From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vfOdnc1nsozNeH3WnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

>.I wonder why people who understand that you can't get out of debt by
>spending money,

An invalid economic assumption.
If I am deep in debt and make appropriate investments, I will eventually get
out of debt.
the principle is called capitalism. You spend money to make money.



--
Peter

From: J. Clarke on
On 5/4/2010 11:43 AM, Peter wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:XgMDeeEERD4LFA27(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <4be0315f$1$27711$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:LQGEykCvjC4LFAm9@p
>>> haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>>>
>>>>> Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
>>>>> your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
>>>> faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
>>>> believe as they do as demonstrated above)
>>>>
>>>> However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
>>>> ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000
>>>> years...
>>>> Some parts are only just 1500 years old.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What parts of Tanakh have changed?
>>> Feel free to Google the term.
>>
>> The book under discussion was the Bible... feel free to Google the term
>>
>
>
> Tanakh = Bible

More precisely, Tanach = Old Testament, sort of. To complicate matters,
the oldest extant copy of the Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) is a
good deal older than the oldest extant Masoretic text (the currently
used Tanach), and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to have fragments that
support both versions, suggesting that there was disagreement on the
correct text by the Jews, rather than merely mistranslation in the
Septuagint.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4I-dnceJRrz0bX3WnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:cpmdnTtIy-OO733WnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> Peter wrote:
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but
>>>>> I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read
>>>>> faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts,
>>>>> infuriating them all the
>>>>> more by raking in millions while aggravating them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals
>>>>> foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms,
>>>>> which is a delight
>>>>> to see.
>>>>
>>>> However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be
>>>> left scratching one's head in bewilderment.
>>>
>>>
>>> But she is one good looking woman.
>>
>> Even better looking is Monica Crowley. She's usually on O'Reilly's show
>> Tuesdays, doing the good fight against the liberal Alan Colmes -- who is
>> actually her brother-in-law, though this is rarely mentioned.
>>
>> Monica is also a regular on The McLaughlin Group, weekends. (I get it
>> Sundays on a couple of different channels, though I understand it's
>> Saturdays elsewhere. These are PBS channels and evidently each station
>> arranges its own schedule.)
>>
>> Monica is really a knockout, as well as being very knowledgeable,
>> articulate and quick on her feet in an argument. Try to catch her some
>> weekend.
>>
>> She also does a regular column Wednesdays in the Washington Times.
>>
> Trying to get liberals to actually give some credence to a conservative is
> a complete waste of time, Neil. "If it appears on Fox News, it has to be
> wrong," is their battle cry. Actually listening to what is said, and
> refuting any part of it, is beyond their comprehension.

Unfortunately that seems to be true.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4be14ba7$1$7706$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:846dndujn9PbRn3WnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bdffec6$1$27720$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should
>>>> be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>>>
>>> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
>> available to all non felons......
>
> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
> rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly some
> under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?

In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.

>
>>Marriage is, or at least should be, a constitutional right, since the
>>government has added it to their IRS form 1040......
>
> We agree in result, not the reasoning. In this case I don't give a damn
> about your rationale, or lack thereof.

This is and should remain a states' rights thing as far as I'm concerned.
The same is true of abortion "rights" -- SCOTUS should never have forced
that down the states' throats.


From: Peter on
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message
news:hrrn1h0s7c(a)news6.newsguy.com...
> On 5/4/2010 11:43 AM, Peter wrote:
>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:XgMDeeEERD4LFA27(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <4be0315f$1$27711$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:LQGEykCvjC4LFAm9@p
>>>> haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>>>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>>> Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
>>>>>> your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
>>>>> faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
>>>>> believe as they do as demonstrated above)
>>>>>
>>>>> However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
>>>>> ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000
>>>>> years...
>>>>> Some parts are only just 1500 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What parts of Tanakh have changed?
>>>> Feel free to Google the term.
>>>
>>> The book under discussion was the Bible... feel free to Google the term
>>>
>>
>>
>> Tanakh = Bible
>
> More precisely, Tanach = Old Testament, sort of. To complicate matters,
> the oldest extant copy of the Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) is a
> good deal older than the oldest extant Masoretic text (the currently used
> Tanach), and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to have fragments that support both
> versions, suggesting that there was disagreement on the correct text by
> the Jews, rather than merely mistranslation in the Septuagint.
>


Your statement arrogantly ignores the beliefs of mainstream Jewry. Jews do
not accept any document you call the old testament. There is only one Bible.
I consider your refusal to acknowledge these beliefs as arrogant and
insulting.

You profess to know far more than I about the Essens, who were believed not
to be part of the mainstream Israelites, either in Judea or Sumeria. Again
you arrogantly present your beliefs as fact. Enjoy and take comfort in your
beliefs but don't you ever dare to present them as fact.

--
Peter