hey read the post just above this one #30, it mentioned you
When will enough be enough, when will the KILLING start
- Thread starter Ucan'tEatBonds
- Start date
hey read the post just above this one #30, it mentioned you
Yeah I hear ya
As long as US government keeps masses fed, even if it is with crappy food, as long as bread and milk and beer is still affordable, people will submit.
And futurescurrent and rectum will have a job to post on ET
Hear that futurescurrent scum,
Boy Would I kick your gay ass on the street if I knew it was you.
I am not a violent person. I haven't had a physical fight for 10 years. But I would enjoy hitting you.
It might be fairer to say Jesus was a socialist.
The term "hypocritical religious right" is about right.
I'm having a hard time deciding which crazed righty is the most insane here, but you're at the top of the list. WTG !
The problem I have with religion, and evangelical Christianity in particular, is when others insist that I live up to their beliefs ... when they don't themselves.
You claim to be Christian, a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but you only preach the Old Testament and ignore Christ's very explicit orders to give up wealth, to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to heal the sick, to do unto others, to reserve judgment for God, to attend first the beam in your own eye, and above all to be kind. And not only do you ignore those commands, but actively dismiss them and rationalize them away when they are brought to your attention, then you shouldnât be surprised when I mock your hypocrisy.
Honestly, if you can't live up to the requirements of your religion, then why should I?
If you donât respect the commands of your own prophet, why should I?
When you insist that I respect your beliefs, but you show no respect whatsoever for mine in return, then you shouldnât be surprised by my loud disrespect. You donât get to damn me to your hell, you donât get to judge me or anybody else for that matter â and thatâs in your Bible, you can look it up.
If you want me to respect your religion, then be worthy of respect.
Itâs really just that simple.
--Jim Wright
You claim to be Christian, a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but you only preach the Old Testament and ignore Christ's very explicit orders to give up wealth, to feed the hungry, to clothe the poor, to heal the sick, to do unto others, to reserve judgment for God, to attend first the beam in your own eye, and above all to be kind. And not only do you ignore those commands, but actively dismiss them and rationalize them away when they are brought to your attention, then you shouldnât be surprised when I mock your hypocrisy.
Honestly, if you can't live up to the requirements of your religion, then why should I?
If you donât respect the commands of your own prophet, why should I?
When you insist that I respect your beliefs, but you show no respect whatsoever for mine in return, then you shouldnât be surprised by my loud disrespect. You donât get to damn me to your hell, you donât get to judge me or anybody else for that matter â and thatâs in your Bible, you can look it up.
If you want me to respect your religion, then be worthy of respect.
Itâs really just that simple.
--Jim Wright
Bible quotes for righties, feel free to add your own:
"Do unto others......then split."
"If thine enemy slaps you, whip out the AR15 and mow the fucker down."
"Really Joseph! It's immaculate conception, and boy did Immaculate have a large dick! I couldn't help it. I was occupied by a Roman!"
"Do unto others......then split."
"If thine enemy slaps you, whip out the AR15 and mow the fucker down."
"Really Joseph! It's immaculate conception, and boy did Immaculate have a large dick! I couldn't help it. I was occupied by a Roman!"
Yawn.
Out of all of the leftâs discombobulated theoretical constructs, the ludicrous assertion that conservatives simply do not care about societyâs downtrodden is particularly frustrating, as it vehemently denies both reality and logic. On the surface, the notion that liberals are the worldâs most charitable individuals could easily be accepted. After all, many on the left talk quite a bit about helping the poor and providing social safety nets. However, the left rarely explores the negative consequences of its policies. Furthermore, liberals fail to analyze and comprehend their own deficient charitable giving patterns.
According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, Brooksâ research has shown that conservatives donate about 30 percent more than do liberals.
Brooks also claims that financial donations arenât the only difference at hand. When it comes to an issue as random as blood donations, conservatives are about 17 percent more likely than their liberal counterparts to donate blood! But, thatâs not all. In 2008, George Will covered some of Brooksâ other findings. As it turns out, in 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 out of 25 of the states in which charitable giving exceeded the national average
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/su...#ixzz38icg8UuH
Out of all of the leftâs discombobulated theoretical constructs, the ludicrous assertion that conservatives simply do not care about societyâs downtrodden is particularly frustrating, as it vehemently denies both reality and logic. On the surface, the notion that liberals are the worldâs most charitable individuals could easily be accepted. After all, many on the left talk quite a bit about helping the poor and providing social safety nets. However, the left rarely explores the negative consequences of its policies. Furthermore, liberals fail to analyze and comprehend their own deficient charitable giving patterns.
According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, Brooksâ research has shown that conservatives donate about 30 percent more than do liberals.
Brooks also claims that financial donations arenât the only difference at hand. When it comes to an issue as random as blood donations, conservatives are about 17 percent more likely than their liberal counterparts to donate blood! But, thatâs not all. In 2008, George Will covered some of Brooksâ other findings. As it turns out, in 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 out of 25 of the states in which charitable giving exceeded the national average
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/su...#ixzz38icg8UuH
Without knowing the protocols, it's meaningless.
In any event, if you can't do better than giving money to your housekeeper or whatever at Christmas, then you're hardly one to lecture.
Yawn, been through this multiple times. The charity is to their church. When it comes to voting for meaningful help to the poor via the only practical way - centralized government distribution - they vote against it.
They run some cake sales, volunteer at the soup kitchen and put money in the collection plate. But when it comes to really doing something practical, like voting to support the social safety net, they become Scrooges.
Like i said before, if you want to compare the amount i gave to my cleaning lady's family last year vs your charitable donations for the year, id be more than wiling. But you have to make it worth my while, take the bet or your just a little hypocrite. Id be willing to bet you did almost nothing for charity last year. Its easy to tell just based on your postings on this site that you are a big time loser in real life.
Unlike you i dont like seeing my money pissed away in useless beaurecracies, but then i doubt you even pay much in taxes, you just like pissing away other peoples money, i like to go straight to the source, knowing where 100% of my money is going, and knowing it is going to someone who legitimately needs it, who legitmately came on hard times.