19
   

Westboro baptist church

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 07:48 am
@farmerman,
Blimey!! That suggests that the USSC isn't making the decisions at all and that it's the Snyder family's lack of research in the driving seat.

Maybe if the defence at Dover had "tuned up" Judge Jones might have ruled other than what he did.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 08:55 am
@spendius,
I love how you try and try to link unrelated subjects to try to support your initial weak points.

The defense in Dover gave its best shot. The underlying facts were presented as valid science in direct testimony and expert report. The CROSS EXAMINATION of these "science experts" clearly showed how bankrupt and myth based their opinions were.

As far as the SNYDERs, the USSC did say in the majority opinion (written by Roberts) thattheir decision was based upon the facts as presented.
If the lawyers were ill equipped at playing the big checkers game of thinking their moves out to completion, then its not the USSC fault for voting the way it did.

I think that Roberts, in a private moment. would agree that incitement was a goal of the WBC. Incitement is clearly not permitted as a 1st Amendment Right.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 11:11 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nonsense.

Do you really think that every publicly displayed noose is an attempt at intimidation and terror?

I qualified what I think about publicly displayed nooses in my post. Go back and actually read it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 11:13 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The defense in Dover gave its best shot. The underlying facts were presented as valid science in direct testimony and expert report. The CROSS EXAMINATION of these "science experts" clearly showed how bankrupt and myth based their opinions were.


I don't believe that for a minute, and I never have, nor will, for reasons I have explained numerous times and which have not been contradicted. That you have those explanations on Ignore is neither here nor there. The reason you had them on Ignore was simply so that you could continue making asinine and devious remarks like the above.

Judge Jones was deciding policy for an educational system which has no other purpose or justification, apart from child-minding, than to create minds and he focussed solely on some sciences to the exclusion of others, in order that the creation of minds never got considered. The sciences excluded would have embarrassed ladies in the court and ladies cannot now be excluded from the court. The fossils, the chiclids and the flagella can be thought of asexually you see. One wouldn't wish the leading defence counsel to have to go home to his female relations after hearing expert evidence from other sorts of scientists about the full range of evolutionary phenomena. Would one?? What have, fossils, chicleds and flagella got to do with creating minds which will be brought to bear on the range of occupations the US offers I can't imagine. Anyone going into an occupation concerning suchlike organisms can easily get up to speed at university on what was discussed in court about those subjects. An hour at the most. Most people have no clue what chiclids and flagella are. And if they have seen any fossils they were probably plastic and the ones in books are mostly drawings. The mechanical valve flange bullshit shows how stupid it all was. Only a complete idiot would try to compare a living organism to a mechanical device. Or somebody talking to idiots for money.

Why inflict that stuff on everybody at a tender age. Economic efficiency has been increased by, among other things, the reduction in tension between the sexes. The "Home" was invented by Christian theology. It's a complex story and it might be of more difficulty than the theory of relativity. The well known problems often seem insurmountable.

But it isn't the point here. Judge Alito is senior to Judge Jones and his single opinion has been set aside whereas Judge Jones' single opinion has been jumped all over with glee and self-complacency by the usual suspects.

BTW--you asserting that my points are "weak" doesn't mean they are weak. That's a form of navel gazing old boy. And are you also asserting that there's a connection between "bankrupt" and "myth". Ho ho!! That tells us something. And you have the nerve to pose as an "artist" talking about art.

And if the USSC is going to make decisions based on the witnesses not being legal hot-shots then something a little nasty looms into view. A Judicial Oligarchy no less, which would soon see off any Scientific Oligarchy. The former might be just riding the latter to the finish line at which point it goes up to the podium to get the cup and the applause and the SO gets put into a stable to wait for the piss-up to finish and then lurches its way along 200 miles of undulating and pot-holed roads in the back of a horsebox towed by a luxury SUV full of drunks singing I Did It My Way. So don't get too cosy with the buggers.

The Constitution was written by lawyer types so it is not being particularly cynical to think they had a Judicial Oligarchy in view as the main purpose. The Constitution of the Courts of Love had a main purpose which wasn't all that obvious to the average citizen of the time. And, as far as I know, it has not been amended once nor thought of being. Where would bankers be if they didn't make their own regulations?

I think that here the judge would call counsel into chambers to inform them that the case was being incompetently proceeded with and offer them guidance on the matter. Otherwise he risks being accused by his peer-reviewers of conducting the case improperly. One simply can't put up a stupid or bribed or frightened counsel on one side as Hitler's courts did.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 11:19 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I don't believe that for a minute, and I never have, nor will, for reasons I have explained numerous times
Well then youd be as wrongheadedly bullheaded as the Dover defense.I thought that you are always spouting off as to how easy a job youd have at winning. Besides not knowing what the hell youre talking about, you are staggering around on the assumption that you could handle yourself without appearing ridiculous. PS, what role did you picture yourself playing ?


Quote:
he(Judge Jones) focussed solely on some sciences to the exclusion of others,
no he didnt. Obviously you were tanked when the reporting was done. The plaintiff atornies took apart the defense experts like they were shelling lima beans. When the subjects of "other sciences" were asked about, NO EXPERT could state positively, any evidence and Dr Behe even wanted to have Astrology to be included in "science" (Welsome back to the Dark AGes)



As far as the rrest of your tripe, its got no substance,its poorly composed and its badly written. Its run- on (As usual) and its pointless. You only seem to try to engage in technical discussions by diversion. If you cannot handle the task why not just quit and go over to your trivia threads.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 12:24 pm
@farmerman,
Do you seriously think any of that is going to be taken any notice of by anybody with half an ounce of nonce? It's just assertions, ad homies, and bluster.

What role do you picture yourself as playing? I assume you chose your avvie to give us an idea. I'm just an A2K member.

I mean really fm. Did you think I was referring to astrolgy? I'm referring to sociology and psychology and to mind and society creation and management. Then and now. There and here.

You haven't touched a single point I raised. It's you who demonstrates you can't handle the task.

You underestimate Trivia as well. Most people do who can't cope. And you underestimate everybody.

I wonder if the USSC is getting cold feet and trying to shift the blame onto the stricken and grieving family for not being hot-shot lawyers. This poor presentation of the case wasn't mentioned at first. Or I didn't hear it.

Power corrupts they say. It's heady stuff.

I don't know why you're arguing with me. We agree with Judge Alito don't we?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 12:59 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
What role do you picture yourself as playing? I assume you chose your avvie to give us an idea.
I never boasted about how "I could have taken on the IDers or scientists" and won the DOVER case. That claim was entirely yours dipshit. Therefore the question of what role do you see yourself playing is quite naturally meant for you.
Please try to act like you understand.






Quote:
You underestimate Trivia as well. Most people do who can't cope
Im sorry, I didnt realize that trivia was to be worshipped


Quote:
I don't know why you're arguing with me. We agree with Judge Alito don't we?
I shall put you back on ignore after this brief interlude. If we agree with ALito on this one item, its probably for dichotomous reasons. Im sure mine make sense and yours dont. .
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:44 pm
@farmerman,
I do understand.

My hope, forlorn as it is, is that if I can show you the error of your ways it will filter back to the NCSE and Judge Jones on account of the astounding nature of such an unlikely event, and they will see the error of their ways and either think up some better arguments or set about revising their previous position beginning with the USSC's method in the WBC case of blaming it on incompetent defence counsel.

That there are some perverted priests, a product of the culture of course, or that chiclid blood clots fast or that the flagella acts like a valve in a (fill in your 0wn joke), are not sufficiently strong reasons to set aside the settled Christian upbringing despite the efficiency of the start that's been made on that horrible project and which you think is on an ever rising curve coyly forgetting that such things become asymptotic.

Who knows who is reading here. I might as well think that one of them is somebody who can matter rather than think none of them could. You pitch at the class.

0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 09:33 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

PENALTY BOX, too many judges on the field

You, responding to a typo, esp. one corrected minutes after it was made, is funny - but understandable if posting from New Orleans after Mardis Gras Very Happy
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 09:38 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

High Seas,

First, hate crime legislation has been part of American law since 1964. .....
... Beating someone to a bloody pulp and then leaving them for dead tied to a fence is not speech.

Are you seriously suggesting that "beating someone to a bloody pulp and then leaving them for dead tied to a fence" was legal prior to 1964? It was not a crime, punishable by any law, before "hate crimes" statutes sneaked into our legislation and jurisprudence? Are you, too, recovering from Mardis Gras?!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 06:07 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
You, responding to a typo, esp. one corrected minutes after it was made, is funny - but understandable if posting from New Orleans after Mardis Gras
I never gave that a thought, but now that you brought it up, if some abuse was focused my way for my spelling challenged posts, then I suppose I deserve it.

I was actually posting in response the previous and adjacent post.
My trip to Nawlins was enjopyable, Hoowever, if you are going to start in like that batshit Ionus and claim I was drinking to excess, then youd be possibly guilty of making defamatory misrepresentations in print. Theres a word for that .
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 06:20 pm
@farmerman,
You have stated that I drink to excess on many occasions fm. Dozens. Maybe hundreds. Too many to count.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 06:32:00