Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #330042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 22:00 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 06:21 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 09:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:32 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 17:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:05 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 11:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 18:48 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:20 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:24 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:54 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:26 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:29 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:55 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:06 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:36 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:24 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:42 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-01 19:39 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:43 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:38 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 07:15 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:09 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:27 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:31 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:22 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:30 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 10:52 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:02 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 11:16 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:44 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 17:43 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:39 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 07:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:15 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:48 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:50 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 23:10 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:17 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:44 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:57 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:47 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:44 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:41 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 14:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:27 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 13:06 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 06:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-04 23:28 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:07 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:54 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 05:24 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 04:30 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:01 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:52 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:31 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:51 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 09:02 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:25 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 21:54 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:03 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 03:35 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 04:42 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 17:46 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:26 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:29 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 12:03 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 15:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:14 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 17:28 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:34 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 18:53 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:41 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 08:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 08:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 09:20 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 09:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 13:36 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 14:49 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-03 17:09 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:24 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 19:55 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-11-03 07:13 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-03 13:02 -0600
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-11-02 19:53 +0000
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-11-02 15:21 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 13:40 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:51 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 17:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 10:27 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:31 +0100
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:48 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:18 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:38 -0500
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-02 11:13 -0700
Re: OT: A *truly* presidential response Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 13:37 -0500
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 15:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bfdc808a-934e-46ec-a7e0-82191c4d839b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330957 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-7, vallor wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:55:40 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 12:44:59 AM UTC-7, vallor wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:06:25 -0800, Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:46 PM, in article n18eep$rm1$1@dont-email.me, > >> >> "Charmed Tuna" > >> >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On 2015-11-02 2:06 PM, Snit wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/2/15, 12:02 PM, in article sdf84fa.jfu@rooftop.invalid, > >> >> >> "owl" > >> >> >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> >>>> On 11/2/15, 10:49 AM, in article n187iv$sl7$4@dont-email.me, > >> >> >>>> "Charmed Tuna" > >> >> >>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>>>> Conservatism is not racism. > >> >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to > >> >> >>>>>> racism and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than > >> >> >>>>>> the Democrats. > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> Please show how they "clearly" cater to racism. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> I think this is pretty clear: <https://youtu.be/O0TYwTjRqb0> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>> Ah, yes. The Ed Schultz show. Back before MSNBC fired his ass > >> >> >>> for being too leftist even by their insane standards. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >> Look at the conservatives in this group and how they talk about > >> >> >> blacks and Muslims. Do you see liberals sharing such ignorant and > >> >> >> bigoted views? If so, > >> >> >> where? > >> >> > > >> >> > So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks > >> >> > and Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > >> >> > >> >> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. > >> > > >> > So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a > >> > generalization. When he wrote: > >> > > >> > "Conservatism is not racism." > >> > > >> > You replied with: Scott, here is the statement I took issue with: > >> > "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism Period. If this is true is should be easy to show. > >> > and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the > >> > Democrats." > >> > > >> > You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't > >> > pass the laugh test. > >> > >> Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the > >> teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. > > > > And he might not be... and neither of our statements address the fact > > that he didn't support his statement. > > Unstated was the fact that s*it's claim is common knowledge. If it's so "common" that the entire Republican party caters to racism, why can't either of you support it? > Asking someone to support something that is common knowledge is generally > regarded as a dick move. Where I come from, engaging in a conversation where you're asked to support your position and replying 'it's "common knowledge" is the thing that's "generally regarded as a dick move". Notably, Snit isn't saying that... but you are and, presumably, you're aware of what you're responding to. > >> >> But it is common in the conservative movement to seek special > >> >> entitlements for whites and Christians and males and the rich and to > >> >> put down others, seeking to limit the rights of women and the poor > >> >> and non-Christians and the like. > >> >> > >> >> > You seem to be against generalizations yet make them all the time. > >> >> > >> >> Remember: I noted specifically that it is not all conservatives. > >> > > >> > Who cares about a generalized statement regarding "all conservatives" > >> > that you may have made, or not? Focusing on that is just you trying > >> > to back-peddle away from your more specific and damaging claim to the > >> > Republican party. The adult thing to do would be to either support > >> > your statement or retract it. > >> > >> So is it your contention that the teabaggers _aren't_ running the > >> Republican party? > > > > WTF? It's obviously my contention that Snit has not produced evidence > > for his claim. > > If it's common knowledge, he doesn't have to. That's patently absurd. He made the racism statement about the entire Republican party and he was asked to support it, therefore, he has to support it if he wants to be taken seriously. So do you if you're taking the same position his statement indicated. > All I can see here is an attempt to get people to jump through your hoops. > > I don't do hoops. LOL! Sure you do... you're trying to set them up for me. > > I contend that he either should do so or he should > > retract that claim. Specifically, what's your issue with my position (as > > opposed to the one you're trying to create on my behalf)? > > > >> Or to put it another way: how can you differentiate between how the > >> Republican party has been acting from one controlled by the teabaggers? > > > > Ah, the old 'two wrongs make a right' bit ;) > > For anyone who has read and understood what I wrote, this is a clear non > sequitur. I suggest looking again at what I wrote. I've seen what you wrote, it wasn't relevant to what I took issue with. > It's common knowledge that the tea party has taken over the republican > party. Irrelevant. Now I suggest *you* look again at what *I* wrote. (snip rehash and nothing that addressed the thing I took issue with)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 19:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <797b059b-34ab-41df-8ff6-e0a8d93f0191@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330957 |
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 6:59:53 PM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/4/15, 4:28 PM, in article > 563a9494$0$5952$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" > <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > > ... > >>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism > >>>> and other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the > >>>> Democrats." > >>>> > >>>> You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't > >>>> pass the laugh test. > >>> > >>> Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the > >>> teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. > >> > >> And he might not be... and neither of our statements address the fact > >> that he didn't support his statement. > > > > Unstated was the fact that s*it's claim is common knowledge. > > > > Asking someone to support something that is common knowledge is generally > > regarded as a dick move. > > There really is no question that the Republican party caters to racists and > bigots. All that's left now is for you to prove it. So why haven't you done so, Snit? No need to answer, it's obvious why... even you realize how ridiculous your gross generalization is. (snip mealy mouthed whining as Snit tries to step away from his own hypocrisy... again)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 09:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32d8c9ef-5562-4d04-95ff-cb88a872b7d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330603 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: > On 11/3/15, 12:42 AM, in article > 56386561$0$4222$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" > <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > > ... > >>>> So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and > >>>> Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? > >>> > >>> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. > >> > >> So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a > >> generalization. When he wrote: > >> > >> "Conservatism is not racism." > >> > >> You replied with: > >> > >> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and > >> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." > >> > >> You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass > >> the laugh test. > > > > Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the > > teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. > > Look at the GOP website itself! They openly talk about their bigotry toward > gays Where? > and how they want to deny them equal rights to marriage... Grow a clue already, the State's sole interest in marriage is societal, not personal. You can scream 'bigotry' all day long but that doesn't change this fact. > they talk > about their desire to give women less rights over their own bodies than we > grant rights over *dead* bodies. ?? > Look at the GOP field right now - we have the two top runners right now who > keep having their polls go UP when they make racist or other bigoted > comments against Mexicans or Muslims! It is not like these things are > secret! Heck, Trump is number one with white supremacists. Gee, what a great > honor that is. Heck, there are actual debates on right wing sites as it if > Trump is a great man who represents them well or is a Democrat plant put > there to make them look racist and stupid. They really cannot tell. You said "the Republican party", I'm still waiting... > As you note, look at the repulsive Tea Party rallies where they have tons of > racist signs proudly showing. Look at all the nonsense online where Obama is > accused of being a Muslims (not true) as if being one would be a bad thing > (bigoted). Look at how he is attacked for being black - all the memes and > comments on conservative boards using racist language against him. Any time you can prove your statement... Will I be waiting much longer? > Look at the conservative / Republican heroes such as that sick Bundy idiot > and his comments about how blacks would be better off as slaves and his > picking cotton comments. Just gross. And this was one of the repulsive > people they rallied around saying he had a right to special entitlements to > handouts from the government because he is a rich rancher. What? Why should > rich white guys get special entitlements? It is idiotic. You're statement was idiotic and that should now be apparent, even to you. (snip back peddling and BS)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 12:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1e6mr2qdy8x5f.13gwakkpvjiuo$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330679 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:19:30 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 11/3/15, 12:42 AM, in article >> 56386561$0$4222$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" >> <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and >>>>>> Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? >>>>> >>>>> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. >>>> >>>> So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a >>>> generalization. When he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Conservatism is not racism." >>>> >>>> You replied with: >>>> >>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." >>>> >>>> You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass >>>> the laugh test. >>> >>> Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the >>> teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. >> >> Look at the GOP website itself! They openly talk about their bigotry toward >> gays > > Where? > >> and how they want to deny them equal rights to marriage... > > Grow a clue already, the State's sole interest in marriage is societal, not personal. You can scream 'bigotry' all day long but that doesn't change this fact. > >> they talk >> about their desire to give women less rights over their own bodies than we >> grant rights over *dead* bodies. > > ?? > >> Look at the GOP field right now - we have the two top runners right now who >> keep having their polls go UP when they make racist or other bigoted >> comments against Mexicans or Muslims! It is not like these things are >> secret! Heck, Trump is number one with white supremacists. Gee, what a great >> honor that is. Heck, there are actual debates on right wing sites as it if >> Trump is a great man who represents them well or is a Democrat plant put >> there to make them look racist and stupid. They really cannot tell. > > You said "the Republican party", I'm still waiting... > >> As you note, look at the repulsive Tea Party rallies where they have tons of >> racist signs proudly showing. Look at all the nonsense online where Obama is >> accused of being a Muslims (not true) as if being one would be a bad thing >> (bigoted). Look at how he is attacked for being black - all the memes and >> comments on conservative boards using racist language against him. > > Any time you can prove your statement... > > Will I be waiting much longer? > >> Look at the conservative / Republican heroes such as that sick Bundy idiot >> and his comments about how blacks would be better off as slaves and his >> picking cotton comments. Just gross. And this was one of the repulsive >> people they rallied around saying he had a right to special entitlements to >> handouts from the government because he is a rich rancher. What? Why should >> rich white guys get special entitlements? It is idiotic. > > You're statement was idiotic and that should now be apparent, even to you. > > (snip back peddling and BS) Snit is all glued up already. Gluey got a bad batch me thinks. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1auqc$mls$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330679 |
On 2015-11-03 12:19 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 9:33:27 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote: >> On 11/3/15, 12:42 AM, in article >> 56386561$0$4222$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" >> <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> So because some anonymous conservatives in this group hate blacks and >>>>>> Muslims, it means that all conservatives are that way? >>>>> >>>>> Nope. And I have been very clear that it is not all conservatives. >>>> >>>> So what? You actually wrote something that is far worse than such a >>>> generalization. When he wrote: >>>> >>>> "Conservatism is not racism." >>>> >>>> You replied with: >>>> >>>> "True... but the Republican party in the US clearly caters to racism and >>>> other forms of bigotry, and does so much more than the Democrats." >>>> >>>> You were asked to support that and, thus far, your responses don't pass >>>> the laugh test. >>> >>> Since the Republican party seems to have had its control seized by the >>> teabaggers, he may be more right than wrong. >> >> Look at the GOP website itself! They openly talk about their bigotry toward >> gays > > Where? > >> and how they want to deny them equal rights to marriage... > > Grow a clue already, the State's sole interest in marriage is societal, not personal. You can scream 'bigotry' all day long but that doesn't change this fact. > >> they talk >> about their desire to give women less rights over their own bodies than we >> grant rights over *dead* bodies. > > ?? > >> Look at the GOP field right now - we have the two top runners right now who >> keep having their polls go UP when they make racist or other bigoted >> comments against Mexicans or Muslims! It is not like these things are >> secret! Heck, Trump is number one with white supremacists. Gee, what a great >> honor that is. Heck, there are actual debates on right wing sites as it if >> Trump is a great man who represents them well or is a Democrat plant put >> there to make them look racist and stupid. They really cannot tell. > > You said "the Republican party", I'm still waiting... > >> As you note, look at the repulsive Tea Party rallies where they have tons of >> racist signs proudly showing. Look at all the nonsense online where Obama is >> accused of being a Muslims (not true) as if being one would be a bad thing >> (bigoted). Look at how he is attacked for being black - all the memes and >> comments on conservative boards using racist language against him. > > Any time you can prove your statement... > > Will I be waiting much longer? > >> Look at the conservative / Republican heroes such as that sick Bundy idiot >> and his comments about how blacks would be better off as slaves and his >> picking cotton comments. Just gross. And this was one of the repulsive >> people they rallied around saying he had a right to special entitlements to >> handouts from the government because he is a rich rancher. What? Why should >> rich white guys get special entitlements? It is idiotic. > > You're statement was idiotic and that should now be apparent, even to you. > > (snip back peddling and BS) All of this on a topic which has nothing to do with Linux whatsoever. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f21cf678-c5b8-421d-90b7-5a8eb9d2038a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #330696 |
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:38:12 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: (snip) > All of this on a topic which has nothing to do with Linux whatsoever. I won't hammer him for that here. For once he did the right thing and marked it "OT".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 14:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1b2j1$a0u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330703 |
On 2015-11-03 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:38:12 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: > > (snip) > >> All of this on a topic which has nothing to do with Linux whatsoever. > > I won't hammer him for that here. For once he did the right thing and marked it "OT". Am I the only one who's sick of how we seem to talk about everything here BUT Linux? If I wanted to talk about how much I hate Muslims (and I do), I would find an Islamic forum. If I came to comp.os.linux.advocacy, it's because I wanted to talk about the good and the bad of that operating system and not how Christianity is supposedly bad because someone has friendly Muslim acquaintances. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 15:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h3ra99au86r4$.1dq6xma8ccm41$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #330719 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:42:33 -0500, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-11-03 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:38:12 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >>> All of this on a topic which has nothing to do with Linux whatsoever. >> >> I won't hammer him for that here. For once he did the right thing and marked it "OT". > > Am I the only one who's sick of how we seem to talk about everything > here BUT Linux? If I wanted to talk about how much I hate Muslims (and I > do), I would find an Islamic forum. If I came to comp.os.linux.advocacy, > it's because I wanted to talk about the good and the bad of that > operating system and not how Christianity is supposedly bad because > someone has friendly Muslim acquaintances. Snit could turn the topic of boiling water into a circus. Notice how he infects 99.99 percent of the threads in COLA? If he really wanted to focus on discussing technology like he constantly reminds everyone, he would ignore the other threads and let them die. But he won't do that because he craves attention and his ultimate goal is to trash COLA so he can add another notch in his computer desk. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bbbo$e7l$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330735 |
On 2015-11-03 3:51 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:42:33 -0500, Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-11-03 1:56 PM, Steve Carroll wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 11:38:12 AM UTC-7, Slimer wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>> All of this on a topic which has nothing to do with Linux whatsoever. >>> >>> I won't hammer him for that here. For once he did the right thing and marked it "OT". >> >> Am I the only one who's sick of how we seem to talk about everything >> here BUT Linux? If I wanted to talk about how much I hate Muslims (and I >> do), I would find an Islamic forum. If I came to comp.os.linux.advocacy, >> it's because I wanted to talk about the good and the bad of that >> operating system and not how Christianity is supposedly bad because >> someone has friendly Muslim acquaintances. > > Snit could turn the topic of boiling water into a circus. > Notice how he infects 99.99 percent of the threads in COLA? > > If he really wanted to focus on discussing technology like he constantly > reminds everyone, he would ignore the other threads and let them die. But > he won't do that because he craves attention and his ultimate goal is to > trash COLA so he can add another notch in his computer desk. He does talk about technology, but he always seems to bring up "dead horse beating" points which result in him posting the same article twelve times with quotes to when an advotwat said this or that. Sure, he's right but he's like that "know-it-all" smurf that all of the other ones just want to drown. -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 00:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsvbc83.kgi@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330747 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/3/15, 3:12 PM, in article n1bbbo$e7l$6@dont-email.me, "Slimer" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>> Am I the only one who's sick of how we seem to talk about everything >>>> here BUT Linux? If I wanted to talk about how much I hate Muslims (and I >>>> do), I would find an Islamic forum. If I came to comp.os.linux.advocacy, >>>> it's because I wanted to talk about the good and the bad of that >>>> operating system and not how Christianity is supposedly bad because >>>> someone has friendly Muslim acquaintances. >>> >>> Snit could turn the topic of boiling water into a circus. >>> Notice how he infects 99.99 percent of the threads in COLA? >>> >>> If he really wanted to focus on discussing technology like he constantly >>> reminds everyone, he would ignore the other threads and let them die. But >>> he won't do that because he craves attention and his ultimate goal is to >>> trash COLA so he can add another notch in his computer desk. >> >> He does talk about technology, but he always seems to bring up "dead >> horse beating" points which result in him posting the same article >> twelve times with quotes to when an advotwat said this or that. Sure, >> he's right but he's like that "know-it-all" smurf that all of the other >> ones just want to drown. > > What happens is I post something and the person I am responding to tries to > change the topic. I just stick to the topic. We can see this with Owl who > posted the unbelievably ignorance nonsense about evolution and how it does > not make predictions and how its primary goal should be to predict how > humans will evolve in the future. > > I called him on that gross ignorance and he worked to change the topic. I > kept pulling him back to that only to watch him run. Comes down to he is > unbelievably ignorant about not just evolution but science in general. Fine. > Why can't he just admit it? I am ignorant of many things - but I do not > pretend to be otherwise. Ask me about the differences between Chinese and > Korean... no clue. I *might* be able to recognize which is which in a sample > even without Googling or whatever, but that is about as far as it goes. > Nobody's running from anything, you lying cretin. Here's the deal. Evolution Theory makes out that it can reverse-engineer human organism to show an evolution over time based on reponses to environmental change. They claim to be able to do this using indirect evidence gathered from things such as ice cores, plate tectonics, fossil records, skeletal remains, and dna distribution. However, when it comes to being able to predict, as any scientific theory should, future progress of their model, namely, where are we headed on the evolutionary roadmap, they completely fail, despite having 100% direct knowledge of current environmental conditions, supercomputer models of climatic and geological trends, and the complete human genome at their disposal. Evolution Theory is ivory tower dogma, and the fact that anyone who objects to what they consider to be not just a theory, but a *fact*, is labeled a heretic and is ostracized from the scientific community. Much like with the global warming scam. Evolution Theory is *not* science. They cling to it because without it, the atheists in charge would have no counter to religious arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 19:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1bjsp$i3h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330769 |
On 2015-11-03 7:31 PM, owl wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 11/3/15, 3:12 PM, in article n1bbbo$e7l$6@dont-email.me, "Slimer" >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >>>>> Am I the only one who's sick of how we seem to talk about everything >>>>> here BUT Linux? If I wanted to talk about how much I hate Muslims (and I >>>>> do), I would find an Islamic forum. If I came to comp.os.linux.advocacy, >>>>> it's because I wanted to talk about the good and the bad of that >>>>> operating system and not how Christianity is supposedly bad because >>>>> someone has friendly Muslim acquaintances. >>>> >>>> Snit could turn the topic of boiling water into a circus. >>>> Notice how he infects 99.99 percent of the threads in COLA? >>>> >>>> If he really wanted to focus on discussing technology like he constantly >>>> reminds everyone, he would ignore the other threads and let them die. But >>>> he won't do that because he craves attention and his ultimate goal is to >>>> trash COLA so he can add another notch in his computer desk. >>> >>> He does talk about technology, but he always seems to bring up "dead >>> horse beating" points which result in him posting the same article >>> twelve times with quotes to when an advotwat said this or that. Sure, >>> he's right but he's like that "know-it-all" smurf that all of the other >>> ones just want to drown. >> >> What happens is I post something and the person I am responding to tries to >> change the topic. I just stick to the topic. We can see this with Owl who >> posted the unbelievably ignorance nonsense about evolution and how it does >> not make predictions and how its primary goal should be to predict how >> humans will evolve in the future. >> >> I called him on that gross ignorance and he worked to change the topic. I >> kept pulling him back to that only to watch him run. Comes down to he is >> unbelievably ignorant about not just evolution but science in general. Fine. >> Why can't he just admit it? I am ignorant of many things - but I do not >> pretend to be otherwise. Ask me about the differences between Chinese and >> Korean... no clue. I *might* be able to recognize which is which in a sample >> even without Googling or whatever, but that is about as far as it goes. >> > > Nobody's running from anything, you lying cretin. Here's the deal. > Evolution Theory makes out that it can reverse-engineer human organism to > show an evolution over time based on reponses to environmental change. > They claim to be able to do this using indirect evidence gathered from > things such as ice cores, plate tectonics, fossil records, skeletal > remains, and dna distribution. However, when it comes to being able to > predict, as any scientific theory should, future progress of their model, > namely, where are we headed on the evolutionary roadmap, they completely > fail, despite having 100% direct knowledge of current environmental > conditions, supercomputer models of climatic and geological trends, and > the complete human genome at their disposal. Evolution Theory is ivory > tower dogma, and the fact that anyone who objects to what they consider to > be not just a theory, but a *fact*, is labeled a heretic and is ostracized > from the scientific community. Much like with the global warming scam. > Evolution Theory is *not* science. They cling to it because without > it, the atheists in charge would have no counter to religious arguments. Thank you for referring to it as the global warming scam. Let's be friends! -- Slimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18ovb$771$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330447 |
On 2015-11-02 3:49 PM, Snit wrote: < snip > >> For my part, I like black people. They're generally friendlier and more >> accepting of me than everyone else and get along with Muslims quite well. The >> fact that I can't stand the refugees and believe that they don't deserve any >> kind of shelter in Europe doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me logical >> considering we've all seen what those same refugees are doing TO the countries >> which are accepting them. > > What are these people supposed to do? They are living in a war torn area of > the world where they have little chance to have decent lives. So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in the countries that accept and welcome them? >> One day, you might grow out of your leftist mental illness. > > And here you are saying my support of what is a "mental illness" - equal > rights? Personal responsibility? Those are the things I promote - and the > things which make me "liberal". Conservatives tend to fight against such > things and seek special entitlements for rich, white, male Christians (or > whatever religion they happen to be, conservative Muslims generally want > special entitlements for Muslims for example). My family was very poor growing up and if I am where I am today, it's because I worked for it. Meanwhile, I'm Conservative. Conservative don't fight for special entitlements for rich, white, male Christians. That's complete idiocy. They might want to lower the taxes for wealthy entrepreneurs who create jobs in the area where they live and they might not want to burden people with additional taxes just because they have a higher income but I consider that to be fair as well. If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the Hell would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? 40% across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault that someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 18:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330494 |
On 2015-11-02 6:00 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 3:46 PM, in article n18ovb$771$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 3:49 PM, Snit wrote: >> >> < snip > >> >>>> For my part, I like black people. They're generally friendlier and more >>>> accepting of me than everyone else and get along with Muslims quite well. >>>> The fact that I can't stand the refugees and believe that they don't deserve >>>> any kind of shelter in Europe doesn't make me a bigot, it makes me logical >>>> considering we've all seen what those same refugees are doing TO the >>>> countries which are accepting them. >>> >>> What are these people supposed to do? They are living in a war torn area of >>> the world where they have little chance to have decent lives. >> >> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >> the countries that accept and welcome them? > > Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all do > this. That is absurd. <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. >> If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the Hell >> would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? 40% >> across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault that >> someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. > > The very wealthy pay LESS in taxes than the middle class. They pay higher taxes here than the poor would. In fact, the new government will increase taxes on the rich (the percentage they pay) to lower it for the middle class. However, they've always actually paid more because 40% of 200,000 is higher than 40% of 20,000. > And the wealthy > get to count many of their living expenses as not being a part of their > income: their food becomes a business expense, their entertainment too... > even their housing gives them government support. A rich person with a 2 > million dollar home get more government support for their house than a poor > person is likely to see in all monetary sources. Why should I pay a penny to > help a rich man buy a house? Why should anyone be paying to help ME with my > mortgage? It makes no sense... unless I am disabled or the like and even > then I should not get a high end house. I'd love to see evidence of this. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n18vea$v1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330529 |
On 2015-11-02 7:08 PM, Snit wrote: > On 11/2/15, 4:50 PM, in article n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > ... >>>> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >>>> the countries that accept and welcome them? >>> >>> Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all do >>> this. That is absurd. >> >> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> >> >> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. > > Debatable: <http://wp.me/p1IsH7-2x> > > But even if true nobody is defending the "right" you claimed. Or, at best, > you have not shown it. "August 15, 2011" -- long before the "migrant" invasion. >>>> If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the Hell >>>> would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? 40% >>>> across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault that >>>> someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. >>> >>> The very wealthy pay LESS in taxes than the middle class. >> >> They pay higher taxes here than the poor would. In fact, the new >> government will increase taxes on the rich (the percentage they pay) to >> lower it for the middle class. However, they've always actually paid >> more because 40% of 200,000 is higher than 40% of 20,000. > > <https://goo.gl/vQvYHg> > > The very rich pay less in taxes than the middle class - and that is based on > what is counted as income, when the very rich get to take out many of their > personal expenses as "business" expenses and have then counted as not being > income, AND get to put a lot of their money in corporations which pay a > lower tax rate. Then the United States need to work on their taxation system. >>> And the wealthy get to count many of their living expenses as not being a >>> part of their income: their food becomes a business expense, their >>> entertainment too... even their housing gives them government support. A rich >>> person with a 2 million dollar home get more government support for their >>> house than a poor person is likely to see in all monetary sources. Why should >>> I pay a penny to help a rich man buy a house? Why should anyone be paying to >>> help ME with my mortgage? It makes no sense... unless I am disabled or the >>> like and even then I should not get a high end house. >>> >> I'd love to see evidence of this. > > You need evidence for people getting to claim food and entertainment as > business expenses and for getting financial benefits for mortgages? Food and entertainment I can see them claiming as business expenses. After all, my wife worked as an account manager and had to take a lot of clients out to dinner and pay for entertainment. It's clearly a business expense and I would not have tolerated her paying that out of our account. I am indeed curious about the financial benefits for mortgages. Considering how horrible the American mortgage system is (and still not scrutinized as heavily as in Canada), I'm sure that money is going into the wrong places. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <asdfhe400.aefp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330538 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:36 PM, in article n18vea$v1u$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-11-02 7:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 4:50 PM, in article n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >>>>>> the countries that accept and welcome them? >>>>> >>>>> Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all do >>>>> this. That is absurd. >>>> >>>> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> >>>> >>>> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. >>> >>> Debatable: <http://wp.me/p1IsH7-2x> >>> >>> But even if true nobody is defending the "right" you claimed. Or, at best, >>> you have not shown it. >> >> "August 15, 2011" -- long before the "migrant" invasion. > > But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you > claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. > >>>>>> If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the Hell >>>>>> would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? 40% >>>>>> across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault that >>>>>> someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. >>>>> >>>>> The very wealthy pay LESS in taxes than the middle class. >>>> >>>> They pay higher taxes here than the poor would. In fact, the new >>>> government will increase taxes on the rich (the percentage they pay) to >>>> lower it for the middle class. However, they've always actually paid >>>> more because 40% of 200,000 is higher than 40% of 20,000. >>> >>> <https://goo.gl/vQvYHg> >>> >>> The very rich pay less in taxes than the middle class - and that is based on >>> what is counted as income, when the very rich get to take out many of their >>> personal expenses as "business" expenses and have then counted as not being >>> income, AND get to put a lot of their money in corporations which pay a >>> lower tax rate. >> >> Then the United States need to work on their taxation system. > > Agreed. Might not agree on the details, but I do agree. > > Actually I am torn on what a fair taxation system would be. I do think it is > absurd that some taxes are capped so you only pay on the first X dollars, > and think many business "expenses" are insane. > >>>>> And the wealthy get to count many of their living expenses as not being a >>>>> part of their income: their food becomes a business expense, their >>>>> entertainment too... even their housing gives them government support. A >>>>> rich person with a 2 million dollar home get more government support for >>>>> their house than a poor person is likely to see in all monetary sources. >>>>> Why should I pay a penny to help a rich man buy a house? Why should anyone >>>>> be paying to help ME with my mortgage? It makes no sense... unless I am >>>>> disabled or the like and even then I should not get a high end house. >>>>> >>>> I'd love to see evidence of this. >>>> >>> You need evidence for people getting to claim food and entertainment as >>> business expenses and for getting financial benefits for mortgages? >>> >> Food and entertainment I can see them claiming as business expenses. After >> all, my wife worked as an account manager and had to take a lot of clients out >> to dinner and pay for entertainment. > > Why did you have to? I just had dinner - needed it to keep up my energy to > keep working. Should I be able to claim that as a business expense? > >> It's clearly a business expense and I would not have tolerated her paying that >> out of our account. > > There are times I can see basic food as a business expense. You need to go > to a convention or the like... so BASIC food, much as the poor get BASIC > food. Maybe set the level to the same as people on food stamps get per meal. > That has been deemed enough to eat on so should work. > > As far as entertainment, people can pay for their own. > >> I am indeed curious about the financial benefits for mortgages. Considering >> how horrible the American mortgage system is (and still not scrutinized as >> heavily as in Canada), I'm sure that money is going into the wrong places. > > Here is info on it: <https://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html>. > > Completely insane in my view - and I have a mortgage! > > It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own home > that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It makes no > sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the disabled > and the like get for their housing. > I don't know any wealthy people who have a mortgage on their house. I know plenty who pay outrageous property taxes though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfh0a3f.pp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330545 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 5:55 PM, in article asdfhe400.aefp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 5:36 PM, in article n18vea$v1u$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-02 7:08 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 4:50 PM, in article n18sna$n8i$1@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" >>>>> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> So what gives them the right to rape women, to death in some cases, in >>>>>>>> the countries that accept and welcome them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nobody said anyone had such a right, but your question implies they all >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> this. That is absurd. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=096_1267472543> >>>>>> >>>>>> The "migrants" have turned Sweden into the rape capital of the world. >>>>> >>>>> Debatable: <http://wp.me/p1IsH7-2x> >>>>> >>>>> But even if true nobody is defending the "right" you claimed. Or, at best, >>>>> you have not shown it. >>>> >>>> "August 15, 2011" -- long before the "migrant" invasion. >>> >>> But, again, even if true you have not shown ANYONE defending what you >>> claimed. Nobody is saying anyone has the right to rape or kill. >>> >>>>>>>> If a poor person has to pay say 40% of their income in taxes, why the >>>>>>>> Hell >>>>>>>> would a rich person have to pay more just because he makes more money? >>>>>>>> 40% >>>>>>>> across the board seems fair and it's not the rich, white man's fault >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> someone is poor and didn't bother to get an education. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The very wealthy pay LESS in taxes than the middle class. >>>>>> >>>>>> They pay higher taxes here than the poor would. In fact, the new >>>>>> government will increase taxes on the rich (the percentage they pay) to >>>>>> lower it for the middle class. However, they've always actually paid >>>>>> more because 40% of 200,000 is higher than 40% of 20,000. >>>>> >>>>> <https://goo.gl/vQvYHg> >>>>> >>>>> The very rich pay less in taxes than the middle class - and that is based >>>>> on >>>>> what is counted as income, when the very rich get to take out many of their >>>>> personal expenses as "business" expenses and have then counted as not being >>>>> income, AND get to put a lot of their money in corporations which pay a >>>>> lower tax rate. >>>> >>>> Then the United States need to work on their taxation system. >>> >>> Agreed. Might not agree on the details, but I do agree. >>> >>> Actually I am torn on what a fair taxation system would be. I do think it is >>> absurd that some taxes are capped so you only pay on the first X dollars, >>> and think many business "expenses" are insane. >>> >>>>>>> And the wealthy get to count many of their living expenses as not being a >>>>>>> part of their income: their food becomes a business expense, their >>>>>>> entertainment too... even their housing gives them government support. A >>>>>>> rich person with a 2 million dollar home get more government support for >>>>>>> their house than a poor person is likely to see in all monetary sources. >>>>>>> Why should I pay a penny to help a rich man buy a house? Why should >>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>> be paying to help ME with my mortgage? It makes no sense... unless I am >>>>>>> disabled or the like and even then I should not get a high end house. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'd love to see evidence of this. >>>>>> >>>>> You need evidence for people getting to claim food and entertainment as >>>>> business expenses and for getting financial benefits for mortgages? >>>>> >>>> Food and entertainment I can see them claiming as business expenses. After >>>> all, my wife worked as an account manager and had to take a lot of clients >>>> out >>>> to dinner and pay for entertainment. >>> >>> Why did you have to? I just had dinner - needed it to keep up my energy to >>> keep working. Should I be able to claim that as a business expense? >>> >>>> It's clearly a business expense and I would not have tolerated her paying >>>> that >>>> out of our account. >>> >>> There are times I can see basic food as a business expense. You need to go >>> to a convention or the like... so BASIC food, much as the poor get BASIC >>> food. Maybe set the level to the same as people on food stamps get per meal. >>> That has been deemed enough to eat on so should work. >>> >>> As far as entertainment, people can pay for their own. >>> >>>> I am indeed curious about the financial benefits for mortgages. Considering >>>> how horrible the American mortgage system is (and still not scrutinized as >>>> heavily as in Canada), I'm sure that money is going into the wrong places. >>> >>> Here is info on it: <https://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html>. >>> >>> Completely insane in my view - and I have a mortgage! >>> >>> It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own home >>> that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It makes no >>> sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the disabled >>> and the like get for their housing. >>> >> >> I don't know any wealthy people who have a mortgage on their house. > > Which ones do you know do not? > Some of my friends. You don't need to know their names. None of them have mortgages. I don't have a mortgage myself, and I'm not even wealthy. Sometimes I think it would be nice to write off mortgage interest, but then I snap out of that insanity. I hate even having to put away the money to pay for property taxes. There is no fucking way I want a mortgage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 01:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhsur03.a8@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330551 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 6:08 PM, in article adfh0a3f.pp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own >>>>> home >>>>> that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It makes no >>>>> sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the disabled >>>>> and the like get for their housing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know any wealthy people who have a mortgage on their house. >>> >>> Which ones do you know do not? >> >> Some of my friends. You don't need to know their names. None of them >> have mortgages. > > So some nameless folks. Um, strong argument! > Newsflash, dumbass: The wealthy pay cash for their houses, they pay cash for their cars, and they pay their credit cards off every month. >> I don't have a mortgage myself, and I'm not even wealthy. >> Sometimes I think it would be nice to write off mortgage interest, >> but then I snap out of that insanity. I hate even having to put away >> the money to pay for property taxes. There is no fucking way I want >> a mortgage. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sdhfue9.aefp@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330562 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 6:45 PM, in article fhsur03.a8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 6:08 PM, in article adfh0a3f.pp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own >>>>>>> home >>>>>>> that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It makes >>>>>>> no >>>>>>> sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the disabled >>>>>>> and the like get for their housing. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know any wealthy people who have a mortgage on their house. >>>>> >>>>> Which ones do you know do not? >>>> >>>> Some of my friends. You don't need to know their names. None of them >>>> have mortgages. >>> >>> So some nameless folks. Um, strong argument! >>> >> >> Newsflash, dumbass: The wealthy pay cash for their houses, they pay >> cash for their cars, and they pay their credit cards off every month. > > No evidence all are doing this. > Those who aren't are living beyond their means, and therefore are not "wealthy."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 02:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sfheu03.af8ve@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330575 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 7:09 PM, in article sdhfue9.aefp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 11/2/15, 6:45 PM, in article fhsur03.a8@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/2/15, 6:08 PM, in article adfh0a3f.pp@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> It leads to the wealthy getting financial "incentives" to own their own >>>>>>>>> home >>>>>>>>> that comes to more money than the median income of the country! It >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> sense at all... yet the country focused on the tiny stipends the >>>>>>>>> disabled >>>>>>>>> and the like get for their housing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't know any wealthy people who have a mortgage on their house. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which ones do you know do not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Some of my friends. You don't need to know their names. None of them >>>>>> have mortgages. >>>>> >>>>> So some nameless folks. Um, strong argument! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Newsflash, dumbass: The wealthy pay cash for their houses, they pay >>>> cash for their cars, and they pay their credit cards off every month. >>> >>> No evidence all are doing this. >> >> Those who aren't are living beyond their means, and therefore are not >> "wealthy." > > Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. > Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. > People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no "cannot afford."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 02:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <adfhue9q.3af@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #330579 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 11/2/15, 7:30 PM, in article sfheu03.af8ve@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Newsflash, dumbass: The wealthy pay cash for their houses, they pay >>>>>> cash for their cars, and they pay their credit cards off every month. >>>>> >>>>> No evidence all are doing this. >>>> >>>> Those who aren't are living beyond their means, and therefore are not >>>> "wealthy." >>> >>> Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. >>> Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. >> >> People who think they are wealthy spend outside their means all the time. >> The wealthy do not, since there is no "outside their means." People only >> finance stuff that they cannot afford. For the wealthy, there is no "cannot >> afford." > > Ah, in your world wealthy people never buy houses they cannot buy for cash. > Well, in the real world there is no evidence of this. > Well, all I can say is go online to your county Register of Deeds and look for the existence of mortgages/deeds of trust on properties likely to be owned by what you consider to be "wealthy" persons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web