Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, you call it ‘ideological bloviation’ – I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy.

There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  It’s my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences from her role as a judge; her understanding of the role of a judge as compared to that of a legislating body; her views on foreign law; her views on important constitutional protections, and whether or not she agrees with President Obama’s “empathy standard.” 

Judge Sotomayor provided just a glimpse of where she might stand on these issues. 

In her opening statement she declared that her judicial philosophy was “fidelity to the law.”  She also explained that she structures her opinions “by setting out what the law requires and then by explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected.”  I look forward to Judge Sotomayor explaining when and why she would reject “what the law requires.”

And, Barry, it won’t take questions from the gallery to illustrate key areas of the law – including legalized abortion.  In questioning today before the Committee, Sotomayor said she considers the question of abortion rights to be ‘settled law’ and says there’s a constitutional right to privacy.  Sotomayor told the Senators that “there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution.” She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law.

I believe Judge Sotomayor will be treated with respect during these hearings. At the same time, though, she will have to address troubling statements and comments she has made.  And, there will be – and should be – serious questions about judicial activism – and what she considers to be the proper role of a judge. 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(104)
post a comment
DSJulian

posted July 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm


Jay sekulow knows full well how legal decisions work. The lawyers go to the “book” in the Law Library in the County Courthouse. The “book” contains an index of various types of court cases and what is required for proof to establish a claim according to current law and precedent. So if your case requires A, B, C, and D then each side has to show why their A,B C, and D is or is not proven by the evidence. What makes the cases interesting, of course, is that most parties can only prove from one to three of the required points conclusively. The remainder falls into a gray area where the attorneys try to convince the judge that their interpretation fits the requirements.
All the judge is required to say is that A,B, C, and D have been met (or not met) and make the award. Judge Sotomayor is saying that as a judge if she rules that A, B, C, or D is not met, she explains why. This is a great attribute. The losing party is never left without knowing why his or her court case was lost.
What is interesting is how many times attorneys collect fees for cases where they tell their client they have a good chance of winning when they know full well right up front that their client cannot meet the requirements of A, B, C, and D…
Sotomeyor says she may sympathize with your position, but if you fail to prove A, B, C, and D as required by the law — which is where she declares her ultimate allegiance – she will not rule in your favor. Just what we need — she has been, is, and will be compassionate but strictly by the “book”.
One can only hope that the Republicans will keep up this facade and keep attacking her over trivial nonsense. Then the GOP will slink back into the racist quagmire from which it originally emerged.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm


Sotomayor said what she said, then said it again several times over seven years. She didn’t revisit the statements. Didn’t recant them. Didn’t apologize for them.
Only AFTER the statement was brought up recently did the president try to “clear up” what he says he thinks she says she said. It took, what, seven years to say something, and, now, she’s saying that WE misunderstand what she said, that she didn’t mean what she said a bunch of times, using virtually the same words. That’s dishonest and disingenuous, and those are not qualities a justice should have. The mere appearance of wrongdoing is enough to trigger doubt.
There is an order of operations in judging. First, the judge must adhere to clear language of the law. Then, if meaning is not clear there, the judge goes to legislative intent, then, if that doesn’t work, legislative history. Nowhere do we find empathy as part of the operation.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm


==Sotomayor said she considers the question of abortion rights to be ‘settled law’ and says there’s a constitutional right to privacy.==
That’s relevant only if you stop at the notion that the only person in Roe is “Roe.”
Roe stopped there cuz nobody argued, from law, that the unborn are persons. Blackmun said so, about two-thirds of the way down. He said, “If this suggestion of ‘personhood’ is established,” SCOTUS would have had to rule the other way, that it still may, if “personhood,” in law, is shown.
Only persons get Due Process, and, so, it is vital for you, Sekulow, to get the states to define “person” as beginning at conception, a la Montana and North Dakota, et al. After all, if the Legislative can define corporations as “persons,” why can’t they define the unborn as “persons”? And don’t fo’get inheritance law which treats the unborn as “persons” — jural persons — in that they have “future interests.” Inorder to enjoy “future interests,” they must survive, and that’s where the state comes in to protect.
You have-ta realize that you’re not gonna get this Congress/prez to go along with us, and, so, you gotta go for the states, and it seems that the states are willing. Git ta-gittin’, Sekulow!



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted July 14, 2009 at 9:11 pm


What is unsettling to me is the fact that Judge Sotomayor “considers the question of abortion rights to be ‘settled law’ and says there’s a constitutional right to privacy”. What exactly does she mean when she says abortion rights is settled law? Except for the concrete foundation of the US Constitution, can we ever say that law is really ‘settled’ once and for all? If so, why do we need lawyers or judges?This statement gives folks a clue about her partiality on this issue. Moreover, she states that she will decide cases based on the facts and law, but her words and actions differ based upon her previous decisions using the infamous Obama “empathy” philosophy. All the coaching she received for the hearings has prompted her to say the right things but from her history of decisions as a judge, does the walk really match the talk? This is the question I pose to the Senate and the American people.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm


As used in these hearings, the term “settled” is not too monumental. It is nothing more than our current legal understanding. It is certainly subject to being stirred up and becoming “unsettled”. I hope not.
This is all one area of the law that I think most of us find a little “unsettling”. I would like to think that there are absolute ethical principles that don’t shift whichever way the wind blows. From my view, the right to have autonomy over one’s body should be absolute. Others view this quite differently.
Perhaps, abortion is so contentious that there can and will never be agreement to the point that abortion rights can be “settled” for more than a few decades at a time. Hence the need for a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 15, 2009 at 3:16 pm


==…the right to have autonomy over one’s body should be absolute.==
Which body? The woman’s, the father’s, or the body of the person inside the woman?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 15, 2009 at 3:24 pm


Again, SCOTUS, in Roe, gave us a gift about two-thirds of the way down, where the Court says,
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
Blackmun is practically beggin’ for a definition of “personhood” so the Court can rule the other way.
So, all state legislatures — part of the defining branch — have to do is say, “Personhood begins at conception,” and VOILÁ! the Constitution will protect the unborn cuz the Constitution protects persons.



report abuse
 

ROY M.

posted July 16, 2009 at 1:00 am


There’s no place in the Constitution that states a right to privacy as such. There’s only a section on unreasonable search and seizure. An unborn child is a human being and should not be aborted period, except to save the life of the mother. That’s re-interpreting the law to say that the mother’s body is her own and that she may do with it what she will as a right to her right to privacy. What kind of idiots go to law school nowadays that don’t have any conception of right and wrong or the sanctity of human life? The opinions and decisions of the judges from the time our nation was founded should be compared to what the decisions and opinions have been for the past 30 or 40 years. People will find a vast difference in the opinions and decisions reached. They will also find a vast difference in the philosophies, beliefs, opinions, and decisions of the judges of our early history as compared to 30 or 40 years in the 20th century.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 3:43 am


==There’s no place in the Constitution that states a right to privacy as such.==
That’s true. SCOTUS cut’n'pasted parts of the Constitution to come up with “privacy.”
==An unborn child is a human being…==
Unfortunately, being human doesn’t get Constitution cred. “Person” is what gets cred in court. That’s cuz the Constitution protects person, persons and the People.
So, since we ain’t gonna get this Congress to define “personhood,” we gotta get the state legislatures to do it. Montana, North Dakota and Mississippi are in the process of doing just that.
==… and should not be aborted period…==
True enough.
==… except to save the life of the mother.==
“They” will say that “life of the mother” can mean so many things.
==What kind of idiots go to law school nowadays that don’t have any conception of right and wrong or the sanctity of human life?==
Libs and those who helped elect Libs.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 16, 2009 at 4:05 pm


They will also find a vast difference in the philosophies, beliefs, opinions, and decisions of the judges of our early history as compared to 30 or 40 years in the 20th century.
Boris says: Spoken like a true backwards thinking Bible believing conservative. Let’s all stick with archaic ideas and beliefs that have shown themselves to be idiotic.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 4:42 pm


No SCOTUS decision on the matter says that the State may not regulate abortion.
SCOTUS has said throughout that the State must have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion.
What would that interest be? DUE PROCESS. Process that is due.
Who gets Due Process? Persons. The Constitution protects persons.
What’s missing in Roe? Unborn person, as the law sees it. No one presented the Court with an unborn person. The only person in the case is Roe, and only persons get Due Process.
However, about two-thirds of the way down, the Roe Court says,
“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”
In other words, had “personhood” of the unborn been before the Roe Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way!
This is the gift of Roe Libs have missed. It gives us key, Court reasoning to overturn Roe. It tells us what was missing and what we need to establish — a suggestion of an establishment of “personhood.” Only a suggestion. A hint in law that the unborn are persons in law. Treated as persons. “Jural persons,” just like corporations.
We already have that, though. Inheritance law says that “future interests” begins at conception. The unborn TREATED AS PERSONS — JURAL PERSONS.
Given that we’re not gonna get this Congress to go along, we go to state legislatures, and all state legislatures gotta do, as part of the defining branch of government, is to define “personhood” as beginning at conception, and VOILÀ, debate won! The woman’s undue burden becomes the woman’s due burden not to harm the person inside her; and, as persons, the unborn get Due Process.
This is easy, and we oughta jump at the chance to win this thing.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 16, 2009 at 5:59 pm


You’ll get your person hood of a fetus when a fetus is able to bring their own case to the court. Since that is never happening your goal of turning American women into government controlled breeding pigs will not be realized. Fascist.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 6:31 pm


Boris
July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
You’ll get your person hood of a fetus when a fetus is able to bring their own case to the court.
————————————————
No need for the unborn person to bring a case to court any more than a comatose, 92-year-old woman can bring her own case to court.
Boris
July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
Since that is never happening…
————————————————–
It’s happening in several states, as we write.
Boris
July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
… your goal of turning American women into government controlled breeding pigs will not be realized.
————————————————-
That’s not my goal, of course.
My goal is to protect ALL persons in the matter cuz the Constitution protects ALL persons.
Boris
July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
Fascist.
—————————————————
I’m not one, but if that’s the way you gotta try to lessen your pain…



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted July 16, 2009 at 6:41 pm


Abortion rights are settled and that’s why, even after the Supreme Court is stacked with GOP appointments, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court they answer to posterity not to the whims of the temporary majority.
The perception is that a handful of mindless GOP idiots can only repeat the same handful of talking points that have already been “‘splained” repeatedly. They are lookimg more and more like hypocrites, racists, and intolerant bigots with no regard for jurisprudence at all.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 6:54 pm


==…Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.==
When, as Justice Blackmun suggested, “personhood” of the unborn is established, it will be moot.
== Once someone is appointed to the Supreme Court they answer to posterity not to the whims of the temporary majority. ==
No, they anwser to the law.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm


DSJulian
July 16, 2009 6:41 PM
Abortion rights are settled …
——————————————-
As far as Due Process goes for the woman. That is, until the suggestion of the “personhood” of the unborn is established, as Justice Blackmun wrote.
Neither Roe, nor the following rulings, say that abortion can never be regulated. They say there must be a compelling State interest in regulating it. A compelling State interest would be Due Process. Only persons get Due Process, and Blackmun said that, if the unborn child is a person, he gets Due Process.
No case, by law, was made, in Roe to establish the unborn as persons, and that’s why Blackmun said what he said, about two-thirds of the way down. We’re gonna run with that.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 16, 2009 at 9:32 pm


Roy M,
The fact that the phrase “right to privacy” does not appear in the Constitution means precisely nothing. Neither does “innocent until proven guilty”, a right to marry, a right to bear children, a right to travel, a right to vote, etc, etc. Some rights are naturally derived from others and exist in spite of a lack of enumeration in the document.
I find it rather hypocritical of the religious right to demand that rights for liberals be in writing before they be recognized but rights for conservatives can be “god-given” rights and exist regardless. Funny how all that works out.
As for your assertion that there is no right to privacy and control over your own body, be careful what you wish for. Perhaps, someday you will be sick and need an operation. Perhaps, the government, will prevent you from having control over what happens to your body because well, you don’t have any specific rights to control what happens to your body. I would think it that circumstance when it affects you, you will maybe change your tune about having autonomy over your own body.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 16, 2009 at 9:44 pm


Mr. Incredible,
What exactly is this “moment of conception”. Is it when syngamy occurs? Or later? Given that a zygote may later becomes twins, how can there be an original moment of conception. If the zygote does twin, which embryo gets to claim the earlier moment of conception.
It would serve you well to think things through a little deeper. Your simplistic statements about a moment of conception are revealing. The world and nature not always simplistic. Get used to it.
Pontificating and moralizing when the facts dispute you only makes you appear to be an intolerant religious person who wants to force others to practice your faith, even when they don’t believe in your cult and mythology.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 16, 2009 at 11:31 pm


Rich
July 16, 2009 9:32 PM
Roy M,
The fact that the phrase “right to privacy” does not appear in the Constitution means precisely nothing.
——————————————————————–
Two YOU, it means nothing. We understand that.
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:32 PM
Neither does “innocent until proven guilty”, a right to marry, a right to bear children, a right to travel, a right to vote, etc, etc. Some rights are naturally derived from others and exist in spite of a lack of enumeration in the document.
——————————————————————–
So, to YOU, anything can be read into the Constitution in order to justify whatever anybody who reads those things into the Constitution wants to do. We get it.
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:32 PM
I find it rather hypocritical of the religious right to demand that rights for liberals be in writing before they be recognized but rights for conservatives can be “god-given” rights and exist regardless. Funny how all that works out.
——————————————————————–
The Rights given by God are spelled out.
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:32 PM
As for your assertion that there is no right to privacy and control over your own body, be careful what you wish for.
——————————————————————–
You have control over your own body, with exceptions.
However, what control does the unborn person have over his own body?
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Mr. Incredible,
What exactly is this “moment of conception”.
——————————————————————–
You don’t know???
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Is it when syngamy occurs? Or later? Given that a zygote may later becomes twins, how can there be an original moment of conception. If the zygote does twin, which embryo gets to claim the earlier moment of conception.
——————————————————————–
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 262, defines it as, “the beginning of pregnancy. As to human beings, the fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions.”
How long can the fertilized egg exist by itself? One minute? Five minutes? Five weeks? Five months? Five years? It survives for as long as it survives, and, as long as it survives, it is a person, or, at least, treated as a person — that is, “jural person.”
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
It would serve you well to think things through a little deeper.
——————————————————————–
As you can see so far, I already have.
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Your simplistic statements about a moment of conception are revealing.
——————————————————————–
Those who make the law will decide.
Rich
July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Pontificating and moralizing when the facts dispute you only makes you appear to be an intolerant religious person who wants to force others to practice your faith, even when they don’t believe in your cult and mythology.
——————————————————————–
Sounds like the way you people operate.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:07 am


Two YOU —-> to YOU



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:06 am


Well Mr. Incredible,
You have been busy. Too bad you didn’t write anything coherent or on point. As well, you take sections of my comments and then post what you must be considering as a witty retort. That would be great and I am sure you are one witty guy however, none of your comments even relate to what you are trying to refute.
You snatch phrase from Black’s Law, wow, how lame. You copy and paste the phrase “fecundation of the female ovum”. Real nice, still doesn’t answer the point because this “fecundation” process can be broken down into several moments. So, hot shot, which particular moment is it? (You can read and reason, can’t you?)
As any good dues paying member of a cult would do, you assert that the rights given by god are spelled out. Wow, I didn’t know that. Where? As how do we know that Zeus, Thor, God or Gandalf spelled these out? Yeah, exactly. We don’t because it is a primitive myth.
If you think you have thought deeper, well, I guess a well is only as deep as it was dug.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:30 am


Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
Well Mr. Incredible,
You have been busy.
————————————–
Nuttin’ I can’t handle.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
Too bad you didn’t write anything coherent or on point.
———————————————
What I wrote was coherent and on point. It went over your head.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
…none of your comments even relate to what you are trying to refute.
————————————————
It’s just that you don’t comprehend what I wrote.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
You snatch phrase from Black’s Law, wow, how lame.
——————————————
YOU asked me for a definition of “conception.” the only definition that applies is a legal one, and I supplied it. I don’t care whether you reject it. It is what it is.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
You copy and paste the phrase “fecundation of the female ovum”.
—————————————–
I didn’t copy and paste it; I quoted it.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
Real nice, still doesn’t answer the point because this “fecundation” process can be broken down into several moments. So, hot shot, which particular moment is it?
———————————————-
At the point when the woman becomes pregnant.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
As any good dues paying member of a cult would do, you assert that the rights given by god are spelled out.
———————————————–
I said no such thing. I said that Rights given by God are spelled out.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
Wow, I didn’t know that.
——————————————–
We know you don’t know.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
Where?
————————————————
In His Word.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
As how do we know that Zeus, Thor, God or Gandalf spelled these out?
———————————————
You don’t know, and that’s the point.
Rich
July 17, 2009 2:06 AM
We don’t because it is a primitive myth.
————————————————–
That’s the way you must explain your unbelief and easde your pain and guilt before God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:48 am


==…which particular moment is it?==
“Fertilization of an ovum” which is “fusion of ovum and sperm following sexual intercourse.” [The LaRousse Desk Reference] It is the moment of pregnancy.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:57 am


==…”fecundation” process can be broken down into several moments.==
Actually, it’s “fecundation of the female ovum.” That happens once with one egg.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 9:41 am


Mr. Not-So-Incredible,
re: “the only definition that applies is a legal one”
Wow, are you drunk? Are you able to even conceive that there is a reality that may be different than a man-made definition?
re:
I said “As any good dues paying member of a cult would do, you assert that the rights given by god are spelled out”
You replied:
“I said no such thing. I said that Rights given by God are spelled out.”
Again, are you drunk?
re: “pain and guilt before God”
That is actually pretty funny. Since there is no god, it would be kind of tough to be guilt ridden before god. That stuff is so lame and on par with voodoo and sacrificing a goat.
re:
I said: “You copy and paste the phrase “fecundation of the female ovum”.
You said: “I didn’t copy and paste it; I quoted it.”
Wow, you are a genius. You do know that you can copy and paste with your computer. You don’t have to type in every single word.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 17, 2009 at 9:57 am


Rich,
Just ignore Incrudible. He’s an uneducated blowhard with nothing nice or intelligent to say, in other words he’s a typical fundamentalist Christian. He’s been suspended from this site several times now.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 10:37 am


Boris,
You are likely right about Mr. Incred. He seems to be not getting enough oxygen.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 1:10 pm


==Are you able to even conceive that there is a reality that may be different than a man-made definition? ==
You — YOU — wanted a definition. I gave you the legal definition. I can’t help that you reject it. I don’t care that you do. It is what it is.
==I said “As any good dues paying member of a cult would do, you assert that the rights given by god are spelled out”
You replied:
“I said no such thing. I said that Rights given by God are spelled out.”
Again, are you drunk?==
No, I just point out that you purposely misquoted me, that’s all.
==I said: “You copy and paste the phrase “fecundation of the female ovum”.
You said: “I didn’t copy and paste it; I quoted it.”
Wow, you are a genius. You do know that you can copy and paste with your computer. You don’t have to type in every single word. ==
I wanted to be precise. You reject that. That’s really tuff.
Boris
July 17, 2009 9:57 AM
Rich,
Just ignore Incrudible.
———————————————-
Yes, it would make things easier for me.
Boris
July 17, 2009 9:57 AM
He’s an uneducated blowhard with nothing nice or intelligent to say…
————————————————
Oh, you’re talking about me. I thought, for a second, that you are talking about YOU.
Boris
July 17, 2009 9:57 AM
… in other words he’s a typical fundamentalist Christian.
————————————————
Thanks for the compliment!
Boris
July 17, 2009 9:57 AM
He’s been suspended from this site several times now.
————————————————–
Actually, I haven’t been suspended at all. I left several times cuz I had other things to do. But you can believe anything you want; it doesn’t impact me.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm


Mr. Incredible,
re: “But you can believe anything you want; it doesn’t impact me.”
Apparently it does impact you. People like me and the majority of Americans support the right to choose and the right of privacy. We are not going away. I am involved and will be working to make sure that conservative Christians are denied in their attempt to enact laws that prohibit the most basic American value, freedom. I also will be working to make sure that Christians are denied every time they seek to gain special legal privileges in this country. You can be sure that I will do whatever it takes to keep your cult out of the local schools.
So, you can say what I believe doesn’t impact you. You can live in any fantasy world of your choosing. Because I am involved, I vote, I go to school board meetings, I donate to groups that support liberty and I write to my elected officials, my beliefs will impact you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm


==re: “But you can believe anything you want; it doesn’t impact me.”
Apparently it does impact you.==
It doesn’t. However, if you wanna think it does, that doesn’t impact me either.
== People like me and the majority of Americans support the right to choose and the right of privacy.==
The latest poll shows a majority against elective abortion.
The Right to choose and the woman’s Right to privacy hinges on whether we define the unborn as “persons.” If they are, then the Constitution protects THEIR right to choose and THEIR privacy, as Justice Blackmun says inRoe, itself.
==We are not going away.==
Who cares.
== I am involved and will be working to make sure that conservative Christians are denied in their attempt to enact laws that prohibit the most basic American value, freedom.==
“Freedom” for ALL persons, huh. So, if we define the unborn child as a “person,” you would support Freedom for THAT person, too. That’s good.
No person has the Right to choose, then to act on that choice, to kill another person.
== I also will be working to make sure that Christians are denied every time they seek to gain special legal privileges in this country.==
We’re not seeking special legal privileges. We seek to enforce the special legal privileges we already have, per the Constitution.
== You can be sure that I will do whatever it takes to keep your cult out of the local schools. ==
Even if what you do is illegal, huh.
I am not part of a cult. So, I don’t have to worry.
==So, you can say what I believe doesn’t impact you.==
Gee, thanks, but I don’t need your permission.
==You can live in any fantasy world of your choosing.==
Thanks, again, but, in being born again, I chose not to be part of your fantasy world.
== Because I am involved, I vote, I go to school board meetings, I donate to groups that support liberty and I write to my elected officials, my beliefs will impact you.==
I say the same thing, and I will impact YOU. You don’t scare me. You’ll never stop me and other Christians, no matter what you do.
Things are moving our way — or, rather, God’s Way through Christ.
Just wait ’til November, ’10, and you’ll see.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:19 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Thanks for the laugh. Your stuff is great. I especially like that part about you not being part of a cult. That is really precious.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm


==I especially like that part about you not being part of a cult.==
I’m part of what YOU call a “cult.” That doesn’t mean that I’m part of a “cult.”
However, you’re gonna see what ghosts you wanna see, and dance up what demons you wanna dance up. Good luck wit dat.
So, no matter what you call us, no matter what you do, no matter what you say, we say what we say what our Father in Heaven says and do what we see our Father in Heaven do, and there’s nothing you people can do about it, not to stop us.
See you in November, ’10, when we begin to correct the situation that voters screwed up last November. Then, we’ll take care of ’12, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 5:05 pm


we say what we say what our Father in Heaven says —> we say what our Father in Heaven says



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 17, 2009 at 5:48 pm


Ah yes. The word “cult” does have negative connotations doesn’t it? I can see why you would choose to run from it. Nobody wants to be part of cult. What could be more embarassing?
It is just truly a dog-gone shame that the word cult does apply to you. As much as a I wish I could, I can’t help you with that though. The truth is, Christians are no different than Scientologists, Muslims or Hindus, just another set of beliefs, no better, no worse.
I am sure that you will have to admit that any faith meets the primary and preferred definition. Doing anything else would be intellectually dishonest.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cult?view=uk
However, I do know the word is uncomfortable for you. Maybe you can pray that Jesus will miracle up a change and have the folks at Oxford exclude Christinity from the definition.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 17, 2009 at 8:16 pm


==We are not going away.==
You’re already gone.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 17, 2009 at 10:38 pm


Boris
July 17, 2009 8:16 PM
==We are not going away.==
You’re already gone.
——————————————————————–
Yes, “gone” for Christ! What a deal!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:19 am


Boris
July 16, 2009 5:59 PM
You’ll get your person hood of a fetus when a fetus is able to bring their own case to the court.
———————————————–
Guardian ad litem fits the bill.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 18, 2009 at 9:57 am


Yes, “gone” for Christ! What a deal!
Nope. Christ is gone too. But no such person ever existed anyway. Jesusneverexisted.com. Read it and then tell me you still believe in Jesus. ROFL!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 1:56 pm


Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
“Yes, ‘gone’ for Christ! What a deal!
Nope.
————————————————–
Yup.
Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Christ is gone too.
———————————————-
Nope. He’s here and everywhere He’s received.
Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
But no such person ever existed anyway.
————————————————-
The witnesses who were there and wrote about Him say otherwise.
The witnesses today who receive Him and see His work in their lives say otherwise.
Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Jesusneverexisted.com.
——————————————————
Propagandistic deviltry.
Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Read it and then tell me you still believe in Jesus.
—————————————————
Why should I read it? You’re telling me what it says, telling us what others are telling you. The Devil says the same thing which is no truer now that when the two of you began telling your lies.
Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
ROFL!
—————————————————-
We’re glad to see that you find what you write funny. We do, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 2:14 pm


Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Christ is gone too.
———————————————-
The Devil says that, too.
However, the Word defeated the works of the Devil, even those others who try to propagate his works. So, what you try to sow has already been defeated.
(Joh 1:5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
(Joh 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
(Joh 1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(Joh 1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:16) And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
(Joh 1:17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Joh 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm


Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Jesusneverexisted.com.
——————————————————
That’s propagandistic deviltry defeated first by Christ, then by
http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/is-there-evidence-that-jesus-lived/



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:23 pm


Mr. Incredible,
Actually, I believe Boris was saying that what you wrote was funny, in the pathetic sense of course. I know you are just being precious again but we don’t want to make people think that you are so far out of touch that you don’t understand simple English sentences.
Along with that, the scripture garbage you quoted is even funnier, in the sad and pathetic sense. You can believe all that nonsense, it is certainly your right. It is all on par with Mormonism, Islam and Star Trek so it seems no different than playing pretend as a child. I notice the Catholic Church has cool costumes, Mormons have their magic underwear and the Trekkies have the cool ears. What does cult wear, special jewelry to ward off evil spirits and demons?
“Propagandistic deviltry” – Who are you, the Church Lady?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:24 pm


Boris
July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Jesusneverexisted.com.
——————————————————
That’s propagandistic deviltry defeated first by Christ, then also by
http://www.sign2god.com/ww/Jesus-exists.html



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm


==…the scripture garbage…==
The Pharisees said to to Him, too.
==…you quoted is even funnier…==
We’ll see, on Judgment Day, how funny you think He is.
==… in the sad and pathetic sense.==
Ungodly thoughts don’t impact me.
== You can believe all that nonsense…==
Gee, thanks, but I don’t need your permission, and I don’t seek it.
==… it is certainly your right.==
God, through Christ, gave me that Right.
== It is all on par with Mormonism, Islam and Star Trek…==
You forgot “atheism” and “evolution.”
==… so it seems no different than playing pretend as a child.==
To the scoffer, it wouldn’t.
== I notice the Catholic Church has cool costumes, Mormons have their magic underwear and the Trekkies have the cool ears. What does cult wear, special jewelry to ward off evil spirits and demons?==
I’m not into denominations and their idolworship and traditions. So, I dunno.
==”Propagandistic deviltry”…==
Yes, indeed.
==… – Who are you, the Church Lady? ==
Must I be?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm


The Pharisees said to to Him, too. —-> The Pharisees said that to Him, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:34 pm


==Actually, I believe Boris was saying that what you wrote was funny, in the pathetic sense of course.==
So what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 3:41 pm


==”Propagandistic deviltry” – Who are you, the Church Lady? ==
(Joh 1:21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
(Joh 1:22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
(Joh 1:23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
(Joh 1:24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:02 pm


==What does cult wear, special jewelry to ward off evil spirits and demons?==
Yes, members of cults believe that those things ward off evil spirits. They are wrong, of course.
Those who are born again rely on God, through Christ, to save them:
(Eph 6:10) Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
(Eph 6:11) Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
(Eph 6:12) For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(Eph 6:13) Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
(Eph 6:14) Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
(Eph 6:15) And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
(Eph 6:16) Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
(Eph 6:17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
(Eph 6:18) Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
(Eph 6:19) And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
(Eph 6:20) For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:04 pm


We know that you’re chokin’ on all that and that your eyes are burning.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:18 pm


== It is all on par with Mormonism, Islam and Star Trek…==
(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:20 pm


==Actually, I believe Boris was saying that what you wrote was funny, in the pathetic sense of course.==
(2Co 2:11) Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:30 pm


==I am involved, I vote, I go to school board meetings, I donate to groups that support liberty and I write to my elected officials, my beliefs will impact you.==
(Job 5:12) He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise.
(Job 5:13) He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.
(Job 5:14) They meet with darkness in the daytime, and grope in the noonday as in the night.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:35 pm


Anywho…
Any radicalism from Sotomayor, on the Court, will be defeated by the others. They will check her, if she gets too smartmouthed. So, I’m not THAT worried all up’n'here.
In order for her to have credibility with the other members and with the American People, she’s gonna have-ta tone herself down.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:38 pm


So, where’s everybody?
Oh…
(Job 5:16) So the poor hath hope, and iniquity stoppeth her mouth.
Yeah, now I get it.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 4:43 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You are truly, incredibly credible! Thank you for showing the Light and relying on the Word of God in putting down the devices of Satan of which we are well aware!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm


Hey Mr. Incredible,
Looks like Boscoe is your groupie for the day. Don’t let the fame and adulation go to your head. Don’t want to end up like Ted Haggard. Of course, you all eventually do.
re: “We know that you’re chokin’ on all that and that your eyes are burning.”
Not likely, I don’t choke on gibberish and silly myths. Mostly I was working out in my wood shop. Yes, I do carpentry, just like Jesus. Difference is, I exist whereas Jesus exists only in the mind of cult members.
Don’t you have to go to church or something? Maybe whip yourself as penance? Pray extra hard to fight off your sexual impulses? Speak some magic phrases that will make Jesus love you? What are the cool magic words these days, Abracadabra, Sheezaam, stuff like that?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm


==Don’t want to end up like Ted Haggard. Of course, you all eventually do.==
Few do. Most don’t. I don’t and won’t.
==re: “We know that you’re chokin’ on all that and that your eyes are burning.”
Not likely…==
Yes, MOST likely.
==… I don’t choke on gibberish and silly myths.==
You have-ta say that to try to cover your pain.
== Mostly I was working out in my wood shop.==
On your new head?
== Yes, I do carpentry, just like Jesus.==
Not like Jesus. Jesus built up in God’s Word. You tear down.
== Difference is, I exist…==
There is a physical presence. You don’t exist in the presence of God.
==… whereas Jesus exists only in the mind of cult members.==
Cults believe Christ doesn’t exist. So, Christianity is not a cult, except only in your mind cuz that’s what you gotta do — play tricks on your mind — to get over you pain.
==Don’t you have to go to church or something?==
I have fellowship with others who are born again. I don’t need to go to a building to conform to the Word.
== Maybe whip yourself as penance?==
Nah. Romans 8:1 KJV.
== Pray extra hard to fight off your sexual impulses?==
Nah.
== Speak some magic phrases that will make Jesus love you?==
He doesn’t require magic phrases. What He did already shows that He loves me. I merely accepted His offer.
==What are the cool magic words these days, Abracadabra, Sheezaam, stuff like that? ==
Only in YOUR crafty world.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 5:36 pm


== Yes, I do carpentry, just like Jesus.==
What you build are temples to Satan who comes to steal, kill and destroy.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:14 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You’re doing and writing the right and correct things, according to the Word, PRAISE THE LORD! Persecution either bounces off us, or it goes in, down and out with the other waste. Either way, it doesn’t have license over us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:17 pm


==What are the cool magic words these days, Abracadabra, Sheezaam, stuff like that? ==
Thanks for demonstrating your knowledge of all the buzz words of the underworld. Gee, what a surprise.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm


== Yes, I do carpentry, just like Jesus.==
Now you say He existed. Make up your mind.
The carpentry, He did as a man.
As the Son of God, He further built up what you are trying to tear down.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:25 pm


== Yes, I do carpentry, just like Jesus.==
Boris is gonna get mad at you for undermining his wrongheadded statements that Jesus didn’t exist.
Maybe you need to consult him, or he needs to consult with you, before you two go making inconsistent statements. I suggest you two go and get a room and “hammer” it out.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm


wrongheadded —> wrongheaded



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:29 pm


Mr. Incredible,
EXCELLENT! Excellent.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:49 pm


==Don’t you have to go to church or something?==
(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 18, 2009 at 6:51 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You crack me up. Imagine, they let you out to drive a car, vote, and otherwise roam the streets with normal fully functioning citizens.
Here is where you totally lose. Yeah, I get the fact you a totally immersed in your cult and would like some company as part of the general “misery loves company” rule but you do this all wrong. A reasonable person would try to speak intelligently about the topic, provide compelling and convincing evidence, and maybe, even throw in some inescapable logic. Instead, you yammer on about moronic things from the wholly babble and cheerlead for the Republicans. (I assume that God speaks to you directly and you therefore know that God wants Republicans to win. )
You see, different people operate with different learning styles, personalities, temperaments, etc. I am one of those guys who lives for logic, an alien concept to you I know but if you ever hope to convince anyone that you are anything more than a freakin’ nutjob, you might try applying some logic to your arguments. Don’t bother posting quotes from your magic book of wonders because I don’t accept anything in it a more valid than a Harry Potter novel. It certainly doesn’t pass legal muster as proof of anything.
As well, don’t bother telling me that I am just blind to the truth and my heart is too hardened to accept the truth. That is the language of charlatans and fraudsters the world over. Using that methodology, I could tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands beside you if only you would open your heart and eyes and learn to see.
(BTW, the FSM is right beside you, judging you and reading your thoughts.)
So quit surfing porn, come back to Earth and try to maybe string two sentences together in a coherent way. It will do you a world of good.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm


Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Mr. Incredible,
You crack me up. Imagine, they let you out to drive a car, vote, and otherwise roam the streets with normal fully functioning citizens.
————————————————–
God is with me always:
(Joh 14:18) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Here is where you totally lose.
—————————————————-
Romans 8:1 KJV
I never lose with Christ.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Yeah, I get the fact you a totally immersed in your cult…
———————————————–
Cults don’t lift up Christ.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… and would like some company as part of the general “misery loves company” rule…
————————————————–
I’m not a Lib. Libs wanna make misery so they can say, “We’re here to he’p you!”
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… but you do this all wrong.
————————————————-
According to YOUR standards. I go by God’s Standard.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
A reasonable person would try to speak intelligently about the topic…
————————————————-
Translation: “If you would speak intelligently, you’d agree with me.”
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… provide compelling and convincing evidence…
————————————————-
You reject compelling and convincing evidence. You gotta look to yourself to explain that.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… and maybe, even throw in some inescapable logic.
————————————————-
Been there. Done that.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Instead, you yammer on about moronic things from the wholly babble and cheerlead for the Republicans.
—————————————————-
You yammer on about moronic things and cheerlead for Libzis.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
(I assume that God speaks to you directly…
——————————————————
He promised to do so, and He does,through His Word. Scoffers don’t get that.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… and you therefore know that God wants Republicans to win. )
———————————————————
They are more closely aligned than the Libs with the Word of God.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
You see, different people operate with different learning styles, personalities, temperaments, etc.
———————————————————
Translation: “I wanna do what I wanna do, and, so, standards gotta be floating so’s I can justify what I wanna do.”
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
I am one of those guys who lives for logic…
——————————————————–
You’ve conviced yourself. We get that.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… an alien concept to you…
—————————————————-
Translation: “Your logic is not MY logic, and, so, you re wrong.”
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
I know but if you ever hope to convince anyone that you are anything more than a freakin’ nutjob…
———————————————————-
It’s not about me, rather about God, through Christ. They though Jesus was a nutjob, too. So, I enjoy His company.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
…you might try applying some logic to your arguments.
——————————————————-
I did and do, but you missed the logic cuz you have chosen not to receive it. Not my problem.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Don’t bother posting quotes from your magic book of wonders because I don’t accept anything in it a more valid than a Harry Potter novel.
———————————————–
Then scroll past them. You know how to do that, don’t you?
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
It certainly doesn’t pass legal muster as proof of anything.
—————————————————
When you asked for a definition of “conception,” and I gave you a legal one, you rejected it. Now you say you want legal proofs. Make up your mind.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
As well, don’t bother telling me that I am just blind to the truth and my heart is too hardened to accept the truth.
—————————————————–
I gotta tell the Truth.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
That is the language of charlatans and fraudsters the world over.
—————————————————-
It is the Word of God. To YOU, God is a charlatan and fraudster. Where did you get all this hate?
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Using that methodology, I could tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands beside you if only you would open your heart and eyes and learn to see.
———————————————————–
You’ve been, essentially, saying that all along, and that something similar operates in YOUR life.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
(BTW, the FSM is right beside you, judging you and reading your thoughts.)
——————————————————–
Romans 8:1 KJV
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
So quit surfing porn…
——————————————————
I don’t, except to read your posts.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… come back to Earth…
—————————————————–
I’m in the world, not of it. [Of course, you wouldn't understand that.]
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
… and try to maybe string two sentences together in a coherent way.
——————————————————–
Been there. Done that. The rest is up to you.
Rich
July 18, 2009 6:51 PM
It will do you a world of good.
————————————————————-
God, through Christ, has done me a “world” of good.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:29 pm


Thanks, Boscoe, for taking that one for me. You said precisely what I would have said. Thanks, again, in the Lord!



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm


No prolemo, Mr. Incredible! I knew all along that we are on the same page!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:34 pm


I see that you like my format, too, Boscoe. That’s WWWAAAYYY coo’.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm


It’s a nice, clear presentation.
I notice, too, how they never answer you, and how, in not answering, that say that you don’t present arguments they can process.
I suggest that they cannot process your arguments because, instead of going into their heads, your arguments go over them. So, they don’t have a chance to grasp them.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:41 pm


Again, their main interest is to tear down, not build up. I know that we tax their “giant” intellects. You can always tell when they have no argument.
The only problem arises when we allow them to intimidate us into stopping what we know, by God, through Christ, to do, our mission. I cannot be intimidated.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:44 pm


I’m with you all the way, in Christ, Mr. Incredible!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:51 pm


Thank you, Boscoe!
This Rich guy complains about what he alleges to be my “lack” of logic, and, yet, he never goes through it line by line to show where the “lack” of logic is. He only complains. It’s whining.
The reason he only complains and doesn’t examine line-by-line is that all he has is a complaint, not substance. If there were substance to his complaint that, as he says, I “lack” logic, he would be filling every post with a line-by-line examination, showing exactly where the, he would say, illogic is. But no. He just whines.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm


Mr. Incredible
July 18, 2009 7:51 PM
This Rich guy complains about what he alleges to be my “lack” of logic, and, yet, he never goes through it line by line to show where the “lack” of logic is. He only complains. It’s whining.
The reason he only complains and doesn’t examine line-by-line is that all he has is a complaint, not substance. If there were substance to his complaint that, as he says, I “lack” logic, he would be filling every post with a line-by-line examination, showing exactly where the, he would say, illogic is. But no. He just whines.
———————————————————–
It’s WWWAAAYYY obvious, Mr. Incredible. I think he knows this, too, and he hopes we don’t catch it, though we do.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Anywho…
We wanna stay on topic, but they keep trying to take everybody off topic so that they can try to attack us. They wanna make US the issue, then blame us. See how that works?



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:04 pm


They scam. They are gamers.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm


I like it particularly when Rich said that he is a carpenter, “like Jesus.”
Now, here’s a character who denies that Jesus ever existed, and, then, now he comes along saying that he’s like Jesus, just cuz he’s a carpenter and Jesus was a carpenter. He wants to confer upon himself some kind of blessing by virtue of the fact that he works on wood and Jesus worked on wood. All this while denying that Jesus ever existed. So much for logic.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:23 pm


That’s a GREAT point and analysis!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 18, 2009 at 8:30 pm


Wow,
This is like punching buttons on a puppet. Yanking your chain is really good fun I have to admit. Wow, you are one gullible dude.
Here is the sad thing on your response to my last post; I didn’t read it. If you think anyone is going to put up with that much bible garbage you are dumber than I thought. I realize that you have some odd Theodore Kaczynski gene but geez there buddy, do you actually think that mentally healthy folks actually care about what was written by a bunch of perverts a couple of thousand years ago. Get a life there guy!
I am starting to get the feeling that Boscoe is your imaginary friend just like Jesus. The dialog between your two is getting similar to Norman Bates and his mother.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:05 pm


Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Yanking your chain…
————————————————-
You’re not “yanking my chain.” This is a discussion board, and I’m merely posting, responding to things you think you’re saying.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
…is really good fun I have to admit.
—————————————————–
I don’t care.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Wow, you are one gullible dude.
———————————————————
You can think what you choose to want to think.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Here is the sad thing on your response to my last post; I didn’t read it.
—————————————————–
Doesn’t matter. Somebody did.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
If you think anyone is going to put up with that much bible garbage you are dumber than I thought.
—————————————————
You people brought it up, and I merely responded. If you don’t wanna see it, don’t bring it up.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
I realize that you have some odd Theodore Kaczynski gene…
——————————————————-
I realize that you can’t respond to the points I’ve made and that you have to try to distract from the fact that you got no substance.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
… but geez there buddy, do you actually think that mentally healthy folks actually care about what was written by a bunch of perverts a couple of thousand years ago.
——————————————–
Scoffers don’t. Everybody understands that scoffers’ eyes burn at the sight of Scripture.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Get a life there guy!
——————————————————
Already got one, thanks to God, through Christ.
Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
I am starting to get the feeling that Boscoe is your imaginary friend just like Jesus. The dialog between your two is getting similar to Norman Bates and his mother.
———————————————————-
Again, you gotta make such remarks in order to distract from the fact that you have yet to make any arguments against my points. That’s cuz you have no substantive arguments to make, and, so, you resort to lame attempts at creativity without ever getting there.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm


Anywho…
The other members on SCOTUS will keep Sotomayor better grounded than she’s been so far.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:11 pm


Mr. Incredible,
You correctly keep trying to bring the discussion back to the topic, and Rich keeps trying to distract from the fact that he can’t discuss the topic by taking the discussion away from the topic.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:13 pm


We also notice that he cannot keep up with you. His mind is boggled by the number of relevant points you make. He is overwhelmed, and I predict that he will say that he is not, trying, again, to cover his lack of qualifications to discuss the topic.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:15 pm


Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Here is the sad thing on your response to my last post; I didn’t read it.
—————————————————–
So what? I post beyond you.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm


The Republicans’ lack of excitement during the Sotomayor confirmation hearing is understandable, given that she will replace a Lib on the Court. So, no damage, in reality.
They are saving their strength for the next nominee/appointee, if there is one before the next election when Republicans will take back Congress cuz, by then, the American People will be chompin’ at the bit to correct the mistake they made last November. They are showing great frustration with Lib agenda, and it’s gonna explode all over the place in ’10.
However, even if there is another nominee/appointee before then, the Republicans will be waiting and willing to challenge THAT one.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm


That’s another good point, Mr. Incredible! No sense in wasting energy on a nominee/appointee that, for the most part, because she’s a Liberal who replaces Souter — a Liberal. The next one is THE one to go after, and they most certainly will.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:30 pm


Rich
July 18, 2009 8:30 PM
Here is the sad thing on your response to my last post; I didn’t read it.
—————————————————–
It’s not important, in the final analysis, that you read my posts cuz you’re automatically opposed to them anyway. I could write, “2+2=4,” and you’d be opposed to that, too.
It’s important only that my points get out there, despite you and your efforts to distract from the fact that you cannot address and have not addressed my points. When you fail to address my points, you make my points look unanswered, and that goes to your lack of substance. It becomes WWWAAAYYY obvious.



report abuse
 

Boscoe

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:33 pm


I hope there is no nominee/appointee before ’10, and I think that no justice is thinking of retiring in the next year and a half. That’s good because, when Republicans take Congress back, this president will not get what he wants on the Court. It’s gonna be a different ballgame then.



report abuse
 

Paula Abdrool

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:37 pm


Good points about Sotomayor and the Court!
Thanks, you guys — Mr. Incredible and Boscoe — for trying so hard to get this thread back on topic!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 18, 2009 at 10:55 pm


> I am starting to get the feeling that Boscoe is your imaginary friend just like Jesus. The dialog between your two is getting similar to Norman Bates and his mother.
Boris says: You guessed it Rich. Incredible used to have an alter-ego named harryoutdoors who always agreed with him. Boscoe IS Mr. Incredible and vice versa. The dialog is scary isn’t?



report abuse
 

Rich

posted July 19, 2009 at 2:21 am


Mr. Incredible aka Boscoe and likely aka Paula,
re: “trying so hard to get this thread back on topic”
Yeah, right! I have to admit that is funny. The three of you living in one head has got to be challenging so I do appreciate your sense of humor.
You know, there must some quote from your magic book of wonders about getting the blog back on topic. Why don’t you scurry off, try not to let all those voices in your head overwhelm you, and find me that quote. I am sure Jesus is keeping track and awarding gold stars for you. Hurry up now.
Also, maybe look for a quote on failure to spruce up your spirits a bit. You see, you have had a flurry of writing, a lot of quotes from the wholly babble and many assurances from you about your devotion to your imaginary superhero but you have only managed to convince me that you are likely severely imbalanced. It turns out that you are not really a very good spokesperson for your faith. If anything, you repel, not attract. You statements make all Christians look like loonies. Really, if you believe even a fraction of what you have written, you should not be allowed to drive a car, vote, or be let out of any room that is not padded.
Keep up the good work. You are doing a fine job turning people away from your cult.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 4:33 pm


==re: “trying so hard to get this thread back on topic”
Yeah, right! I have to admit that is funny. ==
Anyone reading this thread can see that you people are trying hard not to discuss the topic, rather trying to distract them from seeing that you people, in so trying to distract, are trying to cover up the fact that you people have nothing substantive to say about the points made.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm


==Incredible used to have an alter-ego named harryoutdoors who always agreed with him.==
Actually, no, I didn’t.
== Boscoe IS Mr. Incredible and vice versa.==
Actually, again, no. We are different individuals.
However, if you wanna believe that we are the same person, so what?
== The dialog is scary isn’t?==
Are you will little girl, or an old woman, who is so easily scared?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm


==there must some quote from your magic book of wonders about getting the blog back on topic.==
No, it’s just common sense.
==Why don’t you scurry off…==
Cuz I’m needed here.
(Mar 1:23) And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
(Mar 1:24) Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
(Luk 4:33) And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice,
(Luk 4:34) Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
==… try not to let all those voices in your head overwhelm you…==
God’s and mine are the only ones, PRAISE THE LORD!
==Also, maybe look for a quote on failure to spruce up your spirits a bit.==
God, through Christ, already did that.
==… you have only managed to convince me that you are likely severely imbalanced.==
So what?
== It turns out that you are not really a very good spokesperson for your faith.==
The Devil says that, too. I don’t listen to him either.
Romans 8:1 [KJV]
== If anything, you repel, not attract. ==
No one is drawn to the Father accept that the Father draw them. I cannot make anybody come to Christ. Whether to come to Faith, or stay in Faith, or backslide, is a personal decision, not a decision that’s made by somebody else, like me.
I’m not driving anybody away from Christ who hasn’t entertained the Devil’s suggestion and been driven away already by their own ignorance, a la Adam and Eve.
Maybe the Father isn’t drawing them. Maybe the Father is shooing them away for some disobedience. He blinds the willful disobedient.
==You statements make all Christians look like loonies. ==
You scoffers thought that long before I got here.
== Really, if you believe even a fraction of what you have written, you should not be allowed to drive a car, vote, or be let out of any room that is not padded. ==
The Devil says that, too.
==Keep up the good work. ==
Thanks, I will.
== You are doing a fine job turning people away from your cult. ==
Again, the Devil says that, too. Funny how everything you say: sides with what the Devil says.
Cults don’t live up Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christianity is not a cult.
I don’t turn anyone away from Christianity any more than they have been turned away by their own arrogance and selfishness.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm


== It turns out that you are not really a very good spokesperson for your faith.==
The world doesn’t receive the things of God. That’s the world’s problem. I can take a horse to water, but I can’t meet the horse drink. I can give the world the Word of God, but I can’t make the world receive the Word of God. I won’t have to answer for them. They will have to answer for themselves.
== If anything, you repel, not attract. ==
If I were pleasing to the world, I wouldn’t be pleasing to God. To please the world is to displease God.
You people want us to deny Christ, to do what Peter did. That’s not gonna happen.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:50 pm


==Why don’t you scurry off…==
That’s what the Pharisees told Jesus, too.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:54 pm


==You statements make all Christians look like loonies. ==
So, you thought, before I got here, that Christianity and all Christians are wonderful and are on the right track, and that I, personally, as soon as I posted my first post, ruined it for you and continue to ruin it for you, is that it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm


==You statements make all Christians look like loonies. ==
You give me more power than I have. Thanks, anyway, but too many of those who claim to be Christian do that all by themselves. I can’t make them look more loony than they make themselves.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 5:59 pm


Cults don’t live up Jesus Christ. — – > Cults don’t lift up Jesus Christ.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 6:04 pm


==You statements make all Christians look like loonies. ==
No, you’ve conjured up that looniness yourself. It’s all in your head.
In other words, you have to cook up a justification to think what you allege you think. So, you have to try to make everybody think — cuz you’ve made yourself think it — that it’s somebody else’s fault.
However, Romans 8:1 KJV.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 19, 2009 at 7:36 pm


== If anything, you repel, not attract. ==
I’m not driving anybody away who wasn’t predisposed to drive himself away.
People make choices. Remember the “Right to choose”? People are responsible for what they choose, and they can’t point to me for “making’ them choose something they didn’t wanna choose. It doesn’t work that way, and I have no power to “make” anybody do anything they want not to do. Thanks for telling me I got that power, though.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 19, 2009 at 7:55 pm


== Boscoe IS Mr. Incredible and vice versa.==
Actually, again, no. We are different individuals.
Boris says: How do you know that for sure?



report abuse
 

Scott

posted July 19, 2009 at 9:12 pm


To Mr. Incredible,
I have been reading this and I have to side with the statement that you repel people. Your behavior is ungodly and you should be ashamed. You should return to a path of humility and righteousness.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.