Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: nfolkert on 26 Dec 2006 20:20 PTravel wrote: > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1167111017.883738.24510(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.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 bullshitting. 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. - Nate
From: Sancho Panza on 26 Dec 2006 21:03 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1167179384.754004.149560(a)a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Sancho Panza wrote: > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1167111017.883738.24510(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> However, what may or may not be done in China is irrelevant, as you and > > >> Donald seem to miss. It is what is done in the U.S. that is relevant, > > >> and > > >> how the Christmas holiday is regarded here. The point of this long and > > >> tedious thread is that, as a general rule, those from non-Christian > > >> backgrounds don't celebrate Christmas, those that are from Christian > > >> backgronds do. As a general rule, the only ones claiming that Christmas > > >> is > > >> a secular, non-religious holiday "for everyone" are those from Christian > > >> backgrounds. > > > > > > 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? > > > > One of the most eyebrow-raising examples yet in this thread of the weird. > > Why? That is what PTrvel is contending. > > > > If you want to say that only Christians celebrate "Christ's Birthday" > > > then you would be right. But Christmas has become far, far more than > > > that for the majority of Americans. > > > > If you want to say that Christmas has become nothing more than a giant > > commercial sell, then come out and say it, man. > > Silly statement. Christmas is a celebration of Christ's Birthday *to > some people*. For others it's a family get together. That would be because they have a common day off. Not because they wanted it. It was imposed on them. Big difference that quite a few people have a problem understanding. >For others it > means other things. You're trying to pigeonhole something in a fairly > offensive manner. >
From: Sancho Panza on 26 Dec 2006 20:57 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1167179384.754004.149560(a)a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Sancho Panza wrote: > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1167111017.883738.24510(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> However, what may or may not be done in China is irrelevant, as you and > > >> Donald seem to miss. It is what is done in the U.S. that is relevant, > > >> and > > >> how the Christmas holiday is regarded here. The point of this long and > > >> tedious thread is that, as a general rule, those from non-Christian > > >> backgrounds don't celebrate Christmas, those that are from Christian > > >> backgronds do. As a general rule, the only ones claiming that Christmas > > >> is > > >> a secular, non-religious holiday "for everyone" are those from Christian > > >> backgrounds. > > > > > > 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? > > > > One of the most eyebrow-raising examples yet in this thread of the weird. > > Why? That is what PTrvel is contending. > > > > If you want to say that only Christians celebrate "Christ's Birthday" > > > then you would be right. But Christmas has become far, far more than > > > that for the majority of Americans. > > > > If you want to say that Christmas has become nothing more than a giant > > commercial sell, then come out and say it, man. > > Silly statement. Christmas is a celebration of Christ's Birthday *to > some people*. For others it's a family get together. For others it > means other things. You're trying to pigeonhole something in a fairly > offensive manner. Sure, and it'll be whatever someone needs it to be make a point. How malleable!
From: Sancho Panza on 26 Dec 2006 21:01 "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1167181354.329505.289860(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > Sancho Panza wrote: > > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1167111245.897787.194940(a)73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > So are you then saying that "part of Airbus" is the government of > > > France? > > > > The Elysee Palace sure thinks it is. > > > > >> >> > Is a baseball stadium built with government bonds and run by the > > >> >> > city > > >> >> > "the government"? > > >> >> > > >> >> It sure is in most of the United States. The government usually leases > > >> >> it > > >> >> to > > >> >> whomever it deems fit. > > >> > > > >> > But is it *THE GOVERNMENT*??? No, it's not. It's owned by the > > >> > government. But it is NOT the government any more than Airbus is the > > >> > government. > > >> > > >> Of course it is. Those municipalities can and do enter into, revise and > > >> even > > >> terminate said leases. If they're not the owner, who is? > > > > > > I'm going to try to speak slowly because you don't seem to be > > > understanding. I'm not talking about who owns the corporation. I'm > > > talking about whether or not the corporation is *THE GOVERNMENT*. It's > > > not and it's silly to claim it is. > > > > > > I own my computer. Is my computer "Me"? > > > > > > Just because a government agency owns a corporation does *NOT* make > > > that corporation "the government". > > > > > > Deflection by non sequitor and double talk. Eg: The government owns a > > corporation. The corporation is not part of the government. Overpowering > > logic, huh? > > I'm sorry if you can't understand that simple fact. > > > >What governmental functions does a baseball park perform? > > > > Ask the yo-yo government officials who organize, vote and finance them. They > > seem to think that there is some governmental function worth in the tens of > > millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. > > You mean like the City Councils? Yes. They *are* the government. But > what governmental functions does the ball park perform? > > You seem to have zero idea what a government is. Functions and services that schools, transportation systems, economic development projects, shelters, roads, emergency services, arts councils, hospitals and so on perform in similar fashion, sometimes involving leasing government property, even to nongovernmental entities, and all for the general weal.
From: James A. Donald on 26 Dec 2006 21:52
James A. Donald: > > The anti monopoly laws were to discourage, rathe > > than produce, competition. 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, behavior that does not look much like the behavior of a monopoly, but rather looks like they were running a race fast and hard, and far outpaced everyone else. See Armentano's criticism of antitrust: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22standard+oil%22+Armentano You cannot measure monopoly by asking how much of the industry is controlled by one business, for it is the nature of races to produce a winner. Forbidding winners forbids the race. In practice the primary purpose of antitrust law is to forbid the race. Rather, monopoly is a matter of ease of entry. Can the winner slack off without someone then going after him? So to detect monopoly, one cannot only count market share, but must consider conduct. Can the leader get away with above normal profits without someone going after a chunk of those profits? If the entire market is controlled by one company, and that company is determined to keep it so by cutting prices and improving quality, that is not monopoly. If, on the other hand, as with banking, you have a few dozen big banks, regulation forbids any new entrants, and the existing banks have a gentleman's agreement that their market share will remain as it was, then we have a problem - and that problem is caused, rather than prevented, by antitrust laws. If it was possible for one to take it all, they would be at each others throats attempting to do so. -- ---------------------- 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 |