| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Holiday Music
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:15:11 -0500, Alex wrote:
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? Good question. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Tim...a little holiday treat | General | |||
| Another holiday classic | General | |||
| OT Holiday Warning | General | |||
| Holiday Music for John | General | |||
| First Holiday! | ASA | |||
Hybrid Mode
