Text 5190, 170 rader
Skriven 2009-04-24 02:26:08 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 5183 av Ross Sauer (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: COGNITIVE DIFFICULTY.....
=================================
Ross Sauer -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RS> "Ed Hulett -> Ross Sauer" <1:123/789.0> wrote in
 RS> news:9296$HOLYSMOKE@JamNNTPd:

 RS>>>>> Fine. Show me.

 EH>>>> Just read some of the atheist sites.

 RS>>> Like I said, SHOW ME.

 EH>> Are you unable to use Google? I know you are always searching for
 EH>> KITTEH!.

 EH>>>> Just like the rest of the extreme left, you think that
 EH>>   including EH>> alternatives to the theory of evolution is "shoving
 EH>>   Christian EH>> mandatory rites among everyone" (sic).

 RS>>> You have no idea what is the "extreme left."

 EH>> Yes, I do and you fit right in.

 RS>>> Here they are, stupid.
 RS>>> http://www.cpusa.org/

 EH>> Those are the fringe. You are the extreme left.

 RS> Are you calling me a communist?

No, I'm calling you an extreme leftist.

 RS> How about I do like your crony does, and run straight to a lawyer?

Huh?

Are you trying to bring things from other echoes in here?

Besides, no lawyer would take your case.

 RS> Because I know damn well communism is, and always has been,a failure.

You don't know a thing about politics or religion. Or anything else you try to
discuss.

 RS>>> If you continue to whine about your imaginary "extreme left," no
 EH>>   wonder RS> you joined your cult.

 EH>> Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 EH>> Are you trying to unseat Ceppa as the most stupid person in FIDO?

 RS> Nope. YOU are, FTB.

You like to parrot your hero Pee Wee Herman,

 RS>>>>>>> One example: Mandating the Pledge of Allegiance in schools,
 EH>>   as EH>>>>   it is now. RS> With that "under God" in it, that was
 EH>>   stuck EH>>   into it EH>>   during McCarthyism in RS> 1954.

 EH>>>>>> Blah blah blah...

 RS>>>>> Is this a fact, or not?

 EH>>>> No one is mandating the pledge. "[U]nder Gad" is a part of the
 EH>>   pledge EH>> now and will remain so. It makes you look foolish to
 EH>>   continue whining EH>> about it.

 RS>>> BUllSHIT.

 EH>>   http://www.politicalbase.com/issues/mandatory-pledge-of-
 RS> allegiance/31
 EH>>   /

 EH>> You dig up some fringe group with a website? Now try to use Google for
 EH>> something constructive.

 RS> You do it, dipwit.

Huh? It's your time of the month, eh?

 RS> I'm sick of posting stuff that you ignore.

Then don't post it.

 RS>>>>> If the loudest religion in government pushers had their way,
 EH>>>>   *YOUR* RS> religion would be illegal.

 EH>>>> You don't know what you are talking about. No religion, other
 EH>>   than EH>> Islam, wants theocratic control of government.

 EH>>>>>> What you people keep ignoring is that the real language in
 EH>>   the EH>>   First EH>> Amendment states something entirely different.
 EH>>   "Congress EH>>   shall make EH>> not law respecting the
 EH>>   establishment of religion, or EH>>   prohibiting the EH>> free
 EH>>   exercise thereof;...

 RS>>>>> And this means as the Supreme Court keeps stating, over and
 EH>>   over EH>>   and RS> over is that our government is *NEUTRAL*
 EH>>   regarding religion.

 EH>>>> Exactly!

 RS>>> And you theocrats continue to run to the courts.

 EH>> Huh? When have I or the LDS Church ran to the courts WRT the First
 EH>> Amendment?

 RS> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15569

Like always, you didn't read the article. The Church didn't go to court, the
people opposing them did.

 EH>>>> The closest Islamic congregational building from here is about
 EH>>   4 miles EH>> away. It's also very small.

 RS>>> Want a bigger one?

 EH>> I couldn't care less as long as it's on their own property.

 RS> You want one right next door?

None of my neighbors are Muslim.

 RS>>>>> Would you just ignore it? Fat chance.

 EH>>>> A loud speaker calling to prayer is different than an innocuous
 EH>>   Ten EH>> Commandments on display in a court of law.

 RS>>> Because all of them are against the Constitution.

 EH>> No, they are not. The display of the Ten Commandments is not
 EH>> unconstitutional.

 RS> On church property.
 RS> On public property, no.

So, you think it's ok for congress to make laws prohibiting the free exercise
of religion.

 RS>>>>> Look up Roy Moore, then get back to me.

 EH>>>> Why should I? You want to make a point, make it!

 RS>>> Look it up, that is, if you're not too stupid to do so.

 EH>> Right after you look up the various atheist sites that want to get rid
 EH>> of any semblance of religion.

 RS> You're a liar and a lazy jerk.

You haven't a clue. All you have is silly attempts at bullying.

 RS> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

Did you look up those atheist sites yet?

Ed

-- 
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools." --Herbert Spencer

"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under
the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
 --Thomas Jefferson

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 379711

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)