On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:21:37 -0600,
wrote
(in article <85c7v0djs6ll1uhaetuqf286rsp59iu7tg@4ax.com>):
"krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote:
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message
news:41EE5BDC.4050605@it.com...
ALL of them Carol ... ALL of them recited the oath with right hand on a
BIBLE and closing "SO HELP ME GOD!" ALL Carol. ALL of them! There is
NOTHING to support YOUR claims to speak for them or that of WHACK JOB
Newdow to do likewise.
Newdow is technically correct, but his actions are doomed to failure, as
the Court has crafted a doctrine whereby de minimis infringements are
"let
go." I don't think any of us are really going to squabble with it all
that much, but it would be intellectually dishonest to say that Mike
Newdow doesn't have a cogent point.
Newdow is full of *****! He couldn't be more wrong Constitutionally if
he stayed up for a year setting out to be wrong!
LOL, actually he is totally correct constitutionally.
There seems to be a reason that your verbal opponent in
this case has a set of initials - "krp" - that can only be
pronounced as "crap".
++ Gray //
.
