Re: Judge Jones: No Surpise


AC wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2005 15:55:58 -0800,
> Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > AC wrote:
> >> On 23 Dec 2005 12:01:14 -0800,
> >> Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > AC wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Dec 2005 05:19:51 -0800,
> >> >> zawadzki@xxxxxxxxx <zawadzki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> >> >> A Darwinian judge rules as expected.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jones, like all the status quo outlaws; adjudicating what they think
> >> >> >> the Constitution **ought** to have said.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Ray Martinez
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ray, who are you to judge the Judge ? You aren't even knowledgable
> >> >> > about the basics of the case. This indicated by your post within this
> >> >> > thread you did not even recognize the names of the key defendants.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Does a person have to be an actual scientist to know gravity holds his
> >> > body to the ground ?
> >> >
> >> > Jones, a "christian" ruled for the ACLU = Jones is not a real
> >> > christian. You are asking for everyone to disconnect their brain.
> >>
> >> No, we're demanding that you answer whether lying under oath is right or
> >> wrong.
> >
> > Question is an insult. I honestly believe you do not realize it. The
> > answer is self-evident. I will not enter the slippery slope of guessing
> > what your ultimate point is, however I wonder much why you refuse to
> > make it except by murky innuendo.
>
> In other words, you are a coward who refuses to condemn two of your own.
>

Negative.

I choose to abide by longstanding legal precepts that say a person is
innocent until proven guilty.

If the two persons at issue committed perjury then I hope they are
indicted and have their day in court.


> >
> >> You have simply decided the Judge did something wrong
> >
> > You assume the ruling is correct. We know it is not. The ruling was
> > expected. The ruling reflects what is wrong with Law since the Scopes
> > Trial: Constitution changed against God by atheists and pseudo-theists.
> > We now know the real cause is God and the darkening penalty.
>
> The ruling is besides the point. We're talking about two people who lied
> under oath.
>

They are not even formally accused. Yet you have lynched them already.

> >
> >> and you don't
> >> even seem to know anything about the Dover case. You are being dishonest
> >> yourself, by slandering a man when you don't even know why he said what he
> >> said.
> >>
> >
> > Jones, a "christian" ruled for the ACLU = Jones is not as such. He is
> > like the Pharisees deceived by Satan thinking he is a christian/theist.
> > The Constitution was shitted upon by atheist puppet Jones. If he was a
> > real theist he would have voided the current corruption of the
> > Establishment Clause and ruled atheist origins theory unconstitutional
> > since it says the God of the Bible is falsified.
>
> This isn't about the Constitution, Ray. I'm asking you whether the two
> "Christians" who lied under oath are right or wrong?
>

Anyone who lies under oath is wrong.

The ACLU witnesses, persons who say they are offended by ID = lie.

Since when does a personal viewpoint have Constitutional standing ?

I am offended by Darwinism = groundless = hypocrisy of the above.

You Darwinists are overlooking the total lies of the atheist hate union
and their puppet judges claiming theism in order to shield their
atheist rulings.

Doesn't really matter since the entire success is caused by the Romans
1 blinding penalty = God has punished them all for giving Him the
finger.

New England "churches" are the most satanic churches in the nation.
Completely sold out to the ways of the world; christianity peacefully
co-existing with the enemies of God = those churches represent the
deceived Pharisees who worshipped Satan when they thought they were
worshipping God IF you believe Jesus and Biblical typology. I do.



> >
> > Darwinism makes that claim.
>
>
> I refuse to let you change the topic. I know this is driving you nuts.
>
> >
> > Yet it is Constitutional and ID is not = proof of Satan controlling the
> > masses whom God has darkened for giving Him the finger.
>
> Don't care.
>
> >
> > How can the theory that was created to falsify the Bible be
> > Constitutional and the theory showing His existence be un ?
> >
> > Answer: proof of Satan.
>
> Don't care.
>
> >
> > No greater proof.
> >
> > We know the Constitution was intended to protect Religion and not ban
> > it. This atheization corruption is caused by God blinding people who
> > piss Him off. Either way the Bible is proven literally true.
>
> Don't care.
>
>
> >
> > This is so obvious. All you can now do is act like you don't understand
> >= proof of blinding penalty.
>
>
> No, it's proof that you won't condemn two lying Creationists because of your
> sympathies. You will instead violate Biblical law by condemning Judge
> Jones.
>

If they are convicted then I am with you.


> Worse, you don't even know why Judge Jones called BOnsell and Buckingham
> liars. I'll wager you don't even know anything about Bonsell and
> Buckingham.
>

I know what you claim about them.

A Darwinian judge calling christians liars ?

This in itself indicates they are not.

> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> It's pretty sad, eh? And yet I suspect the extent of Ray's knowledge is
> >> >> probably typical of a lot of those shouting about the evils of Judge Jones.
> >> >> They have no idea what they're talking about, and yet they will impune the
> >> >> judge.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jones ruled the Constitution allows the theory that was developed to
> >> > rant against the God of the Bible as Constitutional but not the theory
> >> > that supports Him.
> >>
> >> That's not what Judge Jones said at all, Ray. Now you're just lying.
> >>
> >
> > Yes he did. He ruled for the atheist ACLU who had puppet theists lie
> > their ass off about being offended over nothing. This is hate and
> > censorship being adjudicated under constitutional authority. I am
> > comforted knowing the Bible explains it all as God blinding persons who
> > flip Him off.
>
> You have no idea what he said. You're just lying now.
>
> >
> >
> >> >The Bible is used in the courtroom as an icon of
> >> > swearing to tell the truth. The Constitution was written by men who
> >> > owned Bible's. Their intent was not for the Constitution to outlaw the
> >> > Bible and evidence for it.
> >>
> >> Nothing at all to do with the issue at hand (and in fact quite wrong, at
> >> least a couple of the Founding Fathers weren't even Christians by any
> >> meaningful description of the word).
> >>
> >
> > Lopsided attention to 2 or 3 while ignoring the 100's.
>
> Let's add US history to the subjects of which you are ignorant.
>
> >
> >> Ray, you're ignorant and a liar. You bear false witness against Judge
> >> Jones, and you don't even know why he ruled that Bonsell and Buckingham
> >> lied. You know nothing of the material matters of this trial, and yet
> >> because you simply thinking that the Dover school board is on your side,
> >> you'll make grand pronouncements.
> >>
> >> YOu are intellectually dishonest and ignorant of the facts.
> >>
> >> I will ask again. Is lying under oath alright?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Aaron Clausen
> >> mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > AC you are a Darwinist.
> >
> > Your support of the ruling is predictable as my dislike.
>
> Nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'm asking you whether lying under
> oath is right or wrong, and you don't even know a goddamn thing about the
> ruling.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

I have answered your question.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the point of convertables [sic]?
    ... evidence sufficient to establish a thing ... Firstly, you admitted that god ... You're lying again, kiddie diddler. ... You seem to like dictionaries. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Whats the point of convertables [sic]?
    ... evidence sufficient to establish a thing ... Firstly, you admitted that god ... You're lying again, kiddie diddler. ... You seem to like dictionaries. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Whats the point of convertables [sic]?
    ... evidence sufficient to establish a thing ... Firstly, you admitted that god ... You're lying again, kiddie diddler. ... You seem to like dictionaries. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: Towards a resolution . . .
    ... Scout Oath, Scout Law, and Pledge of Allegiance; ... you so insistent on requiring and hearing an oath to God, ... The Duty to God is an integral part of the Scouting program, ... they'll continue to keep picking away at 6-17 year old boys. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: A Christian response to Martial Art?
    ... prohibition to Adam in Gen 2:17 to herself? ... And Eve *knew* she wasn't there. ... So Eve would hardly believe Adam if he told her that God had ... the first recorded human oath. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)