it again and
again....

So how does it feel patty? Being made a fool of again and again and
again and again and again, all because you believe in fairies, You
ignorant FUCK, get some edumacation

[Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan]

r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) live on stage:

>> Tell that to barney frank.
>

> He already knows it. Congress ....

...is not an Australian political feature.

Stop Xposting your irrelevant US shit into Australian political forums.

FUCK OFF idiot!

--

[•RLMeasures]

In article <v49qhbhiv8705auk2...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:27:33 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
> ><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Atheists are angry
> >>
> >> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
> >
> >€€ The most common complaint from them is crossposting.
>
> Then quit it.
>

€€€ why?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <869qhbpe2g4i7iqq5...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 21:10:15 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:vkrnhbl6ahorek2it...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> Atheists are angry
> >>
> >> keep asking myself why you atheists are so angry.
> >
> >
> > Because you stalk an atheism group with
> >your religious tripe?
>
> Truth.
>

АА Chortle. The truth about Catholicism is that it's not based on the
teaching of the rabbi who called himself "the Son of man".

[PATRICK]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:02:12 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <XnsA5F48105995...@216.166.97.131>,
>Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>...
>> Patrick is too chickenshit to even
>>admit the plagiarism he is caught with,
>>now blames it on others.
>
>1) That Patrick makes tree stumps look intelligent by comparison is not
>exactly news.
>
>2) We all have friends (generally of the geriatric set) who mindlessly
>forward everything that comes to them. Don't we?

Yup.
That's me.
Too bad you don't just read the news instead of complaining about who
provided the news.

[PATRICK]

Sure, I copied and posted it here.
Stop yer whining.
Next time read the post and complain about the actual news.
Stop whining about who provided the news.

[PATRICK]

So?
Did you even read the news article?
This IS a "news group!"