"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs

how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click on a random
link.

>
> --
>
> If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't
> help the poor,


What makes anyone think that we don't help the poor? Ridiculous.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in
:

> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs
>
> how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click
> on a random link.

It's not random, it's Youtube. Watch it, don't watch it. I don't
care.

>> If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't
>> help the poor,
>
> What makes anyone think that we don't help the poor?
> Ridiculous.

Philosophy 101. An if...then, else statement. Not a freaking
mystery.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:21:05 -0700, "Pico Rico"
> wrote:

>
>"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
1...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs
>
>how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click on a random
>link.

I clicked it to see if my assumption was right and it was. It's just
left wing radical bullshit and a corrupt file. Most of his posts are
political crap and he rarely talks about food.
>>
>> If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't
>> help the poor,
>
>
>What makes anyone think that we don't help the poor? Ridiculous.

It would be interesting to see what help he actually gives.

Lou

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs
>>
>> how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click
>> on a random link.
>
> It's not random, it's Youtube. Watch it, don't watch it. I don't
> care.

there is a ton of stuff on Youtube. that makes it random

I won't watch, and I won't care.


>
>>> If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't
>>> help the poor,
>>
>> What makes anyone think that we don't help the poor?
>> Ridiculous.
>
> Philosophy 101. An if...then, else statement. Not a freaking
> mystery.
>

no, it is a statement of belief posed as an if . . . then statement.

and, I don't believe it.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in news:j7hfoq$3er$1
@dont-email.me:

> there is a ton of stuff on Youtube. that makes it random
>
> I won't watch, and I won't care.

Then don't but stop whining about it. It's clearly marked OT and
so the onus is on you to not open it if you aren't interested.
Clearly you must be, somewhere inside, because you are pursuing
this conversation.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Lou Decruss > wrote in
:

> I clicked it to see if my assumption was right and it was.

So let me see if I understand. On a post marked clearly OT and
with my name on it, you opened it and clicked on the link and then,
rather than just slapping yourself in the face, you decide to lash
out. You've been here long enough to know the one rule, the one
about not opening what you don't want to read. And yet you decide
it doesn't apply to you. Pretty stupid.

> It's just left wing radical bullshit and a corrupt file.

To you it's left wing radical bullshit, to me it's satire. I doubt
you understand the concept of satire. I know you think you do, but
really you do not. QED.

> Most
> of his posts are political crap and he rarely talks about
> food.

Please give some evidence that statement

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On 10/17/2011 8:45 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> It would be interesting to see what help he actually gives.

Didn't anybody ever tell you that deflection is ineffective argument?

Pico Rico wrote:
> "Michel Boucher" > wrote:
>
>> If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't
>> help the poor,
>
> What makes anyone think that we don't help the poor? Ridiculous.

The claim that the US is a "Christian nation" is false. Repeating a
falsehood as many times as possible is a propaganda technique not a
reporting technique. The US is a "secular country". There's a big
difference between a Christian nation (like Sweden where everyone is
born into the national church) and a secular nation that just happens to
have a Christian majority. Probably the largest religious minority is
agnostic for that matter not Christian. Also if you read the definition
of "nation" it doesn't work for the US. We aren't united on any of the
qualifiers.

If the majority of the population were convert to some other religion,
say Buddhism, no changes to the laws would be needed. If the majority
of the population were to start speaking a different language, say
Spanish, no changes to the laws would be needed. The idea that the US
is united by a common culture is hilarious with even a tiny amount of
travel.

The form of the US government was selected to emulate the Roman Republic
before the Christian era. Does no one read their history books in
school any more?

Doug Freyburger > wrote in news:j7hi1f$k2p$1
@dont-email.me:

> The claim that the US is a "Christian nation" is false.

Perhaps not officially but more than 50% of its citizens claim to
adhere fervently to Christianity which in effect makes it a nation
of people claiming to follow the teachings of Emmanuel ben Yusuf,
but in fact acting in a completely disconnected fashion from their
avowed beliefs.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Janet > wrote in
:

>> difference between a Christian nation (like Sweden where
>> everyone is born into the national church)
>
> You're out of date. Sweden is a secular country with no
> national church.

United Kingdom has a state church, Anglican. Denmark has a state
church, den danske folkekirke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Denmark

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in news:j7hfoq$3er$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
>> there is a ton of stuff on Youtube. that makes it random
>>
>> I won't watch, and I won't care.
>
> Then don't but stop whining about it. It's clearly marked OT and
> so the onus is on you to not open it if you aren't interested.
> Clearly you must be, somewhere inside, because you are pursuing
> this conversation.
>

OT or not, who in their right mind would click on a random link? Ta Ta!

"Pico Rico" > wrote in
:

> OT or not, who in their right mind would click on a random
> link? Ta Ta!

But you already know from Lou that it's left-wing radical stuff, or
from me that it's satire. So you have no reason NOT to click on it
now.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:31:01 -0600, Pennyaline
> wrote:

>On 10/17/2011 8:45 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see what help he actually gives.
>
>Didn't anybody ever tell you that deflection is ineffective argument?

I wasn't in an argument.

Lou

Lou Decruss > wrote in
:

>>> It would be interesting to see what help he actually gives.
>>
>>Didn't anybody ever tell you that deflection is ineffective
>>argument?
>
> I wasn't in an argument.

You were attempting to establish an argument but failed. This is
distinct from "getting into" an argument.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

On 10/17/2011 10:56 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:31:01 -0600, Pennyaline
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2011 8:45 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>> It would be interesting to see what help he actually gives.
>>
>> Didn't anybody ever tell you that deflection is ineffective argument?
>
> I wasn't in an argument.

That actually is a helpful statement. Now I'm sure that someone did tell
you, but you didn't comprehend.

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in
> :
>
>> OT or not, who in their right mind would click on a random
>> link? Ta Ta!
>
> But you already know from Lou that it's left-wing radical stuff, or
> from me that it's satire. So you have no reason NOT to click on it
> now.


well, now I have a different reason not to.

Doug Freyburger wrote:

>
> The form of the US government was selected to emulate the Roman Republic
> before the Christian era. Does no one read their history books in
> school any more?


Very interesting post but i don't fully agree with your assessment of
Rome as the basis of the federal government more the ideal and the
evolution of British common law being more foundational than Republican,
as opposed to Imperial, Rome.

The "Glorious Revolution" resulting as it did in the Hanovarian
succession gave rise to what we now call Cabinet government, and IMO is
superior to the American, unelected cabinet, but which again IMO, i
think will move more and more toward as the job gets too big and complex
for one man, no matter how well schooled he may be.

Though IMO the US is getting nearer and near to the Imperial model with
every executive order for murder as a tool of foreign policy the
Executive issues. And even more so when, as is only inevitable this
Presidential precedent is delegated and now the CIA and other
"intelligence" agencies are exercising the prerogative.
--
JL

Janet wrote:

> In article >, says...
> There's a big
>
>>difference between a Christian nation (like Sweden where everyone is
>>born into the national church)
>
>
> You're out of date. Sweden is a secular country with no national
> church.
>
>
>
> Janet

I seem to recall that women got the vote in Liechtenstein [sp?] ...
recently and with any luck at all they will get drivers licenses in
Saudi Arabia any day now.

Have i mentioned the advert i got for a luxury condo in Riyadh? Oy!
--
JL

On 2011-10-17, Michel Boucher > wrote:
> Lou Decruss > wrote in

>> I wasn't in an argument.
>
> You were attempting to establish an argument but failed. This is
> distinct from "getting into" an argument.

Lou, If you haven't already figured it out, M. Doucher will argue
till you drop outta sheer exhaustion.

nb

notbob > wrote in
:

> M. Doucher

Wow...found humour...your mother must be really proud.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

M. JL Esq. wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> The form of the US government was selected to emulate the Roman Republic
>> before the Christian era. Does no one read their history books in
>> school any more?
>
> Very interesting post but i don't fully agree with your assessment of
> Rome as the basis of the federal government more the ideal and the
> evolution of British common law being more foundational than Republican,
> as opposed to Imperial, Rome.

It's explicit in the Federalist Papers. There is also a basis in
English common law for the initial set of laws which was also mentioned
in the Federalist Papers.

> The "Glorious Revolution" resulting as it did in the Hanovarian
> succession gave rise to what we now call Cabinet government, and IMO is
> superior to the American, unelected cabinet, but which again IMO, i
> think will move more and more toward as the job gets too big and complex
> for one man, no matter how well schooled he may be.

The US Cabinet members are approved by Congress. One extra level
removed from the UK system. If you mean the Parliament system yours is
definitely more popular among republics. I'll pass on which works
better.

> Though IMO the US is getting nearer and near to the Imperial model

Yup. Democracies of all sorts are suspectible to that.

Michel Boucher wrote:

> So let me see if I understand. On a post marked clearly OT and
> with my name on it, you opened it and clicked on the link and then,
> rather than just slapping yourself in the face, you decide to lash
> out. You've been here long enough to know the one rule, the one
> about not opening what you don't want to read.

If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know if they want
to read it or not, moron

"ViLco" > wrote in
:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>> So let me see if I understand. On a post marked clearly OT
>> and with my name on it, you opened it and clicked on the link
>> and then, rather than just slapping yourself in the face, you
>> decide to lash out. You've been here long enough to know the
>> one rule, the one about not opening what you don't want to
>> read.
>
> If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know
> if they want to read it or not, moron

Then don't open it. I didn't say what it was because, frankly it
is hard to describe...video of man with megaphone on streets of
London...would that interest you? Satire, or as Lou calls it,
left-wing radical bullshit and corrupt file (whatever THAT was)?
Any closer?

It's a youtube link. How many links of videos of cute kittens
have you clicked on without a full 120 page thesis backing up the
link?

Specious diatribe...or everyone is cranky these days...

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs
>
> how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click on a random
> link.
>
>
Hey, Pico... first of all, it's Youtube, not a random link. And Michel
Boucher has been posting here for a couple of decades. Can you say the
same?

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnifTXHQOs
>>
>> how about a clue about what thsi is? Only a fool will click on a random
>> link.
>>
>>
> Hey, Pico... first of all, it's Youtube, not a random link. And Michel
> Boucher has been posting here for a couple of decades. Can you say the
> same?
>


what does that have to do with anything?

"Pico Rico" > wrote in
:

>> Hey, Pico... first of all, it's Youtube, not a random link.
>> And Michel Boucher has been posting here for a couple of
>> decades. Can you say the same?
>
> what does that have to do with anything?

Well, if we have to draw you a picture...

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "ViLco" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>
>>> So let me see if I understand. On a post marked clearly OT
>>> and with my name on it, you opened it and clicked on the link
>>> and then, rather than just slapping yourself in the face, you
>>> decide to lash out. You've been here long enough to know the
>>> one rule, the one about not opening what you don't want to
>>> read.
>>
>> If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know
>> if they want to read it or not, moron
>
> Then don't open it. I didn't say what it was because, frankly it
> is hard to describe...video of man with megaphone on streets of
> London...would that interest you? Satire, or as Lou calls it,
> left-wing radical bullshit and corrupt file (whatever THAT was)?
> Any closer?
>
> It's a youtube link. How many links of videos of cute kittens
> have you clicked on without a full 120 page thesis backing up the
> link?
>
> Specious diatribe...or everyone is cranky these days...
>
> --
Personally I think everyone is just cranky, Michel. I thought it was
hiliarious, especially since it was filmed in an obviously public place
where people were walking about. No one told them they had to stop and
listen to the man with the megaphone. Yet "security guards" tried to get
the man to stop. Why? He wasn't doing anything illegal.

I seem to recall in a couple of the cities I've been to encountering
religious fanatics standing on a corner shouting about God's salavation.
People might have paid more attention to them if they'd had a megaphone and
a camera crew

Jill

Michel Boucher wrote:

>>> decide to lash out. You've been here long enough to know the
>>> one rule, the one about not opening what you don't want to
>>> read.

>> If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know
>> if they want to read it or not, moron

> Then don't open it.

GFY

"ViLco" > wrote in :

>>>> decide to lash out. You've been here long enough to know the
>>>> one rule, the one about not opening what you don't want to
>>>> read.
>
>>> If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know
>>> if they want to read it or not, moron
>
>> Then don't open it.
>
> GFY

You know the rule and yet you become abusive the instant someone
points out this is an opportunity to use the knowledge you've
accumulated here as a guide to behaviour. Is it Berlu's latest
avoidance of his comeuppance that has you so testy, or are you just
like that on Wednesdays?

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Michel Boucher wrote:

>>>>> decide to lash out. You've been here long enough to know the
>>>>> one rule, the one about not opening what you don't want to
>>>>> read.

>>>> If you don't write what the link is about, people CAN NOT know
>>>> if they want to read it or not, moron

>>> Then don't open it.

>> GFY

> You know the rule and yet you become abusive the instant someone
> points out this is an opportunity to use the knowledge you've
> accumulated here as a guide to behaviour. Is it Berlu's latest
> avoidance of his comeuppance that has you so testy, or are you just
> like that on Wednesdays?

I see you you can't undesrtand the absurdity of replying "don't open what
you don't want to read" after having posted without specifying what it was
about. Good job.

"ViLco" > wrote in
:

> I see you you can't undesrtand the absurdity of replying
> "don't open what you don't want to read" after having posted
> without specifying what it was about. Good job.

And you don't understand the absurdity of you grating on this
"fact" ad nauseam.

Tanzan the zen master was going somewhere with his acolyte when
they were caught in a torrential downpour. They sought shelter
and afterwards continued their journey. They came upon a woman
who was clearly distressed at crossing a road which had turned
her into a river. Tanzan offered to carry her across and she
climbed on his back and was safely brought to the other side.
Tanzan bade her farewell and the two continued on their way.

After some time, the acolyte said: "Master, the rules forbid us
from having anything to do with women and yet you carried her
across that stream...I do not understand."

Tanzan chided him, saying: "I carried her for a few moments, but
you, you are carrying her still!"

QED

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Il 19/10/2011 16:31, Michel Boucher ha scritto:

>> I see you you can't undesrtand the absurdity of replying
>> "don't open what you don't want to read" after having posted
>> without specifying what it was about. Good job.

> And you don't understand the absurdity of you grating on this
> "fact" ad nauseam.

Repeating something twice to a dumbass as you is just good manners, and
I'd say *wasted* time, since a lot of people wold just think it's just a
waste of time and let you go on and on by yourself, as your answer makes
clear. Go on, it's nice to see you babbling BS all the time.
--
Vilco
And the Family Stone
Caschi come il cacio sui maccheroni, cerchiamo giusto gente come te.

ViLco > wrote in
:

>> And you don't understand the absurdity of you grating on this
>> "fact" ad nauseam.
>
> Repeating something twice to a dumbass as you is just good
> manners, and I'd say *wasted* time, since a lot of people wold
> just think it's just a waste of time and let you go on and on
> by yourself, as your answer makes clear. Go on, it's nice to
> see you babbling BS all the time.

It was something you ate? Tell you what, I don't give a shit.

*plonk*

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> ViLco > wrote in
> :
>
>>> And you don't understand the absurdity of you grating on this
>>> "fact" ad nauseam.
>>
>> Repeating something twice to a dumbass as you is just good
>> manners, and I'd say *wasted* time, since a lot of people wold
>> just think it's just a waste of time and let you go on and on
>> by yourself, as your answer makes clear. Go on, it's nice to
>> see you babbling BS all the time.
>
> It was something you ate? Tell you what, I don't give a shit.


then perhaps it was something YOU ate!

"Pico Rico" > wrote in news:j7nmdo$9qu$1
@dont-email.me:

>> It was something you ate? Tell you what, I don't give a shit.
>
> then perhaps it was something YOU ate!

Actually, read properly, the expression infers that there is no
shit given, so nothing was eaten to produce said output :-p

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in news:j7nmdo$9qu$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
>>> It was something you ate? Tell you what, I don't give a shit.
>>
>> then perhaps it was something YOU ate!
>
> Actually, read properly, the expression infers that there is no
> shit given, so nothing was eaten to produce said output :-p
>


that is not how constipation works! input, yet sadly, no output.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in
:

>> Actually, read properly, the expression infers that there is
>> no shit given, so nothing was eaten to produce said output
>> :-p
>
> that is not how constipation works! input, yet sadly, no
> output.

You're assuming constipation. Nothing in the statement suggests
constipation. What it means is that you care even less about
(insert topic) than you do about shit. Has nothing to do with
constipation.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> "Pico Rico" > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Actually, read properly, the expression infers that there is
>>> no shit given, so nothing was eaten to produce said output
>>> :-p
>>
>> that is not how constipation works! input, yet sadly, no
>> output.
>
> You're assuming constipation. Nothing in the statement suggests
> constipation. What it means is that you care even less about
> (insert topic) than you do about shit. Has nothing to do with
> constipation.


wow. get a sense of humor, man!

"Pico Rico" > wrote in news:j7np6e$p0h$1
@dont-email.me:

>>> that is not how constipation works! input, yet sadly, no
>>> output.
>>
>> You're assuming constipation. Nothing in the statement suggests
>> constipation. What it means is that you care even less about
>> (insert topic) than you do about shit. Has nothing to do with
>> constipation.
>
> wow. get a sense of humor, man!

We are having this conversation and you think I don't have a sense
of humour? Did I fail to add smileys...is that it? Some people
don't get funny unless you put really big arrows pointing to it.

--

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t
help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus
was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge
that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy
without condition, and then admit that we just don’t
want to do it.

Stephen Colbert (via videcormeum)

Michel Boucher wrote:

> It was something you ate? Tell you what, I don't give a shit.
>
> *plonk*

OMG! I will lose all those idiotic OT posts! Guess what I don't give...