Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals
21 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 12:58:00 PM5/30/12
to
According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
Americans.
Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
ourselves."
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as
regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
explanation for liberal unhappiness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_conservatives_are_happier_than_liberals_108033.html
Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
Americans.
Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
ourselves."
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as
regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
explanation for liberal unhappiness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_conservatives_are_happier_than_liberals_108033.html
robw
May 30, 2012, 1:02:01 PM5/30/12
to
Arthur Brooks?????
Why didn't you say so from the start???????
(do you really need me to call u a f*cking idiot at this point?)
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 1:06:28 PM5/30/12
to
numerous others have said; you just prefer to engage in ad hominem. Why
am I not surprised?
Message has been deleted
JamesHutchinson
May 30, 2012, 1:16:21 PM5/30/12
to
"sittingduck" wrote in message
news:XnsA0636724A8E5Bdu...@nomail.afraid.org...
George Plimpton wrote:
> According to polls --
<^^^^
Only polls I ever watched were the greased ones that semi-nekkid girls slid
up and down on at strip clubs.
I don't do THAT anymore, now that I'm married...Unless of course my wife is
on one!
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
May 30, 2012, 1:15:11 PM5/30/12
to
Liberals are full of compassion for the unfortunate and downtrodden
and think they should be given handouts to help lift them from their
"lot in life". Only problem with that theory is libs always want to
use OTHER people's money to do it with.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 1:33:25 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>Americans.
>
>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>ourselves."
>
>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>
>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
out ahead.
>And as
>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
And that's a good thing how? What Americans are being forced to do by
the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
American corporations operating in foreign nations. Ever since WWII
Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
corporations.
>
>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
aware of the problems we face, and fewer are living in la-la land
escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
easy to not get concerned about anything.
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_conservatives_are_happier_than_liberals_108033.html
wrote:
>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>Americans.
>
>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>ourselves."
>
>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>
>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
out ahead.
>And as
>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
American corporations operating in foreign nations. Ever since WWII
Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
corporations.
>
>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
aware of the problems we face, and fewer are living in la-la land
escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
easy to not get concerned about anything.
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_conservatives_are_happier_than_liberals_108033.html
C...@prayforme.com
May 30, 2012, 2:13:19 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 10:06:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
Rob's unhappy because Liberalism has taught him to whine about the
money other people have stolen from him rather than teaching him to
earn it for him self.
The Liberal value system has taught him that everyone who makes it in
life got it off the backs of other peoples work and therefore NOT
INTITLED to the reward.
Isn't that right Rob?
Your happiness comes from seeing people fail after making it big.
wrote:
money other people have stolen from him rather than teaching him to
earn it for him self.
The Liberal value system has taught him that everyone who makes it in
life got it off the backs of other peoples work and therefore NOT
INTITLED to the reward.
Isn't that right Rob?
Your happiness comes from seeing people fail after making it big.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 2:48:07 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>> Americans.
>>
>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>> ourselves."
>>
>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
> out ahead.
That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>> Americans.
>>
>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>> ourselves."
>>
>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
> out ahead.
contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
less well off.
>> And as
>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>
> And that's a good thing how?
believe in expending American lives to help people except in the most
egregious cases of human rights abuse. I think we ought to have
intervened in Rwanda in the 1990s and in Cambodia in the 1970s. I think
we may need to intervene in Syria now. I don't think we ought to have
intervened in Libya last year.
The point is, liberals say that if we intervene in other countries'
affairs, it ought to be only for humanitarian reasons, not (say) to
secure our oil; but when an opportunity to do so arises, liberals never
want to do it. They're all talk, no action.
>> Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>
> Actually, what it is, is
C...@prayforme.com
May 30, 2012, 2:49:49 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>Americans.
>>
>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>ourselves."
>>
>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>out ahead.
So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>Americans.
>>
>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>ourselves."
>>
>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>out ahead.
even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
'fair', right?
You know if only Liberals believed in God and His moral authority
between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
benefit of doubt.
>
>>And as
>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>
>And that's a good thing how?
you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
Evil doesn't exist in your world.
Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
spawned.
> What Americans are being forced to do by
>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
have received based on the value system of today.
Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
Ever since WWII
>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>corporations.
Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>
>>
>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>
>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>aware of the problems we face,
replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
not whine about them.
Education is great but Wisdom is better.
One can be a smart ass like you but a failure in life without the
Wisdom to invest the knowledge responsibly.
Intellectuals like Obama may be smart in the ways of manipulation but
are dumb as Islam on how to use it to do good for others and thus for
them selves.
and fewer are living in la-la land
>escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
>touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
>going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
>easy to not get concerned about anything.
CB
By their fruits you shall know them--The White House and Christ
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
In Matthew 7:15-16, Jesus warns, "Beware of false prophets, which come
to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye
shall know them by their fruits."
http://prophecyfrombillwilsontoday.blogspot.com/2011/04/by-their-fruits-you-shall-know-them.html
Compare the above with...
Keynesian economics 'is' at work by Obama the Marxist in sheep's
clothing.
Fabian/Keynesian coat of arms, a wolf in sheeps clothing
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5061156284_476ecafd07_m.jpg
The whole Fabian stain window
http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/FabianWindow-1.jpg
"Obama didn’t just have a team of Keynesians. He had the Keynesian
all-star team"
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=We+Are+All+Keynesians+Now&view=detail&id=F42464A667E9DE1A569CAB0C1356878EBA5D420F&first=30&FORM=IDFRIR
C...@prayforme.com
May 30, 2012, 2:53:53 PM5/30/12
to
descendants, Jesus and the promise of ever lasting life in Heaven as
it 'is' on Earth.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 3:08:20 PM5/30/12
to
it's just that they're entirely and disgustingly relativistic about it.
For example, the white South African government was evil, but corrupt
and oppressive and racist black Zimbabwean regime is not. Bill Gates
and Warren Buffett being worth many billions of dollars is evil; George
Soros and the Castro brothers being worth many billions of dollars is not.
And of course, there's the US itself. To the extent the US still
embodies a culture and society dedicated to private property, private
enterprise and the rights of the individual held in opposition to some
collective power, the US is seen by leftists as evil. Although secular
leftists would never earnestly use the term "the great Satan"
themselves, they nod in agreement when barbaric terrorists use it to
describe the US.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 3:12:11 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:48:07 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
I'm shocked.
>
>>> And as
>>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>
>> And that's a good thing how?
>
>That's a big part of how I demonstrate I'm not a conservative. I don't
>believe in expending American lives to help people except in the most
>egregious cases of human rights abuse. I think we ought to have
>intervened in Rwanda in the 1990s and in Cambodia in the 1970s. I think
>we may need to intervene in Syria now. I don't think we ought to have
>intervened in Libya last year.
>
>The point is, liberals say that if we intervene in other countries'
>affairs, it ought to be only for humanitarian reasons, not (say) to
>secure our oil; but when an opportunity to do so arises, liberals never
>want to do it. They're all talk, no action.
I suppose you think it's a weakness to be against war and needless
killing. That's one thing that defines conservatives: you think
might makes right.
>
>
>>> Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>
>> Actually, what it is, is
>
>What it is is what was stated: liberals don't really mean it.
Of course they do. That's exactly why they support things like social
security, Medicare, The Health Care Reform Act, food programs for
schools and the poor. All those things prove you're wrong.
wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>> Americans.
>>>
>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>> ourselves."
>>>
>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>
>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>
>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>> out ahead.
>
>That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
>contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>less well off.
>
Cite. You're making a false claim. So put up some data. You can't?
>On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>> Americans.
>>>
>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>> ourselves."
>>>
>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>
>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>
>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>> out ahead.
>
>That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
>contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>less well off.
>
I'm shocked.
>
>>> And as
>>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>
>> And that's a good thing how?
>
>That's a big part of how I demonstrate I'm not a conservative. I don't
>believe in expending American lives to help people except in the most
>egregious cases of human rights abuse. I think we ought to have
>intervened in Rwanda in the 1990s and in Cambodia in the 1970s. I think
>we may need to intervene in Syria now. I don't think we ought to have
>intervened in Libya last year.
>
>The point is, liberals say that if we intervene in other countries'
>affairs, it ought to be only for humanitarian reasons, not (say) to
>secure our oil; but when an opportunity to do so arises, liberals never
>want to do it. They're all talk, no action.
killing. That's one thing that defines conservatives: you think
might makes right.
>
>
>>> Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>
>> Actually, what it is, is
>
>What it is is what was stated: liberals don't really mean it.
security, Medicare, The Health Care Reform Act, food programs for
schools and the poor. All those things prove you're wrong.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 3:31:30 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 12:12 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:48:07 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>> Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>> ourselves."
>>>>
>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>> out ahead.
>>
>> That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
>> contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>> dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>> less well off.
>>
> Cite.
You first: "Leave out all donations and volunteer time to their
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:48:07 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>> Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>> ourselves."
>>>>
>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>> out ahead.
>>
>> That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
>> contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>> dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>> less well off.
>>
> Cite.
churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way out ahead."
Cite.
>>
>>>> And as
>>>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>
>>> And that's a good thing how?
>>
>> That's a big part of how I demonstrate I'm not a conservative. I don't
>> believe in expending American lives to help people except in the most
>> egregious cases of human rights abuse. I think we ought to have
>> intervened in Rwanda in the 1990s and in Cambodia in the 1970s. I think
>> we may need to intervene in Syria now. I don't think we ought to have
>> intervened in Libya last year.
>>
>> The point is, liberals say that if we intervene in other countries'
>> affairs, it ought to be only for humanitarian reasons, not (say) to
>> secure our oil; but when an opportunity to do so arises, liberals never
>> want to do it. They're all talk, no action.
>
> I suppose you think it's a weakness to be against war and needless
> killing.
when innocent people are being slaughtered by tyrants. You
fake-compassion liberals - you're actually entirely illiberal - would
not want to do anything no matter how many of his own people Bashar
al-Assad kills kills in Syria. You just won't do anything. You
laughably describe yourselves as "activists" some times, but in fact you
are passivists - you're all a bunch of do-nothings. That comical
"Occupy" movement is a perfect example. Idiot leftists think the OWS
people are "doing something" by camping out in parks and leaving
mountains of waste, but in fact those are nothing but big wienie roasts
and campouts.
>>
>>>> Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>>
>>> Actually, what it is, is
>>
>> What it is is what was stated: liberals don't really mean it.
>
> Of course they do.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 4:06:51 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:31:30 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
You made the claim first, dumbass. You provide the proof. Can't? I'm
shocked. Guess that means I caught you in another lie. That's been
way too easy btw.
shocked. Guess that means I caught you in another lie. That's been
way too easy btw.
Message has been deleted
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 4:53:28 PM5/30/12
to
than liberals, and you came back with:
"Leave out all donations and volunteer time to their churches and
the numbers plummet leaving liberals way out ahead."
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 4:55:01 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:49 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
<C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>Americans.
>>>
>>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>ourselves."
>>>
>>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>
>>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>
>>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>out ahead.
>
>So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>'fair', right?
Counting coerced support to churches skews the numbers. Makes it seem
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>Americans.
>>>
>>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>ourselves."
>>>
>>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>
>>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>
>>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>out ahead.
>
>So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>'fair', right?
like conservatives are more moral than liberals, when it's the
liberals who want to help all people more than conservatives.
Conservatives only want to help people who think like they do and look
like they do.
>
>You know if only Liberals believed in God and His moral authority
>between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
>benefit of doubt.
to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
which. You're wrong. And radical Islam is no worse than radical
Christianity. Hardline religious fundamentalists are trouble no
matter what they call their god.
>
>>
>>>And as
>>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>
>>And that's a good thing how?
>
>Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
>Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
>Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
>spawned.
they invaded Jerusulem and slaughtered Muslims and Jews, men, woman
and children. It was said "the blood ran as deep as a horses reigns".
When the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims, and Christians
live together in peace. The Christians took over and murdered
everyone.
>
>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>
>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>
>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>
>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>have received based on the value system of today.
>
>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
from a hardline capitalist.
>
> Ever since WWII
>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>corporations.
>
>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>
>>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>>aware of the problems we face,
>
>Actually Liberals fight against real Justice for all in the hopes of
>replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
>back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
>not whine about them.
>
>Education is great but Wisdom is better.
>
>One can be a smart ass like you but a failure in life without the
>Wisdom to invest the knowledge responsibly.
intelligent kids. And a terrific country home on acreage.
>
>Intellectuals like Obama may be smart in the ways of manipulation but
>are dumb as Islam on how to use it to do good for others and thus for
>them selves.
others.
>
>
>
> and fewer are living in la-la land
>>escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
>>touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
>>going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
>>easy to not get concerned about anything.
>
>God doesn't help people He doesn't know
>
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 4:57:19 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:08:20 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
Capitalism is based on greed. Greed is the love of money. " The love
of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
of society.
of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
of society.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 5:00:21 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
No, you made the claim first moron, when you said conservatives were
more generous than liberals. I told you to prove it, as I know for a
fact that "study" was done by conservatives who counted all church
based donations as charity. Now you made the initial claim so you
mush provide the data to support it or else you prove yourself to by
lying.
more generous than liberals. I told you to prove it, as I know for a
fact that "study" was done by conservatives who counted all church
based donations as charity. Now you made the initial claim so you
mush provide the data to support it or else you prove yourself to by
lying.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 5:00:43 PM5/30/12
to
RD Sandman
May 30, 2012, 5:13:19 PM5/30/12
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:va2ds7l60jr9a0jpu...@4ax.com:
"A bit"??? To paraphrase the late Donna Summer, I worked hard for my
money. That means it is mine to decide what to do with.....not yours. I
put in a lot of years so that I could retire comfortably and I intend to
keep doing so.
--
Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
money. That means it is mine to decide what to do with.....not yours. I
put in a lot of years so that I could retire comfortably and I intend to
keep doing so.
--
Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
JamesHutchinson
May 30, 2012, 5:17:57 PM5/30/12
to
DooDoo wrote in message news:va2ds7l60jr9a0jpu...@4ax.com...
> Capitalism is based on greed. Greed is the love of money. " The love
> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
> of society.
DooDoo is based on retardation.
> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
> of society.
That is all.
Not ONE nation has worked on HIS "COMMUNIST/Socialist" system , and it never
will.
It simply can't work!
NOBODY want's to work for nothing!
Name ONE doctor that wants to learn and earn the same wage as a ditch
digger!
(Dudu goes SILENT!)
JamesHutchinson
May 30, 2012, 5:23:29 PM5/30/12
to
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA06390AEC...@216.196.121.131...
According to DooDoo, Donna Summer was just a nigger that shoulda worked
harder to put more food in HIS pantry.
That IS what he said!
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 5:49:16 PM5/30/12
to
conservatives give more and volunteer more than liberals. Then you
tried to explain it away by saying that time and money donated to
churches account for the difference (as if that means anything.)
So, you have accepted my basic claim, meaning I don't need to give a
"cite" for it, and now you have made an extravagant claim that you can't
support.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 5:50:42 PM5/30/12
to
infrastructure. Why should you get to benefit from government
services and not pay your fair share?
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 5:54:32 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:00:43 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
Oh hell, that's easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 5:54:52 PM5/30/12
to
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that
conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on
churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the
poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give
more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious
conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular
conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious
organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity
than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by
the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous
than liberals even to secular causes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
So, when deducting donations to *all* religious organizations, liberals
are very slightly more generous, but when measured as a percentage of
income, conservatives are more generous "even to secular causes."
But why *should* we exclude donations to religious organizations? In
fact, we shouldn't - they do good for needy people just as much as
secular organizations.
So, it's settled: conservatives give more generously to charity than
liberals.
You're fucked again. But you're always fucked.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 5:55:38 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 2:17 PM, JamesHutchinson wrote:
>
>
> DooDoo wrote in message news:va2ds7l60jr9a0jpu...@4ax.com...
>> Capitalism is based on greed. Greed is the love of money. " The love
>> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
>> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
>> of society.
>
> DooDoo is based on retardation.
Scheisskopf *IS* retardation.
>
>
> DooDoo wrote in message news:va2ds7l60jr9a0jpu...@4ax.com...
>> Capitalism is based on greed. Greed is the love of money. " The love
>> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
>> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
>> of society.
>
> DooDoo is based on retardation.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 5:56:25 PM5/30/12
to
As for infrastructure, the well-off already pay for more than they use.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 5:57:53 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:16 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
You're a liar. I never accepted your ridiculous claim. I questioned
it's accuracy because of intentionally misleading data. I insisted
you provide your data to show you how flawed it was, but you can't
even provide the study so you got caught lying again. Give it up. You
lose dumbass.
it's accuracy because of intentionally misleading data. I insisted
you provide your data to show you how flawed it was, but you can't
even provide the study so you got caught lying again. Give it up. You
lose dumbass.
JamesHutchinson
May 30, 2012, 5:59:41 PM5/30/12
to
DOODOO BEGS FOR SUPPORT when he wrote in message
news:hg5ds7dho6gpir25h...@4ax.com...
We that WORK, already do that with OUR TAXES.
YOU that do NOT work should fuck off and die.
What have YOU given, you fucking retard?
All YOU have said is that YOU HAVE A "COMPOUND" in the Rockies!
Me? I HAVE to give 9k a year in property taxes
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:00:25 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:56:25 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
Why the fuck should you demand the use of collective infrastructure
and demand help and support from the government without paying your
fair share? Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't get the
right to demand services without paying for them.
and demand help and support from the government without paying your
fair share? Who the fuck do you think you are? You don't get the
right to demand services without paying for them.
RD Sandman
May 30, 2012, 6:18:42 PM5/30/12
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:hg5ds7dho6gpir25h...@4ax.com:
My fair share? As before I have suggested that you should get to know
somone before making those type comments. I pay all my taxes, probably
on more money in retirement than you make working.....give a lot to
charity both inside and outside the family. I have four automobiles, for
example, running around in California because the folks I gave them to
needed them. You really have this tendency to run your mouth with little
knowledge to push through it.
somone before making those type comments. I pay all my taxes, probably
on more money in retirement than you make working.....give a lot to
charity both inside and outside the family. I have four automobiles, for
example, running around in California because the folks I gave them to
needed them. You really have this tendency to run your mouth with little
knowledge to push through it.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:21:26 PM5/30/12
to
fucking sensitive?
JamesHutchinson
May 30, 2012, 6:29:15 PM5/30/12
to
"George Plimpton" wrote in message
news:FsSdnfLFyvHGClvS...@giganews.com...
And the LAST time he addressed me on the matter...well that WAS the last
time!
He used a FILTER as I ridiculed his ass so bad, he HAD to hide with Lookout!
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 6:45:40 PM5/30/12
to
saying why it's "greed" when I want it, but "justified" when you want it.
You're done.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 6:46:19 PM5/30/12
to
your explanation is wrong.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 6:47:21 PM5/30/12
to
But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:50:09 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:45:40 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
It's greed when you want it solely for yourself. It's social justice
when people want it for someone else because they need it to survive.
>You're done.
You're an idiot.
when people want it for someone else because they need it to survive.
>You're done.
You're an idiot.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 6:51:05 PM5/30/12
to
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:52:23 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:47:21 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
roads every day. Paid for by the taxpayers. Controlled and owned by
the government. Police and fire protection are social services you
depend on. As is national defense. As are safety regulation.
Environmental protection laws. The list goes on and on. "Society is
a fiction"??? You truly ARE insane. You have completely lost it.
roads every day. Paid for by the taxpayers. Controlled and owned by
the government. Police and fire protection are social services you
depend on. As is national defense. As are safety regulation.
Environmental protection laws. The list goes on and on. "Society is
a fiction"??? You truly ARE insane. You have completely lost it.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:54:40 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:46:19 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
No, I told you your claim is intentionally skewed by mandatory support
demanded by churches. The study was done by conservatives to try to
prove the superiorty of conservatives, so they intentionally counted
churches as charities, even though most are more like tax free
political lobbying machines. Your study is intentionally skewed by
misleading data, therefore flawed to the point of being worthless.
That's what I explained to you and it's true. I demanded you provide
the polling numbers but obviously you can't. So you lied. And I
caught you, again.
demanded by churches. The study was done by conservatives to try to
prove the superiorty of conservatives, so they intentionally counted
churches as charities, even though most are more like tax free
political lobbying machines. Your study is intentionally skewed by
misleading data, therefore flawed to the point of being worthless.
That's what I explained to you and it's true. I demanded you provide
the polling numbers but obviously you can't. So you lied. And I
caught you, again.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 6:56:29 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:51:05 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
If you want it for yourself, it's greed. If you want it for someone
who needs it to get to work so they can feed their family then it's
social justice. Unfortnately you don't have the morality to want
something for the benefit of someone else.
who needs it to get to work so they can feed their family then it's
social justice. Unfortnately you don't have the morality to want
something for the benefit of someone else.
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
May 30, 2012, 6:57:09 PM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 3:52 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
> >According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
> >Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
> >National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
> >Americans.
>
> Probably like the dick liberals keep giving them----ya think?
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
> >According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
> >Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
> >National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
> >Americans.
>
One track mind. Dick.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 7:05:48 PM5/30/12
to
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building
extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art
museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the
well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but
they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research
suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality
because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the
wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in
nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more
likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood
more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as
conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would
increase by 45 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Basically, liberals are hypocrites - stingy, whiny hypocrites.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 7:06:12 PM5/30/12
to
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 7:09:13 PM5/30/12
to
requirement to tithe. Second, the churches don't just build taller
steeples and buy the minister nicer cars - they do good deeds.
Third, not all religiously oriented charities are churches; some are
just the charitable arms of religious organizations. *FOURTH*,
conservatives give more even when deducting what they give to churches.
Fifth, conservatives give more in non-financial support, specifically
volunteer time; liberals hardly give any at all.
Nope - you're completely fucked. It is not in rational dispute -
conservatives are more generous when it comes to charity and
volunteering than are liberals - by *far*.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 7:09:53 PM5/30/12
to
See, I told you it was a worthless idea. It has no analytical
usefulness at all. It's just swearing.
Message has been deleted
C...@prayforme.com
May 30, 2012, 7:41:00 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:55:01 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:49 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
Please explain that statement
Makes it seem
>like conservatives are more moral than liberals, when it's the
>liberals who want to help all people more than conservatives.
There's a big difference between being benevolent with ones on money
and the benevolence of using other peoples money.
I wouldn't expect anyone demanding higher taxes on the successful to
(redistribute with huge administration cost going to Oboobuh)
understand between the (relative moral equivalence) difference.
>Conservatives only want to help people who think like they do and look
>like they do.
Charity begins at home, not with Oboobuh or taxes.
>
>>
>>You know if only Liberals believed in God and His moral authority
>>between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
>>benefit of doubt.
>
>The biggest mistake religious people make is thinking you cannot learn
>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>which.
Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
every moral choice equality.
You're wrong. And radical Islam is no worse than radical
>Christianity.
Case in point
Hardline religious fundamentalists are trouble no
>matter what they call their god.
There 'is' only One God
>
>>
>>>
>>>>And as
>>>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>
>>>And that's a good thing how?
>>
>>Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>>you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
>Horseshit. What an aburd statement.
If Biblical moral authority ruled the world do you think the Kook of
Iran would have been able to develop a nuke?
If Biblical moral authority (that of the Conservative Right) do you
think Saddamn would have been able to give aid to terrorists in
Hezballah or Hamas?
If not for Conservative moral authority you Libs would take licence to
"render onto Caesar's what is Caesar's" meaning all wealth belongs to
gubment.
>
>>
>>Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
>>Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
>>spawned.
>
>Crusades. What an appropriate example. You mean the Crusades when
>they invaded Jerusulem and slaughtered Muslims and Jews, men, woman
>and children. It was said "the blood ran as deep as a horses reigns".
>When the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims, and Christians
>live together in peace. The Christians took over and murdered
>everyone.
You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
'straight'
>
>>
>>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>>
>>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>>
>>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>>
>>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>>have received based on the value system of today.
>>
>>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
>Whatever are you babbling about?
You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
'straight'
>
>>
>>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
>Liberalism is not a religion you dumbass. And you are condemning
>liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
>from a hardline capitalist.
>
>>
>> Ever since WWII
>>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>>corporations.
>>
>>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>
>You mean jamming our greed and corruption down other's throats and all
>the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
There has to be a return on investment when Captialism/profit are the
motive.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>>
>>>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>>>aware of the problems we face,
>>
>>Actually Liberals fight against real Justice for all in the hopes of
>>replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
>>back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
>>not whine about them.
>
>"Real justice"? You mean doing exactly what you say?
For a reward such as proceeds from oil sales, yeah
>
>>
>>Education is great but Wisdom is better.
>
>You have neither.
>
>>
>>One can be a smart ass like you but a failure in life without the
>>Wisdom to invest the knowledge responsibly.
>
>I have everything I've ever wanted. A wonderful wife. Great,
>intelligent kids. And a terrific country home on acreage.
So why are you so unhappy?
>
>>
>>Intellectuals like Obama may be smart in the ways of manipulation but
>>are dumb as Islam on how to use it to do good for others and thus for
>>them selves.
>
>By good for others you mean good for you. Obama IS doing good for
>others.
For the love of God, enlighten me
>
>>
>>
>>
>> and fewer are living in la-la land
>>>escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
>>>touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
>>>going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
>>>easy to not get concerned about anything.
>>
>>God doesn't help people He doesn't know
>
>Thank god. (irony intended)
>
>>
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:49 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
><C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>>Americans.
>>>>
>>>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>>ourselves."
>>>>
>>>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>>out ahead.
>>
>>So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>>even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>>'fair', right?
>
>Counting coerced support to churches skews the numbers.
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>>Americans.
>>>>
>>>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>>ourselves."
>>>>
>>>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>>out ahead.
>>
>>So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>>even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>>'fair', right?
>
Please explain that statement
Makes it seem
>like conservatives are more moral than liberals, when it's the
>liberals who want to help all people more than conservatives.
There's a big difference between being benevolent with ones on money
and the benevolence of using other peoples money.
I wouldn't expect anyone demanding higher taxes on the successful to
(redistribute with huge administration cost going to Oboobuh)
understand between the (relative moral equivalence) difference.
>Conservatives only want to help people who think like they do and look
>like they do.
Charity begins at home, not with Oboobuh or taxes.
>
>>
>>You know if only Liberals believed in God and His moral authority
>>between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
>>benefit of doubt.
>
>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>which.
Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
every moral choice equality.
You're wrong. And radical Islam is no worse than radical
>Christianity.
Case in point
Hardline religious fundamentalists are trouble no
>matter what they call their god.
There 'is' only One God
>
>>
>>>
>>>>And as
>>>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>
>>>And that's a good thing how?
>>
>>Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>>you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
If Biblical moral authority ruled the world do you think the Kook of
Iran would have been able to develop a nuke?
If Biblical moral authority (that of the Conservative Right) do you
think Saddamn would have been able to give aid to terrorists in
Hezballah or Hamas?
If not for Conservative moral authority you Libs would take licence to
"render onto Caesar's what is Caesar's" meaning all wealth belongs to
gubment.
>
>>
>>Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
>>Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
>>spawned.
>
>Crusades. What an appropriate example. You mean the Crusades when
>they invaded Jerusulem and slaughtered Muslims and Jews, men, woman
>and children. It was said "the blood ran as deep as a horses reigns".
>When the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims, and Christians
>live together in peace. The Christians took over and murdered
>everyone.
You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
'straight'
>
>>
>>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>>
>>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>>
>>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>>
>>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>>have received based on the value system of today.
>>
>>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
>Whatever are you babbling about?
You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
'straight'
>
>>
>>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
>Liberalism is not a religion you dumbass. And you are condemning
>liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
>from a hardline capitalist.
>
>>
>> Ever since WWII
>>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>>corporations.
>>
>>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>
>You mean jamming our greed and corruption down other's throats and all
>the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
There has to be a return on investment when Captialism/profit are the
motive.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>>
>>>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>>>aware of the problems we face,
>>
>>Actually Liberals fight against real Justice for all in the hopes of
>>replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
>>back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
>>not whine about them.
>
>"Real justice"? You mean doing exactly what you say?
For a reward such as proceeds from oil sales, yeah
>
>>
>>Education is great but Wisdom is better.
>
>You have neither.
>
>>
>>One can be a smart ass like you but a failure in life without the
>>Wisdom to invest the knowledge responsibly.
>
>I have everything I've ever wanted. A wonderful wife. Great,
>intelligent kids. And a terrific country home on acreage.
So why are you so unhappy?
>
>>
>>Intellectuals like Obama may be smart in the ways of manipulation but
>>are dumb as Islam on how to use it to do good for others and thus for
>>them selves.
>
>By good for others you mean good for you. Obama IS doing good for
>others.
For the love of God, enlighten me
>
>>
>>
>>
>> and fewer are living in la-la land
>>>escaping from reality like the religious right is. If you're out of
>>>touch with reality and think some old man living in the clouds is
>>>going to come down and take you away to paradise to live forever, it's
>>>easy to not get concerned about anything.
>>
>>God doesn't help people He doesn't know
>
>Thank god. (irony intended)
>
>>
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 7:44:06 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:09:53 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>>>> It's greed when you want it solely for yourself.
>>>
>>> Give me your car.
>>
>> If you want it for yourself, it's greed.
>
>That is not the definition of greed.
>
>See, I told you it was a worthless idea. It has no analytical
>usefulness at all. It's just swearing.
I can see why you would reject a concept that proves what immoral
filth you really are.
wrote:
>>>> It's greed when you want it solely for yourself.
>>>
>>> Give me your car.
>>
>> If you want it for yourself, it's greed.
>
>That is not the definition of greed.
>
>See, I told you it was a worthless idea. It has no analytical
>usefulness at all. It's just swearing.
filth you really are.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 7:46:19 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>> roads every day.
>
>That's not "society", dummy.
Of course it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society
A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each
other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing
the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same
political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human
societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social
relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and
institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of
such relationships among its constituent members. In the social
sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or
dominance patterns in subgroups.
Wow, you're habitually insisting that things you don't like don't
exist. You are truly out of touch with reality. Run, don't walk to
the nearest mental health clinic and get some help. You seriously
need it.
wrote:
>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>> roads every day.
>
>That's not "society", dummy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society
A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each
other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing
the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same
political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human
societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social
relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and
institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of
such relationships among its constituent members. In the social
sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification and/or
dominance patterns in subgroups.
Wow, you're habitually insisting that things you don't like don't
exist. You are truly out of touch with reality. Run, don't walk to
the nearest mental health clinic and get some help. You seriously
need it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 30, 2012, 7:56:41 PM5/30/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
And then tell us why it matters.
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>Americans.
>>
>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>ourselves."
>>
>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>out ahead.
Let's see those figures.
>>Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>Americans.
>>
>>Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>ourselves."
>>
>>But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>
>>For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>
>Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>out ahead.
And then tell us why it matters.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 7:57:50 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
generous - *much* more generous.
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>
> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
> wrote:
>
>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>
> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
generous - *much* more generous.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 8:02:14 PM5/30/12
to
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 8:02:53 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>> roads every day.
>>
>> That's not "society", dummy.
>
> Of course it is.
It's not.
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>
>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>> roads every day.
>>
>> That's not "society", dummy.
>
> Of course it is.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 8:38:14 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:41:00 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
<C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>The biggest mistake religious people make is thinking you cannot learn
>>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>>which.
>
>Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
>every moral choice equality.
Nonsense. Mankind has been studying ethics and morality for thousands
<C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>>The biggest mistake religious people make is thinking you cannot learn
>>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>>which.
>
>Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
>every moral choice equality.
of years before some people built a religion around an invisible old
man in the sky and a carpenter from Nazareth. Ever wonder why god
and devil are almost exactly the same words as good and evil? They
are merely personifications (all human charactertistics to) of complex
concepts that weak minded individuals have difficulty grasping without
fairy tales.
>
> You're wrong. And radical Islam is no worse than radical
>>Christianity.
>
>Case in point
fundamentalists before the secular liberals reigned them in. Forget
burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
Christians.
>
> Hardline religious fundamentalists are trouble no
>>matter what they call their god.
>
>There 'is' only One God
updating of the old story of the Sun God. The Sun God became God Son.
The many parallels are all well documented. There's many many god
throughout history. Every culture had one. And yours isn't even
orginal.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And as
>>>>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>>
>>>>And that's a good thing how?
>>>
>>>Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>>>you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>>Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>>
>>Horseshit. What an aburd statement.
>
>If Biblical moral authority ruled the world do you think the Kook of
>Iran would have been able to develop a nuke?
>
>If Biblical moral authority (that of the Conservative Right) do you
>think Saddamn would have been able to give aid to terrorists in
>Hezballah or Hamas?
Muslim men, women, and children? Is that what you call morality?
Slaughtering everyone who won't submit to your god and your
authority???
>
>If not for Conservative moral authority you Libs would take licence to
>"render onto Caesar's what is Caesar's" meaning all wealth belongs to
>gubment.
government is us. WE are the government in a republic. We get the
government we deserve.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
>>>Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
>>>spawned.
>>
>>Crusades. What an appropriate example. You mean the Crusades when
>>they invaded Jerusulem and slaughtered Muslims and Jews, men, woman
>>and children. It was said "the blood ran as deep as a horses reigns".
>>When the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims, and Christians
>>live together in peace. The Christians took over and murdered
>>everyone.
>
>You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
>'straight'
That's a historical fact. Google "The siege of Jerusalem"
>
>>
>>>
>>>Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
>>>Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
>>>spawned.
>>
>>Crusades. What an appropriate example. You mean the Crusades when
>>they invaded Jerusulem and slaughtered Muslims and Jews, men, woman
>>and children. It was said "the blood ran as deep as a horses reigns".
>>When the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims, and Christians
>>live together in peace. The Christians took over and murdered
>>everyone.
>
>You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
>'straight'
Here. let me help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%2870%29
Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, of
which a majority were Jewish, and that 97,000 were captured and
enslaved, including Simon bar Giora and John of Giscala.[4]
"The slaughter within was even more dreadful than the spectacle
from without. Men and women, old and young, insurgents and priests,
those who fought and those who entreated mercy, were hewn down in
indiscriminate carnage. The number of the slain exceeded that of the
slayers. The legionaries had to clamber over heaps of dead to carry on
the work of extermination."[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29
Massacre
Muslims
Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the
Rock, and the Temple Mount area generally. According to the Gesta
Francorum, speaking only of the Temple Mount area, "...[our men] were
killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter
was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."
According to Raymond of Aguilers, also writing solely of the Temple
Mount area, " in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up
to their knees and bridle reins." However, this imagery should not be
taken literally; it was taken directly from biblical passage
Revelation 14:20.[13] Writing about the Temple Mount area alone
Fulcher of Chartres, who was not an eyewitness to the Jerusalem siege
because he had stayed with Baldwin in Edessa at the time, says: "In
this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you
would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the
slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive;
neither women nor children were spared".[14]
Jews
The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought
refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their
heads", killing everyone inside.[22] One account alleges that the
Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore
Thee!, Thee are our light, our direction, our love".,[23] however,
this account is still questionable. But there is no question that
there was some massacre of some Jerusalem Jews, for contemporary
letters from the Cairo Geniza seeking aid for Jews who escaped
Jerusalem at the time of the Crusader siege refers to such killings.
However, the same letters also clearly reveal that there were some
Jewish survivors as well.[24]
>
>>
>>>
>>>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>>>
>>>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>>>
>>>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>>>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>>>
>>>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>>>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>>>have received based on the value system of today.
>>>
>>>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>>>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>>>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>>
>>Whatever are you babbling about?
>
>You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
>'straight'
I'm immune to your fairy tales and hate speech. For someone who
>>
>>>
>>>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>>>
>>>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>>>
>>>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>>>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>>>
>>>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>>>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>>>have received based on the value system of today.
>>>
>>>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>>>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>>>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>>
>>Whatever are you babbling about?
>
>You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
>'straight'
supposedly follows the teachings of The Prince of Peace and claim to
be everyone's moral superior, you certainly do like the culture of
hate and killing a lot.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>
>>Liberalism is not a religion you dumbass. And you are condemning
>>liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
>>from a hardline capitalist.
>>
>>>
>>> Ever since WWII
>>>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>>>corporations.
>>>
>>>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>>>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>>
>>You mean jamming our greed and corruption down other's throats and all
>>the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
>
>There has to be a return on investment when Captialism/profit are the
>motive.
Of course. No one except maybe hardline communists condones a
>>
>>>
>>>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>
>>Liberalism is not a religion you dumbass. And you are condemning
>>liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
>>from a hardline capitalist.
>>
>>>
>>> Ever since WWII
>>>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>>>corporations.
>>>
>>>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>>>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>>
>>You mean jamming our greed and corruption down other's throats and all
>>the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
>
>There has to be a return on investment when Captialism/profit are the
>motive.
complete elimination of capitalism
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>>>>aware of the problems we face,
>>>
>>>Actually Liberals fight against real Justice for all in the hopes of
>>>replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
>>>back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
>>>not whine about them.
>>
>>"Real justice"? You mean doing exactly what you say?
>
>For a reward such as proceeds from oil sales, yeah
moral.
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Education is great but Wisdom is better.
>>
>>You have neither.
>>
>>>
>>>One can be a smart ass like you but a failure in life without the
>>>Wisdom to invest the knowledge responsibly.
>>
>>I have everything I've ever wanted. A wonderful wife. Great,
>>intelligent kids. And a terrific country home on acreage.
>
>So why are you so unhappy?
like you fucking up the world with your ignorance and hate at the same
time insisting only you have a sense of morality.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Intellectuals like Obama may be smart in the ways of manipulation but
>>>are dumb as Islam on how to use it to do good for others and thus for
>>>them selves.
>>
>>By good for others you mean good for you. Obama IS doing good for
>>others.
>
>For the love of God, enlighten me
insurance and can't afford the most basic care.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 8:42:32 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:53 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
don't like it. It truly does qualify you as being insane.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society
wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>> roads every day.
>>>
>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
>It's not.
Learn something you idiot and stop trying to deny reality because you
>On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>> roads every day.
>>>
>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
>It's not.
don't like it. It truly does qualify you as being insane.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 30, 2012, 8:42:49 PM5/30/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> Ever wonder why god
>and devil are almost exactly the same words as good and evil?
No, suppose you tell us.
[chuckle]
Meanwhile:
devil
O.E. deofol "evil spirit, a devil, the devil, false god, diabolical
person," from L.L. diabolus (also the source of It. diavolo, Fr.
diable, Sp. diablo; Ger. Teufel is O.H.G. tiufal, from Latin via Goth.
diabaulus), from Ecclesiastical Gk. diabolos, in Jewish and Christian
use, "Devil, Satan" (scriptural loan-translation of Heb. satan), in
general use "accuser, slanderer," from diaballein "to slander,
attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein
"to throw" (see ballistics). Jerome re-introduced Satan in Latin
bibles, and English translators have used both in different measures.
In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and dæmon (see demon) were distinct,
but they have merged in English and other Germanic languages. Playful
use for "clever rogue" is from c.1600. Meaning "sand spout, dust
storm" is from 1835. In U.S. place names, the word often represents a
native word such as Algonquian manito, more properly "spirit, god."
Phrase a devil way (late 13c.) was originally an emphatic form of
away, but taken by late 14c. as an expression of irritation. Devil's
books "playing cards" is from 1729, but the cited quote says they've
been called that "time out of mind" (the four of clubs is the devil's
bedposts); devil's coach-horse is from 1840, the large rove-beetle,
which is defiant when disturbed. "Talk of the Devil, and he's
presently at your elbow" [1660s].
evil (adj.)
O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from P.Gmc.
*ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, O.Fris., M.Du. evel, Du. euvel, O.H.G.
ubil, Ger. übel, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, from root *wap- (cf.
Hittite huwapp- "evil"). The noun is O.E. yfel. "In OE., as in all the
other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most
comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or
disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we
would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime,
misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in
O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly.
Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel. Evilchild is attested
as an English surname from 13c.14c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=evil&searchmode=none
Sometimes, your immature, simplistic world view is almost, well,
charming.
Then I remember what a sadistic, hate-filled freak you are.
> Ever wonder why god
>and devil are almost exactly the same words as good and evil?
[chuckle]
Meanwhile:
devil
O.E. deofol "evil spirit, a devil, the devil, false god, diabolical
person," from L.L. diabolus (also the source of It. diavolo, Fr.
diable, Sp. diablo; Ger. Teufel is O.H.G. tiufal, from Latin via Goth.
diabaulus), from Ecclesiastical Gk. diabolos, in Jewish and Christian
use, "Devil, Satan" (scriptural loan-translation of Heb. satan), in
general use "accuser, slanderer," from diaballein "to slander,
attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein
"to throw" (see ballistics). Jerome re-introduced Satan in Latin
bibles, and English translators have used both in different measures.
In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and dæmon (see demon) were distinct,
but they have merged in English and other Germanic languages. Playful
use for "clever rogue" is from c.1600. Meaning "sand spout, dust
storm" is from 1835. In U.S. place names, the word often represents a
native word such as Algonquian manito, more properly "spirit, god."
Phrase a devil way (late 13c.) was originally an emphatic form of
away, but taken by late 14c. as an expression of irritation. Devil's
books "playing cards" is from 1729, but the cited quote says they've
been called that "time out of mind" (the four of clubs is the devil's
bedposts); devil's coach-horse is from 1840, the large rove-beetle,
which is defiant when disturbed. "Talk of the Devil, and he's
presently at your elbow" [1660s].
evil (adj.)
O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious, ill, wicked," from P.Gmc.
*ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, O.Fris., M.Du. evel, Du. euvel, O.H.G.
ubil, Ger. übel, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, from root *wap- (cf.
Hittite huwapp- "evil"). The noun is O.E. yfel. "In OE., as in all the
other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most
comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or
disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we
would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime,
misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in
O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Related: Evilly.
Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel. Evilchild is attested
as an English surname from 13c.14c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=evil&searchmode=none
Sometimes, your immature, simplistic world view is almost, well,
charming.
Then I remember what a sadistic, hate-filled freak you are.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 30, 2012, 8:43:43 PM5/30/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
> Forget
>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>Christians.
More history revision. Time to close your comic books and start
reading real books.
> Forget
>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>Christians.
reading real books.
George Plimpton
May 30, 2012, 8:49:33 PM5/30/12
to
On 5/30/2012 5:42 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:53 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>>> roads every day.
>>>>
>>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> It's not.
>
> Learn something you idiot
Society is an abstraction; it isn't real. "Society" doesn't do
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:53 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>>> roads every day.
>>>>
>>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>> It's not.
>
> Learn something you idiot
anything; people do things.
Monosodio Glutamico
May 30, 2012, 9:16:23 PM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 12:58 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
> Americans.
>
> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
> ourselves."
>
> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>
> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as
> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
> Americans.
>
> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
> ourselves."
>
> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>
> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>
> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>
> Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_conservative...
> explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>
The religious government must be destroyed. Bring the mother fucking
war home.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 9:23:00 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:49:33 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 5:42 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:53 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>>>> roads every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> Learn something you idiot
>
>Society is an abstraction; it isn't real. "Society" doesn't do
>anything; people do things.
A society IS people, you moron.
>On 5/30/2012 5:42 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:02:53 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2012 4:46 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:06:12 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> But get back to "support society". That's bullshit. "Society" doesn't
>>>>>>> do anything for me or anyone else. "Society" is a fiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shit, you ARE insane. Um, you drive on government
>>>>>> roads every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not "society", dummy.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is.
>>>
>>> It's not.
>>
>> Learn something you idiot
>
>Society is an abstraction; it isn't real. "Society" doesn't do
>anything; people do things.
de...@dudu.org
May 30, 2012, 9:27:11 PM5/30/12
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 30, 2012, 9:40:37 PM5/30/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
That page mentioned three people burned at the stake.
How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
of Christians?"
Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
people, including "your" people!.
The Greek tyrant Phalaris, of Akragas in Sicily, is said to have
roasted his enemies alive in a brazen bull; it was devised for him by
a workman named Perillus or Perilaos, who made it so that the screams
of the victims sounded like the roaring of a bull; when Perillus asked
for his reward, he became the first victim.[1] Phalaris was later
executed in his brazen bull.
Burning was used as a means of execution in many ancient societies.
According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the
early Christian martyrs by burning, sometimes by means of the tunica
molesta, a flammable tunic.
Also Rabbi Haninah ben Teradion, one of the Jewish Ten Martyrs
executed for defying Emperor Hadrian???s edicts against practice of
the Jewish religion, is reported to have been burnt at the stake. As
narrated in the Talmud,[2] ben Teradion was placed on a pyre of green
brush; fire was set to it, and wet wool was placed on his chest to
prolong the agonies of death. However, the executioner ??" moved by
the Rabbi???s proud and stoic stance amidst the fire ??" removed the
wool and fanned the flame, thus accelerating the end, and then he
himself plunged into the flames.
Stained glass window depicting Anglican martyrs Hugh Latimer, Nicholas
Ridley and Thomas Cranmer.
According to Julius Caesar, the ancient Celts executed thieves and
prisoners of war by burning them to death inside giant ???wicker
men???.[3] [4]
North American Indians often used burning as a form of execution,
either against members of other tribes or against white settlers
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Roasting over a slow
fire was a customary method.[5] See Captives in American Indian Wars.
Under the Byzantine Empire, burning was introduced as a punishment for
disobedient Zoroastrians, because of the belief that they worshiped
fire.[citation needed]
The Byzantine Emperor Justinian (r. 527??"565) ordered death by fire,
intestacy, and confiscation of all possessions by the State to be the
punishment for heresy against the Christian faith in his Codex
Iustiniani (CJ 1.5.), ratifying the decrees of his predecessors the
Emperors Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius.
In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning
was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed
that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the
Afterlife.[dubious ??" discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by
the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in
1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th
century.[citation needed]
Civil authorities burnt persons judged to be heretics under the
medieval Inquisition, including Giordano Bruno. The historian Hernando
del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the
Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people by 1490 (just
one decade after the Inquisition began).[6] In the terms of the
Spanish Inquisition a burning was described as relaxado en persona.
Oh gee, looks like buring was popular with a LOT of people and
cultures!
Blowing Dudu and his claim clear out of the water!
And what is popular in Dudu's "native" India?
Bride burning!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning
What a bunch of sick twisted fuckers you "Indians" are!
[chuckle]
How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
of Christians?"
Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
people, including "your" people!.
The Greek tyrant Phalaris, of Akragas in Sicily, is said to have
roasted his enemies alive in a brazen bull; it was devised for him by
a workman named Perillus or Perilaos, who made it so that the screams
of the victims sounded like the roaring of a bull; when Perillus asked
for his reward, he became the first victim.[1] Phalaris was later
executed in his brazen bull.
Burning was used as a means of execution in many ancient societies.
According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the
early Christian martyrs by burning, sometimes by means of the tunica
molesta, a flammable tunic.
Also Rabbi Haninah ben Teradion, one of the Jewish Ten Martyrs
executed for defying Emperor Hadrian???s edicts against practice of
the Jewish religion, is reported to have been burnt at the stake. As
narrated in the Talmud,[2] ben Teradion was placed on a pyre of green
brush; fire was set to it, and wet wool was placed on his chest to
prolong the agonies of death. However, the executioner ??" moved by
the Rabbi???s proud and stoic stance amidst the fire ??" removed the
wool and fanned the flame, thus accelerating the end, and then he
himself plunged into the flames.
Stained glass window depicting Anglican martyrs Hugh Latimer, Nicholas
Ridley and Thomas Cranmer.
According to Julius Caesar, the ancient Celts executed thieves and
prisoners of war by burning them to death inside giant ???wicker
men???.[3] [4]
North American Indians often used burning as a form of execution,
either against members of other tribes or against white settlers
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Roasting over a slow
fire was a customary method.[5] See Captives in American Indian Wars.
Under the Byzantine Empire, burning was introduced as a punishment for
disobedient Zoroastrians, because of the belief that they worshiped
fire.[citation needed]
The Byzantine Emperor Justinian (r. 527??"565) ordered death by fire,
intestacy, and confiscation of all possessions by the State to be the
punishment for heresy against the Christian faith in his Codex
Iustiniani (CJ 1.5.), ratifying the decrees of his predecessors the
Emperors Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius.
In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning
was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed
that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the
Afterlife.[dubious ??" discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by
the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in
1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th
century.[citation needed]
Civil authorities burnt persons judged to be heretics under the
medieval Inquisition, including Giordano Bruno. The historian Hernando
del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the
Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people by 1490 (just
one decade after the Inquisition began).[6] In the terms of the
Spanish Inquisition a burning was described as relaxado en persona.
Oh gee, looks like buring was popular with a LOT of people and
cultures!
Blowing Dudu and his claim clear out of the water!
And what is popular in Dudu's "native" India?
Bride burning!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning
What a bunch of sick twisted fuckers you "Indians" are!
[chuckle]
emoneyjoe
May 30, 2012, 11:42:32 PM5/30/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:38:14 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:41:00 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
><C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>>The biggest mistake religious people make is thinking you cannot learn
>>>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>>>which.
>>
>>Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
>>every moral choice equality.
>
>Nonsense. Mankind has been studying ethics and morality for thousands
>of years before some people built a religion around an invisible old
>man in the sky and a carpenter from Nazareth. Ever wonder why god
>and devil are almost exactly the same words as good and evil?
Yes! Finally a liberal gets it. Everything the
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:41:00 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
><C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>>The biggest mistake religious people make is thinking you cannot learn
>>>to differentiate right and wrong without a deity telling you which is
>>>which.
>>
>>Without Biblical Knowledge of right and wrong Liberals would give
>>every moral choice equality.
>
>Nonsense. Mankind has been studying ethics and morality for thousands
>of years before some people built a religion around an invisible old
>man in the sky and a carpenter from Nazareth. Ever wonder why god
>and devil are almost exactly the same words as good and evil?
core Christian religion promotes is good, for goodness
sake, it is the "good" that represents God, no matter
what religion.
>They
>are merely personifications (all human charactertistics to) of complex
>concepts that weak minded individuals have difficulty grasping without
>fairy tales.
>> You're wrong. And radical Islam is no worse than radical
>>>Christianity.
>>
>>Case in point
>
>You forget some of the atrocities committed by Christian
>fundamentalists before the secular liberals reigned them in. Forget
>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>Christians.
they (Socialists, Nazi, Communists) may have caused
more deaths than the great plague, you all are a plague
if you continue to try to destroy the goodness in man.
>> Hardline religious fundamentalists are trouble no
>>>matter what they call their god.
>>
>>There 'is' only One God
>
>There have been thousands of gods. Yours is only a remake and
>updating of the old story of the Sun God. The Sun God became God Son.
>The many parallels are all well documented. There's many many god
>throughout history. Every culture had one. And yours isn't even
>orginal.
his own choosing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>And as
>>>>>>regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>>>conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>>>and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>>>
>>>>>And that's a good thing how?
>>>>
>>>>Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>>>>you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>>>Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>>>
>>>Horseshit. What an aburd statement.
>>
>>If Biblical moral authority ruled the world do you think the Kook of
>>Iran would have been able to develop a nuke?
>>
>>If Biblical moral authority (that of the Conservative Right) do you
>>think Saddamn would have been able to give aid to terrorists in
>>Hezballah or Hamas?
>
>And what do you suggest? Another Crusade where westerners slaughter
>Muslim men, women, and children? Is that what you call morality?
>Slaughtering everyone who won't submit to your god and your
>authority???
many resist the central control of socialism/communism.
>>If not for Conservative moral authority you Libs would take licence to
>>"render onto Caesar's what is Caesar's" meaning all wealth belongs to
>>gubment.
>
>The "gubment" is not some faceless evil beast we feed money. The
>government is us. WE are the government in a republic. We get the
>government we deserve.
note the lack of early references there, in other words,
what is there to show what part is true and what part
is just would be socialist style would be dictators.
history in an attempt to support atheism?
>>>>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>>>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>>>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>>>>
>>>>Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>>>>
>>>>Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
>>>>'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>>>>
>>>>I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
>>>>One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
>>>>have received based on the value system of today.
>>>>
>>>>Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
>>>>that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
>>>>Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>>>
>>>Whatever are you babbling about?
>>
>>You're so blind to the truth I'm not even going to attempt to set you
>>'straight'
>
>I'm immune to your fairy tales and hate speech. For someone who
>supposedly follows the teachings of The Prince of Peace and claim to
>be everyone's moral superior, you certainly do like the culture of
>hate and killing a lot.
killing, and the left sure has a monopoly on hate.
>>>>Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>>what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>>that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>>
>>>Liberalism is not a religion you dumbass. And you are condemning
>>>liberals for being materialistic? How ironic and hilarious coming
>>>from a hardline capitalist.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever since WWII
>>>>>Americans have died solely to protect the financial interests of US
>>>>>corporations.
>>>>
>>>>American's have died defending Western Judeo- Christian values from
>>>>Communist/Atheist/Islamic cult of death values.
>>>
>>>You mean jamming our greed and corruption down other's throats and all
>>>the while stealing their resources to satiate their greed.
>>
>>There has to be a return on investment when Captialism/profit are the
>>motive.
>
>Of course. No one except maybe hardline communists condones a
>complete elimination of capitalism
>>>>>>Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others
>>>>>>explanation for liberal unhappiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, what it is, is that liberals are more educated and more
>>>>>aware of the problems we face,
>>>>
>>>>Actually Liberals fight against real Justice for all in the hopes of
>>>>replacing it with Social Justice, activist/subjective Justice to get
>>>>back at their perceived enemies on the Right who accomplish things,
>>>>not whine about them.
>>>
>>>"Real justice"? You mean doing exactly what you say?
>>
>>For a reward such as proceeds from oil sales, yeah
>
>Bribing people with money to force them to submit to your will. Really
>moral.
to mean the perverted.
Without the reward for work, how many people
today would work?
Your words parallel the socialist-communist creed
of equal pay for all, spawning jokes like the citizens
of the USSR saying "They pretend to pay us, and
we pretend to work".
Using promises of a utopia of equality in wages
to conquer is no better than using guns for the
same purpose.
The fact remains, the left is never happy, they
have nothing to be happy about, they thrive on
the unhappy gossip, starting with "it's unfair",
with no end, because that kind of gossip never
produces anything but misery.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 31, 2012, 12:03:09 AM5/31/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
[snip]
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
> Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
> Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> spawned.
>
> Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> spawned.
>
>> What Americans are being forced to do by
>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>
> Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>
> Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>
> I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> have received based on the value system of today.
>
> Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
>>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
>>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>
> Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>
> Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>
> I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> have received based on the value system of today.
>
> Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
[snip]
Terry
--
"For I would ride with you upon the wind, |/
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide, |/ Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame." |/
-Yeats |/
Rockinghorse Winner
May 31, 2012, 12:06:30 AM5/31/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
de...@dudu.org <de...@dudu.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:08:20 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 11:49 AM, C...@PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:33:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>>> Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>>> ourselves."
>>>>>
>>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>>> Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>>> ourselves."
>>>>>
>>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>>
>>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>>> out ahead.
>>>
>>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>>> out ahead.
>>>
>>> So you think by removing God from the lives of Conservatives would
>>> even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>>> 'fair', right?
>>>
>>> even the playing field? I suppose you'd call that social justice or
>>> 'fair', right?
>>>
>>> You know if only Liberals believed in God and His moral authority
>>> between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
>>> benefit of doubt.
>>>
>>>>
>>> between right and wrong, Radical Islam would never be given the
>>> benefit of doubt.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And as
>>>>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>>
>>>> And that's a good thing how?
>>>
>>>>> regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least a half-century,
>>>>> conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure
>>>>> and American blood (often their own) for other nations' liberty.
>>>>
>>>> And that's a good thing how?
>>>
>>> Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
>>> you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>> Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>>
>>> you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
>>> Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>>
>>That's actually not right. Evil /does/ exist in the world of leftists;
>>it's just that they're entirely and disgustingly relativistic about it.
>> For example, the white South African government was evil, but corrupt
>>and oppressive and racist black Zimbabwean regime is not. Bill Gates
>>and Warren Buffett being worth many billions of dollars is evil; George
>>Soros and the Castro brothers being worth many billions of dollars is not.
>>
>>And of course, there's the US itself. To the extent the US still
>>embodies a culture and society dedicated to private property, private
>>enterprise and the rights of the individual held in opposition to some
>>collective power, the US is seen by leftists as evil. Although secular
>>leftists would never earnestly use the term "the great Satan"
>>themselves, they nod in agreement when barbaric terrorists use it to
>>describe the US.
>
>>it's just that they're entirely and disgustingly relativistic about it.
>> For example, the white South African government was evil, but corrupt
>>and oppressive and racist black Zimbabwean regime is not. Bill Gates
>>and Warren Buffett being worth many billions of dollars is evil; George
>>Soros and the Castro brothers being worth many billions of dollars is not.
>>
>>And of course, there's the US itself. To the extent the US still
>>embodies a culture and society dedicated to private property, private
>>enterprise and the rights of the individual held in opposition to some
>>collective power, the US is seen by leftists as evil. Although secular
>>leftists would never earnestly use the term "the great Satan"
>>themselves, they nod in agreement when barbaric terrorists use it to
>>describe the US.
>
> Capitalism is based on greed. Greed is the love of money. " The love
> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
> of society.
>
The only problem is that it is not up to governments to decide the moral
> of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is basically evil and
> exploitive. Socialism attempts ot level the field a bit for the sake
> of society.
>
choices people make, but up to the people themselves. Moral choice, if it
is to have any meaning, has to come from individual freedom. That is what
separates a free society from a tyrannical one.
So, any attempt to temper greed must not come at the cost of individual
freedom. IOW, it must come through moral persuasion and argument, not
coercion.
C...@prayforme.com
May 31, 2012, 1:09:08 AM5/31/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:40:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
filled swipe. Never mind why President Thomas Jefferson had to send
America's Navy to the Barbary Coast to clean up a LOT of 'them' for
pillaging, burning and looting foe booty.
Doodoo...err... dido
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:43:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> Forget
>>>>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>>>>Christians.
>>>
>>>More history revision. Time to close your comic books and start
>>>reading real books.
>>
>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm
>
>That page mentioned three people burned at the stake.
>
>How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
>of Christians?"
>
>Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
>people, including "your" people!.
Doodoo would like to condemn a whole LOT of people with one hate
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:43:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> Forget
>>>>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>>>>Christians.
>>>
>>>More history revision. Time to close your comic books and start
>>>reading real books.
>>
>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm
>
>That page mentioned three people burned at the stake.
>
>How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
>of Christians?"
>
>Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
>people, including "your" people!.
filled swipe. Never mind why President Thomas Jefferson had to send
America's Navy to the Barbary Coast to clean up a LOT of 'them' for
pillaging, burning and looting foe booty.
Bill
May 31, 2012, 5:57:24 AM5/31/12
to
In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd....@badass.edu>,
badass....@gmx.com says...
That one is reasonably easy. People more or less refused to play the
church's game.
Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
dissent.
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
badass....@gmx.com says...
church's game.
Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
dissent.
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 8:18:48 AM5/31/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:09 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
That's an easy one. In western nations the progressives were able to
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
come to power and banned the atrocious behavior of the religious
right. In Islamic countries the moderates and progressives weren't
this lucky, and the right wing despots and religious fanatics have
been able to remain in power.
>
>
>[snip]
>
>Terry
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 9:18:50 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Luckily, the right was able to defeat the atheistic left, who murdered
millions for no reason at all, because they didn't fit into their
"five year plan," or because they had the audacity to question the
Government.
Compared to them, Islam is a small, neighborhood street gang.
millions for no reason at all, because they didn't fit into their
"five year plan," or because they had the audacity to question the
Government.
Compared to them, Islam is a small, neighborhood street gang.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 9:22:48 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:48:07 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>>contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>>dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>>less well off.
>>
>Cite. You're making a false claim. So put up some data. You can't?
>I'm shocked.
I know. The truth ALWAYS shocks you.
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse
University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About
Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are
markedly less charitable than conservatives.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give,
on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave
smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of
states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above
average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to
charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less
than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to
reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than
people who accept that proposition.
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 11:48:07 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>> Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>> ourselves."
>>>>
>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>> out ahead.
>>
>>That is simply false, of course. If you look at *all* charitable
>>On 5/30/2012 10:33 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 09:58:00 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to polls -- Pew Research Center, the National Science
>>>> Foundation -- and studies such as Professor Arthur Brooks' Gross
>>>> National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal
>>>> Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Liberals respond this way: "If we're unhappier, it's because we are more
>>>> upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than
>>>> ourselves."
>>>>
>>>> But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals
>>>> give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals.
>>>
>>> Only if you count churches. Leave out all donations and volunteer
>>> time to their churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way
>>> out ahead.
>>
>>contributions and volunteer time, the contributions of conservatives
>>dwarf those of liberals, *despite* liberals' professed "concern" for the
>>less well off.
>>
>Cite. You're making a false claim. So put up some data. You can't?
>I'm shocked.
I know. The truth ALWAYS shocks you.
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse
University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About
Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are
markedly less charitable than conservatives.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give,
on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave
smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of
states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above
average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent
majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to
charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less
than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to
reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than
people who accept that proposition.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 9:23:48 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 1:06 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:31:30 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> You first: "Leave out all donations and volunteer time to their
>>>
>>> You made the claim first,
>
>No, you made the claim first moron, when you said conservatives were
>more generous than liberals.
They are.
You people are just a bunch of stingy psychotics.
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 1:06 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 12:31:30 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> churches and the numbers plummet leaving liberals way out ahead."
>>>>
>>>> Cite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You made the claim first,
>>
>>Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>>
>>Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>>
>> "Leave out all donations and volunteer time to their churches and
>> the numbers plummet leaving liberals way out ahead."
>>
>>
>>Cite. Give it now.
>> the numbers plummet leaving liberals way out ahead."
>>
>>
>
>No, you made the claim first moron, when you said conservatives were
>more generous than liberals.
They are.
You people are just a bunch of stingy psychotics.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 9:26:36 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:46:19 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 2:57 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:16 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> Nope - you *already* accepted the claim I made, which is that
>>>> conservatives give more and volunteer more than liberals. Then you
>>>> tried to explain it away by saying that time and money donated to
>>>> churches account for the difference (as if that means anything.)
>>>>
>>>> So, you have accepted my basic claim, meaning I don't need to give a
>>>> "cite" for it, and now you have made an extravagant claim that you can't
>>>> support.
>>>
>>> You're a liar. I never accepted your ridiculous claim.
>>
>>Yes, you did. You merely tried to "explain" it away, and it turns out
>>your explanation is wrong.
>
>No, I told you your claim is intentionally skewed by mandatory support
>demanded by churches.
Cite where support of churches is "mandatory."
Cite how that factors in to
They include these findings:
Giving time, and donating blood...
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Face it. Your "no true scotsman" fallacy falls flat on its faces.
Leftists don't give a shit about other people as much as
conservatives.
Unless it's to provide government aid for illegal transvestite
immigrant voting or some such bullshit.
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:46:19 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>On 5/30/2012 2:57 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:49:16 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> conservatives give more and volunteer more than liberals. Then you
>>>> tried to explain it away by saying that time and money donated to
>>>> churches account for the difference (as if that means anything.)
>>>>
>>>> So, you have accepted my basic claim, meaning I don't need to give a
>>>> "cite" for it, and now you have made an extravagant claim that you can't
>>>> support.
>>>
>>> You're a liar. I never accepted your ridiculous claim.
>>
>>Yes, you did. You merely tried to "explain" it away, and it turns out
>>your explanation is wrong.
>
>No, I told you your claim is intentionally skewed by mandatory support
>demanded by churches.
Cite where support of churches is "mandatory."
Cite how that factors in to
They include these findings:
Giving time, and donating blood...
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Leftists don't give a shit about other people as much as
conservatives.
Unless it's to provide government aid for illegal transvestite
immigrant voting or some such bullshit.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 9:27:06 AM5/31/12
to
>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>those who now own 70% of all the wealth, Pimpleton.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give,
on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
[chuckle]
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
>wrote:
>
>>Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>
>You forgot to mention that the largess of coservaloonies is limited to
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>
>those who now own 70% of all the wealth, Pimpleton.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than
those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give,
on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed
household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 9:48:53 AM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:18:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:09 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>><badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>>
>>>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>>>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>>>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>>
>>That's an easy one. In western nations the progressives were able to
>>come to power and banned the atrocious behavior of the religious
>>right. In Islamic countries the moderates and progressives weren't
>>this lucky, and the right wing despots and religious fanatics have
>>been able to remain in power.
>
>Luckily, the right was able to defeat the atheistic left,
Actually, you're wrong again. The progressive left defeated the ultra
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:09 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>><badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>>
>>>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>>>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>>>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>>
>>That's an easy one. In western nations the progressives were able to
>>come to power and banned the atrocious behavior of the religious
>>right. In Islamic countries the moderates and progressives weren't
>>this lucky, and the right wing despots and religious fanatics have
>>been able to remain in power.
>
>Luckily, the right was able to defeat the atheistic left,
right wingers during WWII. That was the last great purge of fascists.
Another one is coming so you will want to stock up on your Depends.
>who murdered
>millions for no reason at all, because they didn't fit into their
>"five year plan," or because they had the audacity to question the
>Government.
>
>Compared to them, Islam is a small, neighborhood street gang.
murder them?
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 10:09:10 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:18:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:09 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>>><badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>>>
>>>>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>>>>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>>>>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>>>
>>>That's an easy one. In western nations the progressives were able to
>>>come to power and banned the atrocious behavior of the religious
>>>right. In Islamic countries the moderates and progressives weren't
>>>this lucky, and the right wing despots and religious fanatics have
>>>been able to remain in power.
>>
>>Luckily, the right was able to defeat the atheistic left,
>
>Actually, you're wrong again. The progressive left defeated the ultra
>right wingers during WWII.
Actually, you're wrong again. The Left was defeated but only after
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 06:18:50 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:03:09 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>>><badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
>>>>> what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
>>>>> that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>>>>
>>>>It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
>>>>murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
>>>>out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>>>
>>>That's an easy one. In western nations the progressives were able to
>>>come to power and banned the atrocious behavior of the religious
>>>right. In Islamic countries the moderates and progressives weren't
>>>this lucky, and the right wing despots and religious fanatics have
>>>been able to remain in power.
>>
>>Luckily, the right was able to defeat the atheistic left,
>
>Actually, you're wrong again. The progressive left defeated the ultra
>right wingers during WWII.
they managed to murder millions and millions of people- more than the
nazis ever DREAMED of. Now that your flagship nation- the Soviet
Union- is no more, your murder rate has dropped precipitously.
>That was the last great purge of fascists.
>Another one is coming
[chuckle]
If you don't mind, I'll just ignore any predictions you make, since
you're off your rocker.
>>Compared to them, Islam is a small, neighborhood street gang.
>
>Really? Then why are we spending hundreds of billions a year to
>murder them?
we had to spend getting rid of you murdering thug leftists.
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 10:31:37 AM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 01:09:08 -0400, "C...@PrayForMe.com"
<C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:40:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:43:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> Forget
>>>>>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>>>>>Christians.
>>>>
>>>>More history revision. Time to close your comic books and start
>>>>reading real books.
>>>
>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm
>>
>>That page mentioned three people burned at the stake.
>>
>>How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
>>of Christians?"
>>
>>Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
>>people, including "your" people!.
>
>Doodoo would like to condemn a whole LOT of people with one hate
>filled swipe. Never mind why President Thomas Jefferson had to send
>America's Navy to the Barbary Coast to clean up a LOT of 'them' for
>pillaging, burning and looting foe booty.
"Them"? So why does Christianity, supposedly a faith of peace and
<C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2012 18:40:37 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:43:43 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> Forget
>>>>>burning people alive at the stake? That was a long time favorite of
>>>>>Christians.
>>>>
>>>>More history revision. Time to close your comic books and start
>>>>reading real books.
>>>
>>>http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm
>>
>>That page mentioned three people burned at the stake.
>>
>>How does that prove burning at the stake is a "...long time favorite
>>of Christians?"
>>
>>Oh yeah, it doesn't, since it's been a long time favorite of a LOT of
>>people, including "your" people!.
>
>Doodoo would like to condemn a whole LOT of people with one hate
>filled swipe. Never mind why President Thomas Jefferson had to send
>America's Navy to the Barbary Coast to clean up a LOT of 'them' for
>pillaging, burning and looting foe booty.
loving your fellow man, turn to many of you into hate filled racists?
Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal you know. A long haired, radical left
winger. Who took on the religious right establishment of the time,
advocated feeding the poor, befriended harlots, taught people that
even the poor mattered. Sounds like the kind of guy you people
despise.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 10:38:38 AM5/31/12
to
filled racists.
Are you a Christian?
"Mormons only care about their church. I know the Mormons. I learned
long ago "know your enemy". The
Mormons are our enemy."
- Deep Dudu, bigot
10/23/2011
"<yawn> Whatever. As long as someone kills all the Jews first."
6/2/2011
"The Jews are the only people in the world that have institutionalized
cheating and robbing anyone who is not Jewish."
6/2/2011
" Mormons lie worse than Jews."
1/9/2012
"I admit my error here. Nobody lies worse than Jews. Mormons are a
close second though."
1/24/2012
"Are you fucking kidding? Of course the nigger is lying."
-Deep Dudu
Message-ID: <pcqlb7pv0j8bt8dgk...@4ax.com>
"Our planet is nothing but a used up wasteland any more because of
white and Jewish greed."
- Mon, 21 May 2012
>Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal you know.
>A long haired, radical left
>winger. Who took on the religious right establishment of the time,
>advocated feeding the poor, befriended harlots, taught people that
>even the poor mattered. Sounds like the kind of guy you people
>despise.
comments, you obviously would have hated Jesus, since he was a Jew.
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 11:01:53 AM5/31/12
to
been friends with numerous secular Jews. Read the Talmud if you want
to know just how fucked up Judaism is. Just as bad if not worse than
fundamentalist Islam. Or Christianity. They are all religions of
hatred, racism, and intolerance of others.
JamesHutchinson
May 31, 2012, 11:06:35 AM5/31/12
to
DooDoo wrote in message news:jq1fs7tg85q0q56j1...@4ax.com...
Make up your twisted little mind, you retard.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 31, 2012, 11:07:24 AM5/31/12
to
>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:38:38 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal you know.
>>>A long haired, radical left
>>>winger. Who took on the religious right establishment of the time,
>>>advocated feeding the poor, befriended harlots, taught people that
>>>even the poor mattered. Sounds like the kind of guy you people
>>>despise.
>>
>>That's why conservatives donate more than leftists. From your
>>comments, you obviously would have hated Jesus, since he was a Jew.
>
>I don't hate the Jews. I hate their religion.
ALL. There was nothing in there about the Jewish RELIGION. Only about
Jews themselves, you hate-filled bigot.
It was one of the few times you posted here without lying.
> I've known and have
>been friends with numerous secular Jews.
And you want them dead. I noticed you used the past tense. Did you
kill them?
>Read the Talmud if you want to know just how fucked up Judaism is.
Why don't you? And don't read the "fake Talmud" you were quoting a few
months ago, either.
> Just as bad if not worse than
>fundamentalist Islam. Or Christianity. They are all religions of
>hatred, racism, and intolerance of others.
Sounds like a great match for you. When are you joining?
>On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:38:38 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal you know.
>>>A long haired, radical left
>>>winger. Who took on the religious right establishment of the time,
>>>advocated feeding the poor, befriended harlots, taught people that
>>>even the poor mattered. Sounds like the kind of guy you people
>>>despise.
>>
>>That's why conservatives donate more than leftists. From your
>>comments, you obviously would have hated Jesus, since he was a Jew.
>
>I don't hate the Jews. I hate their religion.
Here is what you said:
"<yawn> Whatever. As long as someone kills all the Jews first."
6/2/2011
"The Jews are the only people in the world that have institutionalized
cheating and robbing anyone who is not Jewish."
6/2/2011
" Mormons lie worse than Jews."
1/9/2012
"I admit my error here. Nobody lies worse than Jews. Mormons are a
close second though."
1/24/2012
"<yawn> Whatever. As long as someone kills all the Jews first."
6/2/2011
"The Jews are the only people in the world that have institutionalized
cheating and robbing anyone who is not Jewish."
6/2/2011
" Mormons lie worse than Jews."
1/9/2012
"I admit my error here. Nobody lies worse than Jews. Mormons are a
close second though."
1/24/2012
"Our planet is nothing but a used up wasteland any more because of
white and Jewish greed."
- Mon, 21 May 2012
You hate Jews. You would like it if someone killed them. Killed them
white and Jewish greed."
- Mon, 21 May 2012
ALL. There was nothing in there about the Jewish RELIGION. Only about
Jews themselves, you hate-filled bigot.
It was one of the few times you posted here without lying.
> I've known and have
>been friends with numerous secular Jews.
kill them?
>Read the Talmud if you want to know just how fucked up Judaism is.
months ago, either.
> Just as bad if not worse than
>fundamentalist Islam. Or Christianity. They are all religions of
>hatred, racism, and intolerance of others.
AlexMilman
May 31, 2012, 11:14:33 AM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 5:57 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> badass.super...@gmx.com says...
Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
> In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> badass.super...@gmx.com says...
Message has been deleted
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 11:40:54 AM5/31/12
to
On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>
>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>generous - *much* more generous.
Cite. And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
Churches don't count as charity because most of the money they take in
does not go to charities, rather their own operating expenses. So
show some data for your absurd claim or stop lying.
wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>
>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>
>I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>
>true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>generous - *much* more generous.
Cite. And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
Churches don't count as charity because most of the money they take in
does not go to charities, rather their own operating expenses. So
show some data for your absurd claim or stop lying.
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 11:44:01 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 8:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>
>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>> generous - *much* more generous.
>
> For ONE (1) Reason
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>
>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>> generous - *much* more generous.
>
No.
> Their "generosity" is limited to THEIR choice
As it should be. You, you stupid slacker, do not dictate to me how much
charity to give. You just don't.
Anyway, it's settled: conservatives are more generous with both time
and money than are the supposedly "compassionate" liberals, whose
"compassion" is nothing but empty talk.
Bill
May 31, 2012, 11:47:42 AM5/31/12
to
In article <b067184e-51ff-4a0d-b88b-722b823b3122
@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexm...@msn.com says...
At first by burning people.
Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
ways.
At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake, today
it'll get a wry smile from any Catholic priest, but that doesn't mean
he hasn't still got a box of matches in his pocket...
@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexm...@msn.com says...
>
> On May 31, 5:57ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
> >
> > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > spawned.
> >
> > > >> ï¿œWhat Americans are being forced to do by
> On May 31, 5:57ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
> >
> > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > spawned.
> >
> > > >>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
> > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
> >
> > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
> >
> > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
> >
> > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > have received based on the value system of today.
> >
> > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
> >
> > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
> >
> > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
> >
> > That one is reasonably easy. ï¿œPeople more or less refused to play the
> > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
> >
> > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
> >
> > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
> >
> > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > have received based on the value system of today.
> >
> > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
> >
> > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
> >
> > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
> >
> > church's game.
> >
> > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > dissent.
>
> Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
They reacted.
> >
> > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > dissent.
>
> Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
At first by burning people.
Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
ways.
At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake, today
it'll get a wry smile from any Catholic priest, but that doesn't mean
he hasn't still got a box of matches in his pocket...
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 11:49:21 AM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 8:40 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>
>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>
>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>> generous - *much* more generous.
>
> Cite.
Already given.
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>
>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>
>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>> generous - *much* more generous.
>
> Cite.
> And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
obliged to attend church in the first place, you stupid cunt.
There is no valid reason to exclude donations to churches *and* other
non-church religious organizations, as those organizations are
legitimate charities. They do good works for needy people - *far* more
than the snotty art museums and Marxist public broadcasting entities to
which liberals give their money.
> Churches don't count as charity because
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 12:01:11 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:49:21 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
church. There is extreme peer pressure to donate, preachers literally
beg for money and use guilt manipulation to get people to donate, and
some churches like the Mormons even use threats of not getting into
heaven if you don't tithe. You are including things like Mormon
tithing to their tax free corporation and political PAC, which is not
charity in any way, shape, or form.
>
>There is no valid reason to exclude donations to churches *and* other
>non-church religious organizations, as those organizations are
>legitimate charities. They do good works for needy people - *far* more
>than the snotty art museums and Marxist public broadcasting entities to
>which liberals give their money.
You are counting ALL money given to churches. A very small portion of
which actually goes to charities. So show some data that breaks down
how conservatives donate or stop making intentionally false and
misleading claims.
>
>
>> Churches don't count as charity because
>
>Wrong. They *do* count as charity.
No, they don't because most of what is donated goes to support
expenses and money for the preachers new suits and big new car every
year.
Here, this is what you include in "charity"
http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/jimmy-swaggart.php
wrote:
>On 5/31/2012 8:40 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>
>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>Already given.
>
>> And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
>
>There is no such "mandatory" monetary support for churches. No one is
>obliged to attend church in the first place, you stupid cunt.
People who do attend church are obligate to monetarily support that
>On 5/31/2012 8:40 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>
>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>Already given.
>
>> And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
>
>There is no such "mandatory" monetary support for churches. No one is
>obliged to attend church in the first place, you stupid cunt.
church. There is extreme peer pressure to donate, preachers literally
beg for money and use guilt manipulation to get people to donate, and
some churches like the Mormons even use threats of not getting into
heaven if you don't tithe. You are including things like Mormon
tithing to their tax free corporation and political PAC, which is not
charity in any way, shape, or form.
>
>There is no valid reason to exclude donations to churches *and* other
>non-church religious organizations, as those organizations are
>legitimate charities. They do good works for needy people - *far* more
>than the snotty art museums and Marxist public broadcasting entities to
>which liberals give their money.
which actually goes to charities. So show some data that breaks down
how conservatives donate or stop making intentionally false and
misleading claims.
>
>
>> Churches don't count as charity because
>
>Wrong. They *do* count as charity.
expenses and money for the preachers new suits and big new car every
year.
Here, this is what you include in "charity"
http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/jimmy-swaggart.php
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 12:09:15 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 9:01 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:49:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2012 8:40 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>>>
>>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>>
>>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Already given.
>>
>>> And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
>>
>> There is no such "mandatory" monetary support for churches. No one is
>> obliged to attend church in the first place, you stupid cunt.
>
> People who do attend church are obligate to monetarily support that
> church.
No, they're not, but it's *IRRELEVANT*. A few churches bring pressure
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:49:21 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2012 8:40 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/30/2012 4:18 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>>>>> than liberals, and you came back with:
>>>>>
>>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>>
>>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Already given.
>>
>>> And remove the mandatory monetary support for churches.
>>
>> There is no such "mandatory" monetary support for churches. No one is
>> obliged to attend church in the first place, you stupid cunt.
>
> People who do attend church are obligate to monetarily support that
> church.
to bear on members to tithe, but they're not expelled if they don't.
It's moral pressure; not anything remotely like the police power of the
state. God *DAMN*, you just get *EVERYTHING* wrong.
> There is extreme peer pressure to donate, preachers literally
> beg for money and
charities that make great effort and spend lots of money to help needy
people. There is no valid reason to exclude donations to churches from
this consideration of who is more charitable.
>>
>> There is no valid reason to exclude donations to churches *and* other
>> non-church religious organizations, as those organizations are
>> legitimate charities. They do good works for needy people - *far* more
>> than the snotty art museums and Marxist public broadcasting entities to
>> which liberals give their money.
>
> You are counting ALL money given to churches.
organizations also pays for buildings, salaries and other costs of
administration. There is no reason *not* to include the money.
>>
>>> Churches don't count as charity because
>>
>> Wrong. They *do* count as charity.
>
> No, they don't because
AlexMilman
May 31, 2012, 12:43:25 PM5/31/12
to
On May 31, 11:47 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <b067184e-51ff-4a0d-b88b-722b823b3122
> @z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexmil...@msn.com says...
Catholics, this is hardly a good illustration of a statement that the
Catholics had been only "reacting" to a progress.
> today
> it'll get a wry smile from any Catholic priest,
Are you saying that they don't really believe in it?
> but that doesn't mean
> he hasn't still got a box of matches in his pocket...
No kidding ....
> In article <b067184e-51ff-4a0d-b88b-722b823b3122
> @z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexmil...@msn.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 5:57 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
>
> > > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
> > > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > > spawned.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 5:57 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
>
> > > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
>
> > > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > > spawned.
>
> > > > >> What Americans are being forced to do by
> > > > >>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
> > > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>
> > > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>
> > > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>
> > > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > > have received based on the value system of today.
>
> > > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
> > > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
> > > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>
> > > That one is reasonably easy. People more or less refused to play the
> > > > >>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
> > > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
>
> > > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
>
> > > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
>
> > > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > > have received based on the value system of today.
>
> > > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
>
> > > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
>
> > > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
>
> > > church's game.
>
> > > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > > dissent.
>
> > Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
>
> They reacted.
>
> At first by burning people.
>
> Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
> ways.
>
> At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake,
Taking into an account that the people involved on BOTH sides had been
>
> > > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > > dissent.
>
> > Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
>
> They reacted.
>
> At first by burning people.
>
> Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
> ways.
>
> At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake,
Catholics, this is hardly a good illustration of a statement that the
Catholics had been only "reacting" to a progress.
> today
> it'll get a wry smile from any Catholic priest,
> but that doesn't mean
> he hasn't still got a box of matches in his pocket...
Bill
May 31, 2012, 1:52:40 PM5/31/12
to
In article <ccedf0f2-4fb4-4175-8647-7f79e6851c79
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, alexm...@msn.com says...
This was followed by what has become called the Protestant Ethic,
followed by capitalism, the work ethic and all that.
A Protestant wind blew through Europe...
> > ï¿œtoday
Ask one and you'll find a desire for the mass in Latin and lots of
muttering about joining the 'real Catholics' in the society of Pius X.
The Catholic Church knows there's a place for progress, it's on the top
of a fire...
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, alexm...@msn.com says...
>
> On May 31, 11:47ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <b067184e-51ff-4a0d-b88b-722b823b3122
> > @z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexmil...@msn.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 31, 5:57ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > > > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
> >
> > > > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
> >
> > > > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > > > spawned.
> >
> > > > > >> ï¿œWhat Americans are being forced to do by
> On May 31, 11:47ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <b067184e-51ff-4a0d-b88b-722b823b3122
> > @z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, alexmil...@msn.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 31, 5:57ï¿œam, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <slrnjsdrbt.4hd.badass.super...@badass.edu>,
> > > > badass.super...@gmx.com says...
> >
> > > > > * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> > > > > C...@PrayForMe.com <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Without the moral authority of the Right/Conservatives, Liberals like
> > > > > > you would NEVER defend them selves or their family from Evil because
> > > > > > Evil doesn't exist in your world.
> >
> > > > > > Thank God there are people who recognize Evil in the world and wage
> > > > > > Crusades from time to time, driving it back the Hell from which it
> > > > > > spawned.
> >
> > > > > >>the conservatives is fight and die to protect the interests of wealth
> > > > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
> >
> > > > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
> >
> > > > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
> >
> > > > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > > > have received based on the value system of today.
> >
> > > > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
> >
> > > > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
> >
> > > > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
> >
> > > > That one is reasonably easy. ï¿œPeople more or less refused to play the
> > > > > >>American corporations operating in foreign nations.
> >
> > > > > > Islam through Ishmael was given a 'promise' by God, so was Isaac.
> >
> > > > > > Because of your utter ignorance you cannot understand what the
> > > > > > 'promises' were nor how they trickled-down to modern time.
> >
> > > > > > I will say that Ishmael's promise or inheritance was riches of oil.
> > > > > > One would think they'd be 'happier' than what the descendants of Isaac
> > > > > > have received based on the value system of today.
> >
> > > > > > Islam has treasure beyond imagination but yet bites the western hand
> > > > > > that taught it to exploit. Why is Islam not happy with what they have?
> > > > > > Because of the same reasons Liberals are unhappy.
> >
> > > > > > Liberalism and Islam are false religions. Liberals have no god but
> > > > > > what they can own, materially. Islam has a god of war, a murderous god
> > > > > > that hates the Western Infidel, even you, an Atheist.
> >
> > > > > It's not always been thus. During he middle ages, Islam was no more or less
> > > > > murderous than the Catholic culture. But whereas Western culture progressed
> > > > > out of that violent time, Islam did not. the question is why.
> >
> > > > church's game.
> >
> > > > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > > > dissent.
> >
> > > Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
> >
> > They reacted.
> >
> > At first by burning people.
> >
> > Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
> > ways.
> >
> > At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake,
>
> Taking into an account that the people involved on BOTH sides had been
> Catholics, this is hardly a good illustration of a statement that the
> Catholics had been only "reacting" to a progress.
Some people moved on, the Catholic Church tried to drag them back.
> >
> > > > Martin Luthor was just the man who is the manifestation of many years of
> > > > dissent.
> >
> > > Does this mean that Catholic cultures did not progress?
> >
> > They reacted.
> >
> > At first by burning people.
> >
> > Then they realised that they couldn't win that way and changed their
> > ways.
> >
> > At one time 'and yet it moves' would get you burned at the stake,
>
> Taking into an account that the people involved on BOTH sides had been
> Catholics, this is hardly a good illustration of a statement that the
> Catholics had been only "reacting" to a progress.
This was followed by what has become called the Protestant Ethic,
followed by capitalism, the work ethic and all that.
A Protestant wind blew through Europe...
> > ï¿œtoday
> > it'll get a wry smile from any Catholic priest,
>
> Are you saying that they don't really believe in it?
Of course not.
>
> Are you saying that they don't really believe in it?
Ask one and you'll find a desire for the mass in Latin and lots of
muttering about joining the 'real Catholics' in the society of Pius X.
The Catholic Church knows there's a place for progress, it's on the top
of a fire...
Message has been deleted
RD Sandman
May 31, 2012, 2:01:07 PM5/31/12
to
de...@dudu.org wrote in news:l97ds75qvjaeph4qo...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:18:42 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Everyone has to pitch in to support society and required
>>> infrastructure. Why should you get to benefit from government
>>> services and not pay your fair share?
>>>
>>
>>My fair share? As before I have suggested that you should get to know
>>somone before making those type comments. I pay all my taxes,
>>probably on more money in retirement than you make working.....give a
>>lot to charity both inside and outside the family. I have four
>>automobiles, for example, running around in California because the
>>folks I gave them to needed them. You really have this tendency to
>>run your mouth with little knowledge to push through it.
>
> Why do you keep forgetting "YOU" is also plural. And why are you so
> fucking sensitive?
>
You stated "you" in a post to me....not a general post to others. That
makes it something other than a generic "you", it tends to personalize
it.
--
Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:18:42 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Everyone has to pitch in to support society and required
>>> infrastructure. Why should you get to benefit from government
>>> services and not pay your fair share?
>>>
>>
>>My fair share? As before I have suggested that you should get to know
>>somone before making those type comments. I pay all my taxes,
>>probably on more money in retirement than you make working.....give a
>>lot to charity both inside and outside the family. I have four
>>automobiles, for example, running around in California because the
>>folks I gave them to needed them. You really have this tendency to
>>run your mouth with little knowledge to push through it.
>
> Why do you keep forgetting "YOU" is also plural. And why are you so
> fucking sensitive?
>
You stated "you" in a post to me....not a general post to others. That
makes it something other than a generic "you", it tends to personalize
it.
--
Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 2:10:42 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 10:59 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> against---the top 10%
...will donate to alleviate their unhappiness, subject to their choice
of how much to give. Yes. That's how it ought to be, in any just society.
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:44:01 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Their "generosity" is limited to THEIR choice
>>
>> As it should be.
>
> So---it people are homeless, sick, dying, abused, discriminated
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Their "generosity" is limited to THEIR choice
>>
>> As it should be.
>
> against---the top 10%
...will donate to alleviate their unhappiness, subject to their choice
of how much to give. Yes. That's how it ought to be, in any just society.
RD Sandman
May 31, 2012, 2:13:59 PM5/31/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:vjads7psl4a2f1beohougq5lhmvjf65cb2@
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>
> You forgot to mention that the largess of coservaloonies is limited to
> those who now own 70% of all the wealth, Pimpleton.
>
>
What percentage is that? From information that I have...in the years
1983 to 2007, the top 1% had 34 - 38% of the total net worth, 40 - 47% of
the financial wealth and paid 38 - 41% of the income taxes based on AGI.
http://tinyurl.com/6un84af
http://tinyurl.com/88ojblr
What information do you have that is different?
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 30 May 2012 13:53:28 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>>Nope - you did. I said that conservatives are personally more generous
>>than liberals, and you came back with:
>
> those who now own 70% of all the wealth, Pimpleton.
>
>
What percentage is that? From information that I have...in the years
1983 to 2007, the top 1% had 34 - 38% of the total net worth, 40 - 47% of
the financial wealth and paid 38 - 41% of the income taxes based on AGI.
http://tinyurl.com/6un84af
http://tinyurl.com/88ojblr
What information do you have that is different?
de...@dudu.org
May 31, 2012, 2:15:19 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:44:01 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
You're lying. And you repeating a lie over and over again does not
make it true. I've asked you for proof several times and you can't do
it. Because you don't have any, because you are lying.
make it true. I've asked you for proof several times and you can't do
it. Because you don't have any, because you are lying.
George Plimpton
May 31, 2012, 2:16:56 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 11:15 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:44:01 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2012 8:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>>
>>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>>
>>> For ONE (1) Reason
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>> Their "generosity" is limited to THEIR choice
>>
>> As it should be. You, you stupid slacker, do not dictate to me how much
>> charity to give. You just don't.
>>
>> Anyway, it's settled: conservatives are more generous with both time
>> and money than are the supposedly "compassionate" liberals, whose
>> "compassion" is nothing but empty talk.
>
> You're lying.
I'm not lying; you are. I gave you the citations you shrilly demanded,
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 08:44:01 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/31/2012 8:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:57:50 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You forgot to mention that the largess of conservatives is limited to
>>>>> those who now own 70% of all the wealth
>>>>
>>>> I didn't "forget" to mention that - I didn't say it because it isn't
>>>> true. *All* studies show that when looking at a conservative or a
>>>> liberal of equal wealth and income, the conservative typically is more
>>>> generous - *much* more generous.
>>>
>>> For ONE (1) Reason
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>> Their "generosity" is limited to THEIR choice
>>
>> As it should be. You, you stupid slacker, do not dictate to me how much
>> charity to give. You just don't.
>>
>> Anyway, it's settled: conservatives are more generous with both time
>> and money than are the supposedly "compassionate" liberals, whose
>> "compassion" is nothing but empty talk.
>
> You're lying.
yet you're not satisfied.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages