How long have you been beating your girlfriend?
Supreme court ducks the issue
- Thread starter axeman
- Start date
Yours is a remarkable question, BSAM. Thank you. And quickly now, so that we can connect further...
I'm not.
Not even a little.
No doubt some are, though, like with anything in human experience.
If you want a concrete answer of those who might harbor a deep seated fear, and a very small set at that (you won't find me lumping all Catholics into a single group, for example), how about the few who were subject to the whims of pedophile priests? Out of that set, there is a smaller set who, in the constant barrage of abuse over numbers of years by men who they once had believed were one-off from God Himself, they slowly and irrevocably lost their Faith in many things they once cherished. They suffered horrible acts to their bodies and their souls.
If you want a more general answer, it's this: Atheists see theism as another form of irrationality. Their judgment is if one can dispense with Reason in one area of one's life (and one so important as philosophy), then what is to prevent that same person from dispensing with it when they see fit in other areas of their lives, possibly even in areas that overlap with the atheist's important values?
I'm not here to debate why, or who's right, I'm just explaining that many atheists on principle do not take as a useful answer to any question they pose: "I believe it because I believe it and you should, too" (aka Faith).
Another way to see this dynamic is to turn your brilliant question on its head, switching subject and object. Some theists are often fearful of atheists because the former cannot imagine a life-supporting moral code that doesn't answer to God. Their fear often is easily expressed as hatred, of course. In dialogue it shows up in various ways that I'm sure you and I both find very distasteful.
There are many atheists who do subscribe to a moral code that is more than equal to the task of living civilly in the United States and many areas around the world. So it's important not to lump all people who simply lack a belief in God with every other human behavior imaginable that you might also find abhorrent.
Here's one example of many: http://www.aynrand.org/
We're all unique individuals. Just look around this ET site to see the differences among the people who claim to be atheistic; and the differences among all those who profess Faith. I know a few who just enjoy being clever on my side of philosophy. You know a few on your side who are so dogmatic that they hear Salem calling. You wouldn't want to be judged by some of their low standards; well, it's the same with me. No one speaks for you, right? No one speaks for me, either.
It's part of human nature that fears can abound on both sides. I guess you just have to ask around, just as you've done here. It helps to see people as individuals, not simply members of groups or cults. In that regard, I'm glad I could help ease some of the misconceptions you might have been holding about some, if not all, atheists.
Cheers.
There is no proof that "they did not want to deal with it."*
I never said there was. Another fabricated STRAWMAN by ART.
There is no proof that they "ducked" the issue.*
5 sources stated that they DUCKED the issue, but you are
simply confused because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED
the meaning of DUCKED/SIDESTEPPED always implies
something nefarious.
Ive already proven you wrong on this. Get over it.
There is no proof that the court "wiggled" their way out of answering any question.*
Ummmm ART...... pay attention.... the core issue was NEVER addressed.
Call it wiggling, call it dodging, call it sidestepping, call it whatever
the hell you want to, but THE FACTS STAND, the core issue
was never addressed. Geeezuzz your delusional.
It is not obvious what their motive for dismissing the case beyond doing their job.
Well no shit sherlock.... no one ever asserted that they knew
their TRUE motive if any.
The opinion he holds is arguable, and he has made no argument to support his conclusion and opinions.*
Nonsense. I objectively gave 5 examples of writers
who used the words dodge/sidestep in a way that you CANNOT
claim are all nefarious. You hold no authority on meaning ART.
With some people you have to hold their feet, or in this case, their words to the fire.
Look down ART....you have to BURNT NOBS where your feet were!
LMAOOOOOOOO
Lets be clear on what occurred on this thread.....
The word DODGE/Sidestepped was used AND YOU WRONGLY
***ASSUMED**** one particular definition for those words
The fault is all yours. You NEVER bothered asking the authors
what they MEAN now did you???
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt...... game over ART. Now why dont you LEAVE ET
again...after all....your supposed to be BANNED.
Show some integrity and leave. ET will be better for it
peace
axeman
"There is no proof that "they did not want to deal with it."*
I never said there was.
Of course you never said there was, because there is not. You stated opinion only. Opinion lacking fact and argument to support the claim.
A baseless claim.
Common.
There is no proof that they "ducked" the issue.*
5 sources stated that they DUCKED the issue, but you are
simply confused because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED
the meaning of DUCKED/SIDESTEPPED always implies
something nefarious.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
The five sources you claim are missing.
Ive already proven you wrong on this.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
There is no proof that the court "wiggled" their way out of answering any question.*
Ummmm ART...... pay attention.... the core issue was NEVER addressed.
The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue, of course, that was their job for a technically flawed case.
Call it wiggling, call it dodging, call it sidestepping, call it whatever
the hell you want to, but THE FACTS STAND, the core issue
was never addressed. Geeezuzz your delusional.
I didn't call it wiggling, dodging, sidestepping, or anything else that suggested the court did not act correctly. You are the one one who used those terms.
People know what those terms mean in context of the previous statements. They suggest that the court did not due its duty properly.
Equivocation won't help you on this one.
It is not obvious what their motive for dismissing the case beyond doing their job.
Well no shit sherlock.... no one ever asserted that they knew
their TRUE motive if any.
You said:
"But its obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it."
That statement is lacking foundation and proof.
Just another baseless opinion.
Does anyone but me see the pattern here with axeman?
The opinion he holds is arguable, and he has made no argument to support his conclusion and opinions.*
Nonsense. I objectively gave 5 examples of writers
who used the words dodge/sidestep in a way that you CANNOT
claim are all nefarious. You hold no authority on meaning ART.
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html
You have yet to provide links to the other 4 papers you claim have the headlines.
You apparently know little about the media, if you think the first headline is the one that they continue to use. When they catch grief from those who are critically reading the first headlines for signs of yellow journalism, they modify the incorrect and inaccurate headline to reflect fact, not opinion.
Now, on the op-ed pages you will find all sorts of opinions, and at least they provide a basis for them, unlike you with yours.
------------------------------------------------------
Watching the bold letters, the different colors, and the other sophomoric high school behavior by you, I wonder if the other atheists would be proud of you?
Or perhaps when the atheist sponsored attorneys sent their appellate briefs to the the Supreme Court, they too included big bold letters, colors and high school level commentary.
I never said there was.
Of course you never said there was, because there is not. You stated opinion only. Opinion lacking fact and argument to support the claim.
A baseless claim.
Common.
There is no proof that they "ducked" the issue.*
5 sources stated that they DUCKED the issue, but you are
simply confused because you INCORRECTLY ASSUMED
the meaning of DUCKED/SIDESTEPPED always implies
something nefarious.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
The five sources you claim are missing.
Ive already proven you wrong on this.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
There is no proof that the court "wiggled" their way out of answering any question.*
Ummmm ART...... pay attention.... the core issue was NEVER addressed.
The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue, of course, that was their job for a technically flawed case.
Call it wiggling, call it dodging, call it sidestepping, call it whatever
the hell you want to, but THE FACTS STAND, the core issue
was never addressed. Geeezuzz your delusional.
I didn't call it wiggling, dodging, sidestepping, or anything else that suggested the court did not act correctly. You are the one one who used those terms.
People know what those terms mean in context of the previous statements. They suggest that the court did not due its duty properly.
Equivocation won't help you on this one.
It is not obvious what their motive for dismissing the case beyond doing their job.
Well no shit sherlock.... no one ever asserted that they knew
their TRUE motive if any.
You said:
"But its obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it."
That statement is lacking foundation and proof.
Just another baseless opinion.
Does anyone but me see the pattern here with axeman?
The opinion he holds is arguable, and he has made no argument to support his conclusion and opinions.*
Nonsense. I objectively gave 5 examples of writers
who used the words dodge/sidestep in a way that you CANNOT
claim are all nefarious. You hold no authority on meaning ART.
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html
You have yet to provide links to the other 4 papers you claim have the headlines.
You apparently know little about the media, if you think the first headline is the one that they continue to use. When they catch grief from those who are critically reading the first headlines for signs of yellow journalism, they modify the incorrect and inaccurate headline to reflect fact, not opinion.
Now, on the op-ed pages you will find all sorts of opinions, and at least they provide a basis for them, unlike you with yours.
------------------------------------------------------
Watching the bold letters, the different colors, and the other sophomoric high school behavior by you, I wonder if the other atheists would be proud of you?
Or perhaps when the atheist sponsored attorneys sent their appellate briefs to the the Supreme Court, they too included big bold letters, colors and high school level commentary.
ART:"There is no proof that "they did not want to deal with it."*
AXE: I never said there was. (Your fabricated strawman)
ART:Of course you never said there was, because there is not.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO.... geeezuz do you realize how
incredibly STUPID you sound??? Can you hear yourself! LMAOOO
Hey...lets play your stupid game one more time.
AXE:Hey ART, you know what? There is no proof that santa exists.
ART: I never said there was.
AXE: Thats because there is no proof for santa!! AHA!! GOTCHA!
ROFLMAOOOOOOO
Thank you for verifying that you just committed another STRAWMAN.
Ill add it to your long list of illogical arguments.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
Yes you made a baseless argument which you cannot back
up without asking the authors, thus you painted yourself
into a corner.
The five sources you claim are missing.
No, youre just blind. I copy pasted directly from the websites
and named the source of each quote. Sorry you dont
have enough skills to look up a reference.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Yes yes ART.... the washington post,
the la times, etc , are NOT accurate BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!
All bow down to the KING OF KNOWLEDGE 777!!!!!
LMAOOOOOOOO You truly are delusional beyond belief!
The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue,
Thank you for admitting defeat. You just agreed with me
and threw in the towel.
Checkmate.
Have a nice day
Oh wait...theres more!!! LMAOOO
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
Here he poisons the well. Another FALLACY to add to your long list.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
And here is ANOTHER strawman, since I NEVER posted a reference to CNN.
These are the GAMES ART plays. He must attack quotes I never
made instead of MINE!! The TRUE sign of a loooooh hooo hooser
But you know what is even more funny? You cant even get THAT right!
Here is what CNN said:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO What a crackup.... you just gave us
yet ANOTHER example of a news source that used the word dodge/sidestepped!
Give ART enough and rope and....ROFLMAOOOOO
Like I said.... CHECKMATE.
Your post is so chock full of fallacies and lies, no rational human
could possibly take you seriously.
Game over ART. You hung yourself once again. Bravo.
It was fun.
peace
axeman
AXE: I never said there was. (Your fabricated strawman)
ART:Of course you never said there was, because there is not.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO.... geeezuz do you realize how
incredibly STUPID you sound??? Can you hear yourself! LMAOOO
Hey...lets play your stupid game one more time.
AXE:Hey ART, you know what? There is no proof that santa exists.
ART: I never said there was.
AXE: Thats because there is no proof for santa!! AHA!! GOTCHA!
ROFLMAOOOOOOO
Thank you for verifying that you just committed another STRAWMAN.
Ill add it to your long list of illogical arguments.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
Yes you made a baseless argument which you cannot back
up without asking the authors, thus you painted yourself
into a corner.
The five sources you claim are missing.
No, youre just blind. I copy pasted directly from the websites
and named the source of each quote. Sorry you dont
have enough skills to look up a reference.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yes yes ART.... the washington post,the la times, etc , are NOT accurate BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!
All bow down to the KING OF KNOWLEDGE 777!!!!!
LMAOOOOOOOO
You truly are delusional beyond belief!The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue,
Thank you for admitting defeat. You just agreed with me
and threw in the towel.
Checkmate.
Have a nice day
Oh wait...theres more!!! LMAOOO
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
Here he poisons the well. Another FALLACY to add to your long list.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
And here is ANOTHER strawman, since I NEVER posted a reference to CNN.
These are the GAMES ART plays. He must attack quotes I never
made instead of MINE!! The TRUE sign of a loooooh hooo hooser
But you know what is even more funny? You cant even get THAT right!
Here is what CNN said:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO
What a crackup.... you just gave usyet ANOTHER example of a news source that used the word dodge/sidestepped!
Give ART enough and rope and....ROFLMAOOOOO
Like I said.... CHECKMATE.
Your post is so chock full of fallacies and lies, no rational human
could possibly take you seriously.
Game over ART. You hung yourself once again. Bravo.
It was fun.
peace
axeman
ART:"There is no proof that "they did not want to deal with it."*
AXE: I never said there was. (Your fabricated strawman)
ART:Of course you never said there was, because there is not.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO.... geeezuz do you realize how
incredibly STUPID you sound??? Can you hear yourself! LMAOOO
Unfounded opinion...see the pattern?
Hey...lets play your stupid game one more time.
AXE:Hey ART, you know what? There is no proof that santa exists.
ART: I never said there was.
AXE: Thats because there is no proof for santa!! AHA!! GOTCHA!
ROFLMAOOOOOOO
You made an unsupported claim, I called you on it. I asked for proof of your claim, you provided none. You couldn't even make a coherent argument to support your claim.
Thank you for verifying that you just committed another STRAWMAN.
Ill add it to your long list of illogical arguments.
You verified nothing.
I stated fact, that you made a claim without proof.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
Yes you made a baseless argument which you cannot back
up without asking the authors, thus you painted yourself
into a corner.
One article's headline was already revised, and the other articles are missing.
The quote from the atheist cult member has zero validity due to bias.
The five sources you claim are missing.
No, youre just blind. I copy pasted directly from the websites
and named the source of each quote. Sorry you dont
have enough skills to look up a reference.
List them here. Provide a working link to your five, I will provide a link to ten that are factual articles, devoid of opinion or words like "duck" "dodge" and "sidestep."
If you call the op-ed page news, you are truly lacking in a formal education.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Yes yes ART.... the washington post,
the la times, etc , are NOT accurate BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!
All bow down to the KING OF KNOWLEDGE 777!!!!!
LMAOOOOOOOO You truly are delusional beyond belief!
I say you are not backing up your claims with proof, nor objectivity, nor practicing journalistic integrity as such.
The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue,
Thank you for admitting defeat. You just agreed with me
and threw in the towel.
Checkmate.
Have a nice day
More work with crayons. Fabulous.
Oh wait...theres more!!! LMAOOO
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
Here he poisons the well. Another FALLACY to add to your long list.
He is clearly wounded.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
And here is ANOTHER strawman, since I NEVER posted a reference to CNN.
Here is the first page in detail from this thread:
axeman
Elite Member
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 3365
06-15-04 08:33 AM
Supreme court ducks the issue
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/s...ex.html
The court has avoided an important First Amendment case concerning the status of government promoted religion," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. "We can only guess why the court majority made this unfortunate move, but in doing so they have failed to resolve the basic issue of whether the state can use religion to promote patriotism."
"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists," said Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists. "Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future."
As I predicted, the supreme court wiggled their way out
of answering the question, and refused to hear Newdows
argument on technical custody grounds
I smell the fear
But does this mean that the 9th district ruling stands?
No more "under god" in california, etc??
peace
axeman
I made the letters in the link to CNN's website in larger type for the visually impaired.
You claim you never posted a reference to CNN, yet in your initial post of this thread, there is the link to CNN's article.
That will be a tough one to explain, at least rationally.
These are the GAMES ART plays. He must attack quotes I never
made instead of MINE!! The TRUE sign of a loooooh hooo hooser
More sophomoric juvenile behavior.
But you know what is even more funny? You cant even get THAT right!
Here is what CNN said:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
That is what the article said. That was not their previous headline, which they modified to reflect the facts.
So we have you quote CNN, many will quote Fox news that cancels that out, so you are back to missing evidence of your claims of the remaining 4 newsworthy publications.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO What a crackup.... you just gave us
yet ANOTHER example of a news source that used the word dodge/sidestepped!
That is one news source that used the word sidestepped. Where are the other newsworthy publications that support and verify that claim?
Headlines are not fact. Ask anyone in the news business.
Sidestepped is a claim, not a fact.
Give ART enough and rope and....ROFLMAOOOOO
Like I said.... CHECKMATE.
Your post is so chock full of fallacies and lies, no rational human
could possibly take you seriously.
You say a lot of things, that are lacking in foundation.
Game over ART. You hung yourself once again. Bravo.
It was fun.
peace
axeman
No, you have failed to defend your initial statement of "wiggle" "ducked the issue" "obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it" and claims that the issue of their "ducking the argument is not even arguable."
AXE: I never said there was. (Your fabricated strawman)
ART:Of course you never said there was, because there is not.
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO.... geeezuz do you realize how
incredibly STUPID you sound??? Can you hear yourself! LMAOOO
Unfounded opinion...see the pattern?
Hey...lets play your stupid game one more time.
AXE:Hey ART, you know what? There is no proof that santa exists.
ART: I never said there was.
AXE: Thats because there is no proof for santa!! AHA!! GOTCHA!
ROFLMAOOOOOOO
You made an unsupported claim, I called you on it. I asked for proof of your claim, you provided none. You couldn't even make a coherent argument to support your claim.
Thank you for verifying that you just committed another STRAWMAN.
Ill add it to your long list of illogical arguments.
You verified nothing.
I stated fact, that you made a claim without proof.
The meaning of ducked/sidestepped does not always imply something nefarious, but in this case I made an argument yet refuted that the use of ducked/sidestepped did imply something nefarious.
Yes you made a baseless argument which you cannot back
up without asking the authors, thus you painted yourself
into a corner.
One article's headline was already revised, and the other articles are missing.
The quote from the atheist cult member has zero validity due to bias.
The five sources you claim are missing.
No, youre just blind. I copy pasted directly from the websites
and named the source of each quote. Sorry you dont
have enough skills to look up a reference.
List them here. Provide a working link to your five, I will provide a link to ten that are factual articles, devoid of opinion or words like "duck" "dodge" and "sidestep."
If you call the op-ed page news, you are truly lacking in a formal education.
No you didn't. The five sources you claim to have quoted are not accurate, or they are opinion, or have been pulled by the new sources upon realizing their mistake for revision.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Yes yes ART.... the washington post,the la times, etc , are NOT accurate BECAUSE YOU SAY SO!
All bow down to the KING OF KNOWLEDGE 777!!!!!
LMAOOOOOOOO
You truly are delusional beyond belief!I say you are not backing up your claims with proof, nor objectivity, nor practicing journalistic integrity as such.
The court dismissed the case without reviewing the core issue,
Thank you for admitting defeat. You just agreed with me
and threw in the towel.
Checkmate.
Have a nice day
More work with crayons. Fabulous.
Oh wait...theres more!!! LMAOOO
The opinion of the atheist cult member is not a strong claim, as he is clearly wounded by the ruling.
Here he poisons the well. Another FALLACY to add to your long list.
He is clearly wounded.
If you look at your first link to CNN on the first page, that web page is no longer available, as they have wised up and amended their headline away from a biased word like "ducked" to a more factual one, dismissed, found here:
And here is ANOTHER strawman, since I NEVER posted a reference to CNN.
Here is the first page in detail from this thread:
axeman
Elite Member
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 3365
06-15-04 08:33 AM
Supreme court ducks the issue
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/s...ex.html
The court has avoided an important First Amendment case concerning the status of government promoted religion," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. "We can only guess why the court majority made this unfortunate move, but in doing so they have failed to resolve the basic issue of whether the state can use religion to promote patriotism."
"The court ducked the issue, which means that a legal conflict still exists," said Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists. "Like it or not, the Supreme Court is probably going to have to take up this question again at some point in the future."
As I predicted, the supreme court wiggled their way out
of answering the question, and refused to hear Newdows
argument on technical custody grounds
I smell the fear
But does this mean that the 9th district ruling stands?
No more "under god" in california, etc??
peace
axeman
I made the letters in the link to CNN's website in larger type for the visually impaired.
You claim you never posted a reference to CNN, yet in your initial post of this thread, there is the link to CNN's article.
That will be a tough one to explain, at least rationally.
These are the GAMES ART plays. He must attack quotes I never
made instead of MINE!! The TRUE sign of a loooooh hooo hooser
More sophomoric juvenile behavior.
But you know what is even more funny? You cant even get THAT right!
Here is what CNN said:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a California father could not challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, a decision that sidestepped the broader question of the separation of church and state.
That is what the article said. That was not their previous headline, which they modified to reflect the facts.
So we have you quote CNN, many will quote Fox news that cancels that out, so you are back to missing evidence of your claims of the remaining 4 newsworthy publications.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO
What a crackup.... you just gave usyet ANOTHER example of a news source that used the word dodge/sidestepped!
That is one news source that used the word sidestepped. Where are the other newsworthy publications that support and verify that claim?
Headlines are not fact. Ask anyone in the news business.
Sidestepped is a claim, not a fact.
Give ART enough and rope and....ROFLMAOOOOO
Like I said.... CHECKMATE.
Your post is so chock full of fallacies and lies, no rational human
could possibly take you seriously.
You say a lot of things, that are lacking in foundation.
Game over ART. You hung yourself once again. Bravo.
It was fun.
peace
axeman
No, you have failed to defend your initial statement of "wiggle" "ducked the issue" "obvious the court really doesn't want to have to deal with it" and claims that the issue of their "ducking the argument is not even arguable."
Nice a couple of well written factual articles here:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1087242909226
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15pledge.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1087242909226
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15pledge.html
"You made an unsupported claim, I called you on it. I asked for proof of your claim, you provided none. You couldn't even make a coherent argument to support your claim"
ROFLMAO!
ZZZZzzz, She's so cluless she doesn't even know what her argument is ...let alone what YOURS is.. LMAO. Check out diet thread for more of the same from this imbecile axehole. .. she's got STRAWMEN all over that thread ... lol... she's TOTALLY CLUELESS BRAIN DEAD MORON (what ya expect from 4yr community college grad) OMG! i laugh so hard every time i think of this...
ROFLMAO!
ZZZZzzz, She's so cluless she doesn't even know what her argument is ...let alone what YOURS is.. LMAO. Check out diet thread for more of the same from this imbecile axehole. .. she's got STRAWMEN all over that thread ... lol... she's TOTALLY CLUELESS BRAIN DEAD MORON (what ya expect from 4yr community college grad) OMG! i laugh so hard every time i think of this...
How cute....dumb and dumber are now little butt buddes
Hey longshot.... come up for AIR from 777s crotch so
I can logically spank you some more!
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
peace
axeman
Hey longshot.... come up for AIR from 777s crotch so
I can logically spank you some more!
ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
peace
axeman
Quote from LongShot:
"You made an unsupported claim, I called you on it. I asked for proof of your claim, you provided none. You couldn't even make a coherent argument to support your claim"
ROFLMAO!
ZZZZzzz, She's so cluless she doesn't even know what her argument is ...let alone what YOURS is.. LMAO. Check out diet thread for more of the same from this imbecile axehole. .. she's got STRAWMEN all over that thread ... lol... she's TOTALLY CLUELESS BRAIN DEAD MORON (what ya expect from 4yr community college grad) OMG! i laugh so hard every time i think of this...