On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:43:58 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:20:49 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:
>>
>> > Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:16:48 -0800, Tchiowa wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> >> Tchiowa wrote:
>> >> >> >PTravel wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Christmas isn't objectionable.
>> >> >> >> No one thinks so, and certainly no one has said so. What is objectionable
>> >> >> >> is government subsidization of the cultural traditions particular to one
>> >> >> >> religion, particularly to the exclusion of all others.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >This is not government subsidization of *anything*!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, it is.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who did the government give money to?
>> >>
>> >> Sea-Tac International Airport.
>> >
>> > So the airport is a cultural tradition??????
>> >
>> > Statement made was that the government was subsidizing a cultural
>> > tradition. Unless you're claiming that the airport is a cultural
>> > tradition your reply was nonsense.
>> >
>> > As most of your replies are.
>>
>> You wrote "who." Trying to back out now?
>
> No. Just hoping for an intelligent response. You're saying that the
> government giving money to the airport is subsidizing a cultural
> tradition?
>
> Read the original statement and the question. The question relates to
> the statement.
Where do you think the money is coming from Skippy? Even if that
particular municipal corporation is self-funding, it remains an arm of a
government. Created, sustained, regulated, overseen, and existing because
and at the will of a government.
Or are you going to try to claim something bizarre as that the Post Office
isn't a governmental body?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due
to the absence, from Jerusalem, of a lunatic asylum.
-Havelock Ellis |
