Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

[...]

Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only Christians
allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists (for
example) don't?

Jews don't.

Nonsense. I've seen it.

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which
account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish
families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate
Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular
celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123)

I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely
Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual
to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular
traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a
survey.

[...]

Think about what you've said. About 70% of Americans claim Christianity
as a "background".

That's wrong. Every survey I've seen says 90-96% claim Christianity as a
background.

According to the article at wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...United_States), only 77%
of respondents identified themselves as Christians, down from 86% a
decade earlier. If that trend continued, then they may well be down to
a little over 70% by now. Though I have no reason to believe that the
trend continued nor that it did not.

[...]

- Nate

"brique"
Is it not curious that those who are so ready to damn
and blast any publication which lauds the triumphs of
socialism are so ready to trust it so implicitly when
it happens to publish material which seems to so back
up their argument?

But we have seen lots of other sources saying the same
thing, including random bloggers who have no particular
axe to grind

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

And I agree with the others. While this newspaper may in
fact be a propaganda organ for the government that doesn't alter the
fact that Christmas is celebrated in many parts of China.

Not as it is here, nor for any purpose other than commercialism and
adaptation of "western" fads.

Who said "as it is here"?

I said. Remember what this thread is about? The U.S., i.e. here.

But you waid that to refute James' posting. But it was *not* what he
said nor was it what the article implied. He said that they celebrate
Christmas. You said they didn't. When a whole lot of proof came out
that they do, indeed, celebrate it. You add the qualifier "as it is
here". Changes the meaning of what you said and complete negates your
attempt at refutation.

And it's a tad dishonest.

You deny cultural bigotry yet this is another
example. Just because they don't celebrate Christmas *exactly* as they
do in the US doesn't mean they don't celebrate Christmas.

It means it's irrelevant. How hard is it for you to stay on topic?

Hard hard is it for you not to add new qualifiers and change what
you've been saying?

My point: the celebration of Christmas is not universal and confined,
primarily, to those who have a tradition, heritage and culture of
Christianity. Donald the antisemite's response -- "they celebrate Christmas
all over China." First, that's not true, and second, whatever observance
is made in the name of western cultural chic is strictly and solely
commerical -- UNLIKE HERE.

Are you tracking?

Yes, but you seem to be lost. Your point was *NOT* "primarily" as you
state above. You said they didn't do it, PERIOD. Now you are backing
off and adding qualifiers.

Second, the claim that it is strictly and solely commercial may be true
but it is also true for many in the US, *PLUS* that's not what you said
originally. You are again changing what you said because you've been
proven wrong. So you are trying to pretend that you said something
different.

They are
allowed to do it differently and allowed to have different motives.

Indeed they are. And, perhaps, some day the motives of observance of
Christmas in the U.S. will have changed sufficiently so that the holiday is
truly secular, like Halloween, at which point it wouldn't matter in the
least to people like me, i.e. those whose traditions, culture and heritage
do not include Christianity, if the government participates in its
celebration.

For a very large percentage of Americans, Christmas is already secular.
And for all there is at least a secular aspect to it. And the Christmas
Tree represents the secular aspect. And that's what this thread is all
about, remember?

One can't help but wonder given your animosity toward Christmas if you
saw exactly what you wanted to see.

I have no animosity towards Christmas. I only have animosity towards
violations of the First Amendment.

Which, if you are the lawyer you claim to be, the courts have already
said has nothing to do with Christmas Trees at the airport.

You are mistaken about the meaning of the First Amendment -- our Supreme
Courts can be wrong (and have been wrong), just like the Evangelist in Chief
in White House is routinely wrong.

I see. So you say "I'm a lawyer and I know the law so the rest of you
should take my word as final and precise" and then when the law clearly
contradicts you, as pointed out by the courts all of a sudden it's "The
Court can be wrong". Did somebody say something about keeping on track?

They don't
violate the First Amendment. So since that can't be the source of your
animosity, what is?

That is the source of my animosity and, in fact, they do violate the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled that "Christmas trees are
secular." I assume you're referring to Lynch v. Donnelly -- that's not what
that case means at all.

Lemon said that if an object is secular it can be displayed without
violating the First Amendment. Lynch said that the trees are secular.

After all you have been saying that
only Christians celebrate Christmas in America which is not only
demonstrably false but silly in the extreme.

And that is a complete lie. I've never said anything of the sort.

??? Of course you have. We've been arguing about that specific
statement.

No I haven't -- you're not mistaken, you're simply lying. You've made up
strawmen. Go back through the thread and read what I've written, then
apologize or shut up and go away.

Wow. Maybe we should team up together and find the imposter who has
been using your posting ID to say things like:

"First of all, the point isn't whether "Christians" celebrate it, but
whether the celebration is confined to those whose culture, tradition
and heritage is Christian. The answer is, yes, that's who celebrates
Christmas. Those whose culture, tradition and heritage is something
else do not celebrate Christmas. In particular those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Jewish or Muslim do not celebrate Christmas."

and

"Christmas, on the other hand, is restricted to those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Christian, is not either all-sectarian or
non-sectarian, and is not universal. It is certainly not part of
American culture, but only Christian American culture. "

and

"No, I'm of the opinion that when one particular tradition is confined
to those of a particular background, it's not "universal," or
"American," or whatever else you want to call it. "

and

"No one finds Christmas offensive. It is not, however, cross-cultural."

and

"You did, when you said Christmas has become part of American culture.
Did I misunderstand you? Do you agree that the observance of Christmas
in America is, for all intents and purposes, confined to those whose
heritage, tradition and culture is Christian?"

How many more do I need to re-post for you? Who is that masked man
pretending to be you and saying those things?

Read below -- THAT is what I've said.

No. That is what you are saying *NOW*.

snip

Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only Christians
allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists (for
example) don't?

Jews don't.

Nonsense. I've seen it.

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

But some do which is *NOT* what you said repeatedly, as quoted above.

Think about what you've said. About 70% of Americans claim Christianity
as a "background".

That's wrong. Every survey I've seen says 90-96% claim Christianity as a
background.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm

" 76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5%
Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics,
Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by
fewer than 0.1% of American adults. "

Lots of similar surveys available.

About 1/3 of those acknowledge that they are not religious.

Irrelevant.

No, because I said that less than half of Americans are "active
Christians" so this includes that calculation.

So somewhere between slight less than half and 2/3 of Americans are
Christian. The others are not. Let's use the figure that benefits your
argument the most: 2/3.

You are thus arguing that 1/3 of all Americans don't celebrate
Christmas!!! Are you serious?

My god, but you're deliberately obtuse. Okay, I'm going to say this one
more time -- I'll even use capital letters:

Christmas is celebrated almost exclusively by THOSE WHOSE BACKGROUND,
CULTURE AND HERITAGE IS CHRISTIAN, and almost exclusively not by those whose
background, cultrure and heritage is something else.

But if 1/3 are *NOT* Christian then you're saying that 1/3 don't
celebrate Christmas.

No -- you are so closed minded that you've made up a position for me, and
completely ignored what I've actually said. You are the bigot if you
believe that we who don't come from a Christian culture, tradition and
heritage have any interest whatsoever in observing those holidays and other
observances which are peculiar to it.

The bigotry is you assuming that because a person is not Christian he
doesn't observe a holiday that is a national tradition and a national
holiday.

And, since this is exactly what I started my participation in this thread
with, and all that are left are the anti-semites and those who, like
yourself, can't seem to distinguish between the usual right-wing "war on
Christmas" lies and what I've been saying, I'll just let you pat each
other
on the back and congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews are, and
how anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is anti-Christian.

Sorry, I'm not a racist. I don't believe Jews are stiff-necked.

You just believe that we should observe Christian holidays because if we
don't we're anti-Christian.

Never said that nor anything like it.

You, on the other hand, as an individual definitely are.

Yeah, right. What holiday am I forcing you to observe?

None. But you are trying to limit Americans in their observation of
Christmas by trying to prevent them from putting up secular decorations
at the airport.

But people
who oppose other people celebrating Christmas by putting up a secular
Christmas decoration in the airport are, in fact, anti-Christian.

Again, you've totally ignored what I said. I don't oppose anyone
celebrating Christmas. Go nuts -- put up trees and tinsel, bankrupt
yourself buying presents, play Christmas music to your hearts content. Just
don't do it with my tax money.

Which tax money? Airports are funded by user fees.

Besides, the rule is that the majority gets to decide where tax money
is spent. There are a lot of things I don't want my tax money spent on.
But that's not the way it works.

You keep trying to cover your true statements.

No, you keep lying about my true statements and making up positions I've
never held.

Are you going to help me find the forger using your identity?

You're not stupid, so I don't believe you were simply mistaken. That means
your lies are deliberate.

Why do you deliberately lie?

I see. Quoting your words is lying. That it?

wrote in message
ups.com...
PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

[...]

Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only
Christians
allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists
(for
example) don't?

Jews don't.

Nonsense. I've seen it.

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

According to a survey of Jewish families of interfaith couples -- which
account for one-third of Jewish families total and over half of Jewish
families formed in the last decade -- about 90% will celebrate
Christmas, though the overwhelming majority of these will be secular
celebrations. (http://pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=7123)

That is sure authoritative. Thanks. The methodology was especially
impressive.


I have not found a statistical source for the percentage of entirely
Jewish families, though in my personal experience it is not that usual
to see entirely Jewish families participating in some secular
traditions associated with Christmas. Probably someone has done a
survey.

As a matter of fact, that would be an excellent suggestion for those folks
at PNN, InterfaithFamily.com. Maybe they should also ask about the
reciprocal, except that might be too hard to understand.

"Anarcissie"
'So here's the thing: if you're running some johnny-
come-lately export-oriented religion from the Middle
East and you pull off a hostile takeover of a European
pagan winter festival, you can't really complain if
your customers start to ignore the rebranding.'

Quite true. But there are only handful of people
complaining about people ignoring the rebranding. They
are not threatening to sue anyone in order to enforce
the inclusion of a nativity scene to balance the
christmas trees.

The lawsuits, the aggravation, the war on christmas, the
hostility and hatred, comes from people who take the
rebranding far more seriously than Christians do.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"brique"
It is an interesting notion that james seems to
hold... that non-christians celebrating christmas are
being 'american' whilst those who have no interest in
celebrating a different religions festival are fearful
that to do so will make them 'american'. How this fear
of being 'american' affects those who are not even
resident in the USA, such as the Shintoist in Japan,
the Jews in Europe, the Muslims in Indonesia or the
Bhuddists in Australia who do not celebrate christmas

But Buddhists in Australia, like Buddhists in America,
*do* celebrate Christmas.

Got the citation?

wrote in message
ups.com...
PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...
[...]
And I agree with the others. While this newspaper may in
fact be a propaganda organ for the government that doesn't alter the
fact that Christmas is celebrated in many parts of China.

Not as it is here, nor for any purpose other than commercialism and
adaptation of "western" fads.

As I said, the Chinese celebrate Christmas as a *secular* holiday, in
the same way that most Americans celebrate Halloween. The purpose is
fun and community bonding.

[...]

And, since this is exactly what I started my participation in this thread
with, and all that are left are the anti-semites and those who, like
yourself, can't seem to distinguish between the usual right-wing "war on
Christmas" lies and what I've been saying, I'll just let you pat each
other
on the back and congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews are, and
how anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is anti-Christian.

When you condescend others in public about how much better educated you
are than they, and then someone produces proof that you really don't
know what the hell you're talking about, the mature response is to
apologize to them for bull****ting. If you prefer to spit on them and
call them racist for no apparent reason, though, I guess that's your
right, though you should consider how this might affect your public
reputation.

Such bitterness. Such anger. Some prayerful reflection might help.

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ups.com...

PTravel wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote in message
ps.com...

And I agree with the others. While this newspaper may in
fact be a propaganda organ for the government that doesn't alter the
fact that Christmas is celebrated in many parts of China.

Not as it is here, nor for any purpose other than commercialism and
adaptation of "western" fads.

Who said "as it is here"?

I said. Remember what this thread is about? The U.S., i.e. here.

But you waid that to refute James' posting. But it was *not* what he
said nor was it what the article implied. He said that they celebrate
Christmas. You said they didn't. When a whole lot of proof came out
that they do, indeed, celebrate it. You add the qualifier "as it is
here". Changes the meaning of what you said and complete negates your
attempt at refutation.

And it's a tad dishonest.

What is dishonest is your complete misrepresentation of what I've written.


You deny cultural bigotry yet this is another
example. Just because they don't celebrate Christmas *exactly* as they
do in the US doesn't mean they don't celebrate Christmas.

It means it's irrelevant. How hard is it for you to stay on topic?

Hard hard is it for you not to add new qualifiers and change what
you've been saying?

I haven't changed anything. You're still lying. Go back through the
thread.


My point: the celebration of Christmas is not universal and confined,
primarily, to those who have a tradition, heritage and culture of
Christianity. Donald the antisemite's response -- "they celebrate
Christmas
all over China." First, that's not true, and second, whatever
observance
is made in the name of western cultural chic is strictly and solely
commerical -- UNLIKE HERE.

Are you tracking?

Yes, but you seem to be lost. Your point was *NOT* "primarily" as you
state above. You said they didn't do it, PERIOD. Now you are backing
off and adding qualifiers.

Another lie.


Second, the claim that it is strictly and solely commercial may be true

Oh, it may be true, hunh? I thought you said you knew more about China than
I did and I was wrong.

Another lie?

but it is also true for many in the US, *PLUS* that's not what you said
originally. You are again changing what you said because you've been
proven wrong. So you are trying to pretend that you said something
different.

Not only have I not been proven wrong, but you've failed, totally, to
respond to the points that I have made.


They are
allowed to do it differently and allowed to have different motives.

Indeed they are. And, perhaps, some day the motives of observance of
Christmas in the U.S. will have changed sufficiently so that the holiday
is
truly secular, like Halloween, at which point it wouldn't matter in the
least to people like me, i.e. those whose traditions, culture and
heritage
do not include Christianity, if the government participates in its
celebration.

For a very large percentage of Americans, Christmas is already secular.

But not for the majority of Americans whos BACKGROUND, CULTURE, TRADITION
AND HERITAGE IS NOT CHRISTIAN -- for them, Christmas is a Christian
tradition that has no cultural relevance to themselves.

And for all there is at least a secular aspect to it. And the Christmas
Tree represents the secular aspect. And that's what this thread is all
about, remember?

You seem to have trouble with that point. All you've got is your insistance
that is the case. It's not for those whose traditions, heritage, culture
and background is not Christian.


One can't help but wonder given your animosity toward Christmas if
you
saw exactly what you wanted to see.

I have no animosity towards Christmas. I only have animosity towards
violations of the First Amendment.

Which, if you are the lawyer you claim to be, the courts have already
said has nothing to do with Christmas Trees at the airport.

You are mistaken about the meaning of the First Amendment -- our Supreme
Courts can be wrong (and have been wrong), just like the Evangelist in
Chief
in White House is routinely wrong.

I see. So you say "I'm a lawyer and I know the law so the rest of you
should take my word as final and precise" and then when the law clearly
contradicts you, as pointed out by the courts all of a sudden it's "The
Court can be wrong". Did somebody say something about keeping on track?

I don't care whether you take my word for it or not. I'm a lawyer and I've
studied the law, yes. Your understanding of the law is non-existant -- you
haven't a clue. You claim that Lynch says that Christmas trees are
secular. That's beyond ignorant -- that means either you haven't read the
decision at all or, more likely, you didn't understand anything that you
read.


They don't
violate the First Amendment. So since that can't be the source of your
animosity, what is?

That is the source of my animosity and, in fact, they do violate the
First
Amendment. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled that "Christmas trees are
secular." I assume you're referring to Lynch v. Donnelly -- that's not
what
that case means at all.

Lemon said that if an object is secular it can be displayed without
violating the First Amendment.

Absoutely and completely wrong. You haven't read Lemon. You don't even
know what it is about. Hint: it's got nothing to do with "secular objects."

Lynch said that the trees are secular.

Not even remotely close to what Lynch said.


After all you have been saying that
only Christians celebrate Christmas in America which is not only
demonstrably false but silly in the extreme.

And that is a complete lie. I've never said anything of the sort.

??? Of course you have. We've been arguing about that specific
statement.

No I haven't -- you're not mistaken, you're simply lying. You've made up
strawmen. Go back through the thread and read what I've written, then
apologize or shut up and go away.

Wow. Maybe we should team up together and find the imposter who has
been using your posting ID to say things like:

"First of all, the point isn't whether "Christians" celebrate it, but
whether the celebration is confined to those whose culture, tradition
and heritage is Christian. The answer is, yes, that's who celebrates
Christmas. Those whose culture, tradition and heritage is something
else do not celebrate Christmas. In particular those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Jewish or Muslim do not celebrate Christmas."


Right, that's what I said. I never said that "Christians" celebrate it.
You've copied what I wrote word for word, yet you're completely incapable of
grasping the difference between "Christian" and "someone whose background,
culture heritage and traditions are Christian."

That's not a difficult concept, yet you're incapable of distinguishing
between the two.

I take it back -- I don't think you're intelligent.


and

"Christmas, on the other hand, is restricted to those whose culture,
tradition and heritage is Christian, is not either all-sectarian or
non-sectarian, and is not universal. It is certainly not part of
American culture, but only Christian American culture. "

There you go, sport -- exactly right. It's part of Christian culture,
tradition, heritage and background, not American culture, tradition,
heritage and background.

And do you know why?

Because we who are do not have a Christian culture, tradition, heritage and
background but, nonetheless are Americans DON'T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.

Got it yet? Or, like that antisemite Donald, do you believe that anyone who
doesn't celebrate Christmas is not an American?


and

"No, I'm of the opinion that when one particular tradition is confined
to those of a particular background, it's not "universal," or
"American," or whatever else you want to call it. "

Read that last one over and ponder its meaning.


and

"No one finds Christmas offensive. It is not, however, cross-cultural."

and

"You did, when you said Christmas has become part of American culture.
Did I misunderstand you? Do you agree that the observance of Christmas
in America is, for all intents and purposes, confined to those whose
heritage, tradition and culture is Christian?"

How many more do I need to re-post for you? Who is that masked man
pretending to be you and saying those things?

And I never denied it. What point do you think you are making? Thank you
for saving me the trouble of re-typing what I've been saying from the
beginning of this thread.



Read below -- THAT is what I've said.

No. That is what you are saying *NOW*.

That's what I've been saying right along.



snip

Again, simply silly. You're telling me that in the US only
Christians
allow their children to sit on Santa's lap at the mall? Atheists
(for
example) don't?

Jews don't.

Nonsense. I've seen it.

Yeah, I'm sure you've got a Jewish friend or two. Yes, there may be a
scattering of Jews around who might. The overwhelming majority don't.

But some do which is *NOT* what you said repeatedly, as quoted above.

Are you seriously going to contend that because some small minority of Jews
observe Christmas, it's a universal holiday?


Think about what you've said. About 70% of Americans claim Christianity
as a "background".

That's wrong. Every survey I've seen says 90-96% claim Christianity as a
background.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm

" 76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5%
Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics,
Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by
fewer than 0.1% of American adults. "

Lots of similar surveys available.

Fine, so what? As I said, not the surveys that I read, but even more
compelling that Christmas is not universal.


About 1/3 of those acknowledge that they are not religious.

Irrelevant.

No, because I said that less than half of Americans are "active
Christians" so this includes that calculation.

What do "active Christians" have to do with anything? "People whose
culture, traditions, heritage and background is Christian" includes "active
Christians" and "inactive Christians" or whatever you want to call them. It
does not, however, include Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, etc.


So somewhere between slight less than half and 2/3 of Americans are
Christian. The others are not. Let's use the figure that benefits your
argument the most: 2/3.

You are thus arguing that 1/3 of all Americans don't celebrate
Christmas!!! Are you serious?

My god, but you're deliberately obtuse. Okay, I'm going to say this one
more time -- I'll even use capital letters:

Christmas is celebrated almost exclusively by THOSE WHOSE BACKGROUND,
CULTURE AND HERITAGE IS CHRISTIAN, and almost exclusively not by those
whose
background, cultrure and heritage is something else.

But if 1/3 are *NOT* Christian then you're saying that 1/3 don't
celebrate Christmas.

One more time: We're not talking about who is CHRISTIAN, but who comes from
a TRADITION, HERITAGE, CULTURE AND BACKGROUND THAT IS CHRISTIAN.

Do you understand the difference?


No -- you are so closed minded that you've made up a position for me, and
completely ignored what I've actually said. You are the bigot if you
believe that we who don't come from a Christian culture, tradition and
heritage have any interest whatsoever in observing those holidays and
other
observances which are peculiar to it.

The bigotry is you assuming that because a person is not Christian he
doesn't observe a holiday that is a national tradition and a national
holiday.

No, your bigotry is assuming that because you observe Christmas, everyone
else does.


And, since this is exactly what I started my participation in this
thread
with, and all that are left are the anti-semites and those who, like
yourself, can't seem to distinguish between the usual right-wing "war
on
Christmas" lies and what I've been saying, I'll just let you pat each
other
on the back and congratulate yourselves on how stiff-necked Jews are,
and
how anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas is anti-Christian.

Sorry, I'm not a racist. I don't believe Jews are stiff-necked.

You just believe that we should observe Christian holidays because if we
don't we're anti-Christian.

Never said that nor anything like it.

This is what you wrote -- it's only two posts up:

"And people who don't celebrate Christmas are anti-Christian. But people
who oppose other people celebrating Christmas by putting up a secular
Christmas decoration in the airport are, in fact, anti-Christian."

Here's the google reference:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...bc97f167c71f1c

So, at least we know -- it's not that you're unintelligent. You simply lie.




You, on the other hand, as an individual definitely are.

Yeah, right. What holiday am I forcing you to observe?

None. But you are trying to limit Americans in their observation of
Christmas by trying to prevent them from putting up secular decorations
at the airport.

Except that they're not secular decorations. You claim they are, but have
no basis for the contention other than what's in your own head. You said
that the Lynch case said that they are. That's a complete lie. Lynch said
nothing of the sort. You said that Lemon says that they are. That's
another lie, since Lemon has absolutely nothing to do with displays of any
kind. Then you're left with your claim that everyone, Jews, Muslims and
Christians celebrate Christmas. You've been told that's a lie by the Jews
who have posted here.

So all you're left with is your lies.

Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, clear up one other thing.

As I said, Donald's agenda is quite clear -- he's an antisemite, a racist
and a bigot.

What's your agenda?

Why did you lie about Lynch?
Why did you lie about Lemon?
Why do you lie about Jews?



But people
who oppose other people celebrating Christmas by putting up a secular
Christmas decoration in the airport are, in fact, anti-Christian.

Again, you've totally ignored what I said. I don't oppose anyone
celebrating Christmas. Go nuts -- put up trees and tinsel, bankrupt
yourself buying presents, play Christmas music to your hearts content.
Just
don't do it with my tax money.

Which tax money? Airports are funded by user fees.

Another lie.


Besides, the rule is that the majority gets to decide where tax money
is spent.

No, that's not the rule. Did you take civics in high school? The majority
doesn't get to violate the Constitution, regardless of what the majority
would like to spend its money on.

There are a lot of things I don't want my tax money spent on.
But that's not the way it works.

You haven't a clue about the way it works.


You keep trying to cover your true statements.

No, you keep lying about my true statements and making up positions I've
never held.

Are you going to help me find the forger using your identity?

I've already shown up your lies.


You're not stupid, so I don't believe you were simply mistaken. That
means
your lies are deliberate.

Why do you deliberately lie?

I see. Quoting your words is lying. That it?

No -- quoting my words and saying they mean something else is lying.
Saying that Lynch held that the display of Christmas trees was secular is
lying.
Saying that Lemon held that Christmas trees are secular is lying.
Saying that Jews celebrate Christmas is lying.

That's lying.

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 because any monopoly that exists without the
state becomes the state. Thus, your argument reduces to whining about
all government and wishing for anarchy.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Monopolies can only thrive with force. Without force there will always
be competition.
And monopolies can impose their own force.
If monopolies are not forced by the state they are limited in their
ability to impose force. For instance the only shop in a small village
can charge higher prices, but if these prices are to high the customers
would seek alternatives.
When there is a monopoly customers CANNOT shop elsewhere because there
is only the one business.

But only temporary

So you claim, again without any justification.

Got any more idiotic propaganda to share?

--
Ray Fischer