Jeep thing or sheep thing?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

> >> How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not

subsidizing
> >> them, at the expense of the next generation?

> >
> >Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way of
> >looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives think

we
> >spend too much.
> >
> >

> So why has spending risen under Bush at a greater rate than under Clinton
> (not even counting military spending)?


Assuming you're right about the comparison to the Clinton years (that's a
tough assumption, but I'll let it go), there's no doubt that there are
plenty of Repbulicans who are happy to spend spend spend.


 


> >> >> >Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
> >> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
> >> >>
> >> >> What an idiot.
> >> >
> >> >Lloyd, you are the king of cheap $0.25 insults, with ONLY the

assumption
> >> >that yours is the opinion that everyone but idiots agree with to back

up the
> >> >insult.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> The poster was an idiot. Only an idiot would have posted "Soon, the

term
> >> bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
> >> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy."

> >
> >That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the time,
> >except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the
> >bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
> >marriage.

>
> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.
>


There you go again.

>
> > So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
> >gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have

within
> >it's boundary those vices

>
> Two committed and consenting adults.
>


You have problem with three? Four?

>
> >(sorry for the double neg). So to be a "bigot"
> >wrt gay marriage is be a "bigot" wrt polygamy, etc.
> >
> >



 
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>Snubis <W> wrote:
>
>>Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>>>>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>>
>>> Buddhism
>>> Reform Judaism
>>> Wicca

>>
>>Wicca isn't a real religion.

>
>1. The IRS says it is.
>2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.

Sure he does. He's a Right-Winger, and God speaks to him directly. That's
how he knows gays have a "pervert agenda" and all of them want to molest
children.
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:45:15p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that
>> "establish".
>>
>> Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
>> separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
>> warranted by law,

>
> I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.


The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What
does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it say
about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely
nothing.

Neither the constitution nor Jefferson`s "separation" letter (written in
1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, thirteen
years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are third-hand,
which no court of that day would consider.) ever intimates that religious
expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the ACLU, Americans
United, and other God-haters continue to lift Jefferson up as a sort of
historic "town crier" for their cause. They seem convinced that Jefferson
would not have permitted any political recognition of anything remotely
religious. Are they correct? You be the judge.

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally
introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public and
solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support
for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for
Peace," which petitioned:

"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly
beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy
favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry,
sound learning, and pure manners.

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance,
and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one
united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and
tongues.

Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the
authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and
that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the
nations of the earth.

In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of
trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through
Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."

As is evident, Jefferson`s belief in a separation between church and state
did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. If he were
not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect Thomas Jefferson
would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for his sundry
official statements that specifically mention "God" and "Jesus Christ."

Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority regarding
the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with writing it.
Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he was
not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member of Congress in 1789.
He did not participate in any amendment debates, nor was he a member of
any state legislature or ratifying convention at any time relevant to
passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was not even in this country
when the First Amendment was written. He was serving as U.S. Minister to
France throughout this time.
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:p[email protected]:

> Snubis <W> wrote:
>
>> Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
>>>>> not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>>
>>> Buddhism
>>> Reform Judaism
>>> Wicca

>>
>> Wicca isn't a real religion.

>
> 1. The IRS says it is.
> 2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.


Oh, the IRS says it is, huh? Then it must be true.

Wicca is not a religion but the esoteric study of Western Paganism. Any
belief system that claims that all religions are right is not a religion.
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
wrote in news:p[email protected]:

> Snubis <W> wrote:
>
>>Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
>>>>> not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>>
>>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>>
>>> Buddhism
>>> Reform Judaism
>>> Wicca

>>
>> Wicca isn't a real religion.

>
> 1. The IRS says it is.
> 2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.


Let`s face it, this stupid cult is what caused things like the shooting at
a Colorado High School in Littleton. Wicca isn`t a religion, it`s a
rebellious fad against Mommy and Daddy. Wicca isn`t WitchCraft. Wicca
ain't no religion, it`s a fart in the wind, a **** in the ocean.

I still have yet to see at least ONE PROOF of WitchCraft from these
retards. I knew it back then, and as I saw it then I do now ... Wicca is
a pure fart, zippo powers, zippo crap, zippo NOTHING. Hey, but I sit, I
watch, I look, and still I know I`d spend my time better looking at the
grass grow. Wicca is nothing, they believe in nothing. There`s no power,
no nothing, just a group of mentally disturbed people in rebellion against
Mommy and Daddy, sitting around talking about gods and goddesses they
don't really believe in and those hags over the age of 30+, they`re just
looking for their old teen days, not to mention they're mostly lesbians.
They are moral relativist wackos.

Wicca is unKKKool, Wicca is a Homosexual cult. But, please, don`t pay
me no attention, that`s till you find yourself on a dark road with this
hairy ass gorilla stalking you, and then, "You`re **** out of luck",
because, you know why, you ain't no Witch; and then you`ll know it.
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:43:41p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the time,
>> except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the
>> bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
>> marriage.

>
> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.


Why is homosexuality ok, but at the same time incest, beastiality, bigamy,
and child molestation are wrong?

>> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
>> gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have
>> within it's boundary those vices

>
> Two committed and consenting adults.


Tolerance leads to perversity.
 
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:07:34 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But when you
>consider what Democrats have done historically.... well, the stereotypes are
>largely true... Democrats love to tax and spend. This tends to dampen
>economic growth.


Then how come we had unprecedented economic prosperity under Clinton,
when we had serious economic problems under GHW Bush (as a result of
incredible deficits run up by Reagan) ?

>Greenspan supports the tax cuts, conditional on corresponding spending
>restraint.


Sorry, current Republicans don't restrain anything, they just
make sure it gets spent in their district to the advantage of their
constituents. They even bumped up Bush's fluffy budget by 20-40
billion this year. Check out the 50m Trent Lott directed to his
district for a military project the Pentagon didn't even want.

>Frankly, the recession is over. The biggest problem now is
>regaining the confidence of the investor and the consumer.


Spoken like a true Bush man. Funny how the economy seems to
disagree with you - and the Fed is talking about zero interest
rates to prevent _deflation_.

>Those who grew up in the 90's economy, got burned bad when the bubble popped
>and are much more wary of where they put their money and how they spend it.
>The effect of 9/11 on the economy is real and it's impact enormous.


Right, 9-11. That's the thing you Bush people like to blame
it all on. Funny though, Bush's own administration reported
that the recession started in March 2001. I don't know if you
know this, but a recession is a mathematically measurable event,
not a consensus of thought. Funny though, Bush kept denying we
were in a recession long after March but his own figures proved
him wrong later. (Just like this Uranium thing).

>It's lame to point the finger at Bush as if all we needed some Democrat in
>office to bring us back to a pre- 9/11 economy.


Uh, see above. We were already in a recession. Bush and his
supporters have tried to use 9-11 as a scapegoat.

>> Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.
>> What are there, maybe 100 million tax payers ? That works out to
>> about $1000 each. Send in your check.
>>

>
>That pretty much summarizes what the Gore approach to 9/11 would have been.
>A total miscalculation of the degree to which terrorism has risen and where
>it's nexts steps were going.


But Iraq has/had no connection to 9-11. Wrong argument, try again.

>
>If that's true, it's a mistake that's being quickly remedied.
>


Right... let's start with the Chairman of the SEC that Bush
appointed and work from there. LOL.

Bob
 
In article <[email protected]>, Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:45:15p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that
>>> "establish".
>>>
>>> Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
>>> separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
>>> warranted by law,

>>
>> I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.

>
>The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What
>does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it say
>about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely
>nothing.
>
>Neither the constitution nor Jefferson`s "separation" letter (written in
>1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, thirteen
>years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are third-hand,


Courts often look at the writings of those who wrote the constitution.



>which no court of that day would consider.) ever intimates that religious
>expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the ACLU, Americans
>United, and other God-haters continue to lift Jefferson up as a sort of
>historic "town crier" for their cause. They seem convinced that Jefferson
>would not have permitted any political recognition of anything remotely
>religious. Are they correct? You be the judge.
>
>In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally
>introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
>
>In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public and
>solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
>
>As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support
>for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
>
>On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for
>Peace," which petitioned:
>
>"Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly
>beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy
>favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry,
>sound learning, and pure manners.
>
>Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance,
>and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one
>united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and
>tongues.
>
>Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the
>authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and
>that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the
>nations of the earth.
>
>In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of
>trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through
>Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
>
>As is evident, Jefferson`s belief in a separation between church and state
>did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction. If he were
>not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect Thomas Jefferson
>would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for his sundry
>official statements that specifically mention "God" and "Jesus Christ."
>
>Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority regarding
>the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with writing it.
>Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he was
>not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member of Congress in 1789.
>He did not participate in any amendment debates, nor was he a member of
>any state legislature or ratifying convention at any time relevant to
>passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was not even in this country
>when the First Amendment was written. He was serving as U.S. Minister to
>France throughout this time.


Which still has nothing to do with the government forcing religion on people.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <!> wrote:
>On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
>wrote in news:p[email protected]:
>
>> Snubis <W> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
>>>>>> not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>>>
>>>> Buddhism
>>>> Reform Judaism
>>>> Wicca
>>>
>>> Wicca isn't a real religion.

>>
>> 1. The IRS says it is.
>> 2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.

>
>Oh, the IRS says it is, huh? Then it must be true.
>
>Wicca is not a religion


God told you so!


>but the esoteric study of Western Paganism. Any
>belief system that claims that all religions are right is not a religion.


You have a very restricted view of religion.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Snubis <W> wrote:
>On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:41:11p, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
>wrote in news:p[email protected]:
>
>> Snubis <W> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering,
>>>>>> not stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>>>
>>>> Buddhism
>>>> Reform Judaism
>>>> Wicca
>>>
>>> Wicca isn't a real religion.

>>
>> 1. The IRS says it is.
>> 2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.

>
>Let`s face it, this stupid cult is what caused things like the shooting at
>a Colorado High School in Littleton. Wicca isn`t a religion,


Who made you god?


>it`s a
>rebellious fad against Mommy and Daddy. Wicca isn`t WitchCraft. Wicca
>ain't no religion, it`s a fart in the wind, a **** in the ocean.


Some might say that about your religion.

>
>I still have yet to see at least ONE PROOF of WitchCraft from these
>retards.


Huh? What "proof" is there of Christianity?


>

 
In article <[email protected]>,
Omphalos <#> wrote:
>On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:43:41p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the time,
>>> except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the
>>> bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
>>> marriage.

>>
>> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.

>
>Why is homosexuality ok, but at the same time incest, beastiality, bigamy,
>and child molestation are wrong?
>


If you have to ask that, you're too dumb to tie your own shoelaces.

>>> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
>>> gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have
>>> within it's boundary those vices

>>
>> Two committed and consenting adults.

>
>Tolerance leads to perversity.


Intolerance leads to murder. Drag any blacks to death lately? Beat any gays
to death? How about lynchings?
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 03:10:27p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Omphalos <#> wrote:
>
>> On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:43:41p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the
>>>> time, except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh,
>>>> and the bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments
>>>> against gay marriage.
>>>
>>> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.

>>
>> Why is homosexuality ok, but at the same time incest, beastiality,
>> bigamy, and child molestation are wrong?

>
> If you have to ask that, you're too dumb to tie your own shoelaces.


Looks like you don't have an answer.

>>>> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
>>>> gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have
>>>> within it's boundary those vices
>>>
>>> Two committed and consenting adults.

>>
>> Tolerance leads to perversity.

>
> Intolerance leads to murder. Drag any blacks to death lately? Beat any
> gays to death? How about lynchings?


So does too much tolerance not lead to perversity?
 
On 25 Jul 2003 17:46:07 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>Yes, but those all harm others. Not "tolerating" gays is tantamount to not
>"tolerating" Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics.


Gotta disagree with you LLoyd - Being black, or hispanic, or Jewish
(at least if you mean it as a national origin and not a religious
choice) is not a choice. Being Homosexual is a choice. I know there
are those studies that say it's genetic, but there are similar
studies that show alcoholism is genetic, and eating fried foods
is genetic, etc. It's a choice, you make that choice.

Bob
 
On Fri 25 Jul 2003 03:06:08p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>, Omphalos <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:45:15p, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that
>>>> "establish".
>>>>
>>>> Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
>>>> separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
>>>> warranted by law,
>>>
>>> I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.

>>
>> The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
>> establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
>> What does this say about what the Church can or cannot do? What does it
>> say about what a Christian citizen should or should not do? Absolutely
>> nothing.
>>
>> Neither the constitution nor Jefferson`s "separation" letter (written
>> in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut,
>> thirteen years after the First Amendment was signed. His comments are
>> third-hand,

>
> Courts often look at the writings of those who wrote the constitution.
>
>> which no court of that day would consider.) ever intimates that
>> religious expression must be kept out of the public arena. Yet the
>> ACLU, Americans United, and other God-haters continue to lift Jefferson
>> up as a sort of historic "town crier" for their cause. They seem
>> convinced that Jefferson would not have permitted any political
>> recognition of anything remotely religious. Are they correct? You be
>> the judge.
>>
>> In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally
>> introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
>>
>> In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of "Public
>> and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God."
>>
>> As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial
>> support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
>>
>> On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered "A National Prayer for
>> Peace," which petitioned:
>>
>> "Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We
>> humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful
>> of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable
>> ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
>>
>> Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and
>> arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion
>> into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many
>> kindreds and tongues.
>>
>> Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust
>> the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at
>> home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy
>> praise among the nations of the earth.
>>
>> In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day
>> of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask
>> through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
>>
>> As is evident, Jefferson`s belief in a separation between church and
>> state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction.
>> If he were not our third president, but our forty-third, I suspect
>> Thomas Jefferson would find himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit
>> for his sundry official statements that specifically mention "God" and
>> "Jesus Christ."
>>
>> Although Jefferson is credited today as some form of authority
>> regarding the First Amendment, he had absolutely nothing to do with
>> writing it. Jefferson was not a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional
>> Convention, he was not a signer of he Constitution, nor was he a member
>> of Congress in 1789. He did not participate in any amendment debates,
>> nor was he a member of any state legislature or ratifying convention at
>> any time relevant to passage of the First Amendment. In fact, he was
>> not even in this country when the First Amendment was written. He was
>> serving as U.S. Minister to France throughout this time.

>
> Which still has nothing to do with the government forcing religion on
> people.


The US government doesn't force religion on people, dumbass.
 

>>People who make less than $26,000 per year pay 4% of all taxes yet
>>make over 13% of the money. People who make $87,000 pay 66% of the
>>taxes yet make less than half the money.


Those figures bend the truth quite a bit. People who are on the low
side of the wage scale don't make enough gross money for the
government to use that as a major source of revenue. There are a lot
of them, they just don't earn the volume necessary. The majority of
taxpayers are in the next range up, topping out at around $100K.
Only 5% of the taxpayers make over $100k. The majority of these folks
in the upper band use tax dodges and shelters to shield their income
from the tax man. People in the middle pick up the major tax burden
since they don't have the resources to take advantage of those
shelters.

The big lie from the Republicans is that the are going to help the
common man. So, Joe Contractor or Joe Manager saves $500 on his taxes.
Meanwhile an extension or increase of another tax shelter means that
Joe Millionaire saves $25000. I have to admit, the Republicans do a
good job of selling that to Joe Average and make him think he's
getting a good deal. They get an A+ for marketing and sales.

Bob
 
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JD wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>>>>>>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>>>>>>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>>>>>>>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>>>>>>>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>>>>>>>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>>>>>>>>>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
>>>>>>>>>privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are,
>>>>>>>>

> in
>
>>>>>>>>>effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
>>>>>>>>right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are a
>>>>>>>>communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from
>>>>>>

> them.
>
>>>>>>>Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the
>>>>>>

> treatment
>
>>>>>>>given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems
>>>>

> so.
>
>>>>>You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before they
>>>>>get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
>>>>you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
>>>>but hardly hate them.
>>>
>>>
>>>And if you walked in the door and criticized your kids and berated them
>>>before you'd even found a reason, then that would smack of hate.
>>>
>>>Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
>>>thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and using
>>>communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
>>>with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
>>>also full of hate.

>>
>>Then you don't get out much. I think communism is a fatally flawed
>>system. I've never hated communists. I think homosexuality is flawed
>>behavior, but I don't hate homosexuals. I've never met a "completely"
>>tolerant person (if such a person can exist), who could think for
>>themselves. Unbridled tolerance is not a virtue. As a society, we
>>don't tolerate a lot of things: murder, rape, tax evasion, etc. Get
>>used to it.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>

>
> Yes, but those all harm others. Not "tolerating" gays is tantamount to not
> "tolerating" Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics.


I never said I didn't tolerate homosexuals (and why are they so ashamed
of it that they had to hijack the word gay?). I won't tolerate my kids
being taught that homosexual behavior is normal, because it isn't.
There are probably other homosexual agenda items that I won't tolerate,
but I don't "not tolerate" homosexual individuals, depending on how you
define tolerate. I certainly don't go out of my way to harrass or
otherwise persecute homosexuals. I don't even attempt to find out who
is homosexual, for that matter.

Matt

 
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:20:57 GMT, "JD" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>David Allen wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way
>> of looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives
>> think we spend too much.

>
>Seems to me conservatives did a damn fine job of spending us from a budget
>surplus to a huge deficit in under 2 years.


Nice liberal spin. I especially enjoy you leaving out the recession
that Clinton caused, which led to those deficits, and how Clinton
refused to accept Bin Laden from Sudan, which led to the way which we
are fighting.

Oh, the increase in defense spending (conservative thing) is nowhere
near the increase in social programs the liberals have put through.
 
On 24 Jul 2003 21:01:29 -0700, [email protected]
(Dingleberry) wrote:
>> Why is it liberal morons think everyone wants to hear their extreme left
>> wing ramblings?

>
>It's one of those mysteries of life. Like, why do liberals think
>everyone who disagrees when them is a bigot?
>
>Why do they like to use made up words like 'homophobia'?


Or neo-cons.
 
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:41:03 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:40:46 GMT, "David Allen"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Where should I start?
>>
>>First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that you'll
>>sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
>>conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.

>
>How come when the Democrats are in office it's always their fault if
>the economy is sour, but when the Republicans are in office it's
>never their fault ?


How come you are accusing the dems of being at fault when they are in
office?

>>Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
>>major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in office,

>
>Which Bush has prolonged and done nothing to end... except to pass
>a second tax cut that even the economic conservative Greenspan says
>we can't afford.


You don't expand the economy by raising taxes. Tax cuts to those who
pay taxes are stimulant in nature.

>>2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

>
>Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.


Liberals always love to defend terrorists like Saddam, Stalin and Pol
Pot.
 
Back
Top