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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.