Science > Abortion > "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2005 01:59:21 AM |
| Object: |
"Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
Guess which of the following caption describes White New Orlean Native
and which one described Black New Orleans Native
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/8/30/192236/013/241#241
=========
A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a
grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday,
=========
=========
Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and
soda from a local grocery store
=========
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1881 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
06 Sep 2005 11:26:41 PM |
|
|
On 6-Sep-2005, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Eraser wrote:
Which means that you accepted the tax cut, despite your protestations
otherwise. As I said, if you really didn't want a tax cut you could've
prepared your tax return in such a way as to keep the funds in the
hands of the federal gov't. There are certainly a multitude of ways to
accomplish this, but instead you accepted the cut.
Irrelevant.
And *desperate*!
Like you should go through the trouble of re-arranging your return - if
he's even telling the truth about that - instead of just sending the cut
where you wanted it to go.
Susan
I did accept the tax cut, but I didn't want it. It was a
begrudging acceptance, in acceptance of a fiscally unsound policy, but
giving it to fiscally sound organizations. It is my small contribution
to fixing that which is fiscally unsound.
As I said in another post on this thread,
had you wanted to refuse your tax cut, you simply needed to refrain
from
taking certain exemptions, deductions and/or credits in order to offset
the
amount of the tax cut.
I take as few exemptions as possible; I take no deductions and receive
no credits.
Well, that's not entirely true. Everyone takes a standard deduction at
minimum, so your statement that you take no deductions is simply not
true. Now, if you take the standard deduction, you could simply
itemize your deductions in order to arrive at a lower figure and
effectively refuse the tax cut. If you already itemize, you could
simply neglect to report a few items in order to achieve the same
outcome.
True; but it is my fix.
In this way you would've kept the funds in the
federal coffers. Instead, you took the tax cut, and gave it to
charity.
...only after my letters to my congresspeople fell on deaf ears.
...and you did nothing to refuse the cut...you simply accepted it.
Yes. Yes I did. And used it for more fiscally sound policies than
simple hand-outs. I doubt that "conservatives" would do that. They sit
around complaining about "hand-outs" while accepting them hand-over-fist.
In
reality, you have wisely set up personal future tax reductions via the
deduction for charitable contributions. If you continue to give your
tax
cut to charity, and also give the resultant money garnered from the
charitable contribution deduction on your federal taxes, you have set
up a
growing annuity for the charity of your choice. Congratulations, you
are a
fiscal conservative.
Of course I am. It is why I find Bush's tax cuts disgusting. It is not
conservative at all.
That is certainly a legitimate point which is open to debate. In terms
of this thread though, you responded to Osprey's point about liberals
wanting their tax cuts by saying (in so many words), "Well, this
liberal didn't want it. I gave it to charity". But now you claim that
fiscally you aren't liberal at all, but conservative. I guess, as I've
been saying all along, his point stands unrefuted as it was a
conservative (you) who accepted the tax cut and gave it to charity.
"Conservative" is a limiting term. I am a fiscal conservative, and a
social liberal. Therefore, I'm a liberal, since the limiting "liberal"
terminology that folks use usually represents fiscal conservativism.
There are fiscal liberals, but usually, they do not fit within the term
"liberal."
Know what I mean?
You have effectively employed traditional conservative
economic principles by keeping the funds out of the public sector and
within
the private sector where they will be used more efficiently.
It shows how little you know about me. I am a fiscal conservative and a
social liberal.
How little I know about you!? The point that I've been making all
along is that while you may think of yourself as liberal (as per your
response to Osprey), that you are acting in a fiscally conservative
manner.
Osprey was referring to "liberals" as "fiscal liberals," and I was
showing that "liberals" can also be "fiscal conservative."
The fact that you are a social liberal is irrelevant to the
discussion of tax cuts. In this case, we are not talking about social
policy, we are discussing fiscal policy. As you now admit, you are a
conservative....as I've been trying to say.
Therefore, Osprey's terminology is needlessly limiting. Had Osprey said
"fiscal conservative," I would not even have responded, but Osperay just
said "liberal" as if that means "social AND fiscal liberal." It was
implied, y'know?
And I was just letting people know that "liberal" does not necesarrily
mean "fiscal liberal"
I wonder who many conservatives did it...
(I'm assuming that you meant "how" and not "who").
Yes. Typo. I am dyslexic IRL.
I'd like to think that
liberals and conservatives give to charities in equal measure.
However,
much to my surprise, a bit of research shows that the red states are
far
more charitable than the blue ones.
I would like to see the results of that research. From my research, red
states take in more money from the federal government, in the form of
"hand outs" than blue states.
In fact, the rate of giving in
Massachusetts is near the bottom of the 50 states, while the rate in
Mississippi is the highest. Las Vegas has a much lower rate than
Provo.
Atheists have a lower rate of giving than Christians.
Assertions. Now, please, back them up with evidence.
Sorry, but you are not my teacher. You don't have the privilege to ask
a question and then say that "you get no credit unless you show your
work". You asked the question, I answered it. I couldn't care less
whether you accept my answer to your question. You have the same
ability as I to do research. It sounds like you already have your mind
made up about it anyway. I gave you my answer, if you wish to dispute
it, have at it.
Therefore, you will allow your assertions to remain unsbustantiated.
You are not my teacher, either. I do not need to believe
unsubstantiated assertions.
Your skepticism of
conservative giving is very easily researched...just do a little
homework.
You are the one making an assertion. Show me your homework.
Not simply making an assertion, but answering your question.
...with an assertion.
As I said
above, you asked a question which is easily investigated. I tried to
help by digging into it a bit. In essence, it is your homework that I
have done. Everything that I have examined shows that conservatives
give more to charities than liberals...
And everythihng I have examined show that more conservatives take
advantage of charities than liberals; that is, red states take in more
money than they give out, while blue states give out more money than
they take in.
and as I said, this fact
surprised me to some degree as I thought that the results would show a
more uniform rate of giving between libs & cons.
Yes. Cons seem to be more for accepting "hand-outs."
I'd appreciate it if
you can show me where liberals are more generous (or at least equally
generouse) than conservatives (the group with which you now admit to
identifying in fiscal matters.)
As soon as you show me your support. My evidence will remain in escrow
until I get your evidence.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
07 Sep 2005 08:40:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Sep-2005, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Eraser wrote:
Which means that you accepted the tax cut, despite your protestations
otherwise. As I said, if you really didn't want a tax cut you could've
prepared your tax return in such a way as to keep the funds in the
hands of the federal gov't. There are certainly a multitude of ways to
accomplish this, but instead you accepted the cut.
Irrelevant.
And *desperate*!
Desperate?! Moi?! That's funny. I have merely tried to make a few
points in this thread. They seem to be accepted by Daniel.
1. I stated that he DID, in fact, accept his tax cut as Osprey said.
Daniel agrees.
2. I stated that he could've refused his tax cut by (legally) altering
his return in order to offset the amount of the cut. Daniel agrees.
3. I stated that he was acting as a conservative in regards to the
handling of his tax cut. Daniel agrees.
Like you should go through the trouble of re-arranging your return - if
he's even telling the truth about that
Bwahahaha!!! "the trouble of re-arranging you return" LOL! "If he's
even telling the truth about that" <wiping tears of laughter from my
eyes>. I'm not even gonna get into it with you. This isn't rocket
science...or even Tax Accounting 101. Suffice it to say that there is
no "trouble of re-arranging...", and I am "telling the truth". This is
one of those times that you should've abided by the old saying, "It is
better to keep your mouth shut and thought a fool, than to open it and
remove all doubt."
- instead of just sending the cut
where you wanted it to go.
I have no problem with Daniel sending his tax cut to charity....or
doing anything else with it for that matter. The only problem that I
saw was that he felt that his action was a refutation of Osprey's point
that "liberals really do want their tax cuts". He implied that he, as
a liberal, did not accept his tax cut, but instead gave it to charity.
He has since admitted to accepting the tax cut, not refusing it. He
has also admitted that his action represented the utilization of
conservative economic principles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
05 Sep 2005 06:18:34 PM |
|
|
In article <vOedne6ifoFRJYHeRVn-pA@adelphia.com>, Eraser
<Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote:
I could've said that, but I felt it would've carried more weight than "I
know someone who..." It officiates things, y'know? Besides, the point is
made. Liberals who could afford it (like myself) did send their tax cuts
to charity.
What you've done is to make Osprey's point for him. The fact of the matter
is that liberals DO want their tax cuts (as osprey said), even if it is to
ultimately send them to charity.
Speaking as a liberal, of course I want my taxes cut, but I want it
done without borrowing from our children's future. People like Osprey
want to rape our children of their future income so that we can be more
comfortable today. Republicans want to borrow instead of being
responsible. Eventually, Democrats will take power and have to raise
taxes to pay for all this and everyone on the Right will whine about
how all Democrats do is raise taxes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
05 Sep 2005 05:14:49 PM |
|
|
http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-lev18.html
Leviticus 18:22
This is the most significant verse from the Jewish scriptures with
relevance to homosexuality. Below are a wide variety of discussions,
with some arguing it does not address homosexuality at all, others that
it only applies to Jews, and others till that it is part of a purity
code, not a moral code. The last two articles here, both by a
traditional rabbi, is especially interesting.
The Background to Leviticus
Paul Halsall, based on Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology
Most ancient Jews, as part of a patriarchal society, would have seen
homosexuality in negative terms. Why deny this? Leviticus is the best
example. The book was largely compiled after the return of the Jews from
exile in Babylon. It shows how an elite which had been dethroned
[perhaps 5% of the pop. had been deported] sought once it lost political
power to establish its power in the only arenas it could - religion and
family life. This is the book which lists the death penalty for more
offenses than any other [homosexuality, cursing parents, adultery,
incest, marrying a mother and her daughter, bestiality, wizardry,
harlotry, working on the sabbath, cursing the name of Yahweh, and
murder]. Compare the one death penalty in Exodus [for bestiality] and
three in Deut. [for deception by a virgin, adultery, and adultery with a
virgin]. The Rabbis had to work hard in the Talmudic period to void all
these penalties. Leviticus is a book which is concerned only with Israel
and which rejects foreigners. Since the elite had lost power in
politics, they expressed it by issuing detailed and obsessive laws about
religious practice. It elevates the priesthood of unblemished married
heterosexual males, the inferiority of women in sacrifices and
ceremonies, and measures protecting the sexual ownership of women by men
[Lev 1:3, 10; 4:3, 23, 28,; 5:15, 18: 6:6: 12:1-5, 27:1-7]. It does all
this in very bombastic and absolute language: the term "I am Yahweh"
occurs twice in Exodus, twice in Deuteronomy, and *52* times in
Leviticus. Half of these in chaps. 18-20. Later projections of married
love and equal partnerships and all the flummery of modern marriage in
an industrial society are quite inapposite with ref. to Leviticus.
It is also worth pointing out that there is a dispute in the Bible
itself over the Levitical code. While the post-exilic laws, also
reflected in Nehemiah, were nationalistic and somewhat xenophobic, the
writer of the book of Ruth attacked such laws by making it clear that
King David, a hero to all, would have been excluded from the Temple
because his grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite woman. Even in its lawgiving
the Bible is not monolithic.
Ancient Israel was a patriarchal society. But is was also one in which
God-in-history operated. We need to look to it for what we need, but
recognize that it and its attitudes have little bearing on our own lives
as Christians.
The Jewish Testament Text on Homosexuality
from Fr. Daniel Helminiak, Dignity/Houston BBS
Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is
an abomination." (Leviticus 20:13 adds the punishment "they shall be put
to death." Cursing one's parents, adultery, incest, and bestiality merit
the same punishment.) The literary context is the Holiness Code for
Israel. Its intent is religious. The practices it stipulates are to keep
the Jews distinct from pagan neighbors, keep them `clean.' Forbidden
practices, including homosexual acts, were part of Canaanite religious
rituals; to do them was to identify with the Gentiles, to obscure Jewish
identity, to be idolatrous. There is no concern for sexual ethics per se
behind this text. The term `abomination' occurs throughout the Code and
means `uncleanness, impurity.' The Hebrew term, `toevah' (=taboo,
"dirty") instead of `zimah' (a wrong, a violation of justice) and, in
the 300-150 B.C.E. Greek translation, the term `bdelygma' (ritual
impurity) instead of `anomia' (violation of law, wrong, sin) confirm
this interpretation. For the Jewish Testament, homosexual acts are a
matter of ritual impurity, not a matter of sexual ethics.
Purity in the Christian Testament
Jesus and the Christian Testament abrogate all purity concerns. What
matters is "purity of the heart:" justice, honesty, compassion, and
peace-making. See Matthew 5:8; 15:11, 18-20; 1 Corinthians 7:19;
Galatians 5:6; Romans 2:29, 14:14.
Leviticus 18:22 does not concern homosexuality
from Dignity/Houston BBS (author not indicated)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: It is abomination. --
Leviticus 18:22
Careless readers of the Bible view this verse from the King James
version as a condemnation of the gay lifestyle . Even modern
translations render Lv 18:22 in a homophobic manner which is not
justified by closed inspection of the text.
Together, let's discover that
(1) 'abominations' are not so bad
(2) Lv chapter 18 deals with idolatry and
(3) 'mankind' does not refer to men.
The Big Picture
Leviticus is a collection of laws dealing with all aspects of Jewish
life. The name refers to the Levite priests for whom many of the laws
were written. Although the final version of Leviticus appeared four
centuries after Moses' death, many sections begin with "Yahweh said to
Moses" to add authority. Ironically, modern scholarship discloses that
many of these laws were formulated by the gentiles, non-Jewish
inhabitants of the Middle East, long before the days of Moses.
The book can be divided into four sections. Verse 18:22 occurs in the
Code of Ritual Purity and Holiness (from Lv 19:2). These topics give us
the first clue to the meaning of verse 18:22. The Code maintained the
cultural and religious identity of the Israelites. Ritual purity could
be lost by acts which, harmless in themselves, were practiced by the
pagans. Such practices were called impure, unclean, or abominable
(Hebrew: to'evah). Eating shrimp, oysters, pork, or a rare steak is
to'evah! Thus, we can't allow bigots to condemn anything just because
the Bible uses "abomination." On the other hand, as biblical scholars we
are immediately alerted to gentile, and probably idolatrous, practices
when we chance upon these words. "Abomination" is the second clue to
interpreting verse 18:22. Let's consider the other verses.
The Finer Details
What can we learn from inspecting all of chapter 18? Quite a lot!
Lv 18 is built on the sandwich principle: verses 1-5 and 24-30 are the
bread slices, fluff warning Israelites in a general way not to imitate
the gentiles, and verses 6-23 are the meat of Thou-Shalt-Nots. This
construction affords us another clue.
Verses 6-23 contain Hebrew idioms found elsewhere in the Bible, but
translations usually obscure the similiarities and shared meanings. For
instance, some translations of verses 6-18 suggest sexual intercourse;
this idea may be incorrect. A literal translation would be "You shall
not unveil the nakedness of ..." The story of drunken and naked Noah and
his son Ham (Gn 9:18-10:19) uses similar words. Both Gn 9:25, 10:6 and
Lv 18:3 attribute more casual customs regarding decency to the gentiles.
Even today, thousands of years later, we can see such cultural
differences. Americans view the standards of "decent" attire for man in
Arab countries as outmoded and repressive. The gentiles may have felt
the same about the prudish ways of the Israelites. Thus, the message in
verses 18:6-18 is likely don't copy your neighbors. A biblical scholar
also warns against a too literal interpretation of Lv 18:12, because
Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were born of a union (Ex 6:20) forbidden by
this verse. Likewise, verse 18:19 is an archaic prohibition considering
normal female physiology as "unclean." Only at verse 20 do we encounter
a clear reference to sexual conduct.
Let's not prejudice ourselves and insert some of the Hebrew in verse
18:22. "Ish shall not recline with zakar as with ishah. This is
to'evah." Our fifth clue is the use of these four Hebrew words. First,
ish and ishah are related like the pair "actor" and "actress" in
English. These two Hebrew words are used hundreds oof times and denote
man (husband) and woman (wife). The masculine word zakar is not common.
Now we can make an important conclusion. Verse 18:22 is not a simple,
direct statement forbidding male homosexuality. That would have been:
Ish shall not recline with ish as with ishah. We become suspicious of
the English quotation. We sense a translation scam. The appearance of
to'evah is a warning: Caution -- Idolatry!
As biblical scholars we conclude chapter 18 is concerned a great deal
with idolatrous or foreign practices, and very little wiuth sexual
orientation.
The English Quotation
We felt there was a problem with the translation. Let's see if we can
get to the bottom of it!
Go to your Bible and look up Lv 1:3, Lv 3:1, and Is 57:8. Use several
translations. What do these verses have in common with Lv 18:22? If you
went to the Hebrew text, you would see that all these verses contain
zakar. Let's look at them.
Lv 1:3 and 3:1 relate to animal sacrifices; zakar means animal here. Is
57:3-13 scolds the Israelites for practicing idolatry. Verse 57:8
contains the expressions: remembrance, indecent symbol, pagan symbol, or
domestic gods. These are all translations for zakar! This troublesome
word appears elsewhere in the Old Testament; the shared meaning is
probably "male and sexually potent," which could be applied to humans,
animals or images. Lv 18:23 suggests we are dealing with animals and
images. This verse contains the femine word for animal and a reference
to idolatry. Verses 22 and 23 form parallel thoughts, once in masculine
and once in feminine terms. This is the context for understanding zakar.
Lev 18:22 Well Versed
A proper translation is:
You shall not serve animals or images representing strange gods; this is
detestable.
An Abominable Article
by Tobias S. Haller
from A POST ON INTERNET GROUP SOC.CHRISTIAN.RELIGION
Mark Ambrose writes:
My friend Tobias Haller, a monk with the Order of St. Gregory, offers
this response to the bible discussion which I shared from
soc.religion.christian:
Tobias S Haller
An Abominable article
I have a few comments in response to your astounding epistle on the
Bible and homosexuality. It may well be that some people feel the Bible
has little relevance today; and people who use (or misuse) the Bible as
have done are doubtless part of the cause.
I consider myself a biblically orthodox christian. As such, I affirm
that, as you say,
....everyone accepts that some things in the Bible are cultural and not
binding on us today....
But you do not wish homosexual acts to come under this particular
heading, and suggest that those who do are in some way trying to throw
the whole Bible out the window. I'm not trying to "throw out" any of the
Bible. I'm trying to understand it.
Are the levitical condemnations of homosexual acts cultural baggage or
not? A closer look at the text indicates that they are. I will comment
briefly on your claims.
Specifically with respect to homosexual acts, it is not possible to
extract from the Bible any passages which indicate that they are to be
accepted as a normal expression of human sexuality.
Such exegesis is impossible only for those who are beforehand convinced
that it is impossible. It is clear to many scholars (e.g., Robin
Scroggs) that apart from the levitical proscriptions (about which more
below) there is no condemnation of "committed, lifelong, homosexual
relationships" but only of homosexual acts connected with prostitution
or idolatry.
It can also be maintained that the relationship between David and
Jonathan was an instance of adolescent homoerotic behavior.
Unfortunately, the redactor and subsequent editors of the Hebrew text
have rendered some of the most crucial verses "obscure" (as the
footnotes in our translations so helpfully inform us). Certainly if one
were to discover this story with the names and locales changed, one
would find no difficulty in reading it as a lost chapter of the Iliad.
It is complete with armor-bearers, intrigue, romance, pledges of love,
arranged and unwanted marriages, threats to the continuation of the
royal house, dynastic warfare, and an elegy to fallen heroes / lovers.
I'm perfectly aware that much of the traditional scholarly community
rejects such an interpretation of the story of David and Jonathan; and I
maintain this to be just another instance of heterosexist inability to
see what is there.
I am willing to stand corrected on this but it is the only expression of
sexuality which is described as an abomination. Not even sexual
relations with an animal attracts this description.
I am glad that you are willing to be corrected on this point, since you
are mistaken. This is what comes of taking verses of Scripture out of
context. If you will look at the whole of Leviticus 18, rather than just
verse 22 in isolation, you will find a long list of sexual acts,
including various types of incest, bestiality, homosexuality, and
sleeping with a woman during her period. (Chapter 20 is similarly
inclusive.) It is true that the word tow'evah (=abomination) occurs in
verse 22; however, the closing verses of the chapter read:
"But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of
these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among
you (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all
of these abominations, and the land became defiled)... For whoever
commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. So
keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done
before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your
God." -- Lev 18:26-27, 29-30 (emphasis mine)
Clearly, then, all of the acts in the chapter are meant to fall under
the heading of tow'evah. Ezekiel adds adultery to this list, and also
mentions yet again the prohibition on intercourse during menses. (Ezek
18:10-13, 22:10-11) To violate any of these laws is to violate all of
them. There is no provision in levitical judaism to obey "part" of the
Law. Unless one is willing to hold men who have intercourse with their
wives during menses to be guilty of a crime against God, then one should
not resort to the levitical texts to find a condemnation of homosexual
acts.
But there is more. The whole concept of tow'evah goes far beyond matters
sexual. It designates "that which makes ritually impure." It is a matter
of cult and rite, not necessarily of morals. Some acts under the
biblical category of tow'evah are still considered morally defective;
but many are not. Some external basis has been sought to determine which
acts called tow'evah in the Scripture are truly part of the moral, as
opposed to the ritual law.
Look at some of the other acts described as tow'evah in the Bible, that
are not held to be immoral by most persons today. These include the
eating of non-kosher foods (Deu 14:3), the wearing of clothing "proper"
to the opposite sex (Deu 22:5), the divorce and subsequent remarriage of
a woman who has married another in the interim (Deu 24:1-4), and lending
money at interest (Ezek 18:10- 13).
Just as the church overturned the prohibitions on these matters (in the
last--lending at interest--only after considerable debate for nearly
1900 years) by applying reason, not by looking for prooftexts, the
church must deal with homosexuality today in the same way. On this
issue, as with many other dilemmas (such as abortion), the Bible will
not help us with easy answers. It's not that we're "throwing the Bible
out," but that it simply does not apply to the issue under discussion.
So for us within the mainstream of Christianity, we cannot find a
Biblical basis for the claims made by homosexual Christians. This is
different from saying that God doesn't love them, and different from
saying they can't be Christians. But it does seem to be part and parcel
of the break down of sexual ethics which has followed the decline of
Christianity and its influence in our nation. The movement for the
acceptance of homosexual Christians seems to be part of the rebellion of
the secular world against Christian ethical standards.
I hope you are comfortable in your "mainstream." I suppose anyone who
disagrees with you is outside the covenant. Well, I beg to differ. I
consider myself as a biblical scholar and Christian well within the
"mainstream," and if I'm not, then I suppose Jesus must have been right
when he said that the road to hell is broad and popular. This section of
your diatribe is nothing but a tautology, since you have made the a
priori decision that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Moreover, the church is constantly "giving in" to secular standards; in
fact, many secular standards are quite moral. Marriage, for example, was
imported into the church from the Roman civic culture. Early
Christianity was hostile to it, but eventually gave in, and adopted this
civic virtue, to such an extent that we now have the strange phrase
"Christian family values."
You end your argument by setting up and then attacking the straw man of
"But I was born that way." The fact that homosexuality is probably
genetic has been raised by some in the debate on the issue. And any who
hinge their position in defense of homosexual relationships on this are
no doubt presenting a flawed argument. But the same flawed argument is
used when the "natural law" tradition tries to prove that
heterosexuality is good by virtue of its being natural. To paraphrase
Mae West, Nature has nothing to do with it. Natural law and the natural
law tradition are hopeless dead ends for resolving moral issues. (Sorry
Justice Thomas...)
Instead, Christ gave us a very simple test for morality: the Golden Rule
(Matt 7:12). He loved us so much that he became tow'evah, an object of
revulsion and scorn, for us (Psalm 88:14, Gal 3:13).
In doing so he freed us from the Law, and left us only that rule of
conduct: Love others as yourself, and do as you would be done by.
Homosexual relationships that are loving, faithful, and mutually
supportive appear to meet this test. If that is enough for Jesus, it is
enough for me. If that is enough for Jesus, it should be enough for you
too.
Tobias S Haller, BSG
President, The Catholic Fellowship of the Episcopal Church
LEVITICUS 18
by Bill Sklar <86730@LAWRENCE.BITNET>
"References on Homosexuality and the Bible"
According to "The New Testament and Homosexuality", by Robin Scroggs (pp
72-73):
"The prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is terse: 'With a male you shall not
lie (shakov) the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination' (au. trans).
The awkwardness of the sentence is caused by the fact that there is no
technical term for homosexuality in Hebrew. Nevertheless the meaning is
clear. 'Shakov' is frequently used to denote sexual intercourse; thus,
the sentence is a general prohibition of male homosexuality.
"Two things must be noted. The first is that female homosexuality is not
prohibited. The second is the wording of the verse... There is more to
note than the lack of a technical term and the use of a euphemism
(shakov) for intercourse. What is crucial is that the general word for
'male' is used, without any qualification of age. This lack of
qualification will determine the language of all future Jewish
discussions, no matter what forms of homosexuality are being attacked...
"Leviticus 20 gives... penalties... The penalty for male homosexuality
is death [Lev 20:13]... Male homosexuality is but one of several crimes
listed as punishable by death in this chapter; that is, it is not
singled out as a uniquely henious sin...
"These two verses are the only legal traditions about homosexuality in
the Hebrew Bible... no other biblical passage refers to this
prohibition... All that can be said is that late in Israelite history a
single law appears... prohibiting male homosexuality. No rationale is
given for its appearance as an 'abomination.' One might conjecture that
originally it was linked to pagan religious culture or with the
thwarting of the intended use of semen for purposes of procreation, but
it is probably best not to speculate..."
And, according to "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor," by Letha Scanzoni and
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 60-61):
"...consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite
Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it
should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare
steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the
menstrual period..."
from WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY
by Wilfrid R. Koponen, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.A.R., M.A.)
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13-14. "You shall not lie with a man as a woman:
that is abomination" (New English Bible). This part of the "Holiness
Code" of the Old Testament, which also condemns the practice of eating
rare meat or wearing a fabric from more than one material - anyone
eating a rare steak while wearing a cotton/polyester is doubly violating
this holiness code! (Funny: these things don't seem to bother
Fundamentalists.) Leviticus also states that any man or woman caught in
adultery ' must be put to death' (Lev. 20:10). Preachers quick to call
homosexual acts an 'abomination' are not insisting that Jim Bakker
*must* be "put to death"! And for good reason: the New Testament
repeatedly declares the Hebrew Holiness Code or "Law" has been replaced
by the new dispensation in Christ. Jesus said of the woman caught in
adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him to be the first to
throw a stone at her" (New International Version; John 8:3-11).
Furthermore, the "detestable" nature of lying "as a woman" refers to a
male's assuming the *passive role in anal intercourse*, which was held
as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women.
Apparently it does not view the "active" role in anal intercourse as an
abomination, nor other homosexual acts, e.g., fellatio.
from Homosexuality and Christianity---do the right thing
by John P. Refling
John Refling is a Ph.D. candidate in Electrical Engineering at the
University of California, Irvine. He may be reached through e-mail at
refling@sloth.eng.uci.edu. This article appeared in the "Phoenix", Fall
1991, UC Irvine's gay/lesbian/bisexual newspaper, ISSN 1055-095X.
Copyright (c) 1991 by John P. Refling. All rights reserved.
Leviticus 18:22
Moving on to Leviticus 18:22: "you shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination". This most likely is a prohibition of male
homosexuality. But it is important to understand what the Old Testament
book of Leviticus is all about. The character and function of Leviticus
is the revelation of a divine order of society in the commonwealth of
Israel. Thus, the themes of the book are worship, sacrifice, temple
priesthood and ritual, purification of Israel, atonement, holiness of
God and Israel, religious dedication of time life, and property.
Let's look at some of the many other prohibitions of Leviticus: you may
not eat pork (ham, most hot dogs, bacon, lard), sea animals which do not
have fins or scales (lobster, shrimp, crabs, clams, oyster, etc.),
swarming animals (mice, lizards), dead animals; you must break any
earthen (clay, ceramic) vessel which touches these creatures. Proper use
of blood splashing rites and incense-smoke in tabernacles is covered.
Sacrifices and burnt animal offerings are described.
Finally, in chapter 18, we read of avoiding incest (except for marrying
one's daughter which is not mentioned), marrying a woman and her sister
at once, sex with neighbor's wife, male homosexuality, and sex with
animals. In ancient times Abraham married his half-sister, and Jacob was
married to two sisters simultaneously. This chapter deals with Israelite
sexual morality, by defining which sexual unions are not compatible with
Yahwistic principles.
Many American customs violate those ancient Hebrew "laws," and many of
the ancient Hebrew religious requirements are not respected by
Christians today[5]. For example, the Levitical prohibitions against
wearing clothing of mixed fabric, having tattoos, eating particular
foods, and oppressing resident aliens are ignored by most Christians
today. The killing of unruly children has also been rejected by modern
society. So why do Christians continue to cite the Levitical
prohibitions against homosexuality?
Christians customarily divide the Old Testament law in three parts: the
moral (ten commandments), the civil (legislation for ancient Hebrew
society), and ceremonial (sacrifices and rituals for Hebrew religion.)
Instead of distinguishing between these laws, it is better to say that
some injunctions are broad and generally applicable to most societies,
while others are specifically directed at particular social problems of
ancient Israel [6].
It is important to note that an important purpose of the levitical laws
was to remind the Israelites who they were by keeping them
ritualistically separate from the surrounding societies. These laws are
for the ancient Israelites and cannot be automatically be transplanted
in our society. As one can see by reading Leviticus, Christians and
American society have rejected these Jewish laws.
Further evidence that the prohibition against male homosexuality is
strictly for the Hebrews comes in the translation of "abomination" which
comes from the Hebrew word "toevah." This word signifies something
ritualistically unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in
intercourse during menstruation [7].
Remember that Jesus was in opposition to the Jewish religious leaders.
Does this also mean that he was opposed to their religious laws? One may
argue that there are two periods which revolve around Christ's life and
the law: the period before his death which is the final culmination of
the old order, in which the law is not annulled by him, but "signs" that
it is passing are given. Only after his death has sealed the new
covenant and fully inaugurated the new order, does the Levitical law
cease to govern relations between God and man for Christians. This may
explain why Paul connects the death of Christ so closely with the end of
the law.
The atonement achieved on Calvary meant that the strict levitical
prescriptions for sacrifice and holiness have been superseded for the
Christian [8].
In summary, Leviticus is the only condemnation of male homosexuality
(lesbianism is never mentioned). However, that law is only applicable to
Jews---Christians believe the old law was superseded by Christ. The fact
that one does not see Christians protesting outside of butcher shops,
barber shops, tattoo shops, or in the cotton/polyester section of
clothing stores attests to the fact that modern Christians realize that
the levitical laws do not hold for them. That modern Christians do not
perform the rituals required of Jews in Leviticus shows that the Jewish
rituals are irrelevant for Christians.
Even the Hebrew word for "abomination" comes from a distinctly Jewish
ritualistic context. It is thus ridiculous for modern Christians to
believe that the Jewish prohibition against male homosexuality is
relevant to them.
[5] Patai, Raphael, Sex and Family in the Middle East. 1959.
[6] Wenham, Gordon, The Book of Leviticus: The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. 1979.
[7] Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.
1980.
[8] Harrison, R. K., Leviticus: an Introduction and Commentary. 1980.
BIBLE COMMENT ON LEVITICUS BY A TRADITIONAL RABBI I
An anonymous friend posted to me (without permission) Rabbi Milgrom's
article from the Bible Review (that Jessea mentioned). Its basic points
are:
1. Levitical prohibitions were never meant to apply to nonJews;
2. The non-existence of anti-lesbian strictures is not an accident;
theTorah never intended to prohibit lesbian sex;
3. Gay Jewish men should adopt children, to fulfill the mitzvah of p:ru
urbu (be fruitful and multiply).
An important point to note is that Rabbi Milgrom is NOT a Reform rabbi,
and isgenerally respected and considered quite mainstream. Here is the
article:
Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?
by Jacob Milgrom
Washington, D.C.: Bible Review [Vol. 9, No. 6. December, 1993. Page 11]
This past Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to
explain the afternoon scriptural reading: the list of forbidden sexual
liaisons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the
most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible, "Do not lie with a
male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends,
depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights: This biblical
prohibition is addressed only to Jews. Non-Jews are affected only if
they reside in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing
exhortation in Leviticus 18, verses 24-30). Thus, it is incorrect to
apply this prohibition on a universal scale.[1]
But I spoke to my fellow Jews, who are required to observe this
prohibition. What is the rationale for this prohibition? In a previous
column,[2] I noted that the Bible's impurity rules are part of a symbol
system representing the forces of life and death. Israel is required to
avoid these impurities and adhere to the laws commanded by God, who
promotes the forces of life. Thus in the same chapter we read, "You
shall heed my statues and my rules, by doing them one shall live"
(Leviticus 18:5). A man who discharges semen, whether intentionally or
otherwise, is declared impure and must purify himself by bathing (a sort
of re-baptism) before he is permitted to enter the Temple or touch
sacred (sacrificial) food (Leviticus 15:16-18). Why? Because semen
stands for life, and the loss of semen symbolizes the loss of life. Note
also that in the entire list of forbidden sexual unions, there is no
prohibition against lesbianism. Can it be that lesbianism did not exist
in ancient times or that Scripture was unaware of its existence?
Lesbians existed and flourished, as attested in an old (pre-Israelite)
Babylonian text and in the work of the lesbian poet Sappho (born c.612
B.C.E., during the time of the First Temple), who came from the island
of Lesbos (hence lesbianism). But there is a fundamental difference
between the homosexual acts of men and women. In lesbianism there is no
spilling of seed. Thus life is not symbolically lost, and therefore
lesbianism is not prohibited in the Bible.
My argument ostensibly can be countered by a more comprehensive biblical
injunction. The very first commandment, given to Adam and repeated to
Noah, is "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28 and
Genesis 9:1, 7). The descendants of Noah -- the entire human race -- are
duty-bound to fulfill this commandment. But the truth is that we have
not only filled the earth, we have over-filled it. This does not mean,
however, that the commandment should be thought of as no longer in
force -- especially among Jews, ho have lost a third of their numbers in
our lifetime. I recall an incident during a premarital interview from
the early years of my rabbinate. The starry-eyed bride declared her
noble intention to have twelve children to compensate for the tragic
loss of six million killed in the Holocaust. I gasped, "Must you do it
all by yourself? "I have since come to regret my flippant reply. This
couple regarded their forthcoming marriage as a sacrament not just
between themselves, but with the Jewish people. The problem has worsened
for American Jews. Because intermarriage is rife and the Jewish birth
rate is low, American Jewry, once at zero population growth, has dipped
into the minus column. Were it not for a steady stream of converts, the
extinction of American Jewry would be even more imminent. For us the
divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply" is truly in force.
To Jewish homosexuals I offer an unoriginal solution. As compensation
for your loss of seed, adopt children. Although adoption was practiced
in the ancient world (as attested in Babylonian law), there is no
biblical procedure or institution of adoption. As a result the
institution of adoption is absent from rabbinic jurisprudence. Yet there
are isolated cases of a kind of pseudo-adoption in the Bible. For
example, Abraham, long childless, complains to God that Eliezer of
Damascus, his steward, will inherit him (Genesis 15:2). And barren
Rachel beseeches her husband Jacob, "Here is my maid Bilhah--go into her
that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too may have
children" (Genesis 30:3). Adoption is certainly a possibility today.
Lesbian couples have an additional advantage. Not only do they not
violate biblical law, but through artificial insemination each can
become the natural mother of her children.
Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Lesbians, presumably
half of the world's homosexual population, are not mentioned. More than
ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed.
This leaves the small number of male Jewish gays subject to this
prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of
procreation, adoption provides a solution. I hope the Eternal, in love
and compassion, will then reckon their spilled seed as producing fruit.
[1] It is true that some rabbis would include homosexuality under the
Noachide Laws, binding on all humanity (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin
58a; Maimonides, Kings 9:5), but this is a later interpretation, not the
plain meaning of the biblical text.
[2] "Seeing the Ethical Within the Ritual," Bible Review, August 1992.
Bible Review; Volume IX, Number 6, December 1993. Page 11.
Published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, 3000 Connecticut Avenue,
NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20008. ISBN-8755-6316.88
BIBLE COMMENT ON LEVITICUS BY A TRADITIONAL RABBI II
TZVI MARX
"A Blessing over Differences: We need a new look at Jewish texts that
appear to exclude homosexuals
The Jerusalem Report, April 6, 1995, p. 51
DEBATE over the religious significance of unconventional sexual identity
has raged in Israel since last fall's Supreme Court ruling that El Al
must give free flights to an employee's homosexual partner, as it would
to any employee's common-law spouse. As usual, attacks on accepting
homosexuals have been based on the Biblical proscriptions against a man
"lying with a man as with a woman deeming this "an abomination" and
"punishable by death" (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13).
Indeed. such arguments have long been used. Rabbi Moshe Tendler. for
instance, once cited Leviticus on these pages, and urged us "express
shame and indignation" in response to homosexuality.
No matter how categorical scripture seems to be, though, one never
assume that a subject is closed. The classic example is the "stubborn
and rebellious son" of Deuteronomy 2 1, to be stoned at the initiative
of his parents. the Talmud, in Tractate Sanhedrin, creates such unlikely
rules for convicting such a child that it concludes that a real one
"never was and never will be."
In a matter closer to the question of sexual "deviation," the Bible
excludes eunuchs from "entering the assembly of the Lord" (Deuteronomy
23:2) - that is, from marrying. Tractate Sotah, however, explains that
the prohibition applies only to one made a eunuch by human action, but
not to a congenital eunuch apparently distinguishing between culturally
chosen and physically determined deviation. There's also a subtext of
divergent rabbinic views on unconventional sexual identity in Tractate
Bekhorot. There the sages discuss the Torah's requirement (Exodus 34:19)
that first-born animals be consecrated unless thev are phvsicallv
blemished. An animal with both male arid female genitals is seen bv
Rabbi Ishmael as haviryi a "blemish of which none is greater." But
others. as Rashi comments, consider it neither male nor female "but a
creature in its own right"! In the latter view, a biological deviation
is to be appreciated, not deprecated.
Defining sexual identity is made an issue in the opening verse of
Tazria: 'When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be rituallv
impure seven davs ... arid if she bears a female, she shall be impure
two weeks" (Leviticus 12:2, 5). But what of a child that is both male
and female, or neither (androginus and tumtum respectively in Talmudic
terminology? Rather than exclude them from the law and the community
because of their unusual sexual identity, the sages in Tractate Nidah
set requirements for them between those for a male and those for a
female - and so recognize such sexual identity as a category in itself.
This invites the further question, not pursued by the early sages, of
how to regard a child who is conventionally ale or female in some ways
but not others - that is, a homosexual. While this characteristic is
obviously not discernible in infancy, the long-term question is about
legitimacy.
Can the Jewish communitv be categorical in excluding those whose
differences put them outside standard sexual identity. What if those
differences are a product of genes, not choice? A direction toward an
answer, I suggest, can be derived from Tractate Brakhot, which teaches
that one who sees a physically unusual person should recite:
"Blessed-are You. Lord, who makes creatures differently." In the 13th
century, the Meiri - Rabbi Menahem Meir of Perpignan - explains the
blessing as a response to "experincing of new things, without
necessarily enjoying or being troubled by them." What it expresses is
blessed wonderment at the different forms of divinely created life.
This isn't necessarily approval. It does imply acceptance, and a
willingness to include in our society those destined to be different. It
is consonant with the fundamental Jewish teaching that each individual
is entitled to say "for me was the world created," as stated in Tractate
Sanhedrin.
Appreciating God's creation means appreciating variations along a
continuum not neatlv divided. Reciting a benediction over human variety
translates into creating a society in which differences are respected
rather than attacked. The sacred texts, Biblical or rabbinic, which
appear to block such inclusion invite creative reinterpretation under
the impact of new insights.
Tzui Marx is an Orthodox rabbi, director of applied education at the
Shalom Hartmari Institute and author of "Halakha and Handicap: Jewish
Law and Ethics on Disability."
"Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vOedne6ifoFRJYHeRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
: "DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
: news:ru%Se.3492$Di4.1590@trnddc07...
: > Eraser wrote:
: >> <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
: >> news:duGSe.2947$Di4.1801@trnddc07...
: >>
: >>>
: >>>>DanielSan wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>>osprey wrote:
: >>>
: >>>>>>So my point has been proven, liberals really do want their tax
cuts.
: >>>>>>
: >>>>>
: >>>>>I sent my tax cut straight to the Red Cross.
: >>>>
: >>>>...and you lack the humility to do so without bragging about it.
: >>>
: >>>This is untrue, of course.
: >>>It is not bragging to make apoint to refute a false point.
: >>
: >>
: >> <restoration of unacknowledged snippage>
: >> "You (Daniel San) could've made the same point by saying that you
: >> personally knew a liberal who sent his tax cut straight to the Red
: >> Cross." It certainly IS bragging when gratutitously calling
attention to
: >> your good deeds while the capacity exists to make the same point
with
: >> humility.
: >
: > I could've said that, but I felt it would've carried more weight
than "I
: > know someone who..." It officiates things, y'know? Besides, the
point is
: > made. Liberals who could afford it (like myself) did send their tax
cuts
: > to charity.
:
: What you've done is to make Osprey's point for him. The fact of the
matter
: is that liberals DO want their tax cuts (as osprey said), even if it
is to
: ultimately send them to charity. As I said in another post on this
thread,
: had you wanted to refuse your tax cut, you simply needed to refrain
from
: taking certain exemptions, deductions and/or credits in order to
offset the
: amount of the tax cut. In this way you would've kept the funds in the
: federal coffers. Instead, you took the tax cut, and gave it to
charity. In
: reality, you have wisely set up personal future tax reductions via the
: deduction for charitable contributions. If you continue to give your
tax
: cut to charity, and also give the resultant money garnered from the
: charitable contribution deduction on your federal taxes, you have set
up a
: growing annuity for the charity of your choice. Congratulations, you
are a
: fiscal conservative. You have effectively employed traditional
conservative
: economic principles by keeping the funds out of the public sector and
within
: the private sector where they will be used more efficiently.
:
: > I wonder who many conservatives did it...
:
: (I'm assuming that you meant "how" and not "who"). I'd like to think
that
: liberals and conservatives give to charities in equal measure.
However,
: much to my surprise, a bit of research shows that the red states are
far
: more charitable than the blue ones. In fact, the rate of giving in
: Massachusetts is near the bottom of the 50 states, while the rate in
: Mississippi is the highest. Las Vegas has a much lower rate than
Provo.
: Atheists have a lower rate of giving than Christians. Your skepticism
of
: conservative giving is very easily researched...just do a little
homework.
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
05 Sep 2005 09:22:05 AM |
|
|
On 5-Sep-2005, "Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:duGSe.2947$Di4.1801@trnddc07...
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
So my point has been proven, liberals really do want their tax
cuts.
I sent my tax cut straight to the Red Cross.
...and you lack the humility to do so without bragging about it.
This is untrue, of course.
It is not bragging to make apoint to refute a false point.
<restoration of unacknowledged snippage>
Which doesn;t disprove what i said.
"You (Daniel San) could've made the same point by saying that you
personally
knew a liberal who sent his tax cut straight to the Red Cross." It
certainly IS bragging when gratutitously calling attention to your good
deeds while the capacity exists to make the same point with humility.
And it's NOT gratuitious when some IDIOT called him on it - oh, wait - that
was you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eraser" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
05 Sep 2005 10:15:09 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hwYSe.2802$AB4.352@trnddc03...
On 5-Sep-2005, "Eraser" <Eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:duGSe.2947$Di4.1801@trnddc07...
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
So my point has been proven, liberals really do want their tax
cuts.
I sent my tax cut straight to the Red Cross.
...and you lack the humility to do so without bragging about it.
This is untrue, of course.
It is not bragging to make apoint to refute a false point.
<restoration of unacknowledged snippage>
Which doesn;t disprove what i said.
"You (Daniel San) could've made the same point by saying that you
personally
knew a liberal who sent his tax cut straight to the Red Cross." It
certainly IS bragging when gratutitously calling attention to your good
deeds while the capacity exists to make the same point with humility.
And it's NOT gratuitious when some IDIOT called him on it - oh, wait -
that
was you!
It may have been gratuitous <shrug>. In any case it seems that the IDIOT is
you, as you seem to think that he "refuted a false point" (ie. that liberals
take their tax cuts). The fact of the matter is that he DID accept his tax
cut. How he spent it is superfluous. Had he wanted to refuse his tax cut,
he simply needed to refrain from taking certain exemptions, deductions
and/or credits in order to offset the amount of the tax cut. In this way he
would've kept the funds in the federal coffers. Instead, he TOOK THE TAX
CUT, and gave it to charity. In reality, he has wisely set up personal
FUTURE TAX REDUCTIONS via the deduction for charitable contributions. He
has effectively employed traditional conservative economic theory by keeping
the funds out of the public sector and within the private sector where they
will be used more efficiently.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
04 Sep 2005 12:18:04 PM |
|
|
Eraser <eraser92156@yahoo.com> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
osprey wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125769559.341136.58850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <k4GdnZ_mVbvynYTeRVn-rw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:020920051810144868%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <rYmdnXLqPb_p4IXeRVn-ow@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
<jmpc@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125677670.317257.311330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about
those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a
newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about
those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his
thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely
nothing.
I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were
not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
You mean the poor liberal politicians want to give up their tax break?
Oh
puh-lease, give us a break.
The only thing worse than the lower class getting screwed by the upper
class is the lower class getting screwed and not realizing it. Wise
up, Osprey...
Show us all the liberal politicians who donate their tax breaks back to
Government.
We aren't talking about a few politicians tossing in a few thousands
dollars. Keep up.
So you can't show us any liberal politicians willing to give up their
tax cuts.
So you keep trying to change the subject.
Now, there you go..that kills your theory about how liberal's want to pay
more taxes..they sure don't mind keeping that extra money they get back
thanks to Bush's tax cuts.
Yeah - that $90 a year you get sure makes up for all the increased
expenses. You are getting raped and you seem to love it.
Hey, you are the one who claims liberals care so much and oppossed the
tax cuts, yet you can't provide any examples of a liberal politician
willing to give back their money they received from tax cuts. How
liberal of you.
Keep raping your children, I don't care.
So my point has been proven, liberals really do want their tax cuts.
I sent my tax cut straight to the Red Cross.
...and you lack the humility to do so without bragging about it.
Typical bigotry. If you stay silent they accuse you of being
hypocrites, and if you speak out that accuse you of bragging.
It's all about hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 04:35:10 PM |
|
|
On 2005-09-02 09:14:30 -0700, said:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
Bush cares nothing for the lower 99% of the nation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 05:45:59 PM |
|
|
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005090214351043658%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2005-09-02 09:14:30 -0700, said:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
Bush cares nothing for the lower 99% of the nation.
How do you know?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 08:10:08 PM |
|
|
In article <vJmdnTufgPxwSIXeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005090214351043658%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2005-09-02 09:14:30 -0700, said:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
Bush cares nothing for the lower 99% of the nation.
How do you know?
READ
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 08:46:56 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:020920051810144887%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <vJmdnTufgPxwSIXeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005090214351043658%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2005-09-02 09:14:30 -0700, said:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about
those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about
those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing.
I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
Bush cares nothing for the lower 99% of the nation.
How do you know?
READ
So you have no proof either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
03 Sep 2005 12:39:11 PM |
|
|
In article <ftSdnSL7sK-mnYTeRVn-iA@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:020920051810144887%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <vJmdnTufgPxwSIXeRVn-gQ@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"George" <ggains@waddfr.edu> wrote in message
news:2005090214351043658%ggains@waddfredu...
On 2005-09-02 09:14:30 -0700, said:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about
those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about
those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing.
I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
Osprey thinks Bush "passed" the aid...
We'd have far more money and far more troops available if we were not
fighting Bush's "War" (The one the CIA says is actually CREATING
terrorists...)
and dont forget his needless tax break for the rich
Bush cares nothing for the lower 99% of the nation.
How do you know?
READ
So you have no proof either.
"You lied! - You lied! Squawk! Polly want a cracker!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 11:14:02 AM |
|
|
and dot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 07:43:48 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
And how much went to fighting Bush's agenda in Iraq?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 09:27:25 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
<1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 11:08:18 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:v5ogh19melifkg91jn3kb3vjtm6l4kra2t@4ax.com...
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
<1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
And what did the Governor request?
Come on, a President can only do so much. What did the Government do in NO
to prepare for this?
Or do you just think it's all on Bush?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 11:43:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:08:18 -0400, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in <UvOdnaCyh5865YXeRVn-iw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:v5ogh19melifkg91jn3kb3vjtm6l4kra2t@4ax.com...
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
<1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
And what did the Governor request?
Come on, a President can only do so much. What did the Government do in NO
to prepare for this?
Or do you just think it's all on Bush?
I said what I did. Again, what have you done?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 11:49:55 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:580hh1dpcsagjlu8dnm8h9fgr2iaqf5ebu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 12:08:18 -0400, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in <UvOdnaCyh5865YXeRVn-iw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:v5ogh19melifkg91jn3kb3vjtm6l4kra2t@4ax.com...
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
<1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those
in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
And what did the Governor request?
Come on, a President can only do so much. What did the Government do in
NO
to prepare for this?
Or do you just think it's all on Bush?
I said what I did. Again, what have you done?
If you read my other post, you would see what I have done. I already told
you...but <sigh> here I go again.
I have donated clothes, I have gone to the grocery store and my wife and I
purchased $100.00 worth of canned goods, I have made a generous donation to
our church, which our church has collected more than $10,000. in donations.
I plan on doing more as my resources allow me to.
My comment was in response to the comment about Bush not "having a clue" and
how this was predicted. What action had the local Government in New Orleans
taken to prepare?
From my understanding, for years, LONG before Bush ever got in there, they
did not put the money towards fortifying the levies.
Why?
I'll tell you why, and this is a problem with the Federal Government as well
as all State Government. Because politicians are "re-active" instead of
being "pro-active". We wait until a disastor strikes, then we decide we
must do something.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise Mallard" |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 09:41:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:27:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 23:27:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , "osprey"
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> in
<1125642456.303134.125030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
towelie wrote:
TV's osprey wrote:
Adam H. a worthless Canadian pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except sitting in a newsgroup
crying.
GWB is a worthless pseudo-Texan pretending to be concerned about those in
N.O. and is doing absolutely nothing except twiddling his thumbs.
Ahh, so that 10.5 billion in aid just passed is absolutely nothing. I
guess you have all the answers...but yet where are you sitting?
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Was it cluelessness or he didn't give a *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: "Liberal" Media: Blacks "Loot" Groceries, Whereas Whites "Find" Food |
02 Sep 2005 04:10:52 PM |
|
|
Louise Mallard <readmydigs@booknut.com> wrote in
news:r3pgh1hvqne0vdk9jqm5ig9aorcd3q0hck@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:27:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
He somehow was not able to learn, while the storm headed to NO, while
it was destroying the coast, or after the flood waters have inundated
the city, that this had been *predicted*. He went on TV and said so.
Think of that. He did not have a clue. CNN talked about this, I can
only assume that even Fox News had talked about it. FEMA warned about
it. But somehow Shrub went on national TV and said it was not
predicted. That does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Was it cluelessness or he didn't give a *****?
both, i think. he seems completely out of touch with anything real: iraq,
new orleans, korea, china, the middle east in general.
--
.
|
|
|
| | |
