On Dec 23, 2:02*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:43:30 -0500, John H
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/ye4sjx8

I like the last one. Seems like I was called a racist for suggesting
such a thing in a joke a while back. I suppose the Obamas are as
racist as I am.

Oh well.

Is common sense dead in America?

Where was the righteous indignation when the Bush administration
prohibited religious themes on ornaments?

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then... I'm sure
Bush was trying to be
sensitive to the foaming-at-the-mouth "no nativity scene" idiots. If
there had been religious
ornaments allowed, the WH would have been under siege from every group
imaginable. CNN, MSNBC,
CBS, ABC, etc. camped outside the gates.

But Mao? Common sense is dead.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 23, 2:02*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:43:30 -0500, John H
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/ye4sjx8

I like the last one. Seems like I was called a racist for suggesting
such a thing in a joke a while back. I suppose the Obamas are as
racist as I am.

Oh well.

Is common sense dead in America?

Where was the righteous indignation when the Bush administration
prohibited religious themes on ornaments?

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then... I'm sure
Bush was trying to be
sensitive to the foaming-at-the-mouth "no nativity scene" idiots. If
there had been religious
ornaments allowed, the WH would have been under siege from every group
imaginable. CNN, MSNBC,
CBS, ABC, etc. camped outside the gates.

But Mao? Common sense is dead.

Speaking of Mao, I hope everyone here sent the ACLU a Christmas card,
preferably one which showed the reason for the season.

We sent one with a beautiful Nativity scene thereon, knowing they'll
probably frame it.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

.... common sense is dead.....

Have you ever read the original Massachusetts Constitution?

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:53:39 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

.... common sense is dead.....

Have you ever read the original Massachusetts Constitution?

Yes, I have.... it explained why my forebears chose North Carolina,
instead......

..... besides, Mass. isn't even a state!

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky too.

My forebears were chased out of a little village in Mass. just over 300
years ago.

On 12/23/09 4:26 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:53:39 -0500, wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

.... common sense is dead.....

Have you ever read the original Massachusetts Constitution?

Yes, I have.... it explained why my forebears chose North Carolina,
instead......

..... besides, Mass. isn't even a state!

Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky too.

My forebears were chased out of a little village in Mass. just over 300
years ago.

Witches?

On Dec 23, 3:28*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

You have to admit, it's just as valid for a Christian to get upset
over what they feel is a desecration of a religious holiday symbol as
it is a for a non-beleiver to get their panties in a wad over a
nativity scene.

Besides, the ship has sailed long ago on Christians having any
"special" rights. Only special, offended groups get special
accomodations these days.

But I do have to wonder... what makes Mao a target of only "Christian
Right Wingnuts" in your mind? Any thinking, compassionate, free
person should have an issue with him, no?

Merry Christmas, Gene.

On 12/23/09 3:56 PM, Jack wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:28 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

You have to admit, it's just as valid for a Christian to get upset
over what they feel is a desecration of a religious holiday symbol as
it is a for a non-beleiver to get their panties in a wad over a
nativity scene.

Besides, the ship has sailed long ago on Christians having any
"special" rights. Only special, offended groups get special
accomodations these days.

But I do have to wonder... what makes Mao a target of only "Christian
Right Wingnuts" in your mind? Any thinking, compassionate, free
person should have an issue with him, no?

Merry Christmas, Gene.


This worries you why? You're not a christian.

Harry wrote:
On 12/23/09 3:56 PM, Jack wrote:
On Dec 23, 3:28 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....

You have to admit, it's just as valid for a Christian to get upset
over what they feel is a desecration of a religious holiday symbol as
it is a for a non-beleiver to get their panties in a wad over a
nativity scene.

Besides, the ship has sailed long ago on Christians having any
"special" rights. Only special, offended groups get special
accomodations these days.

But I do have to wonder... what makes Mao a target of only "Christian
Right Wingnuts" in your mind? Any thinking, compassionate, free
person should have an issue with him, no?

Merry Christmas, Gene.


This worries you why? You're not a christian.

I often wonder why I have been chosen to be the gate keeper of the
Christian faith. I have the heavy burden of deciding who is worthy of
being Christian and who is not. I profess no belief in God or Christ or
any other diety. Yet I get to decide who's in and who's out. Thank you
Jesus.

--

It's flattering to see so many of you turds spoofing me.

On Dec 23, 4:12*pm, Gene wrote:


...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....
But I do have to wonder... what makes Mao a target of only "Christian
Right Wingnuts" in your mind? *Any thinking, compassionate, free
person should have an issue with him, no?

Mao isn't the target.... the target is the preposterous story reported
as fact..... and believed without question by so many.....

I'm still on the fence. I find it hard to beleive that, if it weren't
true, it would be all over CNN, MSNC, etc... but it's not. Not a
peep. They'd be dancing in the street to shoot down this lie, but no
dancing. It is hard to beleive, but...


...the other target is why it was OK for the Bush Christmas trees to
be Non-Religious..... not a whimper from either Christians, Right
Wingers, or even Right Wing Christians.... BUT.....

As I wrote, that ship has sailed. Nothing of a religious content is
allowed on any government property without it being protested and
lawsuit-filed out of existence. A better question is why are the
liberal anti-christian protestors being silent about religious-themed
decorations now? If it were Bush, they'd be rioting in the street.
Hell, he couldn't play a round of golf without 15 minutes of negative
new coverage. You know the answer... because it's BO... he's
special... he gets a pass for everything.

In 2009, the Christmas tree is allowed to have religious ornaments
(isn't that a good thing?)
Yes it is!

and what do we get? Mao, Transvestites, and Mt. Rushmore....

Preposterous? No.
Unlikely? Not really.
Proven untrue? Surprisingly, not yet.
If true? Tasteless ****heads... whoever is responsible.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:12:15 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:56:53 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 23, 3:28*pm, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:15:20 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

There was certainly no indignation from the left back then..

...or more importantly, from the (Christian) Right Wingnuts.... who
now have their panties in a total wad over something ridiculously
unbelievable....



But I do have to wonder... what makes Mao a target of only "Christian
Right Wingnuts" in your mind? Any thinking, compassionate, free
person should have an issue with him, no?

Mao isn't the target.... the target is the preposterous story reported
as fact..... and believed without question by so many.....

...the other target is why it was OK for the Bush Christmas trees to
be Non-Religious..... not a whimper from either Christians, Right
Wingers, or even Right Wing Christians.... BUT.....

In 2009, the Christmas tree is allowed to have religious ornaments
(isn't that a good thing?) and what do we get? No notice of that, but
some preposterous story about Mao, Transvestites, and Mt. Rushmore....

Common sense is dead....

Gene, you need to read Hedda Lettuce's blog before you discredit the
story.

Besides, why the uproar? Isn't this expected?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H