| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 04:58:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You are making no sense.
You made a charge that Falwell is distorting the issue surrounding the
Pledge. Then you supported the charge by posting what Falwell has pointed
out very clearly what those issues are.
I just want to know what Falwell has said relative to the Pledge that is a
distortion.
Distort
Twist
Misrepresent
Lie
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the misrepresentations of
which Falwell was guilty.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:09:15 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020165608.22601L-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You are making no sense.
You made a charge that Falwell is distorting the issue surrounding the
Pledge. Then you supported the charge by posting what Falwell has
pointed
out very clearly what those issues are.
I just want to know what Falwell has said relative to the Pledge that is
a
distortion.
Distort
Twist
Misrepresent
Lie
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the misrepresentations of
which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort. You have said
that you do not agree with him. Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting the facts in the case.
To support your assertion that Falwell is distorting anything, you posted
Falwell's own words that are exactly what the arguments are in the case.
I want to know, EXACTLY where Falwell distorted anything, and I want to know
where he made his distortions based upon the post you yourself posted. There
are no distortions in that post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 11:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the misrepresentations of
which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort.
Yes I have.
You have said that you do not agree with him.
Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting the facts in the case.
You have just claimed that
a) I said that I do not agree with him.
b) I have INFERRED that I do not agree with him
Are these contradictory statements?
To support your assertion that Falwell is distorting anything, you posted
Falwell's own words that are exactly what the arguments are in the case.
No they weren't.
I want to know, EXACTLY where Falwell distorted anything, and I want to know
where he made his distortions based upon the post you yourself posted. There
are no distortions in that post.
Falwell:
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in California, she explained that her daughter actually loved to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian - hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.< <
I previously said:
"Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any sort,
let alone a rigid atheist."
Now that was just ONE OF THE UNTRUTHS of which Falwall was guilty.
The rest are in the post in which you claim they are not. I have several
times repeated the post in its entirety.
No more.
It is all in the archives. Anyone interested enough to investigate may
find it there.
I am not wasting any more band width on this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 01:36:51 PM |
|
|
"> Falwell:
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in
California, she explained that her daughter actually loved to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian - hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.< <
I previously said:
"Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any sort,
let alone a rigid atheist."
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid, and that his daughter is
offended by her recital of the Pledge and her merely hearing the recital of
hte Pledge by her classmates. This is the basis for his arguments before the
court. Of course, his printed reasons for his argument is slightly
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated. There is
no distortion in Falwell's statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 02:18:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
the Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian - hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.< <
I previously said:
"Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any sort,
let alone a rigid atheist."
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid,
So what? Newdow also claims atheism is his RELIGION. So, it is not
astonishing that he might be rigid, if he is, which I doubt after speaking
to him.
Falwell claimed Newdow portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
That is a lie. He never has portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
and that his daughter is
offended by her recital of the Pledge and her merely hearing the recital of
hte Pledge by her classmates. This is the basis for his arguments before the
court. Of course, his printed reasons for his argument is slightly
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated.
What statement of Newdow?
Please cit it here-------->
There is no distortion in Falwell's statement.
That is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 02:33:44 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031022141608.6608A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
the Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that
the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian - hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.<
<
I previously said:
"Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any
sort,
let alone a rigid atheist."
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid,
So what? Newdow also claims atheism is his RELIGION. So, it is not
astonishing that he might be rigid, if he is, which I doubt after speaking
to him.
Falwell claimed Newdow portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
That is a lie. He never has portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
Not exactly true, Newdow's ex said that Newdow said that his daughter is a
rigid atheist. The mother disputes Newdow's claims of his daughter's
rigidity.
and that his daughter is
offended by her recital of the Pledge and her merely hearing the recital
of
hte Pledge by her classmates. This is the basis for his arguments before
the
court. Of course, his printed reasons for his argument is slightly
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated.
What statement of Newdow?
Please cit it here-------->
On several TV interviews, Newdow himself said that his daughter was
compelled against her will to recite the Pledge, or to listen to her
classmates recite the Pledge.
There is no distortion in Falwell's statement.
That is false.
Or, it is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 03:09:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid,
So what? Newdow also claims atheism is his RELIGION. So, it is not
astonishing that he might be rigid, if he is, which I doubt after speaking
to him.
Falwell claimed Newdow portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
That is a lie. He never has portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
Not exactly true, Newdow's ex said that Newdow said that his daughter is a
rigid atheist. The mother disputes Newdow's claims of his daughter's
rigidity.
I am sure she has said all manner of things to discredit him.
So what.
Provide a citation for his having claimed such a thing.
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated.
What statement of Newdow?
Please cite it here-------->
On several TV interviews, Newdow himself said that his daughter was
compelled against her will to recite the Pledge, or to listen to her
classmates recite the Pledge.
So?
There seems to be a difference of opinion on what is coercion. I
happen to believe that the tyranny of the majority in such a situation is
coercion.
Little kids, no matter of their parents religion or lack there of,
shouldn't be put in a position of being the other.
And that goes for all school children, not just one particular school
child or the school children in one particular school, school district or
Court Circuit.
There is no distortion in Falwell's statement.
That is false.
Or, it is true.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 03:42:49 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031022150408.6608S-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid,
So what? Newdow also claims atheism is his RELIGION. So, it is not
astonishing that he might be rigid, if he is, which I doubt after
speaking
to him.
Falwell claimed Newdow portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
That is a lie. He never has portrayed his daughter as a rigid
atheist.
Not exactly true, Newdow's ex said that Newdow said that his daughter is
a
rigid atheist. The mother disputes Newdow's claims of his daughter's
rigidity.
I am sure she has said all manner of things to discredit him.
So what.
Provide a citation for his having claimed such a thing.
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated.
What statement of Newdow?
Please cite it here-------->
On several TV interviews, Newdow himself said that his daughter was
compelled against her will to recite the Pledge, or to listen to her
classmates recite the Pledge.
So?
He seems to be speaking to the rigidity of himself and his daughter. The
mother has said the daughter DOES NOT share his rigitity. His contention is
that she (the daughter) does share the rigidity, and that is why he can (and
should) bring his suit.
There seems to be a difference of opinion on what is coercion. I
happen to believe that the tyranny of the majority in such a situation is
coercion.
If you are the custodial parent, then you bring the suit. Newdow is a
crybaby that is using the court to bring to bear his views on his
ex-<whatever>. He should be doing this in a much lower level of the court
system.
Little kids, no matter of their parents religion or lack there of,
shouldn't be put in a position of being the other.
And that goes for all school children, not just one particular school
child or the school children in one particular school, school district or
Court Circuit.
There is no distortion in Falwell's statement.
That is false.
Or, it is true.
Prove it.
I want to see the distortion first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 04:36:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland STILL trying to DEFEND FALWELL's LIE
that Newdow has claimed his daughter is a rigid atheist wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Newdow has said himself that his atheism is rigid,
So what? Newdow also claims atheism is his RELIGION. So, it is not
astonishing that he might be rigid, if he is, which I doubt after
speaking to him.
Falwell claimed Newdow portrayed his daughter as a rigid atheist.
That is a lie. He never has portrayed his daughter as a rigid
atheist.
Not exactly true, Newdow's ex said that Newdow said that his
daughter is a rigid atheist. The mother disputes Newdow's claims of his
daughter's rigidity.< < <
I am sure she has said all manner of things to discredit him.
So what.
Provide a citation for his having claimed such a thing.
different, but hnis stated reason is exactly as Falwell repeated.
What statement of Newdow?
Please cite it here-------->
On several TV interviews, Newdow himself said that his daughter was
compelled against her will to recite the Pledge, or to listen to her
classmates recite the Pledge.
So?
He seems to be speaking to the rigidity of himself and his daughter.
In your dreams. As I said, if you have any proof that Newdow has claimed
his daughter is a rigid atheist, just let us have it.
The mother has said the daughter DOES NOT share his rigitity [sic].
So?
<< His contention is that she (the daughter) does share the rigidity, and
that is why he can (and should) bring his suit.
Newdow has made no such contention. No where in the case or anywhere else
has Newdow claimed his daughter is a rigid atheist.
There seems to be a difference of opinion on what is coercion. I
happen to believe that the tyranny of the majority in such a situation is
coercion.
If you are the custodial parent, then you bring the suit. Newdow is a
crybaby that is using the court to bring to bear his views on his
ex-<whatever>. He should be doing this in a much lower level of the court
system.
ALAS!!!
You were not there to advise the court on how to handle this. I am sure
it must not have occurred to them. <chuckle>
Little kids, no matter of their parents religion or lack there of,
shouldn't be put in a position of being the other.
And that goes for all school children, not just one particular school child or the school children in one particular school, school district or Court Circuit.< <
There is no distortion in Falwell's statement.
That is false.
Or, it is true.
Prove it.
I want to see the distortion first.
It has been shown over and over again.
Claiming Falwell did not distort the issues is sticking your head into the
sand or putting your fingers in your ears and going: lalalalalalalalalala.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 01:46:02 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031021231216.6046K-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the misrepresentations
of
which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort.
Yes I have.
You have said that you do not agree with him.
Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting the facts in the case.
You have just claimed that
a) I said that I do not agree with him.
b) I have INFERRED that I do not agree with him
At the very least, you have inferred that you do not agree with him. I see
no contradiction at all.
Are these contradictory statements?
No.
To support your assertion that Falwell is distorting anything, you
posted
Falwell's own words that are exactly what the arguments are in the case.
No they weren't.
Yes, they were.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 03:14:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the misrepresentations
of which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort.
Yes I have.
You have said that you do not agree with him.
Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting the facts in the case.
You have just claimed that
a) I said that I do not agree with him.
b) I have INFERRED that I do not agree with him
At the very least, you have inferred that you do not agree with him. I see
no contradiction at all.
What you have done, which is what you usually do, is to make a statement
and then hedge.
We see it over and over again.
But, you are entitled to reveal to us your tactics any time you want.
Are these contradictory statements?
No.
To support your assertion that Falwell is distorting anything, you
posted
Falwell's own words that are exactly what the arguments are in the case.
No they weren't.
Yes, they were.
No, Falwell persists in misrepresenting things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<Right after the terrorist strikes in New York and here in Washington,
when America was wounded and confused, the Reverend Falwell was a guest on
Pat Robertson's 700 Club. He said that God Almighty, angered by America's
abortion rights, gay rights, and secularism in the schools, had permitted
terrorists to slay the World Trade Center and smite the Pentagon:
"What we saw on Tuesday," said Mr. Falwell, "could be minuscule if in fact
God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give
us probably what we deserve."
Mr. Robertson joined in, saying, "Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've
just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what
they can do to the major population."
Then Mr. Falwell concluded, "I really believe that the pagans, and the
abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are
actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People
for the American Wayall of them who have tried to secularize AmericaI
point the finger in their face and say, you helped this happen."
Last week, both the reverends issued apologies. Mr. Falwell called his own
remarks, "insensitive, uncalled for, and unnecessary"everything but
wrong.>>
--Scott Simon
http://www.ucc.org/911/092701b.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 03:45:38 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031022150955.6608T-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the
misrepresentations
of which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort.
Yes I have.
You have said that you do not agree with him.
Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting the facts in the
case.
You have just claimed that
a) I said that I do not agree with him.
b) I have INFERRED that I do not agree with him
At the very least, you have inferred that you do not agree with him. I
see
no contradiction at all.
What you have done, which is what you usually do, is to make a statement
and then hedge.
We see it over and over again.
You teach me to hedge by changing the topic
You know what, I am going to do my best to ignore you from now on. You do
not discuss the topics, you instead break sentences in the middle and drive
the discussion off on tangents that have nothing at all to do with what the
original topic was. Basically, you resort to the time-honored liberal tactic
of smoke and mirrors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
23 Oct 2003 07:15:56 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I see where jeffy is running away again.
A number of posts correcting his pipe dreams with facts and he don't utter
a peep about them, just continues on being the ignorant troll he has shown
himself to be over and over again.
====================================
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 04:26:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Read the archives. I have already pointed out the
misrepresentations of which Falwell was guilty.
Read your own post. No, you have done nothing of the sort.
Yes I have.
You have said that you do not agree with him.
Actually, you have INFERRED that you do not
agree with him by charging that he is distorting
the facts in the case.
You have just claimed that
a) I said that I do not agree with him.
b) I have INFERRED that I do not agree with him
At the very least, you have inferred that you do not agree with him. I
see no contradiction at all.
What you have done, which is what you usually do, is to make a statement
and then hedge.
We see it over and over again.
You teach me to hedge by changing the topic
Poor baby.
You are so easily distracted that you can't say what you mean?
You know what, I am going to do my best to ignore you from now on.
Promises, promises.
You do not discuss the topics, you instead break
sentences in the middle and drive
the discussion off on tangents that have nothing at all to do
with what the original topic was.
And you are so easily led that you cannot stay on track?
Poor baby.
But I repeat myself.
Basically, you resort to the time-honored liberal tactic
of smoke and mirrors.
Right, Jeff.
If it were smoke and mirrors, it has apparently worked on you since you
cannot seem to say what you mean or stay on track.
Poor baby.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
