TABLOID SET TO EXPOSE JESSE JACKSON FAMILY 'SECRET'
Big_Don
diego wrote:
> JACKSON TOOK PREGNANT MISTRESS TO WHITE HOUSE AT HEIGHT OF IMPEACHMENT, PAPER
> CLAIMS...
>
> > http://www.drudgereport.com/
Please! It's "The *Reverend*" Jackson.....
SMITH29
xxx ~JESSE JACKSON ~
A prime example of what's wrong with America.
"Don't do as I do, Do as I say."
I spose he will plea for our forgiveness.
Hope he gives up the "ministry" , what a joke he is.....
29
fasterpussycat
He'll use this to promote something else.
I wouldn't be suprised if he's the one behind leaking the story.
`Something about this stinks.
>
--
^^____/ =========fasterpussycat-----------<<<<<<<<<<<<<
rowwwr !
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Charlie Wilkes
Yes. I think he should follow Bob Livingston's fine example.
The worst of it is, congressional opposition is effectively muted
because Larry Flynt still has half a dozen names in his little black
book and nobody knows who they are.
It's a shame.
Charlie
Aaron M. Renn
Cut the guy some slack. He's a red-blooded American male and a human
being. Of course he's going to have some flaws. The fact that he
is a minister has nothing to do with it. "All have sinned and fallen
short of the glory of God".
I'm sure Jackson's critics are going to have a field day with this,
but I am very opposed to using purely personal matters to try to rip
down your political opponents. Particularly in light of the fact that
Jackson has never been a preachy moralist on matters of marital fidelity,
to the best of my knowledge. Jackson's beliefs, political tactics, etc
should be opposed on their own merits, if that is what you want to do.
But don't rip the guy up because he had an affair.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Dusty Rhodes
news:947dqa$k83$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A66DEF0...@eskimo.com>,
> big...@eskimo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > diego wrote:
> >
> > > JACKSON TOOK PREGNANT MISTRESS TO WHITE HOUSE AT HEIGHT OF
IMPEACHMENT, PAPER
> > > CLAIMS...
> > >
> > > > http://www.drudgereport.com/
> >
> > Please! It's "The *Reverend*" Jackson.....
> >
>
> He'll use this to promote something else.
> I wouldn't be suprised if he's the one behind leaking the story.
> `Something about this stinks.
You mean other than that it was posted by a moron who cites an idiot who
rants on about the truth of a freaking National Enquirer story as if it were
something he read in The Economist?
Cheers,
Dusty
SMITH29
xxxx
All those "ministers" of the gospel are in my book phony as a 3 dollar
bill.
Let Larry publish the names. Time to clean out the crapper and the White
House at the same time.
The Democrats will be kissing Jackson's ass next week as he purges his
soul. YECH!!!!
29
Brent Peterson
>
>
> A prime example of what's wrong with America.
> "Don't do as I do, Do as I say."
And its sibling, "It's ok for me, but not for you".
Brent Peterson
>
> I'm sure Jackson's critics are going to have a field day with this,
> but I am very opposed to using purely personal matters to try to rip
> down your political opponents. Particularly in light of the fact that
> Jackson has never been a preachy moralist on matters of marital fidelity,
> to the best of my knowledge. Jackson's beliefs, political tactics, etc
> should be opposed on their own merits, if that is what you want to do.
> But don't rip the guy up because he had an affair.
The issue isn't the affair, but rather the monies to cover it up.
Rev. Jackson is supposed is in charge or employed by a non-for-
profit orgization. Where he got 365K+40K+24*10K or over a half
a million dollars (provided the information is true) should be
of interest. Especially to the people who contribute their hard
earned dollars to his non-for-profit group and the tax payers
should his group receieve or use public monies for their work.
Charlie Wilkes
>
>xxxx
>All those "ministers" of the gospel are in my book phony as a 3 dollar
>bill.
Amen! Hallelujah! Say it brother!
>Let Larry publish the names. Time to clean out the crapper and the White
>House at the same time.
It could pose a problem if John Ashcroft managed to pull his pecker
out from under his beer gut long enough to plant it somewhere it
shoona bin.
And speaking of flab... did you hear Ted K.'s threatening a
filibuster?
Charlie
thei...@my-deja.com
ar...@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:27:31 GMT, SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > JACKSON TOOK PREGNANT MISTRESS TO WHITE HOUSE AT HEIGHT OF IMPEACHMENT, PAPER
> >> > CLAIMS...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.drudgereport.com/
> >>
> >> Please! It's "The *Reverend*" Jackson.....
> >
> >
> >xxx ~JESSE JACKSON ~
> >
> >A prime example of what's wrong with America.
> >"Don't do as I do, Do as I say."
> >
> >I spose he will plea for our forgiveness.
> >Hope he gives up the "ministry" , what a joke he is.....
>
> Cut the guy some slack. He's a red-blooded American male and a human
> being. Of course he's going to have some flaws. The fact that he
> is a minister has nothing to do with it. "All have sinned and fallen
> short of the glory of God".
>
...Which is exactly why you should'nt chastise & preach. The same
darts(words) you throw at your congregation can be easily thrown back at you.
Sometimes even with a vengeance.
> I'm sure Jackson's critics are going to have a field day with this,
Oh, I'm sure Farrakhan is having a field day with this. He hates Jesse.
> but I am very opposed to using purely personal matters to try to rip
> down your political opponents. Particularly in light of the fact that
> Jackson has never been a preachy moralist on matters of marital fidelity,
> to the best of my knowledge. Jackson's beliefs, political tactics, etc
> should be opposed on their own merits, if that is what you want to do.
> But don't rip the guy up because he had an affair.
>
Like hell I'm not. I'm kind of enjoying this.
> --
> Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
>
ronald
>
> I'm sure Jackson's critics are going to have a field day with this,
> but I am very opposed to using purely personal matters to try to rip
> down your political opponents. Particularly in light of the fact that
> Jackson has never been a preachy moralist on matters of marital fidelity,
> to the best of my knowledge. Jackson's beliefs, political tactics, etc
> should be opposed on their own merits, if that is what you want to do.
> But don't rip the guy up because he had an affair.
>
basically, jesse jackson supporters will continue to be jesse jackson
supporters and jesse jackson haters will continue to be jesse jackson
haters. so i don't think that this thing is going to change
anything.
SMITH29
xxxx
That old rum soak can't handle a long filibuster. He can't stay sober
that long.
29
ronald
>
> Jackson only "disclosed" this because the Enquirer was about to run a huge
> FRONT PAGE expose' of not only the affair but also pictures of him and the
> mistress in the Oval Office, documentation of his attempt to pay off the
> woman with over $40,000 in "relocation" expenses as well as putting her up
> in a $350,000 house, and $10k/month in "living expenses."
>
> All of which, of course, his "ministry" is funding - that is, the people who
> THINK they are giving money to him as a PREACHER are really paying him so he
> can keep his infidelity quiet and out of public view.
>
> Can you spell F.R.A.U.D.?
>
with the kind of money that jesse jackson can command doing public
speaking do you think that he does them for free? and with the
wealth that he has accumulated over the years, you do you think
that he might have aggrandized his wealth even further with
investments?
yet, with no knowledge you ignorantly declare that there is fraud
involved in jackson's finances. furthermore, based upon what i've
heard on the radio it appears that you're jumping to conclusions
beyond what you have actual facts to back up.
can you spell S.T.U.P.I.D.?
before you start typing, i'll remind you that you should know by now
that your usual tactic of saying anything to "win" an argument
doesn't work with me since i've aced your ass several times when
you've tried that bullshit.
ronald
>
> The issue isn't the affair, but rather the monies to cover it up.
>
> Rev. Jackson is supposed is in charge or employed by a non-for-
> profit orgization. Where he got 365K+40K+24*10K or over a half
> a million dollars (provided the information is true) should be
> of interest. Especially to the people who contribute their hard
> earned dollars to his non-for-profit group and the tax payers
> should his group receieve or use public monies for their work.
>
you don't know anything about what you are talking, it's just
ignorant blather. how do you know that jackson's only source
of income is from non-profits? i assumed that he gets *no*
income from operation p.u.s.h. since he's got so many money
making opportunities it wouldn't be worth taking it. for
instance, when jax does (or did) his program on cnn do you
think that he was doing it for free? when jax does public
speaking do you think that he does it for free? is it your
thinking that the only way that jax could have credibility with
you is if he were a pauper? since it doesn't appear to be the
case anyway it appears that jax's finances have *nothing* to do
with what you think of him.
but as i've said, the jesse jackson haters are going to be haters
no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
smr
>
> In article <slrn96eg0i...@shell-1.enteract.com>,
>
> This is the guy who was "counseling" Clinton - WITH HIS PREGNANT MISTRESS
> THERE IN THE ROOM AT THE TIME - when *HE* got caught.
>
> Exactly what was he "counseling" Clinton on - how not to get caught?
>
> This giant act of hypocrisy should get Jesse DESTROYED on the national
> political stage. The blatent outrageousness of his behavior, and his
> INTENTIONAL concealment of it, says everything there is to be said.
>
> Jackson only "disclosed" this because the Enquirer was about to run a huge
> FRONT PAGE expose' of not only the affair but also pictures of him and the
> mistress in the Oval Office, documentation of his attempt to pay off the
> woman with over $40,000 in "relocation" expenses as well as putting her up
> in a $350,000 house, and $10k/month in "living expenses."
>
> All of which, of course, his "ministry" is funding - that is, the people who
> THINK they are giving money to him as a PREACHER are really paying him so he
> can keep his infidelity quiet and out of public view.
>
> Can you spell F.R.A.U.D.?
>
> face.
>
> If you're honest enough to look, that is.
feh. america(ns) is/are fucking retarded when it comes to affairs. this
is one area where i'll say the europeans are much more advanced and
realistic than us. i mean, c'mon... one woman? for the rest of your
life?
yeah.
right.
--
smr
--
former tech boss for formerly local ISP-DLEC
jack...@DELETIA.animalcharm.com
smr
> you don't know anything about what you are talking, it's just
> ignorant blather. how do you know that jackson's only source
> of income is from non-profits? i assumed that he gets *no*
> income from operation p.u.s.h. since he's got so many money
> making opportunities it wouldn't be worth taking it. for
> instance, when jax does (or did) his program on cnn do you
> think that he was doing it for free? when jax does public
> speaking do you think that he does it for free? is it your
> thinking that the only way that jax could have credibility with
> you is if he were a pauper? since it doesn't appear to be the
> case anyway it appears that jax's finances have *nothing* to do
> with what you think of him.
>
> but as i've said, the jesse jackson haters are going to be haters
> no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
> for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
> complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
c'mon, ron, you're being as kneejerk as the jackson bashers are. what do
you have to say about the fact that a minister fathered a child with a
woman who was not his wife, and tried pretty hard to cover it up? or the
fact that he was ministering to a US President regarding marital
fidelity at the same time he was sticking it on the side?
ronald
> > no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
> > for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
> > complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
>
> c'mon, ron, you're being as kneejerk as the jackson bashers are.
>
how so? when has jax done something (such as brining back our
people held in bosnia) without inventing claims about how he might
have "possibly" violated some law. our current drooling, retard
senator peter "elected because i'm white" fitzgerald refused to vote
for the resolution commending jax even though jax is a resident of
this state!
jax is basically a lightning rod. the nature of lightning rods is
that for some they walks on water and for others they can do no
right.
> what do
> you have to say about the fact that a minister fathered a child with a
> woman who was not his wife, and tried pretty hard to cover it up? or the
> fact that he was ministering to a US President regarding marital
> fidelity at the same time he was sticking it on the side?
>
of course, if you read the post to which i responded that wasn't
the point being raised by the poster to which i responded. however
to the question that you're raised independently (while incorrectly
linking it to an unrelated thought), i think that this says that
jackson is not "holier than thou". however, i don't recall jax
claiming to be such - which is a lot more than can be said about
many politicians in washington. i mean, how badly was henry hyde
damaged by revelation of his affair? he recently got re-elected.
as far as charges of a "cover up", to whom is it your contention
that he was supposed to reveal this? are you suggesting that when
he found out he was the father of the baby that he was supposed to
call a press conference to announce it??? i mean, really, think
about it.
Michael Dix
> of course, if you read the post to which i responded that wasn't
> the point being raised by the poster to which i responded. however
> to the question that you're raised independently (while incorrectly
> linking it to an unrelated thought), i think that this says that
> jackson is not "holier than thou". however, i don't recall jax
> claiming to be such - which is a lot more than can be said about
> many politicians in washington. i mean, how badly was henry hyde
> damaged by revelation of his affair? he recently got re-elected.
>
Here's why the Rev. J. Jackson deal is different. The Rev JJ. is
an official Christian holy man of God. The assumption is that
he (although a sinner like all of us) will be keeping all ten
of the commandments. The story would get a similar play
if he had embezzled donations, got caught watching porno,
or allowed his elderly parents to live in squalor.
(It occurs to me that newsmen and their audiences love
irony, but I won't pursue this further.)
ronald
>
> Here's why the Rev. J. Jackson deal is different. The Rev JJ. is
> an official Christian holy man of God. The assumption is that
> he (although a sinner like all of us) will be keeping all ten
> of the commandments. The story would get a similar play
> if he had embezzled donations, got caught watching porno,
> or allowed his elderly parents to live in squalor.
>
however, to my knowledge, jesse jackson is *not* a practicing
minister. to my knowledge, he does not have a congregation to
which he sermons every sunday. he is basically an activist
and a politician whose base is in the church as has historically
been the case (until recently) with black people. so i think
that your analogy to people like jimmy swaggart is a bit incorrect.
--
super nintendo, sega genesis
when i was dead broke, man i couldn't picture this
50 inch screen, money green leather sofa
got two rides, a limousine with a chauffeur
phone bill about 2 g's flat
no need to worry, my accountant handles that
-notorious b.i.g. (r.i.p.)
flaccid erudition
>(It occurs to me that newsmen and their audiences love
>irony, but I won't pursue this further.)
Only if they're under 35 and live in the Weimar Republic.
SMITH29
Cheapskate should pay $5,000.00 per month to support his mistress and
child in a fitting way for their betterment and a school fund and health
care.
Michael Dix
>
> Michael Dix wrote:
> >
> > Here's why the Rev. J. Jackson deal is different. The Rev JJ. is
> > an official Christian holy man of God. The assumption is that
> > he (although a sinner like all of us) will be keeping all ten
> > of the commandments. The story would get a similar play
> > if he had embezzled donations, got caught watching porno,
> > or allowed his elderly parents to live in squalor.
> >
>
> however, to my knowledge, jesse jackson is *not* a practicing
> minister. to my knowledge, he does not have a congregation to
> which he sermons every sunday. he is basically an activist
> and a politician whose base is in the church as has historically
> been the case (until recently) with black people. so i think
> that your analogy to people like jimmy swaggart is a bit incorrect.
>
But: he still is a minister of the Gospel AFAIK: he did not
resign his commission or whatever the phrase would be. If he
dropped "the Rev." and was just plain old Mr. it would be
different. If he had said he was going to drop the Gospel
for Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy it would be pretty
clear he had a change of heart.
Even in that case people would still think that he should
know better.
Moreover, even for a politician (Bill C., Teddy Kennedy,
Henry Hyde, that congressman from Indiana) producing
a bastard is still pretty tacky.
ronald
>
> But: he still is a minister of the Gospel AFAIK: he did not
> resign his commission or whatever the phrase would be. If he
> dropped "the Rev." and was just plain old Mr. it would be
> different. If he had said he was going to drop the Gospel
> for Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy it would be pretty
> clear he had a change of heart.
>
well, your interpretation is different from most that i'm hearing
which are more focused upon his credibility as a *political* and
social leader.
> Even in that case people would still think that he should
> know better.
>
he should know better than the numerous other politicians (in
washington and elsewhere)?
> Moreover, even for a politician (Bill C., Teddy Kennedy,
> Henry Hyde, that congressman from Indiana) producing
> a bastard is still pretty tacky.
>
do you really think that he *intended* to do so?
fasterpussycat
Charlie Wilkes
I read he's sending 10k per month and he gave her 40k for moving
expenses. He wants the little bastard to have a proper left coast
upbringin.
Charlie
Geoff Gass
>feh. america(ns) is/are fucking retarded when it comes to affairs. this
>is one area where i'll say the europeans are much more advanced and
>realistic than us. i mean, c'mon... one woman? for the rest of your
>life?
>
>yeah.
>
>right.
We'd all like to know what your lady thinks about this :)
Big_Don
ronald wrote:
Right.
DAFNz will continue their self-destructive practice
of uncontrollably breeding OutOfWedlock.
It should be noted that the Head_OOWBreeder_In_Charge
has used this reason, that his own illegitimate ass was bred OOW,
as a partial explanation for his disgusting degenerate behavior.
Big Don
No IQ-75 OOW_Breeding LOOZerz~~~!@!~~~
Big_Don
ronald wrote:
> i'll remind you that you should know by now
> that your usual tactic of saying anything to "win" an argument
> doesn't work with me since i've aced your ass several times when
> you've tried that bullshit.
Try and explain how all that OOW_Breeding improves the race.....
Byker
Charlie Wilkes <charlie...@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:7c0f6t01lfpmrqhmg...@4ax.com...
Regardless of the upbringing, his OOW crotchmaggot will still shit an OOW
niglet of her own by age 15, in the finest fecal-faced fashion.....
Coleman E. Howard
Big_Don <big...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:3A6804CF...@eskimo.com...
>
> DAFNz will continue their self-destructive practice
> of uncontrollably breeding OutOfWedlock.
>
> It should be noted that the Head_OOWBreeder_In_Charge
> has used this reason, that his own illegitimate ass was bred OOW,
> as a partial explanation for his disgusting degenerate behavior.
>
> Big Don
> No IQ-75 OOW_Breeding LOOZerz~~~!@!~~~
You low-lifed low-down IMPERSONATING behind the back sneaky bitch.
Thomas Jefferson was raping 12 year old black girls, and you all got statues
of him.
What is done is private is nobody buisness but the people involved.
Big Don, an imposter and a behind the back asshole..
Coleman(the real one)(check the header)
Michael Dix
>
> Michael Dix wrote:
> >
> > But: he still is a minister of the Gospel AFAIK: he did not
> > resign his commission or whatever the phrase would be. If he
> > dropped "the Rev." and was just plain old Mr. it would be
> > different. If he had said he was going to drop the Gospel
> > for Hugh Hefner's Playboy Philosophy it would be pretty
> > clear he had a change of heart.
> >
>
> well, your interpretation is different from most that i'm hearing
> which are more focused upon his credibility as a *political* and
> social leader.
In the NY Times article today, "Rev." is the second word. It also
mentions his status as Baptist minister, former associate of
Dr. King, and Clinton spiritual adviser.
>
> > Even in that case people would still think that he should
> > know better.
> >
>
> he should know better than the numerous other politicians (in
> washington and elsewhere)?
No: that his professional education would have covered the
ten commandments in depth; more so than the average pol.'s
education. I believe Paul Simon studied to be a minister;
could you imagine him producing a child out of wedlock?
>
> > Moreover, even for a politician (Bill C., Teddy Kennedy,
> > Henry Hyde, that congressman from Indiana) producing
> > a bastard is still pretty tacky.
> >
>
> do you really think that he *intended* to do so?
Yes. I don't think they were swept away on a tide of passion. We're
not talking about horny teenagers here. They were certainly old
enough to know better.
In addition, women pushing 40 are considerably less fertile than they
were at say, 30. They must have been carrying on for quite a long
time for her to get pregnant.
smr
g...@tanzenmb.com says...
um.... let's just say that although i've bought her a nice lil' laptop
and gotten her online and all that, i have not introduced her to the joys
of usenet and have no intentions of doing so ;)
smr
smr
> you don't know anything about what you are talking, it's just
> ignorant blather. how do you know that jackson's only source
> of income is from non-profits? i assumed that he gets *no*
> income from operation p.u.s.h. since he's got so many money
> making opportunities it wouldn't be worth taking it. for
> instance, when jax does (or did) his program on cnn do you
> think that he was doing it for free? when jax does public
> speaking do you think that he does it for free? is it your
> thinking that the only way that jax could have credibility with
> you is if he were a pauper? since it doesn't appear to be the
> case anyway it appears that jax's finances have *nothing* to do
> with what you think of him.
>
> but as i've said, the jesse jackson haters are going to be haters
> no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
> for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
> complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
well, the re-loc to Cali (over $40,000) was paid by PUSH, not the right
reverand.
smr
smr
> well, your interpretation is different from most that i'm hearing
> which are more focused upon his credibility as a *political* and
> social leader.
Interpretations differ, Ronald. Some people interpret him as an activist
first (in which case the adultery is pretty irrelevent), a politcal
leader second (which is a bit more involved as it calls into question the
moral fiber and trustworthiness of the man) and as a social leader (very
important as he has preached out on family and parenting, so it IS very,
very hypocritical of him to father a bastard whilst bemoaning the lack of
two-parent families in the black community).
To me, the fact that he DOES call himself a Rev. and uses the title means
that he MUST accept the higher moral standard that men of God are (and
should) be held to.
> he should know better than the numerous other politicians (in
> washington and elsewhere)?
Yes, because he is a minister, and ministers are supposed to have a
higher level of moral strength and to serve as an example to weaker men.
Politicians are not men of God. Reverends are. He SHOULD know better.
> do you really think that he *intended* to do so?
No, but that he wasn't careful enough to avoid it further damages his
ability and repuation when it comes to speaking out to young black teens
about being responsible, protecting themselves, and, y'know, not knocking
each other up and stuff.
You're really reaching to defend him now, Ron, btw.
smr
Brent Peterson
>
> Brent Peterson wrote:
> >
> > The issue isn't the affair, but rather the monies to cover it up.
> >
> > Rev. Jackson is supposed is in charge or employed by a non-for-
> > profit orgization. Where he got 365K+40K+24*10K or over a half
> > a million dollars (provided the information is true) should be
> > of interest. Especially to the people who contribute their hard
> > earned dollars to his non-for-profit group and the tax payers
> > should his group receieve or use public monies for their work.
> you don't know anything about what you are talking, it's just
> ignorant blather. how do you know that jackson's only source
> of income is from non-profits?
Then in the last 20 years his 'day job' has gone unmentioned.
Must be a pretty understanding empolyer to let him take off
to anywhere in the world at a moments notice or simply to
just chase television cameras to get his mug on the TV.
> i assumed that he gets *no*
> income from operation p.u.s.h. since he's got so many money
> making opportunities it wouldn't be worth taking it.
Chasing cameras must pay alot more than what one would think.
> for
> instance, when jax does (or did) his program on cnn do you
> think that he was doing it for free? when jax does public
> speaking do you think that he does it for free?
jax = jesse jackson?
I never said he did. But a half million dollars is alot of
money, even for the good reverend.
> is it your
> thinking that the only way that jax could have credibility with
> you is if he were a pauper?
Nice, typical usenet tatic. I never mentioned the man's credibility.
The question however remains, where did the money come from?
Unless 'jax' is like bill gates or something a half million is still
ALOT of money. Anyone who is in charge of donated funds or tax monies
would be suspect when they could just 'find' large sums such as
these to do things.
Usually there is something at the bottom of it. Such as I once thought
it was odd that Clinton could afford such an expesive home. Later it
was reported he got an interest free loan.....
> since it doesn't appear to be the
> case anyway it appears that jax's finances have *nothing* to do
> with what you think of him.
So Jax's wife just didn't notice the half million missing
from the family's saving's account is what you are saying?
> but as i've said, the jesse jackson haters are going to be haters
> no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
> for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
> complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
Jesse Jackson is an irrelvant camera chaser IMO. He has become
cartoonish all of his own doing.
Aaron M. Renn
>> well, your interpretation is different from most that i'm hearing
>> which are more focused upon his credibility as a *political* and
>> social leader.
>
>In the NY Times article today, "Rev." is the second word. It also
>mentions his status as Baptist minister, former associate of
>Dr. King, and Clinton spiritual adviser.
Jesse Jackson is really a political figure rather than a preacher. He
doesn't have his own church anymore, but he does still occassionally
preach sermons. Is he actually ordained by anyone? A lot of Protestant
denominations are very informal about that stuff.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
Aaron M. Renn
>well, the re-loc to Cali (over $40,000) was paid by PUSH, not the right
>reverand.
Was it? Did he admit that or is it just part of the National Enquirer
story. Certainly credible evidence of misappropriation of funds should
be investigated, but until there's some sort of solid proof, I'll
reserve judgement and give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
smr
ar...@urbanophile.com says...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:36:44 GMT, smr <jack...@delete.animalcharm.com> wrote:
> >well, the re-loc to Cali (over $40,000) was paid by PUSH, not the right
> >reverand.
>
> Was it? Did he admit that or is it just part of the National Enquirer
> story. Certainly credible evidence of misappropriation of funds should
> be investigated, but until there's some sort of solid proof, I'll
> reserve judgement and give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
It was reliably reported by a variety of valid media sources today. The
monthly support payments come from Jesse's own money.
smr
neil klopfenstein
If you're a highly-ranked employee of an organization it's not unusual for
them to pay for your relocation. Do we know that she was relocated
because of the Rev.'s wrongdoing? Chicago is an awfully big place. I can't
find that anywhere.. I suspect the media just assumed this and ran with it.
SMITH29
xxxx
That could be correct. I have heard that figure on Leno as well.
I wonder if that is Rainbow money?
29
SMITH29
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:27:31 GMT, SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > JACKSON TOOK PREGNANT MISTRESS TO WHITE HOUSE AT HEIGHT OF IMPEACHMENT, PAPER
> >> > CLAIMS...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.drudgereport.com/
> >>
> >> Please! It's "The *Reverend*" Jackson.....
> >
> >
> >
> >A prime example of what's wrong with America.
> >"Don't do as I do, Do as I say."
> >
> >I spose he will plea for our forgiveness.
> >Hope he gives up the "ministry" , what a joke he is.....
>
> Cut the guy some slack. He's a red-blooded American male and a human
> being. Of course he's going to have some flaws. The fact that he
> is a minister has nothing to do with it. "All have sinned and fallen
> short of the glory of God".
>
> I'm sure Jackson's critics are going to have a field day with this,
> but I am very opposed to using purely personal matters to try to rip
> down your political opponents. Particularly in light of the fact that
> Jackson has never been a preachy moralist on matters of marital fidelity,
> to the best of my knowledge. Jackson's beliefs, political tactics, etc
> should be opposed on their own merits, if that is what you want to do.
> But don't rip the guy up because he had an affair.
>
xxxxx
Hook the bastard between two Cadillacs and drive away in opposite
directions.
29
neil klopfenstein
>directions.
The opinion that all Jackson detractors are racists isn't very easy to
swallow.. but sometimes I wonder.
Shea F. Kenny
said:
>That could be correct. I have heard that figure on Leno as well.
>I wonder if that is Rainbow money?
He have some other source of reverend-due there twinkles?
--
Live from Camp Labor, the Moon.
This has been, Lunar Network News....
}Just say "NO!" to 2nd terms for pro-abortion administrations.
Brent Peterson
> It was reliably reported by a variety of valid media sources today. The
> monthly support payments come from Jesse's own money.
If the half mil or so is all his, then there is no story.
horkawhale
I think it is. She's a part-time Rainbow girl.
I'll bet you won't be so quick to grab your checkbook next time they
show up on your doorstep, eh, Smith?
Charlie
sallyh...@my-deja.com
maryma...@my-deja.com
It's absolutely right for some people.
It's absolutely not right for other people.
And it's not, imrho, a moral issue.
I just wish people would be more honest about it -- if you want to have
more than one lover, only get involved with people who are fine with
that. Don't cheat.
If you don't want more than one lover, don't have more than one, but
don't worry about those of us who do.
It's the lying to loved ones that bothers me :/
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
SMITH29
xxx
I was going to send them $1,000.00
Butt, I changed my mind. Gonna donate it to the fag free Boy scouts.
29
neil klopfenstein
>In article <MPG.14d17ab4f...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
> smr <jack...@getrid.animalcharm.com> wrote:
>>c'mon... one woman? for the rest of your
>> life?
>
>It's absolutely right for some people.
>
>It's absolutely not right for other people.
>
>And it's not, imrho, a moral issue.
>
>I just wish people would be more honest about it -- if you want to have
>more than one lover, only get involved with people who are fine with
>that. Don't cheat.
>
>If you don't want more than one lover, don't have more than one, but
>don't worry about those of us who do.
>
>It's the lying to loved ones that bothers me :/
Jackson mentioned that his family already knew about the affair.
ronald
>
> ronald wrote:
>
> > well, your interpretation is different from most that i'm hearing
> > which are more focused upon his credibility as a *political* and
> > social leader.
>
> In the NY Times article today, "Rev." is the second word. It also
> mentions his status as Baptist minister, former associate of
> Dr. King, and Clinton spiritual adviser.
>
as i said earlier, until recent years black leaders had their base
in the church. it makes sense, black people couldn't vote and elect
leaders as could white people so it was effectively the only avenue
by which black leaders could be identified. from that base jesse
jackson became a social activist and political leader. he is not
standing on the pulpit every sunday preaching hellfire and what
people have to do to get salvation. maybe at one time he did have
a congregation and engage in such rhetoric, but he doesn't now.
emerging black leaders these days aren't based upon the black church
as was the case in the past. more conventional avenues are
available - at least for the time being. for instance, jax jr. is
not a minister.
to call jax a "clinton spiritual advisor" is pretty laughable given
that until a few years ago they were *politically* at odds. jesse
jackson, like many black people (visible and less visible) were key
supporters of clinton during the republican scandals. i can
certainly believe that jax gave clinton many a hortatory word during
their private discussions but i can't imagine clinton baring his
deepest thoughts to jax, with whom he may possible have future
political disagreements, as he would if he were speaking to his
personal pastor. at least i find that hard to believe. don't you?
> No: that his professional education would have covered the
> ten commandments in depth; more so than the average pol.'s
> education. I believe Paul Simon studied to be a minister;
> could you imagine him producing a child out of wedlock?
>
i presume jimmy swaggart also studied to be a minister. but what
did it mean? i suppose the same could be said for jim baker and
other less known ministers. what does it mean? i think that it
means that you can't just make assumptions about people just because
they studied for the ministry or maintain a "family values" public
image - you never know what lurks in the crepuscular nether spaces
of a person's life. i think that it means that the best that you
can do with religion is to use it to establish goals and objectives
for the betterment of *your* life and not so much as a means of
drawing conclusions about the personal conduct of the lives of
others - much of which you don't know about anyway.
one thing that i have learned is that you can't just take rote
professions of religious devotion to translate into a particular
pattern of behavior. the reason being that another person may not
form the same interpretations that you might. during slavery
ministers held people in slavery and had out of wedlock children
just like everybody else - whether they were married or not.
the danger with relgion is that you can't assume that people change
their behavior because of something that they read in the bible.
they can just as often form, or extract from the bible,
interpretations which support what the things that they are already
doing.
i'm usually very cautious of "religious" people because they can
just as easily screw you over, and rationalize it by saying that
it was the "will of the lord" for them to screw you over.
> >
> > > Moreover, even for a politician (Bill C., Teddy Kennedy,
> > > Henry Hyde, that congressman from Indiana) producing
> > > a bastard is still pretty tacky.
> > >
> >
> > do you really think that he *intended* to do so?
>
> Yes. I don't think they were swept away on a tide of passion. We're
> not talking about horny teenagers here. They were certainly old
> enough to know better.
>
as i understand the story, jax didn't find out that he was the
father until a dna test was done (which i presume was *after*
the baby was born). since, as i also understand the story, the
w**** in question was dating another guy at the time, i could
imagine that jax might have assumed that the w**** in question had
taken precautions against pregnancy (which guys tend to do in
general, btw). but when she became pregnant i can also see why jax
might have felt that it was necessary to determine whether he was
indeed the father of the child.
that doesn't sound like an intended pregnancy to me - at least not
from jax's perspective. it may have been intentional on h** part,
though. that's one of the chance that guys take in such cases,
especially when they're large.
> In addition, women pushing 40 are considerably less fertile than they
> were at say, 30. They must have been carrying on for quite a long
> time for her to get pregnant.
>
the w**** in question is 39 with a 2 year old child. that means
that at the time that s** got pregnant s** was in h** mid-30's. at
that age (and even older) unexpected pregnancies do occur.
ronald
>
> No, but that he wasn't careful enough to avoid it further damages his
> ability and repuation when it comes to speaking out to young black teens
> about being responsible, protecting themselves, and, y'know, not knocking
> each other up and stuff.
>
> You're really reaching to defend him now, Ron, btw.
>
i think that you really need to learn to read posts more carefully
instead of letting your emotions get the better of you such that
you end up making illogical statements. if you think about it for
a while, calmly, i think that you will realize that to call my
statement an attempt to "defend" jesse jackson, makes no sense.
it makes no sense that jax, as high profile as he is, would
*intentionally* want to have a child with another w****. i mean,
the guy has 5 children already, what does he need with another
child? he already has grandchildren.
but since you've raised the issue i think that there is much to be
said for jackson's handling of this matter. with all the deadbeat
dads out there, jax appears to have owned up to his responsibilities,
paying child support, &c without haaving to be taken to court to get
the money extracted from him. given the situation, it appears that
he has handled it in an honorable fashion.
on any account, THINK before you post your next resposne, smr.
ronald
>
> In article <3A67C738...@ripco.com>, ron...@ripco.com says...
>
> > how so?
>
> Simple. Someone says something bad about Jackson, and you go right off
> the deepend accusing the poster of being ignorant and such,
>
i won't repeat my statement about your need to think before posting.
however, if you had read the post to which i had responded (which i
had previously suggested that you do) you would realize that the
charge was made that jax was commiting fraud to pay child support
because his source of income was from non-profit organizations.
as it turns out, that *was* an ignorant statement, your emotions
may prevent you from admitting that, but for your information,
that's what it was. my pointing that out does not constitute any
kind of "deepend" (as you put it), at least not logically.
> and you
> rarely speak to what Jackson has actually done wrong (there's no way to
> make an affair that resulted in pregnancy look like a good act for a
> reverend) and instead try to slam the detractor in some way. I can count
> on you to do this every time someone rips on Jesse. So, ergo, therefore,
> you are as kneejerk as the bashers.
>
in one of your misinterpretations of a previous post of mine in this
thread you had interjected a question as to what i thought about
this thing. again, if you had read what i wrote in reply, and
thought about it, rather than posting the kind of emotion-driven
comment that you made above, you would realize that i didn't say
or imply that it was a "good act".
i read through the rest of your post and think that i'll just end
up repeating the themes above so i didn't respond to your remaining
comments here to avoid redundancy.
ronald
> > no matter what he does. i mean, the guy could come up with a cure
> > for the aids virus and people would still try to find a reason to
> > complain, or declare some type of "intrigue" about it.
>
> well, the re-loc to Cali (over $40,000) was paid by PUSH, not the right
> reverand.
>
i think that you're jumping to conclusions here. if the relocation
payment were not within the guidelines of normal practice for the
organization, and sub rosa means were used to get the payment to
h**, then it would be fraud. do you have knowledge that operation
push *doesn't* pay for relocation of employees? i would think that
they would have such policies. to that extent, there is no need
for jax to pay that out of his pocket. even if the relocation was
a result of this pregnancy thing, people relocate for all kinds of
reasons, it's not an employer's business as to the personal reasons
why a person might want to relocate as long as the actual relocation
is within reasons deemed reimbursable.
i don't have any facts one way or the other as to whether or not
the relocation payment involved fraud. i certainly haven't heard
anything in the press suggesting this either. i've seen such
charges on this newsgroup; coming from people who probably know
nothing about what the deal is.
are you still surprised that i can call such declarations "ignorant"?
Dan
> > Moreover, even for a politician (Bill C., Teddy Kennedy,
> > Henry Hyde, that congressman from Indiana) producing
> > a bastard is still pretty tacky.
> do you really think that he *intended* to do so?
Of course. The primary purpose of the penis is for injecting sperm.
Pissing was an afterthought.
Dan
Big_Don
ronald wrote:
> but since you've raised the issue i think that there is much to be
> said for jackson's handling of this matter. with all the deadbeat
> dads out there, jax appears to have owned up to his responsibilities,
> paying child support, &c without haaving to be taken to court to get
> the money extracted from him. given the situation, it appears that
> he has handled it in an *honorable* fashion.
Even murder is excusable if you do the *honorable* thing
and plead guilty, right?
Big Don
No IQ-75 OOWBreeding LOOZerz~~~!@!~~~
ronald
dumb don,
if being african-american means that i have an iq of 75 what does
that make yours? i mean, does your iq even manage to stay in the
range of POSITIVE NUMBERS???
Michael Dix
>
> Michael Dix wrote:
> >
> > ronald wrote:
> >
> > In the NY Times article today, "Rev." is the second word. It also
> > mentions his status as Baptist minister, former associate of
> > Dr. King, and Clinton spiritual adviser.
> >
> to call jax a "clinton spiritual advisor" is pretty laughable given
> that until a few years ago they were *politically* at odds.
Well, we're not going to agree on this. I'd just like to acknowledge
that the NY Times can frequently be pretty laughable. In addition,
the Letters to the Editor often are far lamer than the discussions
on our own chi.general.
Michael Dix
>
> Jesse Jackson is really a political figure rather than a preacher. He
> doesn't have his own church anymore, but he does still occassionally
> preach sermons. Is he actually ordained by anyone? A lot of Protestant
> denominations are very informal about that stuff.
>
This turned out to be a real bitch to look up. The source seems
credible:
http://www.liberalopinion.com/about.htm#Jesse Jackson
"He graduated with a B.A. in sociology [from NC A&T State] (1963) and
attended the Chicago Theological Seminary for two and a half years
before joining Dr. King in 1965 in the voting rights march in
Selma, Ala. The school later conferred on him an honorary doctorate
degree.
"He was ordained a Baptist minister at the Fellowship Missionary
Baptist Church by Rev. Clay Evans, Rev. Ralph Abernathy and other
on June 30, 1968. He is an ordained minister in the National
Baptist convention, U.S.A., Inc."
I also found that he received his Master of Divinity from the
CTS last year. He had been three courses shy of the degree, but
was able to satisfy their requirements by referring to his
published writings. He also took an ethics exam. (This was
on two separate sites, including a U of C newsletter).
smr
ne...@cs.uchicago.edu says...
> SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote:
> >Hook the bastard between two Cadillacs and drive away in opposite
> >directions.
>
> The opinion that all Jackson detractors are racists isn't very easy to
> swallow.. but sometimes I wonder.
>
No, SMITH29 is an ignorant piece of shit, from what he's posted so far.
He's just loving Jackson being caught doing something wrong because it
somehow validates his stupid ignorant thinking.
smr
smr
> xxx
> I was going to send them $1,000.00
> Butt, I changed my mind. Gonna donate it to the fag free Boy scouts.
> 29
DING DING DING DING. We have a winner... I couldn't quite tell if
SMITH29 was a racist for sure or just one inarticulate sonuvabitch, but
the fag comment gives it away.
Interestingly enough, the freudian slip spelling of but as "butt" gives
away almost as much as the "fag" crack.
smr
smr
ne...@cs.uchicago.edu says...
> Jackson mentioned that his family already knew about the affair.
Neil... c'mon... I doubt he asked ahead of time "hey, honey... d'ya mind
if i fuck this broad, and possibly knock her up because i'm too careless
to take good precautions?"
They knew before the general public found out. They didn't know ahead of
his doing it.
smr
neil klopfenstein
That was what I meant.. I thought that was what was being referred to.
smr
> i think that you really need to learn to read posts more carefully
> instead of letting your emotions get the better of you such that
> you end up making illogical statements.
Emotions? Dude, I'm very dispassionate about this episode. I just don't
care, really. I'm finding it enjoyable to watch both sides, zealots
abounding, get all panty-bunched about it, and am just enjoying tweaking
both to my heart's content here and trying to draw out some real
commentary at the same time.
Jesse is irrelevent to me, overall. I'm not part of the group he
advocates for, but nor do I see this as a zero-sum game where if his
group wins something, I somehow lose. I wish him luck, but don't really
care about his success or failure. I have causes other than his that are
much more dear to me and that his efforts don't impact either way.
> if you think about it for
> a while, calmly, i think that you will realize that to call my
> statement an attempt to "defend" jesse jackson, makes no sense.
Really? How should I take your instant attacks on thosOOP
at dogged him,
your incorrect insta-assumption that the funds to pay for her did not
come from PUSH pockets (they did, at least in part), your insane attack
on Hyde based SOLELY on race... who's the emotional guy now?
> it makes no sense that jax, as high profile as he is, would
> *intentionally* want to have a child with another w****. i mean,
> the guy has 5 children already, what does he need with another
> child? he already has grandchildren.
I never said he intentionally wanted the kid. I'm quite sure he didn't.
However, he has spoken out voluminously, in the past, about the sad
state, overall, of black parenting (60% single parent rate, etc...).
That he couldn't be bothered to take the necessary precautions or keep
his trouser snake sheathed speaks to his hypocracy on the issue. He
literally pulled a "do what I say, not what I do" on that issue.
> but since you've raised the issue i think that there is much to be
> said for jackson's handling of this matter. with all the deadbeat
> dads out there, jax appears to have owned up to his responsibilities,
> paying child support, &c without haaving to be taken to court to get
> the money extracted from him.
None of which I've debated, excepting the fact that he's used the funds
of a civil rights organization to pay for at least some of it, which I
find highly questionable in the extreme. Other than that, he's done
good. On the flipside, I'm sure that if a lot of deadbeat dads could use
their workplace's funds to pay for bastards, they would too.
> given the situation, it appears that
> he has handled it in an honorable fashion.
No, the honorable thing to do would have been to not cheat on his wife.
> on any account, THINK before you post your next resposne, smr.
I did. I have. Eat me.
smr
smr
> i won't repeat my statement about your need to think before posting.
> however, if you had read the post to which i had responded (which i
> had previously suggested that you do) you would realize that the
> charge was made that jax was commiting fraud to pay child support
> because his source of income was from non-profit organizations.
No, the charge was not that his income came from a non-profit source, it
was that he used non-profit money (ie, not income, but money of the
organization itself as opposed to any fees he may have accrued from it)
to pay for some of his handling of this issue.
> as it turns out, that *was* an ignorant statement, your emotions
> may prevent you from admitting that, but for your information,
> that's what it was. my pointing that out does not constitute any
> kind of "deepend" (as you put it), at least not logically.
I have no emotions on the record. I've already publicly stated that I
feel that lifetime monogamy is a high and almost unholdable standard for
your average male. I've also stated that since Jackson has used the
pulpit/his stature as a relgio-social leader to preach about how bad it
is that his constituBILI has so many kids out of wedlock, that I think
he's a bit full of shit given what has recently been revealed.
> in one of your misinterpretations of a previous post of mine in this
> thread you had interjected a question as to what i thought about
> this thing.
> ain, if you had read what i wrote in reply, and
> thought about it, rather than posting the kind of emotion-driven
> comment that you made above, you would realize that i didn't say
> or imply that it was a "good act".
Well, that was sort of my point. You got so quickly to the job of
defending him, that I found it suspect that you didn't (and haven't)
thought about what you're defending. It seems to be a case of "it's
JESSE JACKSON, I MUST defend him" instead of "waittaminute... what he
did here was pretty shitty... he cheated, again, on his wife of many
decades to the point of fathering a child out of wedlock... I can't
really defend that". You never got to that Ronald, you just went for the
kneejerk rally around the reverend instead.
THAT is why I called you out. I couldn't (and can't) understand why
you'd jump to his defense. I can see you being understanding about maybe
why he did it, maybe arguing that it was human nature or whatever, but
the undeniable fact here is that he did an incredibly ratshit thing to
his wife. You never spoke to that.
> i read through the rest of your post and think that i'll just end
> up repeating the themes above so i didn't respond to your remaining
> comments here to avoid redundancy.
Whatever.
smr
sallyh...@my-deja.com
sallyh...@my-deja.com
big...@eskimo.com wrote:
>
>
> ronald wrote:
>
> > i'll remind you that you should know by now
> > that your usual tactic of saying anything to "win" an argument
> > doesn't work with me since i've aced your ass several times when
> > you've tried that bullshit.
>
> Try and explain how all that OOW_Breeding improves the race.....
>
>
...
Brian McGroarty
> In article <3A67C738...@ripco.com>, ron...@ripco.com says...
>
> > how so?
>
> Simple. Someone says something bad about Jackson, and you go right off
> the deepend accusing the poster of being ignorant and such, and you
> rarely speak to what Jackson has actually done wrong (there's no way to
> make an affair that resulted in pregnancy look like a good act for a
> reverend) and instead try to slam the detractor in some way. I can count
> on you to do this every time someone rips on Jesse. So, ergo, therefore,
> you are as kneejerk as the bashers.
Me, I hate Jackson. No, that doesn't mean I hate blacks - it means I
don't like Jackson's methods, special rights for blacks rather than
equal rights for blacks among them.
That said - who hasn't got a skeleton in their closet? Is it really
worth smearing it all over the front pages and throwing it to the
front of public discourse, neutralizing the effectiveness of a public
figure?
He's not the pope. He doesn't claim to be perfect. This is
counterproductive in the same way that dragging Jefferson's or
Reagan's indiscretions about in public would have been. Sure would
have changed history...
John Rappe
>
>No, SMITH29 is an ignorant piece of shit, from what he's posted so far.
>He's just loving Jackson being caught doing something wrong because it
>somehow validates his stupid ignorant thinking.
Scott Cuyler
Brian McGroarty <i...@shell-1.enteract.com> wrote in message
news:dgv4ryu...@shell-1.enteract.com...
>
> Me, I hate Jackson. No, that doesn't mean I hate blacks - it means I
> don't like Jackson's methods, special rights for blacks rather than
> equal rights for blacks among them.
>
> That said - who hasn't got a skeleton in their closet? Is it really
> worth smearing it all over the front pages and throwing it to the
> front of public discourse, neutralizing the effectiveness of a public
> figure?
>
probably mean you hate his agenda.) You think the world would be a better
place if what he seeks to do is never accomplished. So neutralizing his
effectiveness is beneficial to you. Is it the method that upsets you?
Would you be happier if he were neutralized in another manner? Or do you
object to his neutralization altogether?
Brian McGroarty
I hate parts of his agenda, yes.
Neutralizing his effectiveness with this method is just plain
wrong. That troubles me.
Whether I would want Jackson neutralized completely is another
matter. I despise portions of his agenda, however he has attached
himself to civil rights as a whole.
If he could be simply removed as an extremist, I'd be for that.
But, putting aside the ethics of selectively putting the worst
segments of his life under a microscope: If he is removed by being
discredited and paraded about as a hippocrite, this is likely to set
back ALL agendas he has attached himself to.
Brian McGroarty
Huh huh. Butt give away. Fag crack. Huh huh huh.
Defending an accused racist feels like a bit of a gamble, but - FWIW,
I think he was trying to make the point that most charities have their
faults.
Crude phrasing aside, I got a chuckle out of it.
Michael Justice
>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:13:55 GMT, SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >Cheapskate should pay $5,000.00 per month to support his mistress and
>> >child in a fitting way for their betterment and a school fund and health
>> >care.
>>
>> I read he's sending 10k per month and he gave her 40k for moving
>> expenses. He wants the little bastard to have a proper left coast
>> upbringin.
>
>I wonder if that is Rainbow money?
Actually, according to the Reuters reports on Yahoo, it's $3,000 cash per
month. The initial $35,000 for "moving expenses" and "severance pay" was
paid directly by his PAC (Rainbow / PUSH). The $3,000 is paid by Jackson
(which, of course, means that it comes from his mid-six-figures salary as
head of Rainbow/PUSH).
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010119/us/jackson_child_17.html
[An earlier report claimed there was a $40,000 payment from PUSH/Rainbow;
it's not clear whether that was an error and is really the $35,000 figure,
or if it was an additional payoff not mentioned in this story.]
Keep in mind that $3,000 per month in cash is the take-home from about
a $58,000/year job after federal taxes are taken out of it. Take out
California's 10% state income tax and it's more like a $65,000/year job.
That puts her well into the top 25% of wage earners, IIRC.
-- Michael.
--
Michael A. Justice | Clinton has made government more efficient by
lib...@eskimo.com | reducing the Three Big Lies down to only two:
FIJA, WCW, NRA, AMA | 1) "The check is in the mail."
http://www.nra.org/ | 2) "Hi! I'm from the government and I
http://www.fija.org/| won't come in your mouth!"
SMITH29
xxxx
You win!
I'm not near as racist as Jesse Jackson and you don't see me profiting
off the race card like he does.
But I am politically incorrect and I call a spade a SPADE and that's our
jerk Jackson.
The last thing he wants is racial harmony. His pay check would go away.
Now he knows how to cultivate racial strife with great skill. He can
start a fire in a cloud burst.
I know more blacks that hate him than love him.
29
As for smr he has no imagination, mileage or insight. Time will cure
that I hope.
29
SMITH29
xxxx
Still in school?
29
Eric Salmassy
>SMITH29 wrote:
>
>Cheapskate should pay $5,000.00 per month to support his mistress and
>child in a fitting way for their betterment and a school fund and health
>care.
Why, how much does Dan Burton pay?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
smr
Nope. Got out years ago. Still a racist bag of shit?
--
smr
ad wonk
mojounlimited
SMITH29
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:13:55 GMT, SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >SMITH29 wrote:
> >
> >Cheapskate should pay $5,000.00 per month to support his mistress and
> >child in a fitting way for their betterment and a school fund and health
> >care.
>
> Why, how much does Dan Burton pay?
We're talking about Jesse. Nobody else.
29
SMITH29
Not near as racist as Jackson. He makes his living off of it.
Last thing he wants to do is stop stirring the racist pot.
He makes BIG money off of it.
IRS audit is in order.
Reverend my ass!
29
>
> --
> smr
>
ronald
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:36:44 GMT, smr <jack...@delete.animalcharm.com> wrote:
> >well, the re-loc to Cali (over $40,000) was paid by PUSH, not the right
> >reverand.
>
> Was it? Did he admit that or is it just part of the National Enquirer
> story. Certainly credible evidence of misappropriation of funds should
> be investigated, but until there's some sort of solid proof, I'll
> reserve judgement and give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
>
according to the following report by cnn, the rainbow-push board
has stated that the $35,000 paid to stanford was a severance
payment.
Henry McDaniel
Just because he's making money and giving some of it away
doesn't mean he needs to be audited. It's should be no
surprise that he's making money, the only question would
be if he has declared his income and the answer in all
likelyhood is yes. Most of the heads of non-profit
organizations (for instance) legally make hundreds of
thousands of dollars (or more) in salaries.
Anyhow, using the IRS to audit someone because you don't
like their politics is dirty. Not that it hasn't been done many
times before of course.
-McDaniel
SMITH29
xxxxx
He has to report his expenses and he is tax exempt status according to
Orielly on FOX. Time to check this dude out I say.
He will cry foul and that's tough.
If I have to pay taxes,, He has to pay taxes. Fair enough?
29
Brent Peterson
> according to the following report by cnn, the rainbow-push board
> has stated that the $35,000 paid to stanford was a severance
> payment.
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/20/jackson.payment/index.html
That's one hell of a severance payment..... Damn I thought the two
months salary I would get should I be layed off was good...
Brent Peterson
> Keep in mind that $3,000 per month in cash is the take-home from about
> a $58,000/year job after federal taxes are taken out of it. Take out
> California's 10% state income tax and it's more like a $65,000/year job.
> That puts her well into the top 25% of wage earners, IIRC.
Even more when one need not pay mortage or rent.
ronald
it's not even pocket change compared to the 10's of millions of
dollars that some people get for severance pay. but then you
wouldn't be seeing that kind of severance pay from your pizza
delivery job.
hold the anchovies on my order...and bring some extra crushed
peppers.
Reddxx
Besides taking up space, that is?
SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A6735FA...@home.com...
> Big_Don wrote:
> >
> > diego wrote:
> >
> > > JACKSON TOOK PREGNANT MISTRESS TO WHITE HOUSE AT HEIGHT OF
IMPEACHMENT, PAPER
> > > CLAIMS...
> > >
> > > > http://www.drudgereport.com/
> >
> > Please! It's "The *Reverend*" Jackson.....
>
>
> xxx ~JESSE JACKSON ~
>
> A prime example of what's wrong with America.
> "Don't do as I do, Do as I say."
>
> I spose he will plea for our forgiveness.
> Hope he gives up the "ministry" , what a joke he is.....
> 29
Big_Don
Reddxx wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what this is doing in the sci.anthropology newsgroup?
Anthropology is the study of the characteristics of groups
of people. In this case, OOWBreeding/DAFNz.....
Big Don
No IQ-75 LOOZerz~~~!@!~~~
anon...@enteract.com
> Most of the heads of non-profit
> organizations (for instance) legally make hundreds of
> thousands of dollars (or more) in salaries.
>
>
SMITH29
>
> Can anyone tell me what this is doing in the sci.anthropology newsgroup?
>
> Besides taking up space, that is?
Don't you guys dig up stuff? That's what this post is all about.
Diggin up stuff.
I didn't put you in the string butt it's kinda funny in a way.
29
Brent Peterson
>
> Brent Peterson wrote:
> >
> > ronald wrote:
> >
> > > according to the following report by cnn, the rainbow-push board
> > > has stated that the $35,000 paid to stanford was a severance
> > > payment.
> >
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/20/jackson.payment/index.html
> >
> > That's one hell of a severance payment..... Damn I thought the two
> > months salary I would get should I be layed off was good...
> >
>
> it's not even pocket change compared to the 10's of millions of
> dollars that some people get for severance pay.
But she wasn't a CEO of major corporation.
> but then you
> wouldn't be seeing that kind of severance pay from your pizza
> delivery job.
You may want to be insulting, but at least I have enough coin
to buy an S-class.
> hold the anchovies on my order...and bring some extra crushed
> peppers.
Be sure to do that for yourself while you moan about not having
an S-class.
Reddxx
SMITH29 <smi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A6B50AF...@home.com...
SMITH29
>
> That kind of digging I leave for my cat
>
I wonder where cats go to do there thing. We have 4 and never find a
turd anywhere.
Now the dogs we had would drop while they were walking.
Cats are sure neat.
29
ronald
>
> ronald wrote:
> >
>
> > > That's one hell of a severance payment..... Damn I thought the two
> > > months salary I would get should I be layed off was good...
> >
> > it's not even pocket change compared to the 10's of millions of
> > dollars that some people get for severance pay.
>
> But she wasn't a CEO of major corporation.
>
she's also not getting 10's of millions of dollars in severance
pay.
you're not real bright are you?
> > but then you
> > wouldn't be seeing that kind of severance pay from your pizza
> > delivery job.
>
> You may want to be insulting, but at least I have enough coin
> to buy an S-class.
>
hey, i can go to the junk yard too. i was talking about getting
a w220 s-class. that's the new one, btw.
Henry McDaniel
It's all about whether you lie to contributors and the tax man or not.
And not simply whether you make 10 million dollars or only $100,000
a year off of donations in salary.
-McDaniel
Brent Peterson
>
> Brent Peterson wrote:
> >
> > ronald wrote:
> > >
> > > Brent Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > > That's one hell of a severance payment..... Damn I thought the two
> > > > months salary I would get should I be layed off was good...
> > >
> > > it's not even pocket change compared to the 10's of millions of
> > > dollars that some people get for severance pay.
> >
> > But she wasn't a CEO of major corporation.
> she's also not getting 10's of millions of dollars in severance
> pay. you're not real bright are you?
So you are saying you brought up a stupid example.
> > > but then you
> > > wouldn't be seeing that kind of severance pay from your pizza
> > > delivery job.
> > You may want to be insulting, but at least I have enough coin
> > to buy an S-class.
> hey, i can go to the junk yard too. i was talking about getting
> a w220 s-class. that's the new one, btw.
I looked up the prices on edmunds... I got the coin.
And in the MB numbering scheme, S class cars begin with S...
S430, S500, S600..... Hence the term, S-Class.
$70,800 , $78,950 , $114,000 MSRP respectfully.
Since MB has gone video game shifter, I'm not particularly
interested in their product. Anyway I would rather save up for
an Aston Martin....
BTW I doubt you could even afford the scrap of value of an
S class.
Dan
You dumbass. They're shitting in the rest of the trailer park.
ronald
> ronald wrote:
> > Brent Peterson wrote:
> > > ronald wrote:
> > > > Brent Peterson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That's one hell of a severance payment..... Damn I thought the two
> > > > > months salary I would get should I be layed off was good...
> > > >
> > > > it's not even pocket change compared to the 10's of millions of
> > > > dollars that some people get for severance pay.
> > >
> > > But she wasn't a CEO of major corporation.
>
> > she's also not getting 10's of millions of dollars in severance
> > pay. you're not real bright are you?
>
> So you are saying you brought up a stupid example.
>
no, i'm saying you answered my question.
Eric Salmassy
Just curious why he's a cheapskate. Thought maybe you had some inside
scoop on what the going rate being paid by republicans for their OOW
children was.
SMITH29
> Just curious why he's a cheapskate. Thought maybe you had some inside
> scoop on what the going rate being paid by republicans for their OOW
> children was.
xxx
Somewhere around $25,000/mo. and a kicker tied to the market
yield/quarter.
29
>
SMITH29
xxxxx
Any turds around your unit? I put skirts around ours so they can't get
under it.
You never did hide your propane bottle like I told you to.
29