Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223168)

S
Feel free. But what do you add other than calling people dumb or trying to insult people with memes?

So what exactly do you add here?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223166)

So there were no winters in Russia from 2017 - 2021? Because Trump caused global warming, right??!!

no but Trump was in Office ( And that's the issue because he was in office !)

I am convinced he Putin took these actions because Trump Lost the election . who would have given Putin what he wanted "No NATO in Ukraine " and other security guarantees

Trump is an idiot. Fair enough?

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman;[COLOR="Red"

[/COLOR]1223171]The exact same quality of content that you do. No, You hardly ever post anything at all related to the subject.

All you really do is come here to pick a fight with Jim, that's been pretty much it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223170)

Again, you demonstrate your lack of intelligence so I'll help you by not going so fast:



About a third of Harvard’s annual operating budget comes from the endowment; last year, it contributed around $1.7 billion to Harvard, or over a third of the University’s entire operating budget. That spending supports all the vital functions of the University, from professorships to the library collection to financial aid. Harvard’s 12 schools are funded by the endowment to different extents: The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, for example, receives about 50 percent of its funding from the endowment, while the School of Public Health—many of its expenses provided for by a $350 million gift from 2014—takes only about 15 percent of its budget from the endowment.


Edit - and remember when you couldn't understand how E. Warren's Harvard pay wasn't paid for by student's tuition bc it was an endowed chair. It was like you had no understanding of what an endowed chair was.

And let's not forget the idiotic statement about trying to compare church's charity (maybe 3-5% of donations?) to what say the American Red Cross provides - prob. 85% - 95% of donations.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1223174)

Whatever Paul, you do you :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223177)

So it's OK when rich liberals donate to Harvard, which uses those donations to pay Liz Warren $400,000 a year to teach one class.They can give it to whomever the law allows. Just as you and I can give to a church.

But when your church maintains its buildings, that means it's not really a worthwhile charity.

So what you're really saying is, "it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it".

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1223174)

Whatever Paul, you do you :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223180)

and you do you - :rotf3:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223173)

no, I make a counter arguement.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1223183)

As usual, the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him.

In real terms, Harvard is a conservative place. Everyone who attends worked hard to get into there. Students like money and they like success. They place a great deal of focus on hard work and business connections. They understand the importance of preexisting institutions and don't attempt to alter that. Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means.

Of course if the standard bearer of what you claim is conservative america is a con man..........

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223181)

So I never claimed giving $ to churches was bad like the snarky troll claimed and which you agreed with or "that it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it" but to show you that a lot of the donations is somewhat self serving and your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong and they prob. give the same $%.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1223148)

The likelihood and motive has been clear as day for years. I did not come up with any of this but I follow people smarter than me that have been warning of the increasing danger of this since 2008.

It merely depended on a sliding scale of reduced capability of the members of NATO, particularity the US and Germany, and the increased of capability of RUS/PRC. It also required the same inversion of will.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223188)

You said it doesn't really count as charitable giving, because (God forbid!) churches will use some of that money for expenses.I said it is self serving

Third time, please tell me which charities you donate to, which have zero expenses.Are you hearing things bc no one every claimed a charity had zero expenses (although there might be a few where expenses are subsidized).

"your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong"

Not according to the study I posted. and I always show you a lot of it is self serving

"they prob. give the same $%"

LET'S STICK TO THAT, because you may well be right...
But your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect - not me or anyone else here
If conservatives and liberals are about equally charitable, then on what basis could you say that conservatives stop caring about people after they are born?

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223190)

Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223190)

Their repeated attempts to cut benefits to minors/people who have babies whenever cons. come into control. Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223191)

Right.

This is precisely why, in cities with the highest government spending, things are in such great shape. I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.
Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left. He cut taxes (including capital gains taxes!), and paid for it with welfare cuts. But the left LOVES him. Because it's OK when democrats do it!!

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223192)

"your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect"

But you're the one who would exclude some conservative charity on the grounds that it's self serving, but you never once mention liberals giving to Ivy League schools, or to the National Endowment of the Arts (investment bankers in Manhattan really need subsidized opera tickets), etc...how is giving money to a opera house the same as giving money to a church?

Because, as always, everything is OK when liberals do it!!

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223193)

I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1223195)

Jim has never said that, when specially discussing issues with black communities, he has said the problems blacks are experiencing have a correlation to democratic policies.

He never said that all problems in the cities are related to blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223187)

"Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means."

Except for the kids who deserve to get in but don't, because of their skin color.

"the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him."

Let's be very clear...you are making me crack up, you are not, and can not, hurt me. You're a source of entertainment.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1223197)

Sad little man, my aim is not to hurt you, I’ll leave the causticity for you.

You think Harvard is more or less diverse than Jesuit Schools?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223196)

Thank you, and of course I didn't ever come close to saying that. In my opinion, skin color says absolutely nothing about a person, zilch. It's liberals who feel otherwise.

And it's liberals, not me, who seem intent on aborting blacks almost out of existence. In New York City, more black babies are aborted than are born. That's repulsive to me, but totally fine to liberals.I thought liberals give them more aid to keep them hooked on it and want more blacks people bc Blacks vote for Dems?

Everyone, regardless of color, tends to struggle when you make poor life decisions (or if you have bad luck obviously). Like not working hard in school, not working hard at work, having babies without a strong dad in the picture.

Those things drive poverty. And thanks directly to liberalism, blacks are disproportionately likely to embrace a culture that leads to that bad decision making.And that is the convers. thought process. Give aid to Blacks somehow hooks them on aid - like it is a drug. It must suck to have that view of Blacks. That they are too stupid to realize that Liberals only want to give poor people aid to make them depend. on aid so they will continue to vote for Dems.

Paul, there is no clearer way for a liberal to say "you win Jim, you beat me", than by calling me a racist. Just waive a white flag, that would be way more dignified than what you did.

PS. hers's a gift...looks like you could truly use it.Shows what a classless P O S you are.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223200)

NM

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223198)

I don't know if Harvard or more or less diverse than Jesuit schools. I know for a fact that Harvard drastically adjusts admissions criteria based on skin color.

Too many Asians at Harvard, so they made it a lot harder for the Asians to get in. Conrad and Muffy can't be expected to share the sushi bar with too many Asians...

Pete, I could care less how diverse a student body is or isn't. I don't reduce people to their skin color. You just don't get it.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223200)

NM

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223201)

"I thought liberals give them more aid to keep them hooked on it and want more blacks people bc Blacks vote for Dems?"

The ones who survive the abortion gauntlet, are rewarded by liberalism to all the benefits of multi-generational poverty. Hooray!

"Shows what a classless P O S you are."

Read how you spoke to me all day, grow a pair, and get over yourself.Look at your very first post you made in response to my first post. Your a classless P O S.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223204)

"Give aid to Blacks somehow hooks them on aid - like it is a drug"

You rob people of the inherent desire to strive and be self sufficient, you get what you see in the liberal sh*thole cities.

Welfare is absolutely like a drug. That's exactly why more isn't always better. and that is exactly the cons. mind set.
Welfare is a drug and is not an attempt to help people. Shows the lack of compassion cons. have for anyone less fortunate than themselves (unless of course it impacts them or their families then it is different)

Why do liberals mercilessly attack any black who dares to venture off the liberal plantation and embrace conservatism? Have you ever seen an influential black conservative who was embraced by liberals across the board? Or are they all called tokens and Uncle Toms and sellouts?

Why is that?

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223207)

NM

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223210)

read what i wrote. i didn’t say all
welfare is bad. i said more, isn’t always better.Can't recall you ever making that comment.

the conservative mindset is help people while they need help, with the goal of allowing them to become self sufficient if possible.

tell me whats sinister about that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223212)

So why do you assume anyone would rather be on welfare rather than work which would provide far more money

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1223214)

Because they're lazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1223214)

Because they're lazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1223212)

So why do you assume anyone would rather be on welfare rather than work which would provide far more money

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1223234)

Biden has completely outsmarted Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223235)

This will be a great comfort to the Ukrainians who got blown to bits.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1223238)

Russian TV is now showing Trump’s praise of Putin to justify their invasion.

Because if only the Stable Genius had won no Ukrainians would have died, Trump would have told them they’d be much better off with a strong leader like Putin

Today doesn't feel like it's gone as Putin wanted:

* Ukrainian defence stronger than expected.
* Massive US/EU/UK sanctions for all major banks
* Stockmarket down 40%
* Protests across Russia (despite thousands of arrests)
* Finnish MPs pushing to join NATO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1223239)

Biden’s approval will
skyrocket. Even more when fuel costs plummet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device