Gene Frenkle

I though Alaska Darin's PM was very well-written - a thoroughly enjoyable read.

I'd imagine it was probably someone like yourself who phoned in the threat in the first place.

'People who require assistance' was the correction. Please keep up. The grouping of 'people who require assistance' is obviously subjective, but the situation I was trying to setup is hypothetical. My intent wasn't to define all of the parameters here. Now please answer the initial question given the above qualifications. No manifestos please.

I'm not ducking anything - it's just not worth my time. Don't hold your breath for any response from me until your posts become more readable. Rant away now and call some people out...enjoy yourself... Projects everywhere are going unmanaged while you write your manifesto.

Any place with an airlock, which really limits anyplace. A blatant racist AND an internet tough-guy. How impressive!

'Assistance' then.

SABRES WIN!!! Are you serious? Don't you think that's obvious to anyone who has ever filed taxes?

Thanks for the intro to tax write-offs. Done for the day... LET'S GO BUFFALO!!!

Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not. Your thought is that we should get rid of that system and instead let those who are feeling charitable (for whatever reason) contribute X dollars by choice. Does that lead to the charitable people among us contributing more because of those who choose not to contribute? More likely, we simply fall short of X dollars and well, fuk em - it's not my problem...which is where I come to the conclusion that Conservatives/Republicans are selfish in nature. Is my logic twisted enough for you?

I'm just trying to help, really. What's the point of writing some long rant if your target audience is just going to skim over it and decide it's not worth the effort? As an exercise, see if you can distill the post in question down to its essence and we'll see if it ends up more readable when you're finished. I have faith that you will be able to do so. Thank the sweet baby Jesus, I thought I was the only one.

Do you usually read all of his posts in their entirety? It's could be ADD or something.

Hmmm....maybe it's something to do with OC's writing style. I can usually get through most of LABills posts without suddenly feeling the need to be doing something else.

Me too. It's now an American holiday.

You're posts are too long, bud. I might read and respond when I have more time to kill, but surely your point(s) could be boiled down a bit and still remain effective. I'm not trying to be a dick, I just think that most people probably breeze over long-winded posts like I do.

It's just a word. If Christmas hadn't become such an incredibly commercial holiday it wouldn't be an issue. Now it's also celebrated by non-Christians who care nothing of its original meaning. It got too big for itself, I guess. Much like the Beatles, Christmas is now bigger than Jesus.

Snopes rulez! But why cite factcheck.org? Why not just cut to the chase and use moveon.org or the huffington post???

Well personally, I don't know anyone who says 'Merry Xmas'. I certainly don't. I see it in the stores around Christmas time and think that they must sell more merchandise doing it that way. That's all I've got. I'm not really interested in it other than the complete hypocrisy of the whole thing, given the history of the term 'Xmas'.

That's the whole point. Somebody there must have been so very afraid of offending the delicate psyches of Christians everywhere that they actually had to qualify the FACTS it in that way. Snopes is partisan?

I don't presume to know the motivations of companies and people I've never met. Blame the free market if you like. If companies made more of a profit by replacing X with Christ, they would certainly do so. It's a non-issue for most reasonable people.

I'm sure I've come to the right place...

I'm just lending my opinion like everyone else. It just happens to be a strong opinion that you don't like. Answer the question...if looking out for yourself and putting yourself in a position to help other is enough, why are we having this conversation? You could apply that to just about any ideology you may find being defended or attacked on PPP. Your perception of my argument or tactics is only a reflection of your own worldview. You'll see plenty more myopic chest thumping throughout this thread which you failed to comment on because you happen to agree with it.

Who made it an issue in the first place? I'd say it was Christians who don't have the first f-ing clue as to the history of their own belief system. The term originated with the earliest Christians. If not for them it would not likely exist. Those using the abbreviation got it directly from your fore-bearers. Why do the rest of us need to compensate for your ignorance?

The fact that you messed up the order like Glen Beck?

Snopes is one of the most non-partisan sites you will find when talking about this sort of thing. The historical accuracy of this is well-documented and dead-on. Are you disputing the claim? Do you think it's a comical that they feel it necessary to put that in? Wouldn't want to step on anyone's fairy tales! Talk about P.C.! It literally made me laugh out loud.

Giving directly to a homeless person would be the most efficient type of charity. Good luck writing it off though!