Jews Strive To Restore Christmas Trees At Seattle Airport
in [Airline Travel]
|
Prev: AF IAH - CDG
Next: BA overbooking - a bad experience
From: brique on 29 Dec 2006 16:53 David Harmon <source(a)netcom.com> wrote in message news:45e18ad4.247477937(a)news.west.earthlink.net... > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:11:33 -0000 in alt.anarchism, "brique" > <briquenoir(a)freeuk.c0m> wrote, > >David Harmon <source(a)netcom.com> wrote in message > >news:45caec9b.206972843(a)news.west.earthlink.net... > >> On 27 Dec 2006 06:42:21 GMT in alt.anarchism, rfischer(a)sonic.net (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. Ah, right... got the 'wrong' answer from me so ignore it and ask someone else and keep asking until you get one that suits your mood.... cool... > > > > 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. Well, James is not a muslim but he holds definite bigotted opinions regarding muslims. Homocidally bigotted. genocidally bigotted, in fact. Now, he tells us he is not a christian, he tells us he holds no religious opinion but he continually goes in to bat for christianity as humanities only saviour from the islamic hordes. Just how much of a genocidally xenophobic bigot does he have to be to qualify in your book. Unless , of course, you consider such views to be sweet reason and can't see what the fuss is about? > > > >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. > So, maybe James is a self-hating whatever race creed colour, height, weight, whatever he may be..... the point remains, not what his physical description may be, but the fact he fears and hates others for not being as he would wish them to be.... like him, or, more probably, doing as he would wish.
From: usenet_trash on 29 Dec 2006 17:40 Al Klein wrote: > On 28 Dec 2006 14:09:46 -0800, usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de 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 (which is an even bigger slavery). > Not for the slaves. Yes, also for the slaves. War has to be prevented or stopped. This has absolute priority. > >> >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. There were human rights violations from Polish forces for months, the intervention was necessary to stop it. Jozef Beck (Poland's Prime Minister) did not want a peaceful solution but wanted Hitler gone. He thought that the Generals will depose Hitler when war breaks out. UK and F also did not want peace anymore but regime change in D (Roosevelt convinced them so by seeding mistrust). Therefore they declared war on D but interestingly not on the USSR when Stalin invaded Poland two weeks later from the other side. > >> 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. Japan was not an enemy of the US before Roosevelt made them an enemy (for his goal to save the Soviet Union). > >> >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. I would like to see that every American would simply ignore these parasites and state terrorists in Washington. They have no legitimacy.
From: usenet_trash on 29 Dec 2006 18:09 Al Klein wrote: > usenet_trash(a)yahoo.de wrote: > >> >> >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. Forget your pseudo-realism. Apparently you confuse 'how humans work' with 'how humans work who claim to be the government'.
From: flaviaR on 2 Jan 2007 03:53 On 22-Dec-2006, "Constantinople" <constantinopoli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > folkert(a)gmail.com wrote: > > flaviaR(a)verizon.net wrote: > > > On 21-Dec-2006, nfolkert(a)gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > > > No, I do not understand what you're getting at. Whether they want > > > > to > > > > think Easter has nothing to do with Passover is irrelevant. > > > > Historical > > > > evidence -- such as the fact that the majority of the Christian > > > > world > > > > calls these two holidays by the same name - > > > > > > No, they DON'T. > > > > > > I have plenty of Xian relatives and never once has any of them > > > ever called easter Passover!! > > > Your post is the first time I have ever even heard of such a thing. > > > > Is the first language of your Christian relatives Spanish, French, > > Russian, Portuguese, or Italian? If so, what do they call these > > holidays in their first language? > > There is no world outside of the English-speaking US. Despite this, I > hallucinate that some relatives of mine, including Mom, call Easter > "pascua". Interesting how this is the first anyone's been hearing of it.... Susan
From: flaviaR on 2 Jan 2007 03:56
On 26-Dec-2006, nfolkert(a)gmail.com wrote: > > 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) > Which means that not only do a majorityof Jews NOT celebrate Xmas (even your numbers show this), it is, as we all thought, only those who do not really identify with being Jewish. Susan > 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. > > [...] |