|
Sports » rec.sport.football.college » Lies, damned lies...
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742927 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 03:22 |
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:25:22 -0000, rich hammett
<bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote:
>Who did Cain have sex with?
>
>rich
Now that is an interesting question. Who were the females after Eve?
The Bible says there were giants in the land. I don't know what that
means or where they came from.
When you get to the flood Noah, his 3 sons, and all their wives were
the only people living. Who were the wives?
Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. Why didn't he just let the
fish swim?
How long was a biblical year If we find 150,000 year old people and
Adam was born in 4114 BC?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742934 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 03:50 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> >I don't think China is doing that well. If it were people would be
> >> >trying to go there. And you don't see that. Maybe because economic
> >> >growth isn't everything. I don't think you'd be able to express your
> >> >views so freely if you were there
> >>
> >> My response was to the point that human rights seemed to be the basis
> >> for our progress over the years. My point was that it obviously was
> >> not and I gave an example.
> >>
> >
> >My idea of progress is a bit broader than yours. It isn't limited to
> >material progress. If that's what you're talking about, then you're
> >right.
>
> The Constitution rights are life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
> happiness. I don't see any of those being denied in this country today
> even though some fringe elements are whining.
>
> >> I'm not an activist in expressing views. My posts are about football
> >> and responses to liberal idiocy.
> >
> >you should stick to football
>
> I would if liberals did. I have no axe to grind - I grind someone
> else's.
>
> >> >> >> I submit that black and female liberal voting have made this country
> >> >> >> much worse off, albeit their right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe for you, but certainly not for them.
> >> >>
> >> >> You really grasp the obvious, don't you?
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to be grasping it though. If your interests are contrary
> >> >to the vast majority's interests you shouldn't be surprised if nobody
> >> >agrees with you. All you have left is your old hermit routine
> >>
> >> 1. My vote in the last two Presidential elections counted so your
> >> "vast majority" is only in your dreams.
> >
> >I thought even the republican party was a bit too mild for your taste.
> >My mistake.
>
> Yes and no.
Coherently incoherent
>
>
> >> 2. I really don't care whether anyone agrees with me. In fact I expect
> >> naive young people to disagree. The SCOTUS will soon be agreeing with
> >> me. thus trumping your pipe dreams.
> >
> >true
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And we had child labor laws and drug laws in the 40s - I don't recall
> >> >> >> about food inspection. I know beef was inspected. And the restaurants
> >> >> >> back then were very clean of their own volition - they were Mom an Pop
> >> >> >> restaurants and repeat business depended on it. Knowing when you will
> >> >> >> be inspected sorta defeats the purpose.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for medicine your generation has spawned AIDS, Legionnaires
> >> >> >> Disease, Bird Flu, more cancer... And you have caused us to live
> >> >> >> longer so we would have time to contract most of those diseases.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So ... Do you or do you not want to live longer? If you don't want to
> >> >> >live longer in order to not be infected by those deseases you can
> >> >> >allways kill yourself. Or get infected with tuberculosis and die with a
> >> >> >desease from the good old days. Whatever pleases you best.
> >> >
> >> >Strange... no coment here? I guess your eyes are blind to what
> >> >contradicts your scatological views
> >>
> >> The answer to the question seemed obvious. Your comments were absurd.
> >
> >Not that obvious or absurd considering your comments. Or can't you spot
> >the contradiction?
>
> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
You just made that up.
>
> >> >> >> We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >> >> >> more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >> >> >> problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >> >> >> single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >> >> >> made it better than the old simple one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >where - exactly - do you draw the line betwen what belongs to the good
> >> >> >old days and what belongs to the dark new times? Are you saying that
> >> >> >all that you wrote above is recent?
> >> >>
> >> >> Please read again and note the word "more" is used frequently.
> >> >
> >> >well, i think the threat of nuclear disaster for one has been greater
> >> >in the past than it is now. As for civil rights and harassment problems
> >> >that has to do with having recognized some civil rights which were not
> >> >recognized before. That's good. People need to fight for their rights
> >>
> >> People need to understand their rights. There is considerable evidence
> >> they don't.
> >
> >You being a fine example of that
>
> One has the right to be a liberal or a queer or an atheist. I have the
> right to diss him. What don't I understand?
>
> >> >> >> You have the minimum wage which has driven up costs to the point where
> >> >> >> we have to outsource and renege on pensions to remain in business.
> >> >> >> Bankruptcies are at an all-time high as are crowded prisons. You have
> >> >> >> won some and lost some.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The ones responsible for this trait are big corps who would rather
> >> >> >transfer their production to countries where people don't hav any
> >> >> >rights and so can be exploited relentlessly. Or are you saying that the
> >> >> >ones to blame are the people who refuse to be slaves?
> >> >>
> >> >> I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
> >> >> hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
> >> >> years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
> >> >> Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
> >> >> country. You people just can't handle life.
> >> >
> >> >Liberals and the unions? It's the economy stupid. If the gross of
> >> >production is being transfered to places where the average income is
> >> >nowadays bellow what you earned decades ago and there is no subsequent
> >> >fall in the prices is it still the unions and liberals' fault. Or is it
> >> >just that the greedy bastards who run those companies don't care about
> >> >you or any other organic automaton running their errands.
> >> >What is your solution? Should the minimum wage be extinguished,
> >> >healthcare destroyed, child labour laws revoked? What if we start
> >> >working for nothing at all? That would be perfect right? No need to
> >> >outsource. Maybe you would like to see more sweatshops around. I'm sure
> >> >the number of drugies and bastards would diminish.
> >> >
> >> >What I don't get is: are you masochistic, a sadist or just frustrated?
> >>
> >> First, it's nothing sexual. Next, I have no desire to inflict pain on
> >> myself. I say what I think - if the readers can't take it they have
> >> several choices.
> >
> >a sadist then. or maybe you just want to get even since you can't fight
> >the powerful and need to follow them arround in whatever greedy scheme
> >they've got. Hope the crumbs left after their feasts are enough to go
> >on satisfying you.
>
> >But of course they will. You're a good boy aren't you?
>
> I did nothing that anyone else couldn't do with talent and
> conscientiousness. Most suffer because they are lazy trash.
i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
lackey
> >
> >> Third, I don't know what frustrated means.
> >
> >Good for you. It might help you not having to deal with the fealing
> >
> >> >> >> The list could continue "on into the night" ("ad infinitum" in Latin).
> >> >> >> 8-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When were the good times is certainly arguable.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One more sign of your confusion
> >> >>
> >> >> But I'm the one who is comfortable while you have the problems. You
> >> >> should be so lucky to be as confused as I am.
> >> >
> >> >Strange ... You seem to be the one complaining about everything
> >>
> >> That'll be the day. I'm loving it because I'm still winning.
> >
> >what about this:
> >
> >"We now have more conveniences and more problems, less friendliness and
> >more confrontation, more druggies, more civil rights and harassment
> >problems, the threat of nuclear disaster, and more bastards and their
> >single mothers on welfare. Not all the complexities of your world have
> >made it better than the old simple one."
> >
> >you really are confusion (or maybe the memory's going eh)
> >
> >Chico
>
> I don't have problems, I enjoy confrontation, drugs are only in the
> newspaper, I've never been harrassed, and my family is married with no
> bastards and all old enough are working except retirees.
>
> So I only benefit. I was talking about all the whiners and bleeding
> hearts here.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742935 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 04:01 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 20:46:46 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>>>>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>>>>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>>>>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>>>>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>>>>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>>>>>> observation is accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>>>>>> formed to protest.
>>>>>
>>>>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>>>>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>>>>
>>>> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>>>> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>>>> both.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>>>>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>>>>
>>>> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>>>> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>>>> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>>>>>reaches an impasse.
>>>>
>>>> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>>>
>>>People have rights, corporations do not.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Aaron
>>
>> A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
>> determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
>> facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
>> determines working hours.
>>
>> If those are not rights, what term would you use?
>
>They are priviliges, granted by the people. A corporation has no inherent
>rights.
>
>--
>Aaron
>
Seems to me a privilege is something that can be granted or taken
away. If the above privileges were taken away there would be no
corporations in a representative form of government.
In Merriam-Webster I not that one definition of "privilege" is
"right".
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #742938 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 03:58 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. Why didn't he just let the
> fish swim?
The sea would have become less salty, causing problems for some
salt-water fish, but would still have been too salty for many species
of fresh-water fish.
Hmm, given this dilution of the oceans, what does that do to the YECs
claim about there not being enough salt (i.e. if the Earth were old,
the oceans would be much saltier). If the oceans were significantly
diluted in the last few thousand years, the rate of re-salination must
be incredible. We should be able to observe it.
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743011 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 06:50 |
|
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>On 14 Dec 2005 20:46:46 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>They are priviliges, granted by the people. A corporation has no inherent
>>rights.
>>
>Seems to me a privilege is something that can be granted or taken
>away.
Yep.
> If the above privileges were taken away there would be no
>corporations in a representative form of government.
Yep. Corporation *exist* because the government says they do. What the
government gives, it can take away.
>
>In Merriam-Webster I not that one definition of "privilege" is
>"right".
The distinction here is a legal one - alienable versus inalienable. The
Constitution and the Bill of Rights define a set of *in*alienable
rights. Congress (and the states) have chosen to also grant certain
(alienable) privileges to certain collectives of people by law.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743077 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 15:10 |
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:50:19 -0800, Stanley Friesen
<sarima [at] friesen.net> wrote:
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>On 14 Dec 2005 20:46:46 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>>They are priviliges, granted by the people. A corporation has no inherent
>>>rights.
>>>
>>Seems to me a privilege is something that can be granted or taken
>>away.
>
>Yep.
>
>> If the above privileges were taken away there would be no
>>corporations in a representative form of government.
>
>Yep. Corporation *exist* because the government says they do. What the
>government gives, it can take away.
>>
>>In Merriam-Webster I not that one definition of "privilege" is
>>"right".
>
>The distinction here is a legal one - alienable versus inalienable. The
>Constitution and the Bill of Rights define a set of *in*alienable
>rights. Congress (and the states) have chosen to also grant certain
>(alienable) privileges to certain collectives of people by law.
I'll buy that.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743088 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 15:21 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 18:50:48 -0800, fThemudo [at] gmail.com wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
>> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
>
>You just made that up.
I guess your grasp of the obvious is not as obvious as I thought.
>i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
>You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
>lackey
If I am you are a lackey's "boy".
I've had almost 19 years of GREAT retirement because of that
"servitude". But, based on the number of organizations I have chaired
or presided over, I'd label it a life of service. The choice was aways
mine, not someone else's - except the company required managers to be
a JA Advisor for 1 year so I gave them 2.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743092 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 15:28 |
|
On 14 Dec 2005 18:58:50 -0800, "rupert.morrish [at] gmail.com"
<rupert.morrish [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. Why didn't he just let the
>> fish swim?
>
>The sea would have become less salty, causing problems for some
>salt-water fish, but would still have been too salty for many species
>of fresh-water fish.
Okay.
>Hmm, given this dilution of the oceans, what does that do to the YECs
>claim about there not being enough salt (i.e. if the Earth were old,
>the oceans would be much saltier). If the oceans were significantly
>diluted in the last few thousand years, the rate of re-salination must
>be incredible. We should be able to observe it.
Wouldn't it have something to do with the geography? The Dead Sea and
the Great Salt Lake are comparatively small land-locked bodies for
example.
With rivers flowing fresh water into the oceans and evaporation which
falls as rain my guess would be that there is some degree of
stabilization over the centuries.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743128 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 16:42 |
|
In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 20:46:46 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>
>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 14 Dec 2005 14:36:36 GMT, <aborgman [at] redshark.goodshow.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In rec.sport.football.college J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
>>>>>>> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
>>>>>>> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
>>>>>>> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
>>>>>>> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
>>>>>>> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
>>>>>>> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
>>>>>>> observation is accurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
>>>>>>> formed to protest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
>>>>>>been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
>>>>> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
>>>>> both.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
>>>>>>> gangs formed to ban guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly where....have guns been banned?
>>>>>
>>>>> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
>>>>> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
>>>>> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
>>>>>>reaches an impasse.
>>>>>
>>>>> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
>>>>
>>>>People have rights, corporations do not.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Aaron
>>>
>>> A corporation has the right to hire and fire. It has the right to
>>> determine pay scales. It has the right to construct or move
>>> facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
>>> determines working hours.
>>>
>>> If those are not rights, what term would you use?
>>
>>They are priviliges, granted by the people. A corporation has no inherent
>>rights.
>>
>>--
>>Aaron
>>
> Seems to me a privilege is something that can be granted or taken
> away.
Exactly - corporations exist at the whim of the people. There is no
fundamental consitutional right to existence for corporations.
> If the above privileges were taken away there would be no
> corporations in a representative form of government.
Possibly true, but completely unprovable and irrelevant.
> In Merriam-Webster I not that one definition of "privilege" is
> "right".
So the dictionary is wrong - it happens on occasion.
--
Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743201 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 18:05 |
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:47:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<43a03c6e.18911593 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>A corporation has the right to hire and fire.
Actually a corporation, as a legal person, has the right to make
contracts, including employment contracts. The rights regarding
employees are constrained by both those contracts and the law.
>It has the right to
>determine pay scales.
Perhaps, but that is really just another derived right stemming from
the contract rules and laws.
>It has the right to construct or move
>facilities. It has the right to assign work, promote or demote. It
>determines working hours.
Again, all constrained by laws and contracts.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743305 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 20:51 |
|
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:07:45 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>>
>>>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>>>Give us a couple of references.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>>>> pointing this out.
>>>>
>>>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>
>>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>>
>>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
>>> nuts.
>>
>>Evasion noted.
>>
>>--
>>Aaron Clausen
>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>
> Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
>
> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
And the fact that there were plenty of people around *before* this date
doesn't present something of a problem for you?
Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
anyways.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743355 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 22:07 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2005 22:00:05 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 13 Dec 2005 16:40:57 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> On 13 Dec 2005 12:07:10 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> >> >> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >What you don't understand is how human and or constitutional rights are
> >> >> >supposed to operate. It is the american mentality that insists on their
> >> >> >own rights while trampling on those same rights in others. So long as
> >> >> >*my* rights are being upheld.....everyone else can go screw themselves!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >America will never be a great nation until the day comes that they
> >> >> >respect the rights of others as much as they insist on those rights for
> >> >> >themselves.....I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
> >> >>
> >> >> About all anyone can do is explain the reasons for that because your
> >> >> observation is accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> For years there was no problem with capital punishment, then gangs
> >> >> formed to protest.
> >> >
> >> >No problem? Perhaps the more than occasional innocent put to death has
> >> >been recognized as a problem....and the death penalty still exists.
> >>
> >> The point is about rights. The law gives the right to execute. Some
> >> group want to overturn that right. You can't respect the rights of
> >> both.
> >
> >The rights I was talking about are constitutional and human rights.
> >Nothing in the constitution about the inalienable right to execute.
>
> The C. gives Congress the right to make laws and execution is legal.
> Also, that which is not illegal by written law is legal.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> We used guns for years. Guns don't kill - the misuse of guns kill. So
> >> >> gangs formed to ban guns.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly where....have guns been banned?
> >>
> >> WHo said they were banned. I said groups had been formed to ban them.
> >> Fortunately they are unsuccessful so far. You can't respect the rights
> >> of both. But you'd better respect my guns.
> >
> >I am sorry for misunderstanding your meaning....but given my
> >way....they only guns available to private citizens would be long
> >barrel and single shot.
>
> There is no way to control that. You might make gun owners hide them
> but you won't have your way.
Perhaps not....but if the penalties for possessing banned weapons was
severe enough, most people would get rid of them of their own accord.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> We blow up abortion clinics because some favor abortion.
> >> >
> >> >And you risk killing innocent people....just like Osama.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Unions strike because they don't get their way.
> >> >
> >> >Unions strike because their members VOTE TO DO SO when bargaining
> >> >reaches an impasse.
> >>
> >> They try to override the rights of the corporation.
> >
> >Wrong...the corporation is bargaining collectively with its employees,
> >the only muscle available to the employee is the ability to withhold
> >labour....or do you believe that a corporation can compel its employees
> >to work under dictated terms?
>
> I disagree. The employee is not forced to work for that corporation -
> he does it by choice because it is the best place for him. The
> employee does not own the corporation, the stockholders do.
>
> I thought the company I worked for could compel me to do anything it
> wished that was legal and I was happier than a dead pig in the
> sunshine about it. I worked for the best corporation that ever
> existed. I wish I was young enough to do it all over again with the
> same people who reported to me.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And, of course, each anti group points to civil rights as the excuse
> >> >> for its' movement
> >> >
> >> >Like the anti-gay group, anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-health-care,
> >> >anti-science, anti-eductaion, anti-anything-that-I don't-believe-in
> >> >groups?
> >>
> >> You can't have it both ways.
> >
> >I just want everyone to enjoy the same protections under the
> >law...that's all.
>
> Protection, yes, privileges/benefits, no. One should have to earn the
> benefits and privileges.
That depends on what you are calling privileges/benefits....if they are
granted under legislation for one group, then they should be for all.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743459 ] |
Do, 15 Dezember 2005 22:17 |
|
On 15 Dec 2005 19:51:53 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:07:45 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>>>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>>>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>>>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>>>
>>>>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>>>>Give us a couple of references.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>>>>> pointing this out.
>>>>>
>>>>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>>
>>>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>>>
>>>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
>>>> nuts.
>>>
>>>Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>
>> Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
>>
>> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
>
>And the fact that there were plenty of people around *before* this date
>doesn't present something of a problem for you?
Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compareed to
ours.
>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>anyways.
I regard the Bible as evidence and I have done the genealogy of the
Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
genealogy.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743584 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 07:25 |
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:49:23 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:45:18 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399c0a3.14314032 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:54:38 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:57:44 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><4398e44e.46547231 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:13:59 -0500, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>>><nospam [at] baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"rich hammett" <bubbarichau [at] warmmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rich hammett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> though, which makes it sort of a useless principle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And didn't the US commit an act of war against Japan?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not until the Japs attacked the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the U.S. Navy never blockaded Japan. There was an embargo on U.S.
>>>>>>>> firms from providing the Japs with oil. That is perfectly legal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and justified. But what do you think we would do if
>>>>>>> Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela refused to sell
>>>>>>> oil to us until we got our military out of Iraq, Afghanistan,
>>>>>>> and Hawai'i?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What would Thurston Howell do? We'd steal it fair and square,
>>>>>>just like we stole Hawaii and the other states. That's the
>>>>>>point of sovereignty -- taking (and holding) by force that which
>>>>>>cannot be gtten by peaceful means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The first people who stepped foot on Hawaii must've been REELY
>>>>>>happy because they were like seriously lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--Tedward
>>>>>
>>>>>If we had been real smart we would have swapped the northeast for
>>>>>Hawaii when they were still unaware.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? You mean you would like to get rid of the Northeast U.S.? If so,
>>>>how could the rest of the country afford it? Get rid of NY, CT, MA,
>>>>and NJ and you would have to dump most of the South in order to get
>>>>the budget back to its current imbalance.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Matt Silberstein
>>>
>>>The only trouble with the South is that yankees are like hemorrhoids -
>>>they come down and don't go back up.
>>>
>>>No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>
>>>I can't spell neanderthal so I type Kennedy or Franks and everyone
>>>knows what I mean.
>>
>>I would be glad to dump off the South, I am tired of subsidizing their
>>lifestyle with my taxes.
>>
>>--
>>Matt Silberstein
>>
>>Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>lifestyle?
I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
Northeast to the South.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743634 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 15:43 |
|
On 15 Dec 2005 13:07:38 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
[snip]
>> >I am sorry for misunderstanding your meaning....but given my
>> >way....they only guns available to private citizens would be long
>> >barrel and single shot.
>>
>> There is no way to control that. You might make gun owners hide them
>> but you won't have your way.
>
>Perhaps not....but if the penalties for possessing banned weapons was
>severe enough, most people would get rid of them of their own accord.
Banned weapons is a different set of parameters from what you
mentioned 3 paragraphs up. I can see no valid reason why the average
citizen should have an automatic weapon.
When the government considered banning the AK-47 I bought one. It's
never been fired and I don't expect to fire it. I bought it when it
was legal so, if it is ever banned I will grandfather myself.
[snip]
>> >I just want everyone to enjoy the same protections under the
>> >law...that's all.
>>
>> Protection, yes, privileges/benefits, no. One should have to earn the
>> benefits and privileges.
>
>That depends on what you are calling privileges/benefits....if they are
>granted under legislation for one group, then they should be for all.
Well, I bought into the "inalienable rights" post earlier - I had not
considered the thought before.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743638 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 15:50 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>lifestyle?
>
>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>Northeast to the South.
It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743655 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 16:40 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>>lifestyle?
>>
>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>>Northeast to the South.
>
>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
ROTLFMAO.
>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
irrelevant to that.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743667 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 16:59 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>> J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis
>>>>> <jd_home [at] alltel.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution -
>>>>>>> evolution denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a
>>>>>> teleological implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you
>>>>>> want to add one, feel free. Just realize that it's outside
>>>>>> Science. Which, again, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought
>>>>> I had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have
>>>>> seen starts with some water creature immigrating to land and
>>>>> progressing from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>>
>>>> And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be
>>>> specific here. Give us a couple of references.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate
>>>>> your pointing this out.
>>>>
>>>> When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Aaron Clausen
>>>> mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>
>>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>>
>>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only
>>> half nuts.
>>
>> Evasion noted.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen
>> mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>
> Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
>
> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
Who the fuck lives for almost a thousand years?
I do know an Adam that is currently living.
http://dopeman.org/spacemoose/index__12.htm
I highly recommend the Space Moose line of products.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.freealberta.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743688 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 17:37 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>>>lifestyle?
>>>
>>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>>>Northeast to the South.
>>
>>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
>
>ROTLFMAO.
>
>>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
>>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
>
>And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
>Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
>irrelevant to that.
There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
about having to support their descendants.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743689 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 17:41 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:59:53 GMT, "Jefferson N Glapski"
<jeffersonWEARE [at] PENNSTATEglapski.com> wrote:
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
>
>Who the fuck lives for almost a thousand years?
Based on responses to many of your posts, many people feel you have
been here too long. Even though not a thousand years it apparently
seems like it.
>I do know an Adam that is currently living.
>http://dopeman.org/spacemoose/index__12.htm
>
>I highly recommend the Space Moose line of products.
Is that what you use on your hair?
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743694 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 18:14 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:37:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
<43a2eb49.12061904 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>>>>lifestyle?
>>>>
>>>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>>>>Northeast to the South.
>>>
>>>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
>>
>>ROTLFMAO.
>>
>>>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
>>>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
>>
>>And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
>>Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
>>irrelevant to that.
>
>There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
>vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
>and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
>South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
>killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
>
>So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
>your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
>reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
>subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
>support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
>about having to support their descendants.
>
I'm sorry, I was still willing to give you the benefit of a doubt. You
don't have any bit of rationality and I won't bother you any more.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743711 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 18:46 |
|
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 19:51:53 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:07:45 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 14 Dec 2005 16:13:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:18 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Dec 2005 18:46:48 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:03:24 GMT,
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:14:24 -0500, Jeff Davis <jd_home [at] alltel.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one in the northeast can possibly believe in evolution - evolution
>>>>>>>>> denotes progress in humans and they haven't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Evolution means change. Not progress. Since progress has a teleological
>>>>>>>>implication, Science would avoid that claim. If you want to add one,
>>>>>>>>feel free. Just realize that it's outside Science. Which, again, doesn't
>>>>>>>>mean that it isn't true.
>>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So are you saying you are no better than a neanderthal? I thought I
>>>>>>> had the franchise on describing you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it interesting that every description of evolution I have seen
>>>>>>> starts with some water creature immigrating to land and progressing
>>>>>>> from sub-human to the President of MENSA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And just where do you get your information on evolution? Be specific here.
>>>>>>Give us a couple of references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, bottom line, Adam and Eve were first and all we have done is
>>>>>>> morph. Evolution sounds exactly like ID to me and I appreciate your
>>>>>>> pointing this out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When did Adam and Eve live? What were Adam and Eve?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be dadgum if I'm going to be yoyr tutor for pre-kindergarten.
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be 36 years old. I have a friend who is 18 and he's only half
>>>>> nuts.
>>>>
>>>>Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Aaron Clausen
>>>>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
>>>>
>>> Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer.
>>>
>>> But if you really wanted to know Adam lived 4114 BC-3184 BC.
>>
>>And the fact that there were plenty of people around *before* this date
>>doesn't present something of a problem for you?
>
> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compareed to
> ours.
I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
something else entirely?
>
>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>anyways.
>
> I regard the Bible as evidence
I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
extremely low.
> and I have done the genealogy of the
> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
> genealogy.
So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
descendant of Odin?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743759 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 19:05 |
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:14:50 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:37:52 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
><43a2eb49.12061904 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>>>>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>>>>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>>>>>>lifestyle?
>>>>>
>>>>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>>>>>Northeast to the South.
>>>>
>>>>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
>>>
>>>ROTLFMAO.
>>>
>>>>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
>>>>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
>>>
>>>And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
>>>Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
>>>irrelevant to that.
>>
>>There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
>>vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
>>and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
>>South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
>>killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
>>
>>So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
>>your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
>>reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
>>subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
>>support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
>>about having to support their descendants.
>>
>I'm sorry, I was still willing to give you the benefit of a doubt. You
>don't have any bit of rationality and I won't bother you any more.
IT WORKED!
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #743762 ] |
Fr, 16 Dezember 2005 20:15 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2005 13:07:38 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
> <ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >I am sorry for misunderstanding your meaning....but given my
> >> >way....they only guns available to private citizens would be long
> >> >barrel and single shot.
> >>
> >> There is no way to control that. You might make gun owners hide them
> >> but you won't have your way.
> >
> >Perhaps not....but if the penalties for possessing banned weapons was
> >severe enough, most people would get rid of them of their own accord.
>
> Banned weapons is a different set of parameters from what you
> mentioned 3 paragraphs up. I can see no valid reason why the average
> citizen should have an automatic weapon.
I guess what I meant was that all firearms that were not long barrel
and single shot would be banned [no handguns, no semi-autos]. Since
tehse weapons do exist today, they would have to be banned and
collected to get rid of them [no grandfathering allowed for existing
ownership].
>
> When the government considered banning the AK-47 I bought one. It's
> never been fired and I don't expect to fire it. I bought it when it
> was legal so, if it is ever banned I will grandfather myself.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >I just want everyone to enjoy the same protections under the
> >> >law...that's all.
> >>
> >> Protection, yes, privileges/benefits, no. One should have to earn the
> >> benefits and privileges.
> >
> >That depends on what you are calling privileges/benefits....if they are
> >granted under legislation for one group, then they should be for all.
>
> Well, I bought into the "inalienable rights" post earlier - I had not
> considered the thought before.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #744009 ] |
Sa, 17 Dezember 2005 04:07 |
|
On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>> ours.
>
>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>something else entirely?
I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
discoveries are made.
>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>anyways.
>>
>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>
>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>extremely low.
Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>> genealogy.
>
>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>descendant of Odin?
QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
you are wrong and on the same thread.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #744220 ] |
Sa, 17 Dezember 2005 20:58 |
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>> ours.
>>
>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>something else entirely?
>
> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>
> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
> discoveries are made.
Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>
>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>anyways.
>>>
>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>
>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>extremely low.
>
> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>
>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>> genealogy.
>>
>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>descendant of Odin?
>
> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
evidence appear to be identical.
>
> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
> you are wrong and on the same thread.
Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
ludircrous.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #744358 ] |
So, 18 Dezember 2005 02:41 |
|
On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>> ours.
>>>
>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>something else entirely?
>>
>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>
>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>> discoveries are made.
>
>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>
>>
>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>anyways.
>>>>
>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>
>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>extremely low.
>>
>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>
>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>
>
>>
>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>> genealogy.
>>>
>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>descendant of Odin?
>>
>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>
>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>
>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>evidence appear to be identical.
>
>>
>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>
>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>ludircrous.
Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760745 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 18:52 |
|
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:41:02 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>>> ours.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>>something else entirely?
>>>
>>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>>
>>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>>> discoveries are made.
>>
>>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>
>>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>>
>>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>>extremely low.
>>>
>>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>>
>>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>>> genealogy.
>>>>
>>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>>descendant of Odin?
>>>
>>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>>
>>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>>
>>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>>evidence appear to be identical.
>>
>>>
>>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>>
>>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>>ludircrous.
>
> Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
> made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
If this sort of a response to my questions makes you feel better, then by
all means. It's not like I thought you had a rational answer for any of
them.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760779 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 19:43 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2005 18:50:48 -0800, fThemudo [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
> >> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
> >
> >You just made that up.
>
> I guess your grasp of the obvious is not as obvious as I thought.
Nice little word game here. You seem to be good at those. Are they
enough to convice you? Maybe you should try a more sofisticated one
just in case you start questioning all the bs you spout
>
> >i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
> >You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
> >lackey
>
> If I am you are a lackey's "boy".
>
> I've had almost 19 years of GREAT retirement because of that
> "servitude". But, based on the number of organizations I have chaired
> or presided over, I'd label it a life of service. The choice was aways
> mine, not someone else's - except the company required managers to be
> a JA Advisor for 1 year so I gave them 2.
Yes yes, of course you did. At $1.70 an hour right? Oh right! you
became a president some years afterwards ... I wonder what you're going
to come up with next. In any case, it doesn't really matter if you were
slave or foreman (which is even worse). The problem is within your mind
Chico
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760801 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 20:33 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 10:43:51 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2005 18:50:48 -0800, fThemudo [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
>> >> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
>> >
>> >You just made that up.
>>
>> I guess your grasp of the obvious is not as obvious as I thought.
>
>Nice little word game here. You seem to be good at those. Are they
>enough to convice you? Maybe you should try a more sofisticated one
>just in case you start questioning all the bs you spout
>>
>> >i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
>> >You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
>> >lackey
>>
>> If I am you are a lackey's "boy".
>>
>> I've had almost 19 years of GREAT retirement because of that
>> "servitude". But, based on the number of organizations I have chaired
>> or presided over, I'd label it a life of service. The choice was aways
>> mine, not someone else's - except the company required managers to be
>> a JA Advisor for 1 year so I gave them 2.
>
>Yes yes, of course you did. At $1.70 an hour right?
Nope.
>Oh right! you
>became a president some years afterwards ...
Nope.
>I wonder what you're going to come up with next.
Just the facts, maam.
>In any case, it doesn't really matter if you were
>slave or foreman (which is even worse). The problem is within your mind
You should be so lucky.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760802 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 20:34 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 17:52:45 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:41:02 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>>>something else entirely?
>>>>
>>>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>>>
>>>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>>>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>>>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>>>> discoveries are made.
>>>
>>>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>>>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>>>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>>>extremely low.
>>>>
>>>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>>>
>>>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>>>> genealogy.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>>>descendant of Odin?
>>>>
>>>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>>>
>>>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>>>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>>>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>>>
>>>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>>>evidence appear to be identical.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>>>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>>>
>>>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>>>ludircrous.
>>
>> Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
>> made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
>
>If this sort of a response to my questions makes you feel better, then by
>all means. It's not like I thought you had a rational answer for any of
>them.
Frankly, it's not like you even thought.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760813 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 20:43 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 10:43:51 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> On 14 Dec 2005 18:50:48 -0800, fThemudo [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
> >> >> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
> >> >
> >> >You just made that up.
> >>
> >> I guess your grasp of the obvious is not as obvious as I thought.
> >
> >Nice little word game here. You seem to be good at those. Are they
> >enough to convice you? Maybe you should try a more sofisticated one
> >just in case you start questioning all the bs you spout
> >>
> >> >i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
> >> >You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
> >> >lackey
> >>
> >> If I am you are a lackey's "boy".
> >>
> >> I've had almost 19 years of GREAT retirement because of that
> >> "servitude". But, based on the number of organizations I have chaired
> >> or presided over, I'd label it a life of service. The choice was aways
> >> mine, not someone else's - except the company required managers to be
> >> a JA Advisor for 1 year so I gave them 2.
> >
> >Yes yes, of course you did. At $1.70 an hour right?
>
> Nope.
>
> >Oh right! you
> >became a president some years afterwards ...
>
> Nope.
>
> >I wonder what you're going to come up with next.
>
> Just the facts, maam.
reeeeally!!
let me quote you:
"I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
country. You people just can't handle life."
You really do have a memory problem
>
> >In any case, it doesn't really matter if you were
> >slave or foreman (which is even worse). The problem is within your mind
>
> You should be so lucky.
riiight
Chico
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760826 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 21:17 |
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:34:58 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 17:52:45 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:41:02 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>>>>something else entirely?
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>>>>
>>>>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>>>>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>>>>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>>>>> discoveries are made.
>>>>
>>>>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>>>>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>>>>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>>>>extremely low.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>>>>
>>>>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>>>>> genealogy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>>>>descendant of Odin?
>>>>>
>>>>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>>>>
>>>>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>>>>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>>>>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>>>>
>>>>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>>>>evidence appear to be identical.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>>>>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>>>>
>>>>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>>>>ludircrous.
>>>
>>> Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
>>> made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
>>
>>If this sort of a response to my questions makes you feel better, then by
>>all means. It's not like I thought you had a rational answer for any of
>>them.
>
> Frankly, it's not like you even thought.
Apparently I did, because you returned my queries with an ad hominen attack.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760858 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 22:38 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 11:43:59 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 10:43:51 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> On 14 Dec 2005 18:50:48 -0800, fThemudo [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> >> >> On 12 Dec 2005 11:20:16 -0800, "Themudo" <fThemudo [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> The contradictions were on purpose to show that most gains were
>> >> >> accompanied by losses. Sorry you missed it.
>> >> >
>> >> >You just made that up.
>> >>
>> >> I guess your grasp of the obvious is not as obvious as I thought.
>> >
>> >Nice little word game here. You seem to be good at those. Are they
>> >enough to convice you? Maybe you should try a more sofisticated one
>> >just in case you start questioning all the bs you spout
>> >>
>> >> >i'm glad those moral cookies they gave still make you wiggle your tail.
>> >> >You're a lackey trying to justify a life of servitude. You think like a
>> >> >lackey
>> >>
>> >> If I am you are a lackey's "boy".
>> >>
>> >> I've had almost 19 years of GREAT retirement because of that
>> >> "servitude". But, based on the number of organizations I have chaired
>> >> or presided over, I'd label it a life of service. The choice was aways
>> >> mine, not someone else's - except the company required managers to be
>> >> a JA Advisor for 1 year so I gave them 2.
>> >
>> >Yes yes, of course you did. At $1.70 an hour right?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >Oh right! you
>> >became a president some years afterwards ...
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >I wonder what you're going to come up with next.
>>
>> Just the facts, maam.
>
>reeeeally!!
>
>let me quote you:
>
>"I wasn't a slave, I wasn't exploited and I started at about $1.15 per
>hour and we lived pretty well. I went to work with a corporation 2
>years later for about $1.70 per hour. And I retired at age 59.
>Liberals and the union boosted the wage and drove the jobs out of the
>country. You people just can't handle life."
>
>You really do have a memory problem
You response made it appear that you believed I had done the 19 years
and JA at $1.70 per hour. When you attempted to be facetious you were
imbecilic.
Get help to keep up with the conversation. Better yet pick up your
dolls and go home.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760859 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 22:40 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 20:17:59 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:34:58 GMT,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 17:52:45 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:41:02 GMT,
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>>>>>something else entirely?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>>>>>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>>>>>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>>>>>> discoveries are made.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>>>>>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>>>>>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>>>>>extremely low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>>>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>>>>>> genealogy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>>>>>descendant of Odin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>>>>>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>>>>>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>>>>>evidence appear to be identical.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>>>>>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>>>>>ludircrous.
>>>>
>>>> Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
>>>> made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
>>>
>>>If this sort of a response to my questions makes you feel better, then by
>>>all means. It's not like I thought you had a rational answer for any of
>>>them.
>>
>> Frankly, it's not like you even thought.
>
>Apparently I did, because you returned my queries with an ad hominen attack.
Not until I realized you were non compos mentis.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760916 ] |
Mo, 19 Dezember 2005 23:37 |
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:40:53 GMT,
J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 20:17:59 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:34:58 GMT,
>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 19 Dec 2005 17:52:45 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:41:02 GMT,
>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 17 Dec 2005 19:58:35 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:07:18 GMT,
>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16 Dec 2005 17:46:24 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:17:19 GMT,
>>>>>>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927 [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly not until I know the length of a Biblical year compared to
>>>>>>>>> ours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm not even sure what this means. Are we speaking of creative days, or
>>>>>>>>something else entirely?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hadn't thought it needed explaining.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archeologists are digging up 500,000 year old people. Adam was born
>>>>>>> 6100+ years ago. So at the present time a Biblical year would have
>>>>>>> been 81 times the length of ours. The ratio will be increase as older
>>>>>>> discoveries are made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is there any reason at all that I should accept this claim of yours? I
>>>>>>mean, on what basis is this ratio? Were there more days in a Adamite year?
>>>>>>Were the days longer? Or did people just use a different calendar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Other than the fact, of course, that there's no evidence for your claim
>>>>>>>>>>anyways.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I regard the Bible as evidence
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I realize you do, which would indicate your standards of evidence are
>>>>>>>>extremely low.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything else will probably send you to Hell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll take my chances, because the alternative denies reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and I have done the genealogy of the
>>>>>>>>> Bible, Irish genealogy from the son of Noah, and my own and my wife's
>>>>>>>>> genealogy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So, by this standard, I am to believe that Queen Elizabeth II is the
>>>>>>>>descendant of Odin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> QEII is a ship or a Brit. I haven't done the "genealogy" of either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I recall, the Venerable Bede traced the lineage of Alfred the Great back
>>>>>>to Odin. As Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of Alfred the Great, that
>>>>>>would make her a descendant of Odin as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why shouldn't I take the Venerable Bede's word for it? The standards of
>>>>>>evidence appear to be identical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further you have a right to believe as you wish - I only tell you when
>>>>>>> you are wrong and on the same thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well you've said I am wrong, but your justifications seem to be, well,
>>>>>>ludircrous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Life has to be an almost intolerable struggle for you - I'm glad I
>>>>> made you laugh. You are just a laughing stock.
>>>>
>>>>If this sort of a response to my questions makes you feel better, then by
>>>>all means. It's not like I thought you had a rational answer for any of
>>>>them.
>>>
>>> Frankly, it's not like you even thought.
>>
>>Apparently I did, because you returned my queries with an ad hominen attack.
>
> Not until I realized you were non compos mentis.
I think the real explanation here is that you can't answer the questions, or
you know damn well that the answers have nothing to do with science. That's
alright, but it would be better to admit it than to pretend that being an
asshole somehow makes you look like the winner at the end of the day. I for
one know perfectly well that your attempt to make your religious beliefs
into some sort of actual history can only end in one way.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760951 ] |
Di, 20 Dezember 2005 00:39 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 22:37:37 GMT, AC <mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think the real explanation here is that you can't answer the questions, or
>you know damn well that the answers have nothing to do with science. That's
>alright, but it would be better to admit it than to pretend that being an
>asshole somehow makes you look like the winner at the end of the day. I for
>one know perfectly well that your attempt to make your religious beliefs
>into some sort of actual history can only end in one way.
>
>--
>Aaron Clausen
>mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
It must be nice to be omniscient. But it's plain stupid to think you
are.
We won't know who the winner is until we die. I won't need good luck
but you might.
Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #760982 ] |
Di, 20 Dezember 2005 01:07 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> ><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
> >>>>lifestyle?
> >>>
> >>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
> >>>Northeast to the South.
> >>
> >>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
> >
> >ROTLFMAO.
> >
> >>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
> >>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
> >
> >And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
> >Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
> >irrelevant to that.
>
> There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
> vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
> and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
> South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
> killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
No....Secession from the Union was intolerable to the North. Slavery
was also intolerable to the North. The Northern economy, with its
industrial base, had the upper hand from the beginning. The South, with
its agrarian based economy....was doomed from the beginning.
He who can build guns and cannons fastest wins.
If you Southerners want to delude yourselves into believing that
jealousy was the motive....go right ahead.
It is interesting that you can use "war reparations" as an excuse for
receiving welfare and other social assistance programs while
simultaneously decrying the system that supports said programs.
>
> So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
> your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
> reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
> subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
> support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
> about having to support their descendants.
If the descendants of white slavers did not actively work to keep the
descendants of black slaves in economic poverty for more than 100 years
since they had been freed....perhaps the North would not have to keep
the South on welfare. Perhaps the North should place a surtax on the
heads of the descendants of the white slavers and give those dollars
directly to the descendants of the enslaved!
You are so full of shit with your self-righteous poor-me Southern
hypocracy.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #761016 ] |
Di, 20 Dezember 2005 01:43 |
|
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> ><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
> >>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
> >>>>lifestyle?
> >>>
> >>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
> >>>Northeast to the South.
> >>
> >>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
> >
> >ROTLFMAO.
> >
> >>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
> >>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
> >
> >And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
> >Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
> >irrelevant to that.
>
> There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
> vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
> and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
> South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
> killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
Almost twice as many killed? That's a bit of a stretch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_American_Civi l_War
>
> So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
> your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
> reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
> subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
> support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
> about having to support their descendants.
>
> Hugh
|
|
|
| Re: Lies, damned lies... [message #761093 ] |
Di, 20 Dezember 2005 04:58 |
|
On 19 Dec 2005 16:07:17 -0800, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton [at] shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:40:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:50:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> ><43a2d2b9.5774042 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:25:36 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> >><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:31:10 GMT, in talk.origins ,
>> >>>sull1927 [at] adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) in
>> >>><4399e93f.24710151 [at] news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>[snip]
>> >>
>> >>>>I can't speak for others but what makes you think you can support my
>> >>>>lifestyle?
>> >>>
>> >>>I am talking about the long term massive tax subsidy sent from the
>> >>>Northeast to the South.
>> >>
>> >>It's war reparations and the cost of civil rights.
>> >
>> >ROTLFMAO.
>> >
>> >>And I believe the extremely high tax rates in the northeast are
>> >>deductible from federal tax, are they not? That's quite a subsidy.
>> >
>> >And is rather irrelevant. Learn the notion of net vs. gross. The
>> >Northeast sends tax money to the South. Deductibility is rather
>> >irrelevant to that.
>>
>> There is a reason for that. Before the War of Northern Aggression the
>> vast majority of the 100 richest men in the country were Southerners
>> and that was intolerable to the north. As a result of the rape of the
>> South the north achieved the upper hand. That's in spite of our
>> killing almost twice as many of you as you did of us.
>
>No....Secession from the Union was intolerable to the North. Slavery
>was also intolerable to the North. The Northern economy, with its
>industrial base, had the upper hand from the beginning. The South, with
>its agrarian based economy....was doomed from the beginning.
>
>He who can build guns and cannons fastest wins.
>
>If you Southerners want to delude yourselves into believing that
>jealousy was the motive....go right ahead.
>
>It is interesting that you can use "war reparations" as an excuse for
>receiving welfare and other social assistance programs while
>simultaneously decrying the system that supports said programs.
>
>>
>> So, through your generosity you are doing your best to make amends for
>> your misdeeds. If not for deductability you could be making
>> reparations much faster. Even better you could move those needing the
>> subsidy (you freed their ancestors) to the north and we would have to
>> support you. It was right to free them but it's not right to crow
>> about having to support their descendants.
>
>If the descendants of white slavers did not actively work to keep the
>descendants of black slaves in economic poverty for more than 100 years
>since they had been freed....perhaps the North would not have to keep
>the South on welfare. Perhaps the North should place a surtax on the
>heads of the descendants of the white slavers and give those dollars
>directly to the descendants of the enslaved!
>
>You are so full of shit with your self-righteous poor-me Southern
>hypocracy.
>
>>
>> Hugh
>
Ill give you one piece of advice and then I'm gone.When you go to the
bathroom write your weight on the wall, In case you fall in someone
might want to know how much to dip out.
Hugh
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Sep 3 10:55:09 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06363 Sekunden |
