Re: Now it's MURDER!

Robert <robpar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:3575849n3gcjt1sbnvue5imi891gp07m4m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:50:10 GMT, BOB <sd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>Robert <robpar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>>news:gi94841doq60rc047sb9cdvlonvfon445t@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:34:34 GMT, BOB <sd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Robert <robpar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
>>>>news:q1q184p22uv4pf77kdafuhbdc62vn5cc4q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:11:00 GMT, BOB <sd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>"Gramps" <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>>news:A4mdnTdWnIIE4OLVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:487ec1bd$0$17192$742ec2ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> Gramps <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:487d86f3$0$17222$742ec2ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> Gramps <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gramps <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gramps <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gramps <GrandpaTD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, by the way, according to Leviticus eating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shellfish 
>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an "abomination".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's fine by me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you're no more moral than a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homo***ual. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's the most ludicrous thing you have come up with so 
>>far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're just another pro-liar hypocrite who only cares 
>>about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bible as a weapon.  You ignore anything which might 
>>>>condemn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you and use it only to attack other people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Are you high on something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you're just another coward who runs away from
>>>>>>>>>>>> challenges to your hypocritical propaganda.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I was not the one to bring up the Bible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what?  That doesn't make you less of a hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My weapon is the DOI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which also refutes your claims and which has no legal
>>>>>>>>>> standing 
>>in
>>>>>>>>>> the US.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are you claiming that we are still under British rule?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, idiot.  The DOI has no legal standing.  It is not a legal
>>>>>>>> do***ent.  AND it refutes your claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Without the DOI there would be no USA.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>And your evidence for that is....?
>>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Men need a reason to fight, the freedoms outlined are what they
>>>>> were fighting for. Denying people the freedoms that are out lined
>>>>> in the DOI is treason. So he is correct without the DOI there
>>>>> would have 
>>been
>>>>> no revolution. Without the revolution no articles of
>>>>> Confederation. The articles of Confederation left out many of
>>>>> theses rights, so a 
>>new
>>>>> Constitution was adopted that corrected many of the slights. Read
>>>>> the Constitution and the DOI see how the two fit together. 
>>>>
>>>>And the evidence to sup****t the statement that "without the DOI
>>>>there would be no USA" is...?
>>>>
>>> If you are too stupid to understand the first sentence, or too
>>> bigoted to accept the fact that you are wrong. Then there is no need
>>> to continue. True believers are never effected by the truth.
>>
>>So you have no evidence to sup****t that statement.  I didn't think so.
>> You needn't be so nasty about it, just say you don't have any
>>evidence and be done with it.
>>
> My being "nasty" is a reaction to your apparent stupidity. 
>>>>

I simply made a simple request for evidence and I thought I was being 
polite about it.  You, on the other hand, responded with a nasty comment. 

Now you accuse me of "stupidity" for no good reason.  Why is that?   

>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>>>>>> rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>>>>> 
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>>> 
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>