[Tired of Taxes]

Well, you and I must've been posting at the same time. I've attempted to view the actual text through that link earlier tonight, as well as through other links, too, and I still cannot view it, though I was able to view it in the past. Perhaps I'm just having computer problems.

If Newdow's position is that his daughter is "injured", that still doesn't qualify as a "lie". If he were a Christian who believed that his daughter was injured by pro-abortion teachings, and the mother who had primary custody insisted that the daughter wasn't injured by those teachings, and the daughter said she didn't mind those teachings, whose side would you take then? As a PARENT, he doesn't want his daughter indoctrinated by the gov't, and he filed the complaint based on his rights as a parent.

Again, I don't see a "lie" there.

[syriacus]

You want an example of his lies?

How about this quote from the original post at the head of this thread?

According to media reports, Newdow said his daughter was "injured" by the pledge. Courts can only hear cases where there has been an injured party, legal experts say

"I never said that, and I don't believe it's in the brief," Newdow said.

In the brief, he says she was injured, as you can see by reading post 95 (or by reading any one of 100's of old newspapers)

I'm getting tired of proving what is merely common sense, by the way. Newdow might win in the end, but he's still a liar. Even his backtracking shows he's a liar.

He'd probably like to rewrite the history of his lawsuits and he is lucky his brief is "disappearing" from the web. When it's all gone, it will be harder to prove he lies.