"BÎllary" <F. Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
SPIN SPIN SPIN. You're a shill Zepp. You're doing a John Kerry (Do/say
anything) to obfuscate the truth. And the truth is that Peoples
You didn't address the issues. Since the mother wasn't a Party in
the case anything she wants is irrelevant.
What _is_ relevant is the law -- something you fucking rightards
have no regard for if your Fuhrer is any indication (and he is.)
Broadcasting System is CLEARLY LIEbrally biased. They feed you your
marching orders on a daily basis. What's it like to feed at the bottom?
"zepp" <zeppnospam@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:b85uc0lhtc4kjitpi422f63gsnh055kju0@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:04:53 GMT, "BÎllary" <F.
Liberals@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
Last Night PBS aired a biased piece on the story. They talked about how
this good atheist was deemed not to have standing in a case that clearly
should have been heard.
They NEVER mentioned that the child's mother IS the person who has CUSTODY,
LEGAL STANDING and also APPROVES of the phrase "UNDER GOD". Who would have
thought that the bastion of unbiased journalistic purity, not really
liberal, publicly supported Peoples Broadcasting System would have missed
such crucial details! Who'd a thought!!!
Was she a party to the case itself, Silly Billy?
No?
Then the court had no reason to mention her.
I understand there's a half-dozen cases against your little
state-mandated prayer working their way up through the court system
now. Do you think the court will be able to use "standing" in all of
them?
What are they going to do when they can't duck the issue, and have to
figure out what the constitutionality of the phrase is?
---
Scientology tries to disrupt terrorist attacks relief efforts: http://www.cosvm.org/
"Easy everyone, it's just the chocolate milk talking." -- Miles Long
.
