[Rhodes22-list] for Brad's eyes and those who reason only ...

[John Shulick]

"John," 
(at least you are capable of starting a post properly by addressing me by
name. I assumed you were ignorant at first but now I see you're simply rude.

"Go screw yourself."
(Sorry to old to bend that way anymore perhaps you could send a pic of how
you accomplish it yourself.)  

"I've never offered anything like a ""final solution"". 
You're reference reveals you for what you are." 

(you have no clue as to who or what I am)

As far as me "detesting" anyone, you again speak from total ignorance. 
I'll make a deal with you though, I'll make my tax returns for the last 
10 years public on here to show how much I've given to charity if you'll 
do the same. 

(Do you recall the parable of the pharisee and the old woman who went to the
temple to make sacrifice?) 

You ready to put up? I doubt it. I suspect the size of your mouth is 
exceeded mainly by your ego, and your actions are far lacking compared 
to either. 

(In the mouth and ego department its no contest you win)

If the government determines a need for social charity programs, they 
should do so by purchasing land they need. Simple. If it's too 
expensive, buy elsewhere. 

(that's what is happening in this instance so what's your problem)

As to your notion about "stealing it from the original owners", which 
land are you talking about? You'll have to be a little more specific. 
Some of the Indian tribes didn't ascribe to the notion of "owning land". 
Others regularly took land from each other by armed conflict. So, the 
"theft" was actually their normally accepted means of transfer, they 
simply were defeated by a stronger enemy.

(like white men with guns and smallpox infested blankets? do the words
"trail of tears" mean anything to you?) 



-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/for-Brad%27s-eyes-and-those-who-reason-only-...-tp20405744p20414236.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.