Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...

PTravel wrote:

[...]

My wife is Chinese, so we do something special for lunar New
Year. Does that mean that lunar New Year is a "universal
holiday observed by all cultures"? Evidently so, in your book.

Rather, it means that lunar New Year may be a secular holiday. And so
we do see, for example in San Francisco, a large, secular celebration
at Chinese New Year, in which people of all faiths and non-faiths, both
Chinese and not, participate, using city resources and city money as
part of a celebration that is regarded as entirely secular in spite of
the fact that the vast majority of residents of San Francisco do not
have a "Chinese background". Likewise with St. Patrick's Day
celebrations, etc.

Could someone use the same argument you are using to relegate such
celebrations to private homes and businesses? Why, yes, of course they
could. "Why should I have to contribute taxes and permit the use of
public streets to encourage the celebration of this eastern religious
holiday?" The non-Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might protest
"But I am not Chinese, and I celebrate this holiday in a secular
fashion", or the Christian Chinese celebrants of Chinese new year might
protest "But I am Christian, and I only celebrate Chinese new year in a
secular fashion, with revelry and fireworks, while keeping eastern
philosophies and religious beliefs out of my celebration". Whereupon
our hypothetical Lunar New Year grinch would argue "It does not matter
if you celebrate in a secular fashion. Historically, this holiday is
only celebrated by those whose backgrounds are rooted in eastern
religions, and the vast majority of those whose backgrounds are
non-eastern do not celebrate it. Public funds and public spaces should
not be set aside for this festival, because *I* think it is religious,
whether or not *you* do".

I guess those New Orleans Catholics should kindly keep their "Mardi Gras"
festival quietly in their homes. For shame - using public streets.

Is that implying that the church approves of wild public drunkeness and
nudity?

On 28 Dec 2006 14:09:46 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 04:56:19 -0800, wrote:
All these examples of violence during secession were the product of the
aggressive policies of the neo-prussian militarists in Washington.
Without Lincoln no civil war
And no freedom for slaves until the industrial revolution, which made
them unnecessary.

Better slavery than war

Not for the slaves.

without Wilson no violent breakup of the
Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Austria-Hungary and hence no
Yugoslavia and Soviet Union.

Maybe. The Russian revolution wasn't due solely to the breakup of the Empire.

Without Roosevelt no WW2

Hitler started the war for expansion - it had nothing to do with Roosevelt.

Hitler did not start the war. PL, F, and UK did because they wanted a
regime change in Germany.

The "Polish" invasion of Germany was Hitler's doing.

Japan attacked the US because we cut off their oil - most
people who would have risen to the presidency of the US would have
done the same.

This does not speak favourably about the US.

One does what one can to weaken one's enemy, one doesn't act to
strengthen him.

and Cold War. If
there were no federal governments in Washington, all these wars would
not have happened.

If there were no governments we wouldn't have had wars. If there were
no people there would have been no wars.

I was speaking about the "evil empire" aka USA. No other state is that
aggressive and dangerous. States should be small and neutral, like
Switzerland.

Sorry, but we don't agree with you, so you have 2 choices: Accept
reality or move to a different planet.

Multi-national corporations are not dangerous when they are not
supported by governments. Unfortunately they get much support from
governments, therefore they are that big. Big corporations lose against
a multitude of smaller competitors.

Except out there in the real world, where many things - other than
government support - favor the larger corporations.

Only until an optimal size is achieved. If they become larger they
become inefficient.

If they become inefficient they become smaller. It's self-limiting.
Inefficient companies don't expand. (Unless you redefine
"efficiency", which no one is interested in.)

On 28 Dec 2006 14:10:29 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 14:31:24 -0800, wrote:
You think there are not enough fundies to get the majority in a county
assembly?
That would depend on the county but, in most counties, probably not.
The "Silent Majority" organizations don't have the money for a get out
the vote push in every county in the country.

They would probably move away from the more liberal counties to the
more conservative counties.

Not unless the companies they worked for moved. People don't move
away from their jobs.

The current centralistic system is wrong, oppressive, inefficient, and
contrary to human nature.

For you. We prefer it. If you don't like it, stay in Germany, don't
come here.

And very few human beings are so altruistic that they'll deprive
themselves for the benefit of some unknown and unnamed stranger.

What has this to do with the current political system?

Everything. You're asking people to go against what they see as their
best interests. They won't.

The central govt should
transfer all power to the smaller entities and act solely as
representative for foreign representatives.

That'll never happen in the US. But, if it did, we'd have civil war
with a lot more than 2 sides.

Why is this believe so widespread?

Because some of us know about evolution and about how human nature
evolved. Altruism outside the group is usually exhibited by extinct species.

I fail to see why this should have anything to do with the issue of
selfgovernment.

Usenet's not the place to get 10 years of education in 5 minutes. When
you understand how anthropoids work you may have a bit more
understanding of the problem.

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Fischer
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended
several monopolies and created competition in
several businesses

Yet oddly, during the whole period of evil Standard
Oil's evil "monopoly", petrol prices were falling
and falling radically,

When was that?

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to 1906,
during which it reduced the price of petrol products to
about a quarter their previous price.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy,

That is no evil. That is what happens in a fiercely competitive market.

It wasn't competitive, idiot.

and whether the price of
gas fell has nothing at all to do with whether people had to pay more
because of the monopoly.

It is prima facie evidence that the so-called Standard Oil "monopoly"

No it is not.

--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote:

The Standard Oil "monopoly" was from about 1870 to
1906, during which it reduced the price of petrol
products to about a quarter their previous price.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy, and whether
the price of gas fell has nothing at all to do with
whether people had to pay more because of the
monopoly.

It drove countless people into bankruptcy by repeated
and radically reducing the price of petroleum products.

Where's your cites? Where's your evidence? You don't have a
reputation for honesty.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Don't start lying, moron. Until the anti-monopoly
loaws of the 1930s there was little competition.
The anti monopoly laws were to discourage, rathe than
produce, competition.
You're an idiot and a liar. Those laws ended several monopolies and
created competition in several businesses.
Bull****. Dangerous monopolies only exist because of the state.
A claim which you keep making but haven't the brains to support.
It's pretty obvious that all you do is parrot right-wing propaganda.
Tell me the name of one monopoly which is/was dangerous and
exists/existed without the state.
Your question is stupid
No, the question is not stupid, because it directed you
to make a valid point:
because any monopoly that exists without the
state becomes the state. Thus, your argument reduces to whining about
all government and wishing for anarchy.

Any state can be called a forced monopoly.
By definition, a government is a government monopoly. So what?

Why are you defending it if you are supposedly against monopolies?

Because anarchy is stupidity.

You
cannot be against monopolies and defending the state.

Sure can.

And vice versa any forced
monopoly can be called a state. Why are you defending the state then?
Without force no lasting monopoly is possible.
Your wish for anarchy only shows what a stupid dumb**** you are.

Look in the mirror and you will see a stupid dumb****.

Grow up, loser.

--
Ray Fischer

James A. Donald wrote:
On 27 Dec 2006 03:26:07 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
You don't knwo what a monopoly is, you don't know
economics, and you don't even know how businesses are
run.

When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop
elsewhere because there is only the one business.

Yet according to you Standard Oil was monopoly, and
there were hundreds of alternative suppliers.

Unless you're lying.

--
Ray Fischer

brique wrote:
Constantinople wrote in message
oups.com...

Speculation is cheap and easy but means little. It is not enough to
speculate that Standard Oil *might have* in some way been a monopoly or
might have soon *become* a monopoly.

What post are you replying to Constance?

Yours.

It is quite possible for Standard to have increased its profitability
whilst
decreasing its prices as it's cost base fell.

Mere speculation.

Really? Pretty basic stuff, the economic justification for mass production,
standardisation of parts, etc.

I know it's standard stuff. When I say you are speculating about what
might have happened in this particular case, I am not saying that it's
not standard stuff. I am saying that any number of stories are equally
standard stuff, and you are just speculating that this particular one
is what might have occurred. That's speculation.

I'm reduced to teaching you English.

Making, for example, products
aimed at agriculture, cheaper would increase its market in that area,
thus
feeding through into increase economies of scale. It would also 'lock'
that
market into the sytem. Once farmers switched from horse-power to petrol
power and the structure which had so long supplied those horses and the
skills and knowledge of how to use them was lost, then the farmers had
little choice but to go with petrol power at whatever cost. Standard now
had
a bigger market, could enlarge its production capability and maximise
its
distribution network, all feeding into lower costs per unit sold.

That Standard and it subsequent 'competitors' were successful at
creating
and 'locking in' these markets is plainly obvious today.

But today is *after* government introduced new regulations.

Right, so, the question 'why, if standard had a monopoly did prices fall' is
of no interest to you....., can't think why you bother to join the
conversation.....

And yet again, you seem to be oblivious to the point I made, to the
point that the only answer would be to teach you some more English,
which seems rather a waste of my time.

brique wrote:
Constantinople wrote in message
ps.com...

Oh, wait a second, when you (brique) said "lock in" I took you to mean
somehow prevent their customers from buying oil from competitors. But
that's not what you meant at all. What you meant was prevent their
customers from going back to horse power! That is too funny. So the
reason farmers aren't all farming the Amish way is that Big Oil tricked
them into abandoning their horse skills.

You are simple-minded, aren't you?

Ah yes, the pre-emptive insult, a crude attempt at poisoning the well,
should I have the rudeness to respond to your latest argument.

'Locking in' your market is probably the
most basic business move you can make. Once you have a customer, you
endevaour to make sure that them leaving is more expensive than them
staying. Study IBM's business model, or Microsofts.

Of course you would like to do that. Once again, you totally miss the
point. There are two glaringly obvious points. First point is that the
desire to lock people in does not amount to the capacity to lock people
in, and the latter is rather limited, especially in the long term. If
you want to argue that farmers are trapped by lock-in into using 21st
century methods rather than the supposedly superior 19th century
methods, you need to do a lot more arguing than you have done. Second
point is that it is simply absurd to believe that most farmers would
opt for the arduous Amish methods of agriculture if only they had a
do-over. If farmers woke up tomorrow with all the 19th century
horse-powered-agriculture infrastructure and knowledge restored, it
would probably be a matter of weeks before they had sold the horses and
bought powered machinery. There is simply on the face of it no credible
reason to imagine that they are somehow trapped by circumstances.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:11:33 -0000 in alt.anarchism, "brique"
wrote,
David Harmon wrote in message
.. .
On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, (Ray
Fischer) wrote,
And which religion, race, and nation would I belong to?

The point of his remark was to evade the fact of his bigotry by
dragging in a red herring.

If James was actually a bigot, and you knew enough to say so,
you would have known the answer to his question.


I did answer it, in my response, the question is irrelevant....

Calling it irrelevant is not answering the question. But whether or not
you answered it is irrelevant; you have probably been stalking James for
long enough to know those answers. The question was to Ray.


being a
bigot is not defined by what race, creed, colour, height, weight, residence,
career or education one might be ascribed. It can be defined as fearing and
despising those who can be ascribed a different race, creed, colour,

Bingo, "different". Since Ray has only his own fantasies as to what
James's "race, creed" are, he cannot really know which race or creed
are _different than his. That makes his judgement founded purely in
his own prejudice and bigotry, especially since, as you probably
remember, James's background doesn't much match what Ray is assuming
about him. That is what makes it relevant.


James's question would hold as much relevance to that matter if he had asked

'And what are the colour of my eyes and hair?'

No, you yourself say "race, creed", and that is what the question was
about. "religion, race, and nation" are relevant. "color of eyes and
hair" are your pitiful strawman.