Skip to comments.
Mom: Daughter in Pledge Case Worships God
Fox News ^
| 7/11/02
Posted on 07/12/2002 10:15:55 AM PDT by marshmallow
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-169 next last
To: Dutch Boy
**If the daughter was not harmed then the father lied in court. He filed a fraud lawsuit. Why isn't he in jail right now for purjury and contempt? **
The last chapter isn't written on this 'book'. If fraud is proven I'm sure he'll spend some time contemplating his navel in the slammer for a short time.
Sandy and lawyers in Washington D.C. are preparing a case to have the latest 9th Circuit ruling done away with. I'm not privy to the time frame of the case so can't offer info as to when that will happen.
The daughter has no problem with saying 'under God' in the pledge. It does seem that her father used her to further his agenda. His attempt failed when he lived in Florida...his daughter wasn't school age yet so he was unable to use the idea that 'under God' was harming her.
To: homeschool mama
Uh-huh. You continue to post at me refusing to honor your request not to exchange posts. You post comments about me to other posters, even though you say such behavior is "tacky". You sent me Freepmail after specifically asking me to sever contact. Finally, you respond to a thread that's over a month old on the thinnest of premises.
Sure sounds like obsession to me, Mama. Maybe you would be more convincing if you could keep me out of your posts for more than a couple of weeks.
To: flyervet
I'll say this again slowly. If you attempt to defame my character on FR again and I find out about it, I *will* defend myself. Understand? Other than that, I really have no great desire to communicate with you. Do you understand that?
Now sit down and eat your peas. They're getting cold.
To: homeschool mama
And I will say this again slowly. Short of unmasking yourself, there is absolutely no way for you to prove that you know the mother of Michael Newdow's child. And without positive, verifiable proof, your claim is utterly without value. What I have said is true, and since truth is an absolute defense in defamation cases, no defamation has occurred. Understand?
Other than that, your remarkably persistent obsession with me pretty much guarantees that you'll be posting indignantly to me and about me for some time to come, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. It's sad, but no less true than the foregoing.
Now sit down and take your medication. It's nine AM already, and you're way overdue.
To: flyervet
You wouldn't accept the truth if it smacked you upside the face.
To: homeschool mama
I do not automatically accept the word of anonymous Internet posters when they claim personal knowledge of something that's happening in the news. While you may not like it, you fall squarely into that category. If you'd care to identify yourself so that we can all see for ourselves where you live and whether or not you live near the mother of Mr. Newdow's child, then please do so.
If, OTOH, you'd prefer to remain anonymous, that's fine, too. However, your word, by itself, has no intrinsic value and cannot necessarily be relied on. Tough cheese, perhaps, but that's the way it is.
To: flyervet; homeschool mama
The Pledge of Allegiance is our sacred oath of citizenship. You do not have to believe in God to be a U.S. citizen. If an atheist makes this oath to a "nation under God", he is not making a true statement of belief. As long as atheists are allowed to be citizens of this country, they should not be required, in stating the official Pledge authorized by our government, to perjure themselves. The 9th Circuit decision does not make the Pledge itself unconstitutional. It simply reverts the Pledge back to the pre-1954 version, without those additional words.
We can speculate all we want and if any of these imagined injustices we have described come to pass, those grievances will be redressed by our judicial system, another right guaranteed by the Constitution. I think we should try not to confuse the issue with too much speculation.
To: Hard_Pill_To_Swallow
I didn't think I was speculating. I was offering the mother's side of the story, which includes the daughter.
No one is forced to say the pledge.
To: flyervet
I will not give you my name but I've already stated the city I reside in, and the church I attend. I live 4 blocks from Sandy Bannon. We attend the same church. You have the right to not believe that...I still think that even if you had all the information on a table in front of you, you would refuse to believe it.
What's interesting is that we most likely would agree on a great number of issues...this particular issue is a thorn in our sides though. Free Republic is a wonderful opportunity to learn, agree or disagree, sometimes vehemently :o).
To: homeschool mama
Mama, since we do not know who you are, we really don't know if you live in the city you claim. For all we know, you could live in Davenport, IA, Waycross, GA or the monkey cage at the Cleveland Zoo. Don't you understand, Mama? Without cold hard proof, your claim has no value. You're just another anonymous Internet poster claiming an unproven, tenuous connection to someone else who has some level of fame or notoriety. Folks like that are a dime a dozen on the Web.
Now, if I had your proof on a table in front of me, I could peruse it, examine it, check it out for veracity and THEN come to a conclusion regarding its truth or falsity. The difference between that and your position is that you aren't here, the mother of Michael Newdow's daughter isn't here, there's no table and you certainly haven't put any independently-verifiable information atop said nonexistent table. You haven't given us anything we can check out for ourselves to verify that you're telling the truth. Heck, for all we know, you could be some Dumocrat troll with an anti-fatherhood agenda, and if you're not, you're missing a great chance, because you're doing a good job parroting their feminazi line.
Honestly, Mama, I can't see myself having coffee with you. And that's because I generally don't have coffee with people who speak poorly of me behind my back. At any rate, just as there's no information sitting on a table, we're not sitting in a coffee shop. Thus your claims require verifiable proof. Without it, your claims carry no value.
That doesn't make you a bad person, and it's not your fault, but you do need to recognize that from the reader's POV, there's no difference between your claim and the claims of various Internet "experts" and "banking insiders" who claimed in 1999 that our bank balances and credit cards were going to evaporate at the stroke of midnight next New Year's Eve. They offered no proof, and turned out to be nothing but trolls looking for suckers.
I realize how frustrating this is, but you're simply going to have to accept it. Without definitive proof, there's absolutely no reason to believe you.
To: homeschool mama
Since 1954, it has been impossible for atheists to say the Pledge of Allegiance without perjuring themselves.
Going on vacation until Tuesday.
To: Hard_Pill_To_Swallow
They can either be mute during the 'under God' phrase or they can bow out.
Have a nice vacation. :o)
To: flyervet; Fidgit
Your words are like the pot calling the kettle black, bud.
Are you who you say you are? Are you really a veteran aviator? Do you really have blood in your veins or is that ice water? I never said anything about having coffee with you, toots. But I'll bet there are things we *would* agree on.
As far as *once again* calling me an anti father feminazi, you're wrong. Perhaps you can ask my husband about that. Go ahead and ask. His screen name is Fidgit. He knows me better than *anyone*.
Interesting that you accept Newdow for what he *says* he is. How do you *know* his claims are truth? Do you know him personally? Do you truly see how he lives his life? Do you know for certain he even pays child support? Proof? He's a liar about some things. A fool about many. Looks like you appreciate the company of him...a fool. Maybe you *are* Newdow. LOL
Your peas are getting cold.
To: homeschool mama
They can either be mute during the 'under God' phrase or they can bow out.
What other parts of the Pledge can we leave out when we say it? Is it still the Pledge of Allegiance?
Have a nice vacation. :o)
Thanks, I needed it.
To: Hard_Pill_To_Swallow
Hmmm...I have a migraine coming on so give me a day or so to think on that, k? Thanks.
I'm glad you had a vacation...we all need it sometime. :o)
To: homeschool mama
Your words are like the pot calling the kettle black, bud.
Chuckle! You're losing it here, Mama. Better take some debating lessons from Ann Coulter. She'd set you straight about that foaming-at-the-mouth routine you've got going on.
Are you who you say you are? Are you really a veteran aviator?
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be an aviator, veteran or otherwise. Perhaps I'm a veterinarian who works exclusively on birds. Maybe I'm a military veteran who owns a private plane. Maybe I'm a frequent business traveler who travels a lot by air. And maybe none of those are true. You know, Mama, we'd both be better served if you didn't jump to so many conclusions. Just because you claim to be a "homeschool mama" doesn't mean a thing about anyone else. Maybe my handle means something. Maybe it doesn't. But you just don't know, do you? And anything you have to say about it is a guess.
Do you really have blood in your veins or is that ice water?
My physician says it's blood. You can take that or leave it, since I don't care to provide you with any proof. See how this works?
I never said anything about having coffee with you, toots.
I know you didn't. I did. You're not the only one moving the discussion here, toots. If I want to bring up coffee, I certainly don't need your permission to do it.
But I'll bet there are things we *would* agree on."
Possibly.
As far as *once again* calling me an anti father feminazi, you're wrong.
I didn't call you an "anti father feminazi." I said "Heck, for all we know, you could be some Dumocrat troll with an anti-fatherhood agenda, and if you're not, you're missing a great chance, because you're doing a good job parroting their feminazi line." I didn't call you an "anti father feminazi." I said you were doing a good job "parroting their feminazi line." Please try harder to read the posts to which you respond. Details do make the difference.
Perhaps you can ask my husband about that. Go ahead and ask. His screen name is Fidgit. He knows me better than *anyone*.
And how, exactly, do you you plan to demonstrate to me that this "Fidgit" person really is your husband? For all I know, it could be another screen name that you use. I'm still not convinced that you aren't -- as I said -- a Dumocrat troll, and a Dumocrat troll certainly wouldn't stop at one screen name.
Interesting that you accept Newdow for what he *says* he is. How do you *know* his claims are truth?
Actually, this part should be obvious to you if you are who you claim to be. Despite weeks of being under a media microscope, very few of Newdow's claims have been refuted. While I wouldn't expect CNN or the WashPost to blow the lid off of any irregularities in Newdow's claims, we do have Fox News, the Washington Times, NewsMax, World Net Daily and CNS. And any of them would be more than happy to trot out proof that Newdow was lying. So where's the beef, Mama? If Newdow's been stalking his family, where's the proof? If he hasn't been paying child support, where are the court documents to support the complaint?
The fact of the matter is that this man brought a court case that you don't like. And you're so desperate to discredit him that you'll claim to be on a first-name basis with his wife -- but curiously, you won't bring out any proof to support anything you say. Sounds to me like you're making claims that you WISH were true.
Do you know him personally? Do you truly see how he lives his life? Do you know for certain he even pays child support? Proof?
Once again, the media microscope has not dug up any proof to the contrary. And don't you think there are conservative news operations who have been trying to do just exactly that? Sometimes, silence speaks louder than words. The fact that these respected news operations haven't been able to support any of those claims is quite telling.
He's a liar about some things.
If he is lying about his parenting -- and that hasn't been proven -- it isn't because YOU say so.
A fool about many.
Ah. Here's the issue. You don't like the guy, so you manke wild, unsupported claims about him. When you're called upon to back up what you say, you sink to indignant name-calling. Mama, do you think you could leave the Dumocrat debating tactics out of this, and instead argue like a real conservative who respects truth and honesty?
Looks like you appreciate the company of him...a fool. Maybe you *are* Newdow. LOL
For all you know, I could be. And as far as we know, you're some anonymous Internet poster who claims to know the mother of his child.
To: flyervet
blah blah blah
158
posted on
09/29/2002 10:02:09 AM PDT
by
Mo1
To: homeschool mama
Thaaaaaaat's right, Mama. Nothing new to say, nothing worthwhile to add.
Just let it go, lady.
To: flyervet
Can't you read?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-169 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
