|
Holiday Music
On 12/26/2015 11:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Establishment cause did not ban religion! Founding fathers even used under God. Stated there would not be a State Religion established. Vis a vis Church of England. Not really. The founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's motto. "In God we Trust" didn't come until later. It was used on some coins after the Civil War but it wasn't until 1956 when it was adopted on all coins and paper money. "Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until then also. Never knew this ... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a socialist. |
Holiday Music
On 12/26/2015 8:01 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/15 4:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Tim wrote: 2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Plus was not the government that put up the display, except for the maybe the government is the people. And all religions seem to be able to install a display. Even the religion of Atheism. The Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. By erecting the 10 commandments or a cross on public property, that clause is violated. Horrors. |
Holiday Music
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. |
Holiday Music
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. |
Holiday Music
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:58:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/26/15 4:28 PM, Tim wrote: 2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Religious displays on public property infringe on the Constitutional right of the separation of church and state. I am a lot more concerned with public money being used to promote sports teams and that borders on a religion.. |
Holiday Music
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:31 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Establishment cause did not ban religion! Founding fathers even used under God. Stated there would not be a State Religion established. Vis a vis Church of England. Not really. The founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's motto. "In God we Trust" didn't come until later. It was used on some coins after the Civil War but it wasn't until 1956 when it was adopted on all coins and paper money. "Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until then also. Never knew this ... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a socialist. Sorry, the statement under God was not what I wanted to use. Acknowledging a god or creator was my intent. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Fantastically written document, the Declaration of Independence. And I do not think a degree in English was held by any of the signers. |
Holiday Music
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:45:33 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 12/26/2015 5:43 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:35:58 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: On 12/26/2015 1:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: We have prominent christian pastors and lay christians in this country who sound very much like the bat**** crazy mullahs. The rev Wright came immediately to mind. Now who studied under him for 20 sumpin years? Think hard Krowsie baby. === Isn't he the one who wanted to kill all the white devils? Wright or his student? Both? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Holiday Music
|
Holiday Music
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:39:16 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 12/26/2015 2:00 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:03:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:42:41 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Anti-Religionists see the horrors religion has perpetrated on mankind over the centuries and recognize them for what they are - horrors perpetrated by religious beliefs. As in, "my religion is better than your religion, so you have to die." I understand a fast-growing segment of society in much of the modern world is Non-Religionists, people who might believe in a creator but want nothing to do with "organized" religion. I can appreciate how that would make sense for many people who want to believe in a god but whose stomachs are turned by the behavior of those with "religious beliefs." The difference is, you equate a crèche at the park with a muslim beheading. Talk about false equivalencies. wbullshi I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Exactly which right is infringed upon? I hope thinking about this doesn't cause your brain to shatter Krowsie baby. Are you feeling especially 'entitled' today? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) |
Holiday Music
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 10:31:55 PM UTC-6, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Establishment cause did not ban religion! Founding fathers even used under God. Stated there would not be a State Religion established. Vis a vis Church of England. And/or The Church of Rome... |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:33:26 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. === Pro football is not a religion? That would be news to a lot of fans who faithfully attend every Sunday. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... === I'm sure you can invent new issues faster than anyone could understand them. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. |
Holiday Music
On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Considering how badly many self-described christians here in rec.boats behave towards other posters, I say the ridicule is deserved. |
Holiday Music
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 3:46:50 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Considering how badly many self-described christians here in rec.boats behave towards other posters, I say the ridicule is deserved. .... and the same undue ridicule falls on those Christians hold others beliefs (or lack there of) in respect. So the scripture is true, in that it 'rains on the unjust and the just alike' |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/15 5:35 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 3:46:50 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Considering how badly many self-described christians here in rec.boats behave towards other posters, I say the ridicule is deserved. ... and the same undue ridicule falls on those Christians hold others beliefs (or lack there of) in respect. So the scripture is true, in that it 'rains on the unjust and the just alike' Thanks, I needed a chuckle. |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? |
Holiday Music
6:19 PMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text - Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? ........ I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise... |
Holiday Music
6:17 PMKeyser Söze
On 12/27/15 5:35 PM, Tim wrote: On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 3:46:50 PM UTC-6, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: - show quoted text - Thanks, I needed a chuckle. ------ That's ok Harry. A lot of people laugh when they can't do much else. |
Holiday Music
On 12/27/15 9:48 PM, Tim wrote:
6:19 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? ....... I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise... Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh? The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of promoting religion. |
Holiday Music
8:54 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh? The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of promoting religion. ------ And who says it does? You? |
Holiday Music
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. Did walk by a nice house for sale on our Christmas evening walk at daughters. House near her in Naples, CA part of Long Beach, is for sale and includes 3 open water docks. Tie up your 40'er. Been on market for awhile. Built 1907, but updated. 4000' sq. asking $5.7 million. Probably take an even 5. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:33:26 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. So go away. I just have trouble understanding your outrage. .... and it's not like you never change the subject. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... You are right. I don't understand why something that happens in a place you will never be in and with people you consider far below your social status should be of such interest to you. Why is it your ****ing business if the majority of the people in Fumbuck Mississippi want the 10 commandments in their city park? You will never see it and they would be as happy if you never did. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:36:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:33:26 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. === Pro football is not a religion? That would be news to a lot of fans who faithfully attend every Sunday. More than go to church I imagine if you include those who watch on TV. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. Actual boating posts are corrupted so quickly those people run off and never come back. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:54:32 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 12/27/15 9:48 PM, Tim wrote: 6:19 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? ....... I don't belive you understand it at all. You understand what you want it to mean. Otherwise... Sounds likes the interpretations of scripture, eh? The establishment clause is supposed to keep the government out of promoting religion. It is just as easy to argue that they are allowing the "free exercise" of said religion. (words that are actually in the article) The word "promote" is not there. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:07:57 -0800, Califbill billnews wrote:
Did walk by a nice house for sale on our Christmas evening walk at daughters. House near her in Naples, CA part of Long Beach, is for sale and includes 3 open water docks. Tie up your 40'er. Been on market for awhile. Built 1907, but updated. 4000' sq. asking $5.7 million. Probably take an even 5. Sounds like Naples Ca is about like the old parts of Naples Fla. |
Holiday Music
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. You don't understand the establishment clause -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Holiday Music
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:33:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:19:45 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 4:41 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:34:25 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 1:42 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art gallery with religious symbols in ****? You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same article you cite says that right does not exist. And once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues... And once again, you demonstrate what happens when you're backed into a corner. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Corner? Because I understand the establishment clause and not many here do, and that a gay rights parade on a city street has nothing to do with the clause? You refuse to actually read the words. How can you say the state of Mississippi did anything the "establish" christianity? As I recall it was thriving for at least 1500 years before the white man ever ventured there? That article also says "Congress shall make no law". Congress was not involved at all. I find it ridiculous that people will parse words and invent ways to restrict the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in the second amendment but apply the most generous interpretations to the words in the first, actually making up things that it doesn't say. You don't understand the establishment clause That is something that was invented in my life time. It is not spelled out in the 1st amendment. I don't understand how the courts of the 60s and 70s were interpreting it but I do understand that is different than the way it was interpreted for the first 90-100 years. Bear in mind that is the same court that reversed SCHENCK v. U.S and made it legal to "cry fire in a crowded theater", invalidated the espionage act in the Ellsberg case and also made arbitrary "stop and frisk" legal in TERRY (among several decisions that eliminated 4th amendment protections) so I am not really sure how they were protecting our rights. Warren and Burger certainly were a one, two punch to constitutional reality. They just made up words that were not written there and ignored the ones that were. Justices like Scalia agree with me. I said earlier, this court might rule a different way if the right case was brought to them. |
Holiday Music
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Holiday Music
On 12/29/15 10:27 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! It's always funny when two of the most consistent insulters while about other posters. |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/29/15 10:27 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:12:29 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:45:11 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 12/27/2015 4:33 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/27/15 2:23 PM, wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:02:37 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed to be placed on public property? In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court might rule the other way and it could even be this one. I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the "democrat" thing to do I guess. Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response. Harry gets his panties in a bunch every time he hears about some religious symbol placed on public property at zero cost to the tax payer but I didn't hear a peep about the Maryland tax payers forking over $70 MILLION for the racist "Redskin" stadium. (now pimping for FexEx) The fact that you are trying to equate illegal religious promotion with taxpayers subsidizing pro football is a perfect example of why it is foolish to engage in serious debate in rec.boats. Well, since you have determined that us common folk lack your intellectual capacity for discussion or debate, perhaps you should move on to another newsgroup or forum to do your trolling. === Any other group would have long since ostracized him into a silent departure. You once took great umbrage however when I suggested it. It's probably true that he keeps the discussions here alive since we have so few real boating posts these days. There have been many examples of decent discussions on topics other than boating where name-calling and insults have not been the norm, until Harry interjected himself. Harry keeps only political discussions alive and then only by hurling insults at every opportunity. Personally, I could get by without them. -- Ban idiots, not guns! It's always funny when two of the most consistent insulters while about other posters. You and Don "while" about what? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com