From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:32:19 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In message <873rs55kvrdthoit2iiaq9vuvt72i24bb4(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:18:49 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <k7vps5p8322jlgvjo81finc57nm4rsmldm(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper
>>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes
>>>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:16:19 +0100, Alan LeHun <try(a)reply.to> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>>>>>> I am free to use my
>>>>>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>>>>>>religious
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>If someone else wrote that, I'd be offended. However, since you
>>specialize in lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated "facts", I'll
>>chalk it off to just another Chris H tactic of dishonesty.
>
>Denial as usual. As pointed out by many of the others in the same
>thread.

You follow lie with lie. No one has pointed out anything like this.
Not even close. There weren't even "many" that commented at all in
that thread. Basically, it was you and me.

This is why you have no credibility on any issue. You make such
blatantly untrue statements so many times that if you ever get around
to telling the truth you'll be doubted.

You'd do well to read "The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf". Aesop had you
in mind before you were around.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bccebb8$0$27701$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Alan LeHun" <try(a)reply.to> wrote in message
> news:MPG.263667f94c797789897d2(a)news.x-privat.org...
>> In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>> ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>>> I am free to use my
>>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a
>>> religious
>>> 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.
>
>
> I have had the pleasure of knowing Peter S, over the net, for many years.
> He is a deeply religious person who has strong and IMO very sincere
> beliefs. Although he and I are about 180 degrees apart politically and
> religiously on many matters, I have no reason to state that he would be
> influenced by what some religious figure states. He makes up his own mind
> and has not signed his influence to any church. He may agree with his
> church, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think for himself.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter

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.


From: Alan LeHun on
In article <hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
> I am free to use my
> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a religious
> 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.

--
Alan LeHun
From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hqeul0$k5u$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> You were lucky enough to make enough money and wise enough
>> to regularly save enough of it to have what you have now. Most others
>> "live on the edge" not by choice, but because they don't make enough
>> to put away anything. I never grossed more than $22k any year in my
>> life (and often far less), and with business expenses, the "take home"
>> portion was much smaller. But, with care (I've always been good with
>> money), I managed to own outright a decent 1100 sq. ft. house and a
>> cheap-but-OK car, and to amass $96k in investments. I had to stop
>> working about eight years ago when a "difficulty" hit me suddenly out
>> of nowhere. I wanted to continue working, but I couldn't be sure of
>> being able to meet with clients, let alone "perform" on the agreed-upon
>> dates. For the last two jobs I hired back-up photographers to fill in,
>> if needed, which left too little profit to bother with, so I went on SS
>> disability, and a few years later, that converted to a modest SS income,
>> essentially my only source of income (but it is sufficient for my needs).
>> Now, as it happened, I have come to meet many on welfare or disability,
>> and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work. There are
>> some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout" transportation
>> service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals away from where
>> they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given such people when
>> needed, since they need the money more than I do), people who are
>> blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have mobility problems,
>> people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and people who "just"
>> have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling as any physical
>> problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed with it since I
>> found a way to make money without having a regular job (my last
>> attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the "if
>> I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
>> many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
>> fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
>> and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
>> than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
>> your outlook, if not with your money...
>> --DR

> 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....I have met many of them, and they didn't work because
> they were better off economically by just sitting and letting the California government cut them checks every month. There was no
> "sliding scale" payments that would (or might have) given them any incentive to work. I keep telling you this, but you keep
> reverting to my being, "An unfeeling conservative who doesn't understand the plight of others who are less fortunate than I." Lets
> take the idiot who lived next door to me in Menlo Park for about 5 years. He had a dozen children, and he lived in a three bedroom
> house. Je was on disability, because he had a "nervous condition that made him uncomfortable when he worked for a living" (No lie)
> All he did was sit home and drink beer.....After they moved out (owing 5 months rent) I met the owner's son, who was fixing up the
> place for re-renting to someone else, and needed me to help him install a new toilet. He showed me the back bedroom.....It was
> piled floor to ceiling with empty beer cans....This guy lived in a three bedroom house, with a dozen children, and he used one of
> the three bedrooms for a garbage dump for his beer cans! Incidentally, while they were living there, his wife had another ked, so
> there were thirteen kids when they skipped out of town.....The local police department knew all about this guys kids....They lived
> under a standing order curfew.....If any of them was seen by a Menlo Park policeman out after dark, he (or she) would be arrested
> immediately.....they got all their spending money by stealing whatever they could get their hands on, and selling it to whomever
> they could for whatever they could get for it.......

You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
resources, and also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get rich
on welfare...;-)
--DR


From: J. Clarke on
On 4/19/2010 9:16 AM, Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article<hqhi98$2se$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> ntotrr(a)optonline.net says...
>> I am free to use my
>> influence to affect public policy just as you are. Whether I am a religious
>> 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 don't know many Catholics do you?