If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Good Guy wrote in news:njnlmb$7en$1
@news.mixmin.net: On 14/06/2016 02:07, Dave Doe wrote: There is no god, never has been, never will be. You can't be serious man. Allah has been around for many centuries and so has Jesus Christ. are you saying they were a bunch of crooks and spivs defrauding the illiterate people? That's a very serious charge to make against Allah. People are prepared to blow themselves up to protect the name and reputation of Allah. Are they all mentally sick nutters? In my opinion, yes they are. I don't believe that God|Allah|Budda|whatever you want to call Him or Her wants His or Her faithful followers to go blow themselves up. It is the mental illness or idiotic impulse or stupidity that leads these people to suicide in the name of their favorite Supreme Being. After all, if He or She wanted to reclaim the specific follower, He or She could just reach out and take them. So, yes, I believe they are all nutters. I don't care if you believe, or even what you believe. If you do believe, good for you. If you don't, that's fine too. What I believe is that I will keep my religious beliefs to myself. If others want to publically share their beliefs, I wish they would do so from a soapbox, not an ammo box. -- The Lizard --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Wolf K wrote:
On 2016-06-13 15:44, Jim H wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:50 +0100, in , Ed Cryer wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 6/12/16 6:19 PM, Good Guy wrote: This time it is only 50 dead and 53 critically injured!! There you have your peace loving religion. Is there any religion that can match this? Christians in the past, I'm afraid. :-( Quite so. When you read the histories of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition, you come to the conclusion quite quickly that arseholes can climb the power ladder under almost any social system. When it comes to the Crusades, how did the Muslims the Crusades drove back to whence they came get as far west as Spain in the first place? Answer - It was by sword in hand. The Crusades were about money. Cobblers! Ed |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Wolf K wrote:
On 2016-06-13 14:06, Ed Cryer wrote: Good Guy wrote: This time it is only 50 dead and 53 critically injured!! There you have your peace loving religion. Is there any religion that can match this? -- -- 1. /*This post contains rich text (HTML). if you don't like it then you can kill-filter the poster without crying like a small baby.*/ 2. /*This message is best read in Mozilla Thunderbird as it uses 21st century technology.*/ i7 Machine http://s33.postimg.org/er0wkujun/Capture.png The worst religion, of course, which has massacred the largest numbers is that of atheism. The French Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cambodian Khmer Rouge. Ed Atheism isn't a religion, any more than theism is a religion. Fascism, Marxism-Leninism, etc, are non-theist religions. In order to save the sensitivities of religious people, we use the word "ideology" for them, as if there were a fundamental difference between theist and non-theist ideologies. There isn't. It's ideology that's the problem. The True Revertible can't tolerate a world that fails to conform to the ideology they believe. Sooner or later, an ideologue will try to resort to force, and bloody force if necessary. As Norman said: It's all about power. Have a good day, You got the point; and reported it in Nietzschean language. Theism/atheism. People band together, support each other, draw up a table of rights and wrongs/ good and bad, and then go out and wipe out the opposition. How do you stop it? We lived through the 20th century; through all the great social experiments. And did it lead anywhere? Any deeper understanding? Well, it sure produced a lot of attempts to stop it. But here we are, on the brink of WWIII. God help us. Ed |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Roger Blake wrote on 6/14/2016 2:34 PM:
On 2016-06-14, Alek wrote: And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. People receiving government entitlements should not be permitted to vote due to conflict of interest. How about bailouts, tax breaks, etc.? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:35:03 -0400, Alek wrote:
Surely you're not thinking of me. Your thinking and your ad hominem attacks are skewed. My post was in response to Tim Slattery. Following a thread is not that difficult, if you need advice on how to do so, just ask. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote:
Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so. Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Alek wrote on 6/13/2016 5:57 PM:
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/13/2016 1:09 PM: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. I did not mention a time frame. I forget when it began but sometime after Lincoln, Republicans worked to disenfranchise minorities. From Salon Magazine, "The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened? "Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.” From the Constitutional Rights Foundation: White majorities began to vote out the Republicans and replace them with Democratic governors, legislators, and local officials. Laws were soon passed banning interracial marriages and racially segregating railroad cars along with the public schools. Laws and practices were also put in place to make sure blacks would never again freely participate in elections. But one problem stood in the way of denying African Americans the right to vote: the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed them this right. To a great extent, Mississippi led the way in overcoming the barrier presented by the 15th Amendment. In 1890, Mississippi held a convention to write a new state constitution to replace the one in force since Reconstruction. The white leaders of the convention were clear about their intentions. "We came here to exclude the Negro," declared the convention president. Because of the 15th Amendment, they could not ban blacks from voting. Instead, they wrote into the state constitution a number of voter restrictions making it difficult for most blacks to register to vote. First, the new constitution required an annual poll tax, which voters had to pay for two years before the election. This was a difficult economic burden to place on black Mississippians, who made up the poorest part of the state's population. Many simply couldn't pay it. But the most formidable voting barrier put into the state constitution was the literacy test. It required a person seeking to register to vote to read a section of the state constitution and explain it to the county clerk who processed voter registrations. This clerk, who was always white, decided whether a citizen was literate or not. The literacy test did not just exclude the 60 percent of voting-age black men (most of them ex-slaves) who could not read. It excluded almost all black men, because the clerk would select complicated technical passages for them to interpret. By contrast, the clerk would pass whites by picking simple sentences in the state constitution for them to explain. Mississippi also enacted a "grandfather clause" that permitted registering anyone whose grandfather was qualified to vote before the Civil War. Obviously, this benefited only white citizens. The "grandfather clause" as well as the other legal barriers to black voter registration worked. Mississippi cut the percentage of black voting-age men registered to vote from over 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. These measures were copied by most of the other states in the South. And finally, http://abhmuseum.org/2012/09/voting-rights-for-blacks-and-poor-whites-in-the-jim-crow-south/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:37 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:35:03 -0400, Alek wrote: Surely you're not thinking of me. Your thinking and your ad hominem attacks are skewed. My post was in response to Tim Slattery. Following a thread is not that difficult, if you need advice on how to do so, just ask. Good. You weren't thinking of me. Thanks and thanks for the offer. Do you know how to combat octagenarian brain fade? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote: Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so. Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational. I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo ID? That's absurd!! |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:47:48 -0400, Alek wrote:
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:37 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:35:03 -0400, Alek wrote: Surely you're not thinking of me. Your thinking and your ad hominem attacks are skewed. My post was in response to Tim Slattery. Following a thread is not that difficult, if you need advice on how to do so, just ask. Good. You weren't thinking of me. Thanks and thanks for the offer. Do you know how to combat octagenarian brain fade? As a nonagenarian, I progressed through my octogenarian phase without any noticeable fade (according to my family), so I can't help you. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:53:29 -0400, Alek wrote:
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote: Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so. Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational. I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo ID? That's absurd!! Considering one needs a photo ID to apply for food stamps, I am saying the assertion that requiring a photo ID for voting disenfranchises the less fortunate is, at best, a red herring at worst it is an absurd lie which is not substantiated by empirical evidence. IMHO, those who object to proof of voter eligibility requirements have a sinister agenda. Likely it is born from the desire to allow all people to vote, citizen and non-citizen alike, but that is also my personal opinion. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 5:49 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:47:48 -0400, Alek wrote: Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:37 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:35:03 -0400, Alek wrote: Surely you're not thinking of me. Your thinking and your ad hominem attacks are skewed. My post was in response to Tim Slattery. Following a thread is not that difficult, if you need advice on how to do so, just ask. Good. You weren't thinking of me. Thanks and thanks for the offer. Do you know how to combat octagenarian brain fade? As a nonagenarian, I progressed through my octogenarian phase without any noticeable fade (according to my family), so I can't help you. Good for you! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:03 PM:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:53:29 -0400, Alek wrote: Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote: Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so. Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational. I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo ID? That's absurd!! Considering one needs a photo ID to apply for food stamps, Aha! NOT!!! “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact." IMHO, those who object to proof of voter eligibility requirements have a sinister agenda. Likely it is born from the desire to allow all people to vote, citizen and non-citizen alike, but that is also my personal opinion. It is born from the desire that people who had been deemed eligible to vote in the past should not now be denied that right because they do not have a photo ID. Cui bono. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 18:24:04 -0400, Alek wrote:
Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 6:03 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:53:29 -0400, Alek wrote: Stormin' Norman wrote on 6/14/2016 3:43 PM: On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:31:37 -0400, Alek wrote: Tim Slattery wrote on 6/14/2016 10:28 AM: Stormin' Norman wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:12:07 -0400, Alek wrote: And the Republican party's history of attempting to prevent minority voters from voting? The above statement is blatantly absurd. It was the party of Lincoln, the Republicans, who championed the cause and freed the slaves. It was the party of Ulysses S. Grant, again the Republican party, which introduced and ratified the 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which granted suffrage (the right to vote in public, political elections) to African Americans. And the modern Republican party is about as far from those ideals as it's possible to be. They specialize in gerrymandering districts to minimize the influence of minority voters. They look for new and innovative ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. And this has been going on for some time. They may have championed voting rights in the past but now they are focused on "voter fraud", a very rare occurrence, to prevent poor people from voting. Your assertion is absurd and unsubstantiated. "Voting rights", by definition, ensure those who are entitled to vote are able to do so, they also ensure that those who are not entitled to vote cannot do so. Your parroted talking points are illogical and irrational. I think that you need a nap. Are you saying that people who have voted in the past are no longer entitled to because they do not have a photo ID? That's absurd!! Considering one needs a photo ID to apply for food stamps, Aha! NOT!!! The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a collateral contact who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact." IMHO, those who object to proof of voter eligibility requirements have a sinister agenda. Likely it is born from the desire to allow all people to vote, citizen and non-citizen alike, but that is also my personal opinion. It is born from the desire that people who had been deemed eligible to vote in the past should not now be denied that right because they do not have a photo ID. Cui bono. For sake of argument, exactly what form(s) of ID would you consider acceptable to establish voter eligibility? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Peace Loving Religion has done it again .........................
On 2016-06-14, Alek wrote:
How about bailouts, tax breaks, etc.? Only a liberal would consider a tax break to be an entitlement. HINT: It's not your money! (As far as bailouts, there should not be any.) Those receiving handouts will simply vote for the politicians who promises to steal the most from their neighbors. It's a a conflict of interest. Really there should be no federal social programs. What keeps them going are the hordes of moochers in the voting booth. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|