From: Ray Fischer on
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote:
>On 4/20/2010 10:45 AM, Alan LeHun wrote:
>> In article<hqk5t6$mip$1(a)>,
>> ntotrr(a) says...
>>> Thanks for making this response. Mr. Lehun's post is so ridiculous that I
>>> wouldn't even bother responding to it. Your description of my mindset is
>>> better than I would have made, thanks.
>> Fair enough. I would point out though that my post was not a personal
>> dig upon yourself, nor a dig at religious people in general. It was
>> firstly an observation that religion requires or encourages its subjects
>> to relinquish choice on certain (usually moral) grounds, and secondly,
>> that society has the same imperatives but from a completely differing
>> origin.
>I am curious as to how religion in the US could require someone to
>"relinquish choice". There is no mechanism by which a citizen may cede
>his voting rights to another party.

You haven't heard anything of the various cults which demand total
obedience of followers and use all manner of coercive techniques to
obtain consent, freedom, and property?

Ray Fischer

From: Albert Ross on
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:01:57 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)>

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:36:15 -0400, "Peter"
><peternew(a)> wrote:
>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they find
>>> it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a
>>> matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic)
>>> who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could
>>> work, but don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who can't
>>> work for one reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could work
>>> but don't, ate (and have been) subsidized by the state of California all
>>> of my life...<BS rant snipped>
>>And the reliable source for your statistics is?
>Fox "News", of course!

In the UK there are around 3 million unemployed (taking into account
the way the numbers have been fudged over the years)

Maybe there are 100 000 job vacancies. If they were all filled there
would STILL be around 3 million unemployed.

We maintain that sort of number since Thatcher. This keeps down the
wages of the employed and ensures more money goes to the rich as a

And as for investments, my mother thought she was doing well off her
investments until the crash, when it turned out she lost about as much
capital as they'd paid out in "interest" over the last few years. Thus
all they were doing was metering her capital back to her in monthly
payments and *pretending* it was interest
From: Chris H on
In message <k7vps5p8322jlgvjo81finc57nm4rsmldm(a)>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)> writes
>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:16:19 +0100, Alan LeHun <try(a)> wrote:
>>In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)>,
>>ntotrr(a) says...
>>> I am free to use my
>>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>>> person or not has no bearing on that.
>>If you are a religious person, have not effectively signed your
>>influence away to the church?
>>Religion is, after all, simply a means of control.
>>I agree that certain churches exercise differing amounts of control, and
>>some exercise very little, but the point is still valid. A catholic for
>>example, could not vote for a candidate standing on a pro abortion
>>stance not because they have made up their mind on the issue, but
>>because the church has made its mind for them.
>You either know nothing about Catholicism or nothing about Catholics.

We do know that most, like you, are in denial over the churches support
and protection of Child Abusers. In some posts in the thread you were
even blaming the victims and the Police.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Chris H on
In message <2010041915543120094-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> writes
>> I don't believe your taxable income is only 1700 a year.....What are
>>you doing with a computer is you make that little? But that's beside
>>the point. Just because you saved so little, why do you think that
>>everyone should save so little. Can't you imagine there are people in
>>this world who aspire to be better off than you are, and are willing
>>to save more and/or work harder than you do? Or, like a typical
>>liberal, you think that everyone should live exactly as you do, and
>>by God, we should make a law that forces them to.......
>You failed to ask the pertinant question, "What was your non-taxable income?"

Quite.... I have virtually no taxable income. Neither does my wife.
However we run two companies that are quite healthy. Point is we can
afford to pay ourselves minimum wage.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Alan LeHun on
In article <k7vps5p8322jlgvjo81finc57nm4rsmldm(a)>, tony_cooper213 says...

> You either know nothing about Catholicism or nothing about Catholics.

That would be Catholicism then.

I don't know much about American Catholics.
Here, in Scotland, I'm surrounded by the Irish variety.

My statement was a general one anyway. Perhaps if I said "a 'good'
catholic", but that would probably be misread anyway. The point remains
that religion is a device to 'encourage' (on pain of damnation etc) that
its members behave in a certain way. It is a form of brainwashing which
is less covert than the secular social kind (which we are all subjected
to, religeous or not), but is more open to human vagrancies.

This is too OT though, and I won't say any more on the matter here.

Alan LeHun