How soon before liberals ban Christmas?

[Anonymous]

I know there is a vocal group out there (probably hailing for San Fran) that is just itching to ban Christmas. It's religious, it's commercial, it's all the things they hate. Enjoy your last few Christmases people. The nanny state is out there.

[Anonymous]

This is what you choose to be the boogyman? C'mon - you can't find something better than this? It's just laughable. Of course, I thought no one would actually fall for the "death panel" thing either, but I guess there's a sucker born every minute...

[Anonymous]

I would love to ban Christmas! My kid has already announced that she's written her Christmas list. Another year of disappointment when she doesn't get a Wii, DS and American Girl Doll!

[Anonymous]

And, horror of horrors, Santa failed to call the Giants when they won the World Series!

[Anonymous]

And actually, I do not want to ban Christmas, I want to ban the "Christ" in Xmas! MU WAHHHAHHHA (evil laugh)

[Anonymous]

Those wacko-liberal Puritans banned Christmas a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there is a vocal group out there (probably hailing for San Fran) that is just itching to ban Christmas. It's religious, it's commercial, it's all the things they hate. Enjoy your last few Christmases people. The nanny state is out there.

Yay! Someone's been watching Fucktard TV. Was this on the Beck show? Or O'Reilly?

Got to give the credulous their morning dose of stupid.

Yargle-bargle!!11!

[Anonymous]

Seriously, OP, is there a new move to ban Christmas that you fear has growing support, or are you trying to start a discussion about church and state, or just trying to start a fight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there is a vocal group out there (probably hailing for San Fran) that is just itching to ban Christmas. It's religious, it's commercial, it's all the things they hate. Enjoy your last few Christmases people. The nanny state is out there.

OP, what happened, forget to renew your prescription yesterday? Your paranoia is getting completely out-of-hand.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, that's why Obama, the secret Muslim, ran for President -- so he could get in power and ban Christmas with the help of Nancy Pelosi!

[Anonymous]

What a stupid fu**king question. Go ahead and ban it. It's nothing but a commercial orgie. OP, why don't you try reading a little history and find out the true origin of Christmas and when and how it became popular in the US. That might be a bit if a stretch for you, since you seem to get all of your info from Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Hey, OP, you're a little late on this, aren't you? That plot was revealed back in 2005!

http://www.amazon.com/War-Christmas-Liberal-Christian-Holiday/dp/B000EUKQV4

But the good news is that you can now buy this book new for $1.89 or used for .54! Score!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, OP, is there a new move to ban Christmas that you fear has growing support, or are you trying to start a discussion about church and state, or just trying to start a fight?

The OP is one of those hyper partisan mindless Republicans who is better at screaming than dealing with real issues. Fortunately, not all Republicans are like that, but many are. Now, the right wing talking idiots, such as Rep Bachman, are spreading the story that Obama will be spending $200 Million a day (for a total of $2B) on his trip to India, a country with which, following Bush's lead with the nuclear pact, Obama is trying to strengthen ties for economic and international policitical reasons. This story is apparently based on some quote from some unnamed official in rural India that no one can locate. The war is Afghanistan costs considerably less than $200M a day, so the number is silly on its face. But these idiots started screaming WITHOUT checking their facts. How mindless? As for the OP, Democrats are strong believers in the First Amendment and its separation of church and state, so I am not sure how that leads to banning Christmas under any theory. The more subtle issue (which the OP is incapable of seeing) is whether is it okay for a Christmas scene to be placed at both a local federal courthouse and a local church?? That First Amendment wall PROHIBITS the Federal government from outlawing Christmas scenes on local church property or on other private property. It also PROHIBITS the govt from outlawing the celebration, etc, of Christmas or any other religious holiday. This means that, with few exceptions, the govt can't interfere in the religious sphere. That SAME WALL, however, limits the situations in which religious activities, such as the placement of a Christmas scene, can take place on state or govt property. By working both ways, the wall ensures that the govt does NOT interfere with the private exercise of religion, which is what govts in Russia, Middle East, etc, have done for decades. [In Russia, for example, the Soviets confiscated churches and outlawed religion. That could NOT happen in the US. In many countries, the govt outlaws the practice of certain religions, regardless of whether that practice occurs on public or private property.] But the wall also ensures the religious activities are kept separate from govt activities. This actually protects religion. It also discourages the govt from being biased in favor of one form of religion over another, whether that form be the pseudo Christianity practiced by the right or mainstream Christianity, etc. These pseudo Christians consistently argue for the protection of private property while also arguing that religious (particularly Christian ones) activities is permitted on public property, whether that be schools or local courthouses. No one is arguing, suggesting, implying, etc, that these pseudo Christians can't practice on private property, whether that be a home or a church.

[Anonymous]

They will ban Christmas the day you stop being a demented twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, OP, is there a new move to ban Christmas that you fear has growing support, or are you trying to start a discussion about church and state, or just trying to start a fight?

The OP is one of those hyper partisan mindless Republicans who is better at screaming than dealing with real issues. Fortunately, not all Republicans are like that, but many are. Now, the right wing talking idiots, such as Rep Bachman, are spreading the story that Obama will be spending $200 Million a day (for a total of $2B) on his trip to India, a country with which, following Bush's lead with the nuclear pact, Obama is trying to strengthen ties for economic and international policitical reasons. This story is apparently based on some quote from some unnamed official in rural India that no one can locate. The war is Afghanistan costs considerably less than $200M a day, so the number is silly on its face. But these idiots started screaming WITHOUT checking their facts. How mindless? As for the OP, Democrats are strong believers in the First Amendment and its separation of church and state, so I am not sure how that leads to banning Christmas under any theory. The more subtle issue (which the OP is incapable of seeing) is whether is it okay for a Christmas scene to be placed at both a local federal courthouse and a local church?? That First Amendment wall PROHIBITS the Federal government from outlawing Christmas scenes on local church property or on other private property. It also PROHIBITS the govt from outlawing the celebration, etc, of Christmas or any other religious holiday. This means that, with few exceptions, the govt can't interfere in the religious sphere. That SAME WALL, however, limits the situations in which religious activities, such as the placement of a Christmas scene, can take place on state or govt property. By working both ways, the wall ensures that the govt does NOT interfere with the private exercise of religion, which is what govts in Russia, Middle East, etc, have done for decades. [In Russia, for example, the Soviets confiscated churches and outlawed religion. That could NOT happen in the US. In many countries, the govt outlaws the practice of certain religions, regardless of whether that practice occurs on public or private property.] But the wall also ensures the religious activities are kept separate from govt activities. This actually protects religion. It also discourages the govt from being biased in favor of one form of religion over another, whether that form be the pseudo Christianity practiced by the right or mainstream Christianity, etc. These pseudo Christians consistently argue for the protection of private property while also arguing that religious (particularly Christian ones) activities is permitted on public property, whether that be schools or local courthouses. No one is arguing, suggesting, implying, etc, that these pseudo Christians can't practice on private property, whether that be a home or a church.

God, what a pretentious bore!