Posted on 02/11/2009 8:07:30 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Can’t do, period.
That’s what I said...if you can find an NEA school that teaches creation, give us a jingle!
What are you going to do if I don’t? Nada. Maybe run your mouth some, but nothing of any consequence.
If you haven’t got any idea that perjury was involved then why were you so convinced that it was ‘liberal’ of me for raising it?
You’re being dishonest, it was liberal to silence dissent, not bring up perjury (if indeed someone perjured themselves and I still have no idea if anyone did indeed perjure themselves, but we DO KNOW fossils were faked).
And defending the fact that the only way your cult can succeed is to sue people into silence is quite liberal indeed!
But to add insult to injury, it’s quite liberal in and of itself to enforce science through the courts, but you want to go the extra mile and indict people for perjury, because silencing them isn’t enough, you want to criminalize dissent.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2178126/posts
posts 24, 25
You asked “do we”?
That seems to me “it’s allowed” in your world by dishonestly questioning that fact in the first place.
Face it, you’re not going to because you can’t, right back to square one.
Like most people are beginning to realize talking with you is alot like going down a dead end road with no turn-around.
The fact is, all you’re able to do is run your mouth and then project when you get exposed.
No reason to be a sorehead about it!
Nothing there to worry about one bit, because it doesn’t mean a thing without the conviction to back it up.
Your first post?
Every accusation you’ve ever made.
Thanks for the clarification. I was sure that you took particular objection to perjurers being held to account, in fact your posting history shows just that, but I can let that one go.
As for the tortured logic of you turning my questions to you trying to find out how many of the millions of fossils are faked (something you still haven’t answered - but no surprise there) being the same as me supporting the faking of fossils - maybe you’re just projecting again. Using the same logic, we can assume that your failure to condemn the faking of fossils that support creationism equals your support for them?
Actually, if you go back and read you’ll understand the topic of fake fossils came up first and it took you several posts to answer a simple question, about their existance.
Then, you conveniently completely ignored the fact that their existance speaks to the insecurities of the cultists and their cult.
Then you want to have it both ways, by ignoring faked fossils while going on about perjury, something you’ve yet to prove exists, all while iognoring this is a tactic of liberals: sue dissenters into silence and if necessary criminalize them.
If there’s any “tortured logic” I haven’t seen it because logic isn’t something you’re remotely familiar with, let alone have employed, tortured or otherwise.
It’s not an accusation until you have the evidence to refute it, not that anyone is going to hold their breath that you’ll find an NEA public school that teaches both creation and evolution.
LOL! You inserted yourself into an exchange between myself and another freeper about perjury and now you want to link that to something else. I didn’t realize you were such a wilting flower - I feel for you.
What exactly have I ignored? I responded to your fake fossils question. I addressed the insecurities issue in a previous reply. The fact that it didn’t register or went over your head isn’t my problem. Talk about having it both ways!
You haven’t asked for proof of perjury but since you appear to be search-challenged, the following comes from Judge Jones’ Findings about the defendents Buckingham and Bonsell:
“.....the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions....”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html
There’s a very easy way not to be criminalized; don’t act like a criminal. I’m sure you’ll find a way to excuse their behavior as you are a master of moral relativism.
As to suing dissenters; let me know how many of the authors of the articles posted by GGG yesterday (and there were plenty) criticizing evolutionary science have been or are being sued for their views? Since it’s such a defining characteristic of evolutionists (according to your posts) you should be able to show a flurry of lawsuits. If detail is a problem for you, a round number or estmate will do.
It was not legally or Constitutionally necessary under Lemon and the Ambler Realty principle once the judge determined that the school board had religious motives. But what do such limitations matter to a liberal judge who conflates the motives of a local school board with an entire scientific movement so that he can dictate a broad array of public policy issues? Even an ID critic such as Jay Wexler recognize the over broad scope of the decision:
The important issue for evaluating the decision is not whether ID actually is science—a question that sounds in philosophy of science—but rather whether judges should be deciding in their written opinions that ID is or is not science as a matter of law. On this question, I think the answer is “no,” particularly when the overall question posed to a court is whether teaching ID endorses religion , not whether ID is or is not science. The part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous both to science and to freedom of religion.
Jay D. Wexler, Kitzmiller and the “Is It Science?” Question, 5 First Amend. L. Review. 90, 93 (2006)
The evidence that ID is not science and has a theological underpinning was also compelling and well within the scope of his findings.
And is it also within the scope of his employment to dictate from the federal bench the heresy of certain religious assumptions; namely, that to see conflict between religion and evolution is "utterly false"?
Cordially,
Actually, I was responding to your liberal view of prosecuting those which don't believe as you do; silencing them isn't enough, so you found it fit to suggest these disagreements be criminalized, just like a typical liberal. Inserting YOURSELF into a conservative website with kooky liberalism.
I merely exposed your behavior of giving fossil fakers a free pass, minimalizing their behavior because they agree with you, while suggesting the full force of the law come down on those that disagree with you...classic liberalism, hijack the courts and if necessary, jail time.
If there's a wilting flower it's Darwinism, your rank hypocrisy and exposed liberalism for all to see on a conservative website! And frankly you should look into a cult deprogrammer.
There’s a very easy way not to be criminalized; don’t act like a criminal. I’m sure you’ll find a way to excuse their behavior as you are a master of moral relativism.
LOL!!!! Riiiiight...and where are your whiny little screams for having the fossil fakers jailed?If you had done that from the outset, you might have had a shred of credibility.
Typical hypocrat liberalism. Then project, rinse, and repeat! ad infinatum.
Since it’s such a defining characteristic of evolutionists (according to your posts) you should be able to show a flurry of lawsuits. If detail is a problem for you, a round number or estmate will do.
And denying on FR of all places that there are indeed flurries of lawsuits to silence dissenters in failed liberal secular humanist NEA disastrous public schools is just laughable and just goes to show just how deeply afflicted you are by your godless liberal cult.
That's a stupid statement.
A fair point, well put forward. I suppose that the Johnson, Behe et al should have not fought the case in the way they did then since the defendents were only exposed in their lies towards the end of an exhaustive process. Johnson in particular seems to be the prime suspect in getting defendents to adopt wilfullly unreal positions during the pre-trail deposition stage that were inevitably going to be found out at any trial. He was desperate to have this fight. Without that, it is likely that the case would never have to got to court.
Your problem is you’re unable to refute it, meaning you’re statement is...
shockingly projectionism once again.
Pity.
Great point, and all the hallmarks of a science cult are in place because every time the cult of evolution is challenged in any meaningful way, it's automatically attacked as being religious and/or anti-science.
It’s a stupid statement, and I’ll bet you won’t find anyone who’ll agree with it.
You really do inhabit a wierd world don’t you? :-)
I only ever posted that those who lie under oath should be prosecuted not what argument they’re making. If that’s not true, you’ll be able to link to a post that shows otherwise, right? Do you agree with that position?
I have never given fakers a free pass. If you’re feeling touchy about it then, to keep your fever down, I can state categorically that any faker who breaks the law (pro-evolutionist or pro-creationist), then they should be prosecuted. I take it that you also agree with that position? If I’ve posted anything previously that goes against that, you’ll be able to link to such a post, right?
As to the lawsuits, you still haven’t answered the question - a favored tactic I notice and something you gave me a hard time about. It’s amazing how all these websites, articles and films continue to get published/made under such a flurry of lawsuits. Lol!
A fair point, well put forward. I suppose that the Johnson, Behe et al should have not fought the case in the way they did then since the defendents were only exposed in their lies towards the end of an exhaustive process. Johnson in particular seems to be the prime suspect in getting defendents to adopt wilfullly unreal positions during the pre-trail deposition stage that were inevitably going to be found out at any trial. He was desperate to have this fight. Without that, it is likely that the case would never have to got to court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.