Re: Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

[Guest guest]

I can only think of two reasons why they would stick the word " religion " on

a White House office:

(1) To try to render the First Amendment void;

(2) To provide comedians and satirists with a juicy target.

--wally

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

[Guest guest]

I can only think of two reasons why they would stick the word " religion " on

a White House office:

(1) To try to render the First Amendment void;

(2) To provide comedians and satirists with a juicy target.

--wally

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

[Guest guest]

I can only think of two reasons why they would stick the word " religion " on

a White House office:

(1) To try to render the First Amendment void;

(2) To provide comedians and satirists with a juicy target.

--wally

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

[Guest guest]

NPR All Things Considered, TODAY

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

NPR All Things Considered, TODAY

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

NPR All Things Considered, TODAY

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ROFL

Marcoot You're not all bad after all! ;-)

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

ROFL

Marcoot You're not all bad after all! ;-)

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

>

>

> here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> infrastructure we already had?

>

> smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You ask, " how in literally Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of

RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats' rather than secular ones? "

I ask, what fucking difference does it make? I don't give a rat's ass who

gets the money that is stolen from me. I thinking it's only fitting that

the church and the state share the spoils, since it's the faith of the

assholes like you in both of those elements of tyranny that cause it's

persistence.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Quite.

>

> For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

> Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

> rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

> particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

> folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

>

> P.

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You ask, " how in literally Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of

RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats' rather than secular ones? "

I ask, what fucking difference does it make? I don't give a rat's ass who

gets the money that is stolen from me. I thinking it's only fitting that

the church and the state share the spoils, since it's the faith of the

assholes like you in both of those elements of tyranny that cause it's

persistence.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Quite.

>

> For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

> Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

> rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

> particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

> folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

>

> P.

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You ask, " how in literally Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of

RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats' rather than secular ones? "

I ask, what fucking difference does it make? I don't give a rat's ass who

gets the money that is stolen from me. I thinking it's only fitting that

the church and the state share the spoils, since it's the faith of the

assholes like you in both of those elements of tyranny that cause it's

persistence.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Quite.

>

> For those who dont like Government 'bureaucrats', how in literally

> Holy Hell is better to line the pockets of RELIGIOUS 'bureaucrats'

> rather than secular ones? Surely arbitrary favoritism of a

> particular interest is precisely the kind of thing that Small govt

> folks would want to avoid. Unless their both Xtian I guess!

>

> P.

>

>

> > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> >

> >

> > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it called

> > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > infrastructure we already had?

> >

> > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You have a disgustingly high amount of faith in government you ass.

Don't try to lie or squirm or act like I was only talking about faith in

God.

It doesn't matter to me, what happens to my stolen goods. Either way,

what is duly mine is not used as I would use it. I find it humorous that

anyone would think I should have a right to say how the money stolen from

gets spent - that is how backwards these thieves are. Whether a child

raping Catholic priest gets the money or a child raping United Way VP gets

the money or a child raping school teacher gets the money makes no

difference to me. Its my money, taken from me by the use of force and given

to someone else who is undeserving, who just knows the right person. It

just seems that at this time the right person to know is GW and a bunch of

religious scumbags know him instead of a bunch of self proclaimed " liberals "

aka communist scumbags knowing Clinton.

Church and State are a tag team that have controlled human beings since

their earliest inceptions. Each requires faith to function and to continue,

and as long as people give them that faith and believe that either one or

both will work for them, they will continue to control the people and steal

from the people. I don't want to be controlled by the motherfuckers who run

either the Church or the State, and you aren't helping me one bit you

goddamn sonnovabitch.

The flaw in your brain is thinking that government can work. You

dumbfuck, government is the same as religion, run by power-hungry thieves.

It controls men, it steals their money (even though some don't admit

it's theft). Which am I defining? BOTH!

And yes you do hit a fucking nerve when you talk about what is being

stolen from me, to give to the likes of you. And you hit a nerve every time

you mention stealing from me for whatever cause you think is right. To you

total taxation is communism, to me undue taxation is communism and we have

had undue taxation for over 30 years. You are a communist, talking about

how best to spend my money, your loot.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

> comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

> thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

> is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

> agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

> bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

>

>

> > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> called

> > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > >

> > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You have a disgustingly high amount of faith in government you ass.

Don't try to lie or squirm or act like I was only talking about faith in

God.

It doesn't matter to me, what happens to my stolen goods. Either way,

what is duly mine is not used as I would use it. I find it humorous that

anyone would think I should have a right to say how the money stolen from

gets spent - that is how backwards these thieves are. Whether a child

raping Catholic priest gets the money or a child raping United Way VP gets

the money or a child raping school teacher gets the money makes no

difference to me. Its my money, taken from me by the use of force and given

to someone else who is undeserving, who just knows the right person. It

just seems that at this time the right person to know is GW and a bunch of

religious scumbags know him instead of a bunch of self proclaimed " liberals "

aka communist scumbags knowing Clinton.

Church and State are a tag team that have controlled human beings since

their earliest inceptions. Each requires faith to function and to continue,

and as long as people give them that faith and believe that either one or

both will work for them, they will continue to control the people and steal

from the people. I don't want to be controlled by the motherfuckers who run

either the Church or the State, and you aren't helping me one bit you

goddamn sonnovabitch.

The flaw in your brain is thinking that government can work. You

dumbfuck, government is the same as religion, run by power-hungry thieves.

It controls men, it steals their money (even though some don't admit

it's theft). Which am I defining? BOTH!

And yes you do hit a fucking nerve when you talk about what is being

stolen from me, to give to the likes of you. And you hit a nerve every time

you mention stealing from me for whatever cause you think is right. To you

total taxation is communism, to me undue taxation is communism and we have

had undue taxation for over 30 years. You are a communist, talking about

how best to spend my money, your loot.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

> comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

> thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

> is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

> agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

> bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

>

>

> > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> called

> > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > >

> > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You have a disgustingly high amount of faith in government you ass.

Don't try to lie or squirm or act like I was only talking about faith in

God.

It doesn't matter to me, what happens to my stolen goods. Either way,

what is duly mine is not used as I would use it. I find it humorous that

anyone would think I should have a right to say how the money stolen from

gets spent - that is how backwards these thieves are. Whether a child

raping Catholic priest gets the money or a child raping United Way VP gets

the money or a child raping school teacher gets the money makes no

difference to me. Its my money, taken from me by the use of force and given

to someone else who is undeserving, who just knows the right person. It

just seems that at this time the right person to know is GW and a bunch of

religious scumbags know him instead of a bunch of self proclaimed " liberals "

aka communist scumbags knowing Clinton.

Church and State are a tag team that have controlled human beings since

their earliest inceptions. Each requires faith to function and to continue,

and as long as people give them that faith and believe that either one or

both will work for them, they will continue to control the people and steal

from the people. I don't want to be controlled by the motherfuckers who run

either the Church or the State, and you aren't helping me one bit you

goddamn sonnovabitch.

The flaw in your brain is thinking that government can work. You

dumbfuck, government is the same as religion, run by power-hungry thieves.

It controls men, it steals their money (even though some don't admit

it's theft). Which am I defining? BOTH!

And yes you do hit a fucking nerve when you talk about what is being

stolen from me, to give to the likes of you. And you hit a nerve every time

you mention stealing from me for whatever cause you think is right. To you

total taxation is communism, to me undue taxation is communism and we have

had undue taxation for over 30 years. You are a communist, talking about

how best to spend my money, your loot.

Re: Bush Unveiling Religious-Based Plan

> Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

> comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

> thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

> is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

> agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

> bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

>

>

> > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> called

> > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > >

> > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Who determines the good things Pete? WHy should I think any man GW or BC

(that's Bill Clinton in case you are too dense) appoints or hires would be

any better than any man who works in a church? Because you might have a

better chance of landing a government job than a church job because of your

ability to talk so well with communist rhetoric? I I sure don't want you

deciding what to do with my 41%. What is the difference between good things

and superstition? You mean good things like jail for druggies and drunk

drivers. Oh yeah those good things like... can't think of any... can you?

See there's the rub.

> Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

> comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

> thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

> is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

> agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

> bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

>

>

> > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> called

> > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > >

> > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Who determines the good things Pete? WHy should I think any man GW or BC

(that's Bill Clinton in case you are too dense) appoints or hires would be

any better than any man who works in a church? Because you might have a

better chance of landing a government job than a church job because of your

ability to talk so well with communist rhetoric? I I sure don't want you

deciding what to do with my 41%. What is the difference between good things

and superstition? You mean good things like jail for druggies and drunk

drivers. Oh yeah those good things like... can't think of any... can you?

See there's the rub.

> Rather uncool Mr coolguy, I would say, and a pretty desperate final

> comment. It matters a great deal whether money is spent ion good

> thiongs or superstition. " only fitting " indeed. The only thing fitting

> is the Compassionate Conservatives' tools up America' ass. I'm an

> agnostic pal. Aint my faith thats shafting you. It's your political

> bedmates. Hope the earth moves for you.

>

>

> > > > " White House office of religion-based community initiatives "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > here's the kicker, if it wasnt about religion, why isnt it

> called

> > > > White House office of community initiative " ? why do we need to

> > > > divert money to these groups and away from the secular

> > > > infrastructure we already had?

> > > >

> > > > smaller government -bigger , richer, more powerful religion, was

> > > > that the deal the minority of americans voted for?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< properly

> appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human beings all

having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not so-called

intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized equally

in humaness.

The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to take

your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:13:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< well you are the one who brings her up every other post. Get on topic bro.

I said in a post a few days ago that whenever you came out with straight up

bullshit that I would counter it even if no one else would. If you feel the

need to preach communist drivel all the time, then I will say the truth.

When did I ever say that there are only communist and libertarian? I

didn't. I'm not a libertarian, I am not a republican, and I am certainly

not a communist. You're a socialist or a communist or whatever you want to

call your self (feel free to lie about it, I am sure you do). You've talked

before about how awful the free market is, and you try to hide behind the

word liberal. True liberals believe in the rights, that is protecting the

liberty, of all citizens, not just the poor at the expense of the rich,

which is the communist belief, which is what you believe and espouse. You

say it is OK to violate the rights of the rich, so that the poor's rights

are upheld. Its impossible, but communists demand it anyway.

About tax and function of government. Who's to say? We've seen what

doesn't work. We KNOW what is WRONG. It is wrong to steal from others.

The US got along very well until 1907 without any federal income tax. since

then it has gone from about 10% total taxation to over 47% total taxation.

In the first 100+ years of our country the level of taxation rose about 2%.

In the last 100 years it has escalated over 300%. You don't see any need

for concern? When you compare the taxation levels of European countries

60%, 70%, as much as 85% taxation, you can see where we are headed. 100% is

complete communism, and even China is not completely communist.

I am not really for reducing taxes. I don't think it will do much good.

They might lower the Federal income tax, but all the states will probably

raise, and sin taxes cigarettes, alcohol, fancy car taxes will continue to

rise. The most important thing to do is battle ignorance. The ignorance

and hope that makes us believe in these stupid assholes we vote for. >>

DRIVEL IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:13:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< well you are the one who brings her up every other post. Get on topic bro.

I said in a post a few days ago that whenever you came out with straight up

bullshit that I would counter it even if no one else would. If you feel the

need to preach communist drivel all the time, then I will say the truth.

When did I ever say that there are only communist and libertarian? I

didn't. I'm not a libertarian, I am not a republican, and I am certainly

not a communist. You're a socialist or a communist or whatever you want to

call your self (feel free to lie about it, I am sure you do). You've talked

before about how awful the free market is, and you try to hide behind the

word liberal. True liberals believe in the rights, that is protecting the

liberty, of all citizens, not just the poor at the expense of the rich,

which is the communist belief, which is what you believe and espouse. You

say it is OK to violate the rights of the rich, so that the poor's rights

are upheld. Its impossible, but communists demand it anyway.

About tax and function of government. Who's to say? We've seen what

doesn't work. We KNOW what is WRONG. It is wrong to steal from others.

The US got along very well until 1907 without any federal income tax. since

then it has gone from about 10% total taxation to over 47% total taxation.

In the first 100+ years of our country the level of taxation rose about 2%.

In the last 100 years it has escalated over 300%. You don't see any need

for concern? When you compare the taxation levels of European countries

60%, 70%, as much as 85% taxation, you can see where we are headed. 100% is

complete communism, and even China is not completely communist.

I am not really for reducing taxes. I don't think it will do much good.

They might lower the Federal income tax, but all the states will probably

raise, and sin taxes cigarettes, alcohol, fancy car taxes will continue to

rise. The most important thing to do is battle ignorance. The ignorance

and hope that makes us believe in these stupid assholes we vote for. >>

DRIVEL IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:13:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< well you are the one who brings her up every other post. Get on topic bro.

I said in a post a few days ago that whenever you came out with straight up

bullshit that I would counter it even if no one else would. If you feel the

need to preach communist drivel all the time, then I will say the truth.

When did I ever say that there are only communist and libertarian? I

didn't. I'm not a libertarian, I am not a republican, and I am certainly

not a communist. You're a socialist or a communist or whatever you want to

call your self (feel free to lie about it, I am sure you do). You've talked

before about how awful the free market is, and you try to hide behind the

word liberal. True liberals believe in the rights, that is protecting the

liberty, of all citizens, not just the poor at the expense of the rich,

which is the communist belief, which is what you believe and espouse. You

say it is OK to violate the rights of the rich, so that the poor's rights

are upheld. Its impossible, but communists demand it anyway.

About tax and function of government. Who's to say? We've seen what

doesn't work. We KNOW what is WRONG. It is wrong to steal from others.

The US got along very well until 1907 without any federal income tax. since

then it has gone from about 10% total taxation to over 47% total taxation.

In the first 100+ years of our country the level of taxation rose about 2%.

In the last 100 years it has escalated over 300%. You don't see any need

for concern? When you compare the taxation levels of European countries

60%, 70%, as much as 85% taxation, you can see where we are headed. 100% is

complete communism, and even China is not completely communist.

I am not really for reducing taxes. I don't think it will do much good.

They might lower the Federal income tax, but all the states will probably

raise, and sin taxes cigarettes, alcohol, fancy car taxes will continue to

rise. The most important thing to do is battle ignorance. The ignorance

and hope that makes us believe in these stupid assholes we vote for. >>

DRIVEL IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:22:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< Who determines the good things Pete? WHy should I think any man GW or

BC

(that's Bill Clinton in case you are too dense) appoints or hires would be

any better than any man who works in a church? Because you might have a

better chance of landing a government job than a church job because of your

ability to talk so well with communist rhetoric? I I sure don't want you

deciding what to do with my 41%. What is the difference between good things

and superstition? You mean good things like jail for druggies and drunk

drivers. Oh yeah those good things like... can't think of any... can you?

See there's the rub. >>

drivel ---- IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:22:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< Who determines the good things Pete? WHy should I think any man GW or

BC

(that's Bill Clinton in case you are too dense) appoints or hires would be

any better than any man who works in a church? Because you might have a

better chance of landing a government job than a church job because of your

ability to talk so well with communist rhetoric? I I sure don't want you

deciding what to do with my 41%. What is the difference between good things

and superstition? You mean good things like jail for druggies and drunk

drivers. Oh yeah those good things like... can't think of any... can you?

See there's the rub. >>

drivel ---- IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/2/01 8:22:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,

francisca@... writes:

<< Who determines the good things Pete? WHy should I think any man GW or

BC

(that's Bill Clinton in case you are too dense) appoints or hires would be

any better than any man who works in a church? Because you might have a

better chance of landing a government job than a church job because of your

ability to talk so well with communist rhetoric? I I sure don't want you

deciding what to do with my 41%. What is the difference between good things

and superstition? You mean good things like jail for druggies and drunk

drivers. Oh yeah those good things like... can't think of any... can you?

See there's the rub. >>

drivel ---- IGNORE

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/01 5:35:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< You correclty addressed your reply to Stuart, but the quote appeared

to come from me. It didnt.

P.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... did not write:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not

so-called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized

equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to

take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

>>

So noted P. Thanks. Piper.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/01 5:35:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< You correclty addressed your reply to Stuart, but the quote appeared

to come from me. It didnt.

P.

> In a message dated 2/2/01 12:24:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> watts_pete@h... did not write:

>

> << properly

> > appreciative of the charity provided by their betters. >>

>

> Stuart. Call me silly. I have this fundamental sense of human

beings all

> having the same worth or value. Not talent, not skills, not

so-called

> intelligence (which CANNOT be measure in univariately) ---but prized

equally

> in humaness.

>

> The poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy would tell you to

take

> your betterness and your charity and shove it. thank you. Piper.

>>

So noted P. Thanks. Piper.