Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport

"James A. Donald" wrote in message
...
"Sancho Panza"
Oh, please. Parity is a compeletely alien
concept for a certain mind-set.

James A. Donald:
The relevant supreme court precedent is ACLU vs
Schundler, and you are lying about what it says.

"Sancho Panza"
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Schundler. The
Supreme Court's most recent decision on this subject
is Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v.
Pinette.

Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette is
about the Klu Klux Klan, and has no direct relevance to
christmas, christmas trees, or menorahs. I think you
have your cases mixed up.

Reading the case would have shown it was about displaying a cross in a
public place. The feeble defense of the cross was that it was a secular
cross.

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I just wanted to comment on Ray's post hoc argument. If people are
willing to put their faith in a post hoc argument, then the advocates
of greater state intervention do indeed have plenty of "evidence" on
their side, pretty much for free. After all, as technology has
progressed people have, unsurprisingly, been living better and better lives.
Except in the late 19th century at the start of the industrial
revolution and the creation of large monopolistic corporations.
Then living standards and life expectancy took a dip.
The dip was caused by rapid population increase. Living standards and
life expectancy are usually constantly improving when this process is
not hindered by war or other forms of arbitrary violence.
And being forced to work 72-hour weeks with no medical care in
dangerous working conditions didn't have anything to do with it?
This has to do with an underdeveloped network of cooperation.
No, it had to do with capitalism. Supply and demand. Employers
putting profits ahead of workers.
Workers are providers of services, just like employers. If the employer
provides bad working conditions they can look for someone else who is better.
Not if there is only one employer or if the employers are in collusion
to prevent workers from seeking better jobs or if there are no better
jobs to be had.

If there is no better job it is because it is underdeveloped yet.

And the employer will not find enough workers if the conditions are to bad.
Why not? Do you think that people will starve to death rather than
take a crappy job?

Usually there are better opportunities if the state did not prevent
competition thru regulation.

Monopols are only dangerous when they are enforced by the state.
Here's a phrase that will get you started: Cost of entry.
Cost of entry is increased by state-enforced regulation.
Another stupid statement. Tell us, halfwit: If somebody wanted to
compete against Intel, how much money would they need to put up just
to get started? How much would it cost to start your own railroad?
Or cable TV company? Or phone company?
If Intel raises the prices to high there will be new competitors who
jump on the train.
Apparently all that you're capable of doing is mindlessly parroting
the same old propaganda.

Apparently you cannot refute that argument.

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
The problem lies not with
the corporations but with corporations abusing state power to prevent
competition and get themselves corporate welfare.
What a bizarre statement. You really have swallowed the kool-aid.
Tell us: How does a monopoly depend upon government collusion?
Take for instance the postal service.
Regulated.
State enforced monopoly to prevent and hinder competition.
State CONSTRAINED monopoly to allow and encourage competition.

That is what perhaps the law makers believed, but the effect is
contrary to this intention.

It weren't a monopoly without the
state enforcing it. Ever heard the name Lysander Spooner?
Ever heard of FedEx?
When was it allowed for them to compete with the US postal service?
Every day, idiot. Along with UPS and DHL and AirBorne.

Bull****.

wrote:
PTravel wrote:
wrote:
Mike Hunt wrote:
wrote:
PTravel wrote:
Hey, my personal preference would be that none of this stuff go up
-- I don't want tax dollars paying for menorahs, either.

Isn't Seattle airport a private enterprise?

It's a "municipal corporation"...
http://www.portseattle.org/about/
What is a municipal corporation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation

I see. Unfortunately municipalities are not autonomous but are required
by law to follow the rules of the federal and state institutions.

Not quite. Municipalities are state actors and, pursuant to the process of
selective incorporation under the 14th Amendment, the restrictions of the
First Amendment apply with equal force. It's not a question of having to
follow the same laws. It's a question of powers that were never ceded to
government entities, federal, state or municipal, in the first place.

The first Amendment only speaks about Congress. Why should
municipalities respect this?

Because the First Amendment has been consistently construed, through
200 years of jurisprudence, to apply to state actors. Through a
process know as selective incorporation through the 14th Amendment, the
First Amendment has been held to apply to the states, which includes
municipal government.

Why would you think the Constitution can be construed without reference
to anything else except the plain language? Even Bork didn't believe
that.

On 23 Dec 2006 00:30:32 -0800, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Christmas is a secular holiday in the United States.

That's a nice lie, but it doesn't fly in the face of Christian
campaigns like "Jesus is the reason for the season" and "put the
Christ back into Christmas". You can't have it both ways.

Interesting, didn't know that there are such stupid campaigns in the
US. No wonder that non-Christians are severely annoyed about that.

Fundamentalist Christians are trying to turn the United Stated into a
Christian theocracy. They've gone quite a way in that direction
during the last 6 years.

wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:
I just wanted to comment on Ray's post hoc argument. If people are
willing to put their faith in a post hoc argument, then the advocates
of greater state intervention do indeed have plenty of "evidence" on
their side, pretty much for free. After all, as technology has
progressed people have, unsurprisingly, been living better and better lives.
Except in the late 19th century at the start of the industrial
revolution and the creation of large monopolistic corporations.
Then living standards and life expectancy took a dip.
The dip was caused by rapid population increase. Living standards and
life expectancy are usually constantly improving when this process is
not hindered by war or other forms of arbitrary violence.
And being forced to work 72-hour weeks with no medical care in
dangerous working conditions didn't have anything to do with it?
This has to do with an underdeveloped network of cooperation.
No, it had to do with capitalism. Supply and demand. Employers
putting profits ahead of workers.
Workers are providers of services, just like employers. If the employer
provides bad working conditions they can look for someone else who is better.
Not if there is only one employer or if the employers are in collusion
to prevent workers from seeking better jobs or if there are no better
jobs to be had.

If there is no better job it is because it is underdeveloped yet.

Or there is a monopoly.

And the employer will not find enough workers if the conditions are to bad.
Why not? Do you think that people will starve to death rather than
take a crappy job?

Usually there are better opportunities if the state did not prevent
competition thru regulation.

No, moron, it is anti-monopoly laws that ensure competition.

Do you do anything but spew idiot propaganda?

Monopols are only dangerous when they are enforced by the state.
Here's a phrase that will get you started: Cost of entry.
Cost of entry is increased by state-enforced regulation.
Another stupid statement. Tell us, halfwit: If somebody wanted to
compete against Intel, how much money would they need to put up just
to get started? How much would it cost to start your own railroad?
Or cable TV company? Or phone company?
If Intel raises the prices to high there will be new competitors who
jump on the train.
Apparently all that you're capable of doing is mindlessly parroting
the same old propaganda.

Apparently you cannot refute that argument.

What "argument", moron? Do YOU have the BILLIONS of dollars needed to
compete against Intel? Are YOU going to start a company to compete
against them?

You're an idiot who thinks that waving hands will magically create
competition.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
wrote:

The problem lies not with
the corporations but with corporations abusing state power to prevent
competition and get themselves corporate welfare.
What a bizarre statement. You really have swallowed the kool-aid.
Tell us: How does a monopoly depend upon government collusion?
Take for instance the postal service.
Regulated.
State enforced monopoly to prevent and hinder competition.
State CONSTRAINED monopoly to allow and encourage competition.

That is what perhaps the law makers believed, but the effect is
contrary to this intention.

An obvious lie given the existence of competition.

It weren't a monopoly without the
state enforcing it. Ever heard the name Lysander Spooner?
Ever heard of FedEx?
When was it allowed for them to compete with the US postal service?
Every day, idiot. Along with UPS and DHL and AirBorne.

Bull****.

You can't deny the truth so you run away. Typical right-wing moron.

--
Ray Fischer

wrote in message
The problem is the existence of public spaces. If
anything were private these problems would not
exist.

brique.
Would make it bloody tedious walking home though,
every ten or twenty yards you get to freely negotiate
the toill for walking past each neighbours house.....
and while you were out, who was collecting the tolls
for the neighbours walking past your house?

I am part owner of several roads. We don't have that
problem. I just drove up a road where I own the
northern half of the road, and my neighbor owns the
southern half of the road. We have an easement that
each other can use it. Another neighbor owns none of
the road, but he needs to use it also. He repairs it
from time to time.

--
----------------------
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

"Sancho Panza"
Oh, please. Parity is a compeletely alien
concept for a certain mind-set.

James A. Donald:
The relevant supreme court precedent is ACLU
vs Schundler, and you are lying about what it
says.

"Sancho Panza"
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Schundler.
The Supreme Court's most recent decision on this
subject is Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board
v. Pinette.

James A. Donald:
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette
is about the Klu Klux Klan, and has no direct
relevance to christmas, christmas trees, or
menorahs. I think you have your cases mixed up.

"Sancho Panza"
Reading the case would have shown it was about
displaying a cross in a public place.

A cross is not a christmas tree, no cross was displayed
in Seattle airport, and no one intends to display a
cross in seattle airport.

--
----------------------
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

Frank Mayhar
A few years ago I was in China on Christmas. The
only decorations I saw were in hotels catering to
foreigners.

That would be quite a few years ago, when the communists
were apt to shoot people who behaved in a suspicious
manner, and celebrating Christmas was highly suspicious.


Precisely.

Somehow the main chinese newspaper tells a different
story:


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...004-12/25/cont
ent_403184.htm
: : Christmas, a religious holiday originated in
: : the West, is prevailing in China where only
: : 1.15 percent of Chinese are Christians.
: :
: : "Although we are far from our country but we
: : feel at home here, because Beijing is filled
: : with festival atmosphere." said William
: : Lindesay, an American who works for the
: : protection work for the Great Wall.
: :
: : [...]
: :
: : Such a tree would have been seen as an
: : exaggerated and bizarre ornament in the past.
: : In today's Beijing, however, smiling Santa
: : Clauses, colorful Christmas stockings, trees
: : and slogans with " Merry Christmas" are
: : everywhere. "Jingle Bells" resounds in many
: : of the metropolis' shopping malls.
: :
: : Angela Smith, an Italian student in the
: : Capital Economic and Trade University,
: : marveled at the city's festival atmosphere. "
: : Beijing's Christmas is as bustling as that in
: : my hometown," she exclaimed.
: :
: : [...]
: :
: : "Christmas has exceeded its original
: : religious connotation and spreads to every
: : country," said Lindesay. "It is a world
: : festival, and a season of spreading love and
: : warmth."

Well, see, that's where we differ, you and I. Like
those Chinese, I just don't give a ****.

But you do give a ****. You told us that Christmas was
the unhappiest time of the year for you.

--
----------------------
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