Drawing The Legal Line

[PoliticalChic]

All too often we make the mistake of believing that ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are synonymous.

"Justice is incidental to law and order." J.Edgar Hoover



1.When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.

It is very specific as to what the federal government can control about each of us. And that document covers the executive branch, the legislative…..and the judiciary.
In fact, nowhere in the document does it give the judiciary the powers it has purloined.



2. Let's consider where we 'draw the line.'
If the Supreme Court either voted ‘aye’ on a bill, or created its own laws, as it all too often does, for example, that mandated that every American view Hitler and his concentration camps in government building, and boo accordingly, every day (OK…so you read 1984), even though we all agree about Hitler,…..would the passage of this law be acceptable? Think about that….because we are there already.

Can you find the authority in the document above?



3. OK, we all hate Hitler, but where is there an authority in the law, to insist that everyone hisssss and boo at Hitler?

There is no such authority? OK….now check this out:

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” The labels continued: “Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.” Norris Anderson, “The Alabama Insert: A Call for Impartial Science,” Access Research Network, May 15, 1996. Available online (June 2006) at: The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris.

" As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories." The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris


4. Be clear: the word “unproven” is accurate. It is correct.

In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



5. If there is no proof for Darwin’s Theory, what is the harm in the Alabama Board of Education placing that sticker in the textbook? From a legal perspective….do they have the right? If the Board was an elected body by the people of the state, do they have a say in what is taught?

BTW.....
“Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.



Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure….and an ideology to support.



Where is the legal authority to tell Americans what to believe????

 

[007]

What I haven't really heard tossed out there as an option to, "how do we safely open the schools," is HOME SCHOOLING. I've heard Trump and Devos float the idea that federal funds could be withheld from schools that don't open, and reallocated here and there. But... why not give it to parents that will home school? PAY for the HOME SCHOOLING. Then parents can teach their kids what they want them to believe, instead of having them force fed what the left wants them to learn in the public indoctrination camps.

That's what REALLY needs to happen. We need to put an end to this leftist brain washing. It's produced two generations at least already of severely messed up, entitled, America hating, arrogant little SJW ass clowns, all with their degrees in liberal arts and pottery making, and have successfully passed their class on WHITE PRIVILEDGE, so they all have WHITE GUILT. They're virtually worthless to society, so they're all VICTIMS of their own poor choices also.

 

[Moonglow]

Ii can really tell you people have not seen a textbook as of late?

The Bible and other religious books need to come with the disclaimer that is is just a theory.

 

[rightwinger]

Another Troglodyte disputing Evolution

I didn’t see it happen so it can’t be true

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.


If you believe, as I do, in freedom and liberty for the individual, where is the line between what we can think, and say, and what government can forbid? And were do you find that in the Constitution?



The Alabama board was elected by the people....and that is the basis for the freedom Americans are so proud of.

Alabama school board put sticker in science textbooks noting that Darwinian Evolution that is taught is a theory, and not a fact.

Should the federal government, or its agency, the Supreme Court, be authorized to decide whether that label is to be allowed?



Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?

 

[007]

6. When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.


If you believe, as I do, in freedom and liberty for the individual, where is the line between what we can think, and say, and what government can forbid? And were do you find that in the Constitution?



The Alabama board was elected by the people....and that is the basis for the freedom Americans are so proud of.

Alabama school board put sticker in science textbooks noting that Darwinian Evolution that is taught is a theory, and not a fact.

Should the federal government, or its agency, the Supreme Court, be authorized to decide whether that label is to be allowed?



Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?

I don't see VOTING as a way for the majority to ensure their liberty and freedom anymore. I think it's going to take a real push, like a second civil war. I've been saying this for quite a few years now too, but now I see more and more people purporting the same sentiment.

So basically, what freedoms Americans are able to keep are going to be the ones they're willing to fight for, and I mean actually fight... do battle.

The SC has been ALLOWED to gain the power it has. To be the supreme decider on all matters, when in all actuality, it was never meant to be that. It was to decide the constitutionality of matters, to determine the law, not make law, as they do now. They are a coequal branch of government, not the supreme power over all three, but the other two have pretty much relinquished their power to the SC as a lesser.

I don't see any of this being straightened out by voting. Things just continually get worse. The deep state is so dug in and unaccountable to anyone that elections are irrelevant. Washington needs a massive purging, thousands should be chased out, offices closed, agencies closed. The size of government should be cut to a 1/3 of it's present size, and congress should have terms limits, same as the SC.

 

[jillian]

All too often we make the mistake of believing that ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are synonymous.

"Justice is incidental to law and order." J.Edgar Hoover



1.When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.

It is very specific as to what the federal government can control about each of us. And that document covers the executive branch, the legislative…..and the judiciary.
In fact, nowhere in the document does it give the judiciary the powers it has purloined.



2. Let's consider where we 'draw the line.'
If the Supreme Court either voted ‘aye’ on a bill, or created its own laws, as it all too often does, for example, that mandated that every American view Hitler and his concentration camps in government building, and boo accordingly, every day (OK…so you read 1984), even though we all agree about Hitler,…..would the passage of this law be acceptable? Think about that….because we are there already.

Can you find the authority in the document above?



3. OK, we all hate Hitler, but where is there an authority in the law, to insist that everyone hisssss and boo at Hitler?

There is no such authority? OK….now check this out:

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” The labels continued: “Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.” Norris Anderson, “The Alabama Insert: A Call for Impartial Science,” Access Research Network, May 15, 1996. Available online (June 2006) at: The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris.

" As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories." The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris


4. Be clear: the word “unproven” is accurate. It is correct.

In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



5. If there is no proof for Darwin’s Theory, what is the harm in the Alabama Board of Education placing that sticker in the textbook? From a legal perspective….do they have the right? If the Board was an elected body by the people of the state, do they have a say in what is taught?

BTW.....
“Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.



Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure….and an ideology to support.



Where is the legal authority to tell Americans what to believe????

Science is reality. Creationism is religion. Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.


If you believe, as I do, in freedom and liberty for the individual, where is the line between what we can think, and say, and what government can forbid? And were do you find that in the Constitution?



The Alabama board was elected by the people....and that is the basis for the freedom Americans are so proud of.

Alabama school board put sticker in science textbooks noting that Darwinian Evolution that is taught is a theory, and not a fact.

Should the federal government, or its agency, the Supreme Court, be authorized to decide whether that label is to be allowed?



Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?

I don't see VOTING as a way for the majority to ensure their liberty and freedom anymore. I think it's going to take a real push, like a second civil war. I've been saying this for quite a few years now too, but now I see more and more people purporting the same sentiment.

So basically, what freedoms Americans are able to keep are going to be the ones they're willing to fight for, and I mean actually fight... do battle.

The SC has been ALLOWED to gain the power it has. To be the supreme decider on all matters, when in all actuality, it was never meant to be that. It was to decide the constitutionality of matters, to determine the law, not make law, as they do now. They are a coequal branch of government, not the supreme power over all three, but the other two have pretty much relinquished their power to the SC as a lesser.

I don't see any of this being straightened out by voting. Things just continually get worse. The deep state is so dug in and unaccountable to anyone that elections are irrelevant. Washington needs a massive purging, thousands should be chased out, offices closed, agencies closed. The size of government should be cut to a 1/3 of it's present size, and congress should have terms limits, same as the SC.

My darkest fear is that you may be correct.

The Leftists/totalitarian have gained control of the schools, the media and the judicial.

When I saw the communist DA in St Louis confiscate the legal rifle from the couple defending their property and their lives, I felt that moment of dread....what is left for Americans?

I just do not want to think in terms of 'civil war.'
The last one took the lives of over 2% of our nation.
That would approach 8 million with today's population, and today's weapons are far more powerful.
And....it may not even be the solution to the problem.
I'm thinking that civilizations may simply have a 'sell-by' date....and we've reached ours.
It was great while it lasted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All too often we make the mistake of believing that ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are synonymous.

"Justice is incidental to law and order." J.Edgar Hoover



1.When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.

It is very specific as to what the federal government can control about each of us. And that document covers the executive branch, the legislative…..and the judiciary.
In fact, nowhere in the document does it give the judiciary the powers it has purloined.



2. Let's consider where we 'draw the line.'
If the Supreme Court either voted ‘aye’ on a bill, or created its own laws, as it all too often does, for example, that mandated that every American view Hitler and his concentration camps in government building, and boo accordingly, every day (OK…so you read 1984), even though we all agree about Hitler,…..would the passage of this law be acceptable? Think about that….because we are there already.

Can you find the authority in the document above?



3. OK, we all hate Hitler, but where is there an authority in the law, to insist that everyone hisssss and boo at Hitler?

There is no such authority? OK….now check this out:

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” The labels continued: “Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.” Norris Anderson, “The Alabama Insert: A Call for Impartial Science,” Access Research Network, May 15, 1996. Available online (June 2006) at: The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris.

" As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories." The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris


4. Be clear: the word “unproven” is accurate. It is correct.

In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



5. If there is no proof for Darwin’s Theory, what is the harm in the Alabama Board of Education placing that sticker in the textbook? From a legal perspective….do they have the right? If the Board was an elected body by the people of the state, do they have a say in what is taught?

BTW.....
“Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.



Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure….and an ideology to support.



Where is the legal authority to tell Americans what to believe????

Science is reality. Creationism is religion. Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says.

I recall when you used to pretend you had some education in the realm of the law.


Now's the time to prove it.

The Alabama board was elected by the people....and that is the basis for the freedom Americans are so proud of.

Alabama school board put sticker in science textbooks noting that Darwinian Evolution that is taught is a theory, and not a fact.

Should the federal government, or its agency, the Supreme Court, be authorized to decide whether that label is to be allowed?



Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?



Either show some education, some guts, or admit you simply lick the boots of your masters.

 

[Gdjjr]

I know quite a few people, who, by today's standards, (close to my age [72] and quite a few older than I), that when asked a question about the constitution they *react* with the deer in the headlights look- not that their being knowledgeable about it would change anything, but, it would at least provide a starting point for discussing all the issues we're surrounded by.


In this instance (education), I want to ask, where is the authority granted for the Department of Education.

 

[Gdjjr]

You know, like the constitution says.

Why do people say that?

When confronted about something they're passionate about, but, when their guy is in charge it becomes an attack on their person and they react with vitriol vs having a discussion. SMH- now, can you point out, in the constitution, what you claim? I'll wait.

Introspection is sorely lacking in our society. Intellectual Honesty has all but ceased to exist, relying instead on the squeaky wheel getting the grease- which of course it needs, otherwise it wouldn't be squeaking. However, had that wheel been properly assembled there wouldn't be so much a problem as a simple maintenance action- instead what we get is to re-invent the wheel with even more stupid-

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know quite a few people, who, by today's standards, (close to my age [72] and quite a few older than I), that when asked a question about the constitution they *react* with the deer in the headlights look- not that their being knowledgeable about it would change anything, but, it would at least provide a starting point for discussing all the issues we're surrounded by.


In this instance (education), I want to ask, where is the authority granted for the Department of Education.

I won't allow you to change the subject, but I certainly agree with you about the Constitution.

Only our military colleges mandate a course in same.


What is shocking is that a supposed lawyer, in a post above, wrote this: "Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says."

The is no such admonition in the Constitution, as you and I both know.

 

[Gdjjr]

Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?

It could be as simple as reading comprehension- that doesn't seem to be a requisite function of education.

 

[Gdjjr]

I won't allow you to change the subject, but I certainly agree with you about the Constitution.

You won't allow me?

 

[PoliticalChic]

All too often we make the mistake of believing that ‘law’ and ‘justice’ are synonymous.

"Justice is incidental to law and order." J.Edgar Hoover



1.When I think of America, it is a place where each of us makes the rules for our own lives, our own happiness, it is a place for self-determination. The boundaries are spelled out in the only document the American people have agreed to be governed by: the United States Constitution.

It is very specific as to what the federal government can control about each of us. And that document covers the executive branch, the legislative…..and the judiciary.
In fact, nowhere in the document does it give the judiciary the powers it has purloined.



2. Let's consider where we 'draw the line.'
If the Supreme Court either voted ‘aye’ on a bill, or created its own laws, as it all too often does, for example, that mandated that every American view Hitler and his concentration camps in government building, and boo accordingly, every day (OK…so you read 1984), even though we all agree about Hitler,…..would the passage of this law be acceptable? Think about that….because we are there already.

Can you find the authority in the document above?



3. OK, we all hate Hitler, but where is there an authority in the law, to insist that everyone hisssss and boo at Hitler?

There is no such authority? OK….now check this out:

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.” The labels continued: “Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.” Norris Anderson, “The Alabama Insert: A Call for Impartial Science,” Access Research Network, May 15, 1996. Available online (June 2006) at: The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris.

" As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories." The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris


4. Be clear: the word “unproven” is accurate. It is correct.

In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



5. If there is no proof for Darwin’s Theory, what is the harm in the Alabama Board of Education placing that sticker in the textbook? From a legal perspective….do they have the right? If the Board was an elected body by the people of the state, do they have a say in what is taught?

BTW.....
“Two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools,” according to the New York Times. Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey

But even among those persuaded of Darwin’s theory, “18% said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being.’ “ Ibid.



Freedom of thought, it seems, is an inconvenience to those with a position to protect…and an income to insure….and an ideology to support.



Where is the legal authority to tell Americans what to believe????

Science is reality. Creationism is religion. Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says.

Wow.....you really got put in your place today, huh?

 

[Gdjjr]

Only our military colleges mandate a course in same.

Really? Then why is the Military a primary asset to the continuing ruse? Is reading comprehension not a requirement in Military college? Are the Military "higher educated" who are openly turning on POTUS capable of discerning exactly who the CIC is?

 

[jillian]

I know quite a few people, who, by today's standards, (close to my age [72] and quite a few older than I), that when asked a question about the constitution they *react* with the deer in the headlights look- not that their being knowledgeable about it would change anything, but, it would at least provide a starting point for discussing all the issues we're surrounded by.


In this instance (education), I want to ask, where is the authority granted for the Department of Education.

I won't allow you to change the subject, but I certainly agree with you about the Constitution.

Only our military colleges mandate a course in same.


What is shocking is that a supposed lawyer, in a post above, wrote this: "Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says."

The is no such admonition in the Constitution, as you and I both know.

There is freedom of religion. That means you can’t shove your extremist beliefs down the throats if educated people.

Pretend “intellectuals” shouldn’t pretend they understand anything. Stick to your piano. You should leave the law to people who understand it. And I don’t need to prove to an ignorant twit like you what I am. Life is awesome that way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That means you can’t shove your extremist beliefs down the throats if educated people.

" That means you can’t shove your extremist beliefs down the throats if (sic) educated people. "

1. Good to see you no longer post this lie: "Keep your religion out of our faces. You know, like the constitution says."

2. The people of Alabama voted for a school board to decide whether to post this label:
“This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”

What right do you or any ayatollah in black robes, have to deny them that freedom of speech or thought?

3. The label is correct: there is no proof of Darwinian evolution....it is not a fact, and the Left's demand is that it be posed as a fact.

4. One of the board members wrote this:
" As one who was involved with promoting the Alabama Insert I can honestly say that I am unaware of any attempt to use the Insert to bring creationism into the classroom.
On the contrary, the reasons for supporting the Insert were to keep religious indoctrination out of the science classroom, whether it be theistic or anti-theistic, and to promote full disclosure of both the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories." The Alabama Insert - A Call for Impartial Science: Anderson, Norris


5. Is this a question of law, or religion, or of politics?

How difficult was it to turn you into a totalitarian?

 

[Gdjjr]

There is freedom of religion

That is not what you said- I want chapter and verse for your unremarkable idiocy.

Pretend “intellectuals” shouldn’t pretend they understand anything. Stick to your piano. You should leave the law to people who understand it. And I don’t need to prove to an ignorant twit like you what I am. Life is awesome that way.

I don't pretend anything. I play at playin a guitar- haven't had a piano lesson in over 60 years- pseudo intellectual is probably a word you might consider making yourself familiar with- they (including you) try to make the simple complicated in an attempt to make (especially simple English) an esoteric endeavor- it ain't and the law has 0 to do with it.
You're correct about life being awesome, especially when a non-formally educated "twit" can put a formally educated jackass in their rightful place- under the table in reading comprehension.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is freedom of religion

That is not what you said- I want chapter and verse for your unremarkable idiocy.

Pretend “intellectuals” shouldn’t pretend they understand anything. Stick to your piano. You should leave the law to people who understand it. And I don’t need to prove to an ignorant twit like you what I am. Life is awesome that way.

I don't pretend anything. I play at playin a guitar- haven't had a piano lesson in over 60 years- pseudo intellectual is probably a word you might consider making yourself familiar with- they (including you) try to make the simple complicated in an attempt to make (especially simple English) an esoteric endeavor- it ain't and the law has 0 to do with it.
You're correct about life being awesome, especially when a non-formally educated "twit" can put a formally educated jackass in their rightful place- under the table in reading comprehension.

I play the piano, and she recalls that I have given several recitals.

At least we share an interest in music.