The Holzbach Viewpoint

[bratt]

Sun Feb 20

“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
gunpoint.”

— Penn Jillette

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[popinjay999]

On Jun 27, 6:42 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Sun Feb 20
>
> “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
> but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
> is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
> gunpoint.”
>
> — Penn Jillette
>

I'm surprised to hear this from Penn Jillete. I agree with it, but I
still don't like him. Not sure why.

-Paul "The Way" Popinjay

[brewmaster]

On Jun 27 2012 6:42 PM, bratt wrote:

> Sun Feb 20
>
> �It�s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we�re compassionate, we�ll help them,
> but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
> is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
> gunpoint.�
>
> � Penn Jillette

Joy in helping people? WTF are you talking about. There is joy in point
at people and laughing at their misfortune, but not in helping. Geez.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
> Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

--
Alan "The Hope" Gilbert

[Clave]

"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:lcpsb9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

<...>

> - Penn Jillette

Penn Jillette is widely acknowledged to be a world-class douche.

I can't even watch their stage act any more -- I get the same feeling
watching old Mel Gibson movies since he's gone public as a religious nut and
anger management case.

Jim

[Bill Vanek]

Isn't he an atheist?

[Clave]

"Bill Vanek" <bilv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:l6onu753pvo37q00i...@4ax.com...

Who cares?

They're both preachy-as-fuck basket cases.

Jim

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> Sun Feb 20
>
> “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> government give poor people money is compassion.

So what would you call it? Give it a label.

> Helping poor and
> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,

Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"


Jerry 'n Vegas

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 27 2012 7:42 PM, bratt wrote:

> Sun Feb 20
>
> “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
> but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
> is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
> gunpoint.”
>
> — Penn Jillette

clearly a negro hater.

mo_ntresor

[bratt]

On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > Sun Feb 20
> >
> > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > government give poor people money is compassion.
>
> So what would you call it? Give it a label.

Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate. Giving it voluntarily
is compassionate.

If there is a person on the corner with a sign asking for money, if you
give him some you are being compassionate. If the government says you
must give him money, that is no compassion, that is telling you how to
spend your money.

> > Helping poor and
> > suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> > guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> > self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> > educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
>
> Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"

um Jerry? at the risk of dodgeting your question, we're is the
contraction of we are which is what is meant in the context of the
paragraph. Why is this speaking funny?


> Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:12:44 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > Sun Feb 20
> > >
> > > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > > government give poor people money is compassion.
> >
> > So what would you call it? Give it a label.
>
> Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate. Giving it voluntarily
> is compassionate.

VOTING! It's the VOTING!

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion."

If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it? GIVE IT A LABEL.
JFC; read the question I asked.

>
> If there is a person on the corner with a sign asking for money, if you
> give him some you are being compassionate. If the government says you
> must give him money, that is no compassion, that is telling you how to
> spend your money.
>
>
> > > Helping poor and
> > > suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
> > > guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> > > self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> > > educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,

> > Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"
>
> um Jerry? at the risk of dodgeting your question, we're is the
> contraction of we are which is what is meant in the context of the
> paragraph. Why is this speaking funny?

Because it written he said 'were,' not "we're."


Jerry

[bratt]

On Jun 28 2012 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:12:44 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > > Sun Feb 20
> > > >
> > > > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > > > government give poor people money is compassion.
> > >
> > > So what would you call it? Give it a label.
> >
> > Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate. Giving it voluntarily
> > is compassionate.
>
> VOTING! It's the VOTING!
>
> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government
give poor people money
> is compassion."
>
> If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it? GIVE
IT A LABEL.
> JFC; read the question I asked.

Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.

> >
> > If there is a person on the corner with a sign asking for money, if you
> > give him some you are being compassionate. If the government says you
> > must give him money, that is no compassion, that is telling you how to
> > spend your money.
> >
> >
> > > > Helping poor and
> > > > suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to
use
> > > > guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> > > > self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> > > > educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help
them,
>
> > > Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"
> >
> > um Jerry? at the risk of dodgeting your question, we're is the
> > contraction of we are which is what is meant in the context of the
> > paragraph. Why is this speaking funny?
>
> Because it written he said 'were,' not "we're."

Obviously you are correct and I am wrong, but this is what you quoted.

"If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them" (copied and pasted)

It looks like we're on my computer.

[brewmaster]

On Jun 28 2012 6:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:12:44 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > > Sun Feb 20
> > > >
> > > > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > > > government give poor people money is compassion.
> > >
> > > So what would you call it? Give it a label.
> >
> > Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate. Giving it voluntarily
> > is compassionate.
>
> VOTING! It's the VOTING!
>
> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government
give poor people money
> is compassion."
>
> If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it? GIVE
IT A LABEL.
> JFC; read the question I asked.

extortion

>
>
>
> >
> > If there is a person on the corner with a sign asking for money, if you
> > give him some you are being compassionate. If the government says you
> > must give him money, that is no compassion, that is telling you how to
> > spend your money.
> >
> >
> > > > Helping poor and
> > > > suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to
use
> > > > guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> > > > self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> > > > educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help
them,
>
> > > Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"
> >
> > um Jerry? at the risk of dodgeting your question, we're is the
> > contraction of we are which is what is meant in the context of the
> > paragraph. Why is this speaking funny?
>
> Because it written he said 'were,' not "we're."
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
> > Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:02:36 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jun 28 2012 8:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:12:44 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > > > Sun Feb 20
> > > > >
> > > > > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > > > > government give poor people money is compassion.
> > > >
> > > > So what would you call it? Give it a label.
> > >
> > > Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate. Giving it voluntarily
> > > is compassionate.

> > VOTING! It's the VOTING!
> >
> > "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government
> give poor people money
> > is compassion."
> >
> > If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it? GIVE
> IT A LABEL.
> > JFC; read the question I asked.

> Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
> questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.

So voting is socialism. Got it.

(JFC)

> > >
> > > If there is a person on the corner with a sign asking for money, if you
> > > give him some you are being compassionate. If the government says you
> > > must give him money, that is no compassion, that is telling you how to
> > > spend your money.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Helping poor and
> > > > > suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to
> use
> > > > > guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
> > > > > self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
> > > > > educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help
> them,
> >
> > > > Does he speak funny; or did he misspell "we're?"
> > >
> > > um Jerry? at the risk of dodgeting your question, we're is the
> > > contraction of we are which is what is meant in the context of the
> > > paragraph. Why is this speaking funny?
> >
> > Because it written he said 'were,' not "we're."
>
> Obviously you are correct and I am wrong, but this is what you quoted.
>
> "If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them" (copied and pasted)
>
> It looks like we're on my computer.

So you actually saw the apostrophe in your original post too?


J..

[bratt]

On Jun 28 2012 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:


> > > If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
GIVE
> > IT A LABEL.
> > > JFC; read the question I asked.
>
> > Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
> > questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.
>
> So voting is socialism. Got it.

Silly me, I answered your question, which read

"If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
GIVE IT A LABEL."

I assumed that was the question, and the parts of your post that didn't
ask a question wasn't a question.

I noted where you wrote vote vote vote but since that had nothing to do
with the question I am rudely snipping them because they weren't included
in the question. But I agree with you that voting is good thing to do.

> > "If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them" (copied and pasted)
> >
> > It looks like we're on my computer.
>
> So you actually saw the apostrophe in your original post too?
>
>
> J..

Obviously my computer is broken, because this was the original post copied
and pasted, but it seems to change by the time it gets to your far
superior computer.

“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the

government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and

suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,

but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
gunpoint.”

Thanks for pointing out that I must need either new glasses, or a new
computer.

Your friend

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:41:26 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jun 28 2012 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
>
> > > > If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> GIVE
> > > IT A LABEL.
> > > > JFC; read the question I asked.
> >
> > > Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
> > > questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.
> >
> > So voting is socialism. Got it.
>
> Silly me, I answered your question, which read

You got the "silly you" part correct.

>
> "If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> GIVE IT A LABEL."
>
> I assumed that was the question, and the parts of your post that didn't
> ask a question wasn't a question.

You're back to talking funny when you don't understand what you're reading and wish to dodge your errors. Better go back to spell checking and grammar correcting.

> I noted where you wrote vote vote vote but since that had nothing to do
> with the question

Yea, actually it did.

> I am rudely snipping them because they weren't included
> in the question. But I agree with you that voting is good thing to do.

You're agreeing with what? Where did I say voting is a good thing to do?

This was very simple and straight forward. The statement was:

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
government give poor people money is compassion."

I asked for what he thinks it is if it's not compassion. I asked what he would call, "voting to have the government give poor people money."

You have dodge; pretended not to understand; or actually are so stupid as to not actually understand.

> > > "If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them" (copied and pasted)
> > >
> > > It looks like we're on my computer.
> >
> > So you actually saw the apostrophe in your original post too?
> >
> >
> > J..
>
> Obviously my computer is broken, because this was the original post copied
> and pasted, but it seems to change by the time it gets to your far
> superior computer.

Go to the top of all these posts and read what you origonally posted. Look at the part you posted that says:

"If were compassionate, well help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right."

Tell me if you see any apostrophes in that sentence. I see none. Perhaps it's Google groups; perhaps it's your computer.


Jerry 'n Vegas

[bratt]

On Jun 28 2012 12:28 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:41:26 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > On Jun 28 2012 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> > GIVE
> > > > IT A LABEL.
> > > > > JFC; read the question I asked.
> > >
> > > > Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
> > > > questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.
> > >
> > > So voting is socialism. Got it.
> >
> > Silly me, I answered your question, which read
>
> You got the "silly you" part correct.

I know - silly me for attempting to have a polite conversation with you.
You asked a question, I answered it.

> > "If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> > GIVE IT A LABEL."
> >
> > I assumed that was the question, and the parts of your post that didn't
> > ask a question wasn't a question.
>
> You're back to talking funny when you don't understand what you're reading
and wish to dodge your
> errors. Better go back to spell checking and grammar correcting.

It is confusing when I state I answered your question, because I did.

This whole dodgeting thing is getting old when everyone of your questions
has been answered.

> > I noted where you wrote vote vote vote but since that had nothing to do
> > with the question
>
> Yea, actually it did.

I missed the question mark? Or the part where it was included in the
question?

> > I am rudely snipping them because they weren't included
> > in the question. But I agree with you that voting is good thing to do.
>
> You're agreeing with what? Where did I say voting is a good thing to do?
>
> This was very simple and straight forward. The statement was:
>
> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> government give poor people money is compassion."

Is that a question? Please advise.

> I asked for what he thinks it is if it's not compassion. I asked what he
would call, "voting to have
> the government give poor people money."

um - no you didn't silly.

It is scary that you claim things when they aren't what you said. Maybe
you should get a newreader with a delete button?

> You have dodge; pretended not to understand; or actually are so stupid as to
not actually understand.
>
>
>
> > > > "If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them" (copied and pasted)
> > > >
> > > > It looks like we're on my computer.
> > >
> > > So you actually saw the apostrophe in your original post too?
> > >
> > >
> > > J..
> >
> > Obviously my computer is broken, because this was the original post copied
> > and pasted, but it seems to change by the time it gets to your far
> > superior computer.
>
> Go to the top of all these posts and read what you origonally posted. Look
at the part you posted
> that says:
>
> "If were compassionate, well help them, but you get no moral credit for
forcing other people to do
> what you think is right."

LOL good try sweetie. Actually this is scary in that you can't even
admit that you didn't notice the apostrophes the first time reading.

> Tell me if you see any apostrophes in that sentence. I see none. Perhaps
it's Google groups; perhaps
> it's your computer.

For the first time in history, Google Groups changes posts and deletes
apostrophes. Gotcha.


> Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:58:46 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> On Jun 28 2012 12:28 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:41:26 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > On Jun 28 2012 9:46 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> > > GIVE
> > > > > IT A LABEL.
> > > > > > JFC; read the question I asked.
> > > >
> > > > > Sure Jerry, I apologize. Because you are so kind as to answer my
> > > > > questions, I will give it a label. I would label it Socialism.

> > > > So voting is socialism. Got it.

> > > Silly me, I answered your question, which read

> > You got the "silly you" part correct.

> I know - silly me for attempting to have a polite conversation with you.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! NO! Silly for being wrong and not being able to understand the point here. And silly for trying out that stupid line.

> > > "If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
> > > GIVE IT A LABEL."
> > >
> > > I assumed that was the question, and the parts of your post that didn't
> > > ask a question wasn't a question.

> > You're back to talking funny when you don't understand what you're
> > reading and wish to dodge your errors. Better go back to spell checking
> > and grammar correcting.

> It is confusing when I state I answered your question, because I did.

Yet you didn't. You didn't label it.

> This whole dodgeting thing is getting old when everyone of
> your questions has been answered.

Except they weren’t, and I just showed that.

> > > I noted where you wrote vote vote vote but since that had nothing to do
> > > with the question

> > Yea, actually it did.

> I missed the question mark? Or the part where
> it was included in the question?

It's becoming rather obvious that for some reason you're enamored with conversing with me. You've chased, stalked and whined at virtually every post of mine. You make endless lists of weird questions; spell checks; grammar checks, and post them in nearly every thread; all in hopes of getting me to respond to you. You're sick.

> > > I am rudely snipping them because they weren't included
> > > in the question. But I agree with you that voting is good thing to do.

> > You're agreeing with what? Where did I say voting is a good thing to do?

******* Your inability to answer, noted. **********

> > This was very simple and straight forward. The statement was:
> >
> > "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > government give poor people money is compassion."

And you dodge addressing it with:

> Is that a question? Please advise.

See there? I laid it out for you as best as possible; and you add 'pretend' to your obvious stupidity and act like you don't understand what you, yourself, posted.

> > I asked for what he thinks it is if it's not compassion.

And you could not answer.

> > I asked what he would call, "voting to have
> > the government give poor people money."

> um - no you didn't silly.

See? Yea, I did. But once again; you're simply dodging in order to keep my attention.

I'm through with you, you stupid, creepy, stalking, ignorant bitch.


Jerry

[bratt]

On Jun 28 2012 1:46 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> I'm through with you, you stupid, creepy, stalking, ignorant bitch.
>
>
> Jerry

And here I have been nothing but polite to you.

Let's see if you really mean it this time - unlike the other times you
have told both Dave and me and you were through with us.

I love you Jerry - I am so into bald men that can't get it up and wear
poofy blue jackets that I can't stand it.

[Clave]

"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:046ub9x...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Jun 28 2012 6:32 AM, VegasJerry wrote:

<...>

>> If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it?
>> GIVE
> IT A LABEL.
>> JFC; read the question I asked.
>
> extortion

Like when I have to pay taxes to fund black-box DOD projects, or oil and
farm subsidies, or fucking WARS...

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:42:13 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>Sun Feb 20
>
>“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
>government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
>suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use
>guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral
>self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated,
>educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
>but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think
>is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at
>gunpoint.”
>
>— Penn Jillette

Penn Jillette is a douche bag. If I vote to give money to poor
people, then I'm voting to spend my tax dollars on helping poor
people. I could, alternatively, vote for lower taxes and no help for
the poor people.

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[brewmaster]

Yes. Income tax is illegal, you know.

[brewmaster]

Doesn't it make sense that if I'm struggling in the current economy, I
will vote to help myself and not the poor people, and if I'm flush and the
economy is booming, I will vote to help the poor people too?
99.99999999999% or people will put their own well being ahead of the well
being of others.

[WrongWayWade]

Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:42:13 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Sun Feb 20
>>
>> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
>> government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
>> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government
>> to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is
>> immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed,
>> medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we're compassionate,
>> we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other
>> people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping
>> people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
>>

>> - Penn Jillette

>
> Penn Jillette is a douche bag. If I vote to give money to poor
> people, then I'm voting to spend my tax dollars on helping poor
> people. I could, alternatively, vote for lower taxes and no help for
> the poor people.

The problem is that you aren't just voting to spend YOUR tax dollars, you
are voting to spend MY tax dollars.

Democrats (voting advocates) are the worst. "My mob is bigger than your
mob, so we get to do whatever we want..."

Whiny leftist: "We need to help the poor...."
Realistic rightist: "No one is preventing you from doing so."

[mo_ntresor]

On Jun 29 2012 11:28 AM, WrongWayWade wrote:

> > Penn Jillette is a douche bag. If I vote to give money to poor
> > people, then I'm voting to spend my tax dollars on helping poor
> > people. I could, alternatively, vote for lower taxes and no help for
> > the poor people.
>
> The problem is that you aren't just voting to spend YOUR tax dollars, you
> are voting to spend MY tax dollars.
>
> Democrats (voting advocates) are the worst. "My mob is bigger than your
> mob, so we get to do whatever we want..."
>
> Whiny leftist: "We need to help the poor...."
> Realistic rightist: "No one is preventing you from doing so."

he's not voting to spend his tax dollars either. most these deadbeats
don't pay shit.

mo_ntresor

[brewmaster]

Exactly. They also don't want to ever have to pay.

>
> mo_ntresor

[Will in New Haven]

On Jun 28, 9:32 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:12:44 AM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > On Jun 28 2012 7:34 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:42:13 PM UTC-7, bratt wrote:
> > > > Sun Feb 20
>
> > > > “It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
> > > > government give poor people money is compassion.
>
> > > So what would you call it? Give it a label.
>
> > Being forced to give money is hardly compassionate.  Giving it voluntarily
> > is compassionate.
>
> VOTING! It's the VOTING!
>
> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion."
>
> If they don't want to call it 'compassion,' what should they call it? GIVE IT  A LABEL.

Sometimes it IS motivated by compassion.

Often it is simply vote-buying.

Sometimes it is done out of the feeling that helping the poor now will
keep them from revolting.

Or the more practical worry that having people starving will be bad
for the economy. If they are helped, some of them will be useful
workers, help others, pass it along. To me this is a compelling
argument for a safety net.

Then there are the voters who are voting for the candidate for _other_
reasons that have nothing to do with helping the poor.

Given that many who support these programs, I give you BillB as an
example, are hateful pieces of shit who despise poor people, it is
very likely that compassion is not above the middle of the list.

--
Willy "The Lamb" Reich

[VegasJerry]

Pepe:

Will you do me a personal favor and look at your original post I'm replying to (2:13 am) and tell me if Penn Jillette's statement has any apostrophes. I see none (I'm using Google Groups).

Thanks

Jerry 'n Vegas

[da pickle]

What?

[Pepe Papon]

Well, yeah, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Jillette's
argument.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:28:15 -0400, "WrongWayWade"
<rl31...@excite.com> wrote:

>Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:42:13 -0700, "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sun Feb 20
>>>
>>> "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the
>>> government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and
>>> suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government
>>> to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is
>>> immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed,
>>> medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we're compassionate,
>>> we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other
>>> people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping
>>> people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
>>>
>>> - Penn Jillette
>>
>> Penn Jillette is a douche bag. If I vote to give money to poor
>> people, then I'm voting to spend my tax dollars on helping poor
>> people. I could, alternatively, vote for lower taxes and no help for
>> the poor people.
>
>The problem is that you aren't just voting to spend YOUR tax dollars, you
>are voting to spend MY tax dollars.

I don't see it as a problem at all, and it doesn't change the fact
that my vote is cast out of compassion. It means that I see the
problem as an issue that society as a whole needs to address, and I'm
willing to pay my share to support the effort. If you don't want to
pay, then you cast your vote the other way. Whoever gets the most
votes carries the day. That's how it works in a democratic society.

>Democrats (voting advocates) are the worst. "My mob is bigger than your
>mob, so we get to do whatever we want..."

That's how it works in a democratic society. It sounds like you
prefer a different type of system.

>Whiny leftist: "We need to help the poor...."
>Realistic rightist: "No one is preventing you from doing so."

In reality, it's you wingnuts who are the whiners.

Realistic leftist: "We've voted to help the poor."
Whiny wingnut: "Waaaaah! I have to pay taxes!"

[Pepe Papon]

You must enjoy making a fool of yourself. You have no fucking idea
what you're talking about. As usual.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:58:23 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

Huh?

[VegasJerry]

SS and I had a go-around about some of the wording in the OP. Without apostrophes, the wording had different meaning. I have to consider the possibility that Penn's statement in the original post had no apostrophes because of my software or Google. I wondered what you saw.

No big thing. If I'm not clear, just forget it.


Jerry (with a big thing) 'n Vegas

[Randy Hudson]

In article <3fba72f5-f805-4ea2...@googlegroups.com>,

VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net> wrote:

> Will you do me a personal favor and look at your original post I'm
> replying to (2:13 am) and tell me if Penn Jillette's statement has any
> apostrophes. I see none (I'm using Google Groups).

Jerry, the original post was formatted with the non-standard quote marks tat
Microsoft used to call "smart quotes", and used a closing-single-quote as
its apostrophe.

If your newsreader ignores non-standard characters, you see it as missing;
others see it there, and have no idead what you are seeing.

[VegasJerry]

I told you what I was seeing. part way through the message is this:

If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,

I presume it was to be "if we're compassionate, we'll help them."

But, on my screen, the origona post is the line with no apostrophes. What I was asking is, if you go to the first post (OP) and read the statement, which line do you see.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[Omaha8_Beach]

On Jul 2, 7:58 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:45:37 PM UTC-7, Randy Hudson wrote:
> > In article <3fba72f5-f805-4ea2...@googlegroups.com>,

> >  VegasJerry  <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Will you do me a personal favor and look at your original post I'm
> > > replying to (2:13 am) and tell me if Penn Jillette's statement has any
> > > apostrophes. I see none (I'm using Google Groups).
>
> > Jerry, the original post was formatted with the non-standard quote marks tat
> > Microsoft used to call "smart quotes", and used a closing-single-quote as
> > its apostrophe.
>
> > If your newsreader ignores non-standard characters, you see it as missing;
> > others see it there, and have no idead what you are seeing.
>
> I told you what I was seeing. part way through the message is this:
>
> If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them,
>
> I presume it was to be "if we're compassionate, we'll help them."
>
> But, on my screen, the origona post is the line with no apostrophes. What I was asking is, if you go to the first post (OP) and read the statement, which line do you see.
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas

Jerry, he knew what you said you were seeing, and offered an
explanation for it, which also explained why others did not see it the
same way. What more do you want? Forget the OP, even in the post I
am replying too, BOTH lines have what appear to be apostrophes. I do
see a subtle difference in the characters (apostrophes), but everyone
else is seeing them as apostrophes and wouldn't know the subtle
difference. For you, it's more extreme than a subtle difference, the
apostrophes are not even displayed for the reason he mentioned. In
your post above, the first line is: (we’re/we’ll), and the second is
(we're/we'll) - BOTH of those have apostrophes and I'm using google
groups. If you don't see apostrophes in both lines, it is because of
your software and I am pretty sure the majority of RGP posters/readers
will not have the problem.

Why did you have to consider that Penn's statement did not have
apostrophes when Susan indicated it DID have apostrophes AND also
without apostrophes, it wouldn't really be a valid sentence.

Omaha8

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, July 2, 2012 9:21:55 AM UTC-7, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:58 am, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:45:37 PM UTC-7, Randy Hudson wrote:
> > > In article <3fba72f5-f805-4ea2...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Will you do me a personal favor and look at your original post I'm
> > > > replying to (2:13 am) and tell me if Penn Jillette's statement has any
> > > > apostrophes. I see none (I'm using Google Groups).
> >
> > > Jerry, the original post was formatted with the non-standard quote marks tat
> > > Microsoft used to call "smart quotes", and used a closing-single-quote as
> > > its apostrophe.
> >
> > > If your newsreader ignores non-standard characters, you see it as missing;
> > > others see it there, and have no idead what you are seeing.
> >
> > I told you what I was seeing. part way through the message is this:
> >

> > If were compassionate, well help them,

> >
> > I presume it was to be "if we're compassionate, we'll help them."
> >
> > But, on my screen, the origona post is the line with no apostrophes.
> > What I was asking is, if you go to the first post (OP) and read the
> > statement, which line do you see.
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
>
> Jerry, he knew what you said you were seeing, and offered an
> explanation for it, which also explained why others did not see it the
> same way. What more do you want? Forget the OP, even in the post I
> am replying too, BOTH lines have what appear to be apostrophes. I do
> see a subtle difference in the characters (apostrophes), but everyone
> else is seeing them as apostrophes and wouldn't know the subtle
> difference. For you, it's more extreme than a subtle difference, the
> apostrophes are not even displayed for the reason he mentioned. In
> your post above, the first line is: (we’re/we’ll), and the second is
> (we're/we'll) - BOTH of those have apostrophes and I'm using google
> groups.

I may have made a typo. Anyway, when I read the OP, I see line #1 of the following examples. I'm presuming you see line #2.

-----
1. If were compassionate, well help them.

2. If we're compassionate, we'll help them.
-----

> If you don't see apostrophes in both lines, it is because of
> your software and I am pretty sure the majority of RGP posters/readers
> will not have the problem.
>
> Why did you have to consider that Penn's statement did not have
> apostrophes when Susan indicated it DID have apostrophes AND also
> without apostrophes, it wouldn't really be a valid sentence.

Having read the statement without apostrophes, the meaning was changed. That's what I was referencing when I was addressing Susan. So I take it from your statement, that when you scroll up (or read the OP) you see apostrophes, where I don't. I looked at the OP in Recgroups and the apostrophes are there.

Jerry 'n Vegas




>
> Omaha8