Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)

9. Interesting that you saw yourself in that description.

Reply to rug (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 05:49 AM

Jun 2012

People who want to criticize atheists, the FFRF, the 9th Circuit's decision, or efforts to uphold church-state separation...

Which part made you think I was talking about you?

Do you see yourself as someone who wants to criticize atheists?
Do you see yourself as someone who wants to criticize the FFRF?
Do you see yourself as someone who wants to criticize the 9th Circuit's decision?
Or do you see yourself as someone who wants to criticize efforts to enforce the establishment clause?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court rules sensibly on Mt. Soledad cross [View all] DavidDvorkin Jun 2012 OP

Excellent news! At least on non-political issues COLGATE4 Jun 2012 #1

Good for them. cbayer Jun 2012 #2

Actually, they declined to rule. rug Jun 2012 #3

That is correct. I saw that also while looking further into this. cbayer Jun 2012 #4

I wonder if they knew that meant the lower court would stand? Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #5

Ah, but don't you see? Since they declined to hear the appeal... laconicsax Jun 2012 #6

Accurately describing Supreme Court actions is not nitpicking. rug Jun 2012 #8

Interesting that you saw yourself in that description. laconicsax Jun 2012 #9

Interesting you espouse clairvoyance. rug Jun 2012 #10

When you see lots and lots of posts written by a person 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #12

Then you should be able to speak more clearly, shouldn't you? rug Jun 2012 #17

Were you not describing your actions as a corrective to #6? laconicsax Jun 2012 #14

So, this time I'll have company descending into the Rabbit Hole of Passive Aggressive Obfuscation? 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #15

As a matter of fact, no. rug Jun 2012 #18

Any particular reason why you're shilling for Romney now? laconicsax Jun 2012 #21

Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #22

Ah, so you're shilling for Romney because of me. laconicsax Jun 2012 #23

Lol, now you've stepped in it. rug Jun 2012 #24

I didn't post a Romney photo. laconicsax Jun 2012 #25

That'a a flatout lie. Anybody can rightclick on the photo and read the url under Properties. rug Jun 2012 #26

That link is to a screenshot of you posting pro-Romney stuff laconicsax Jun 2012 #27

Fortunately you posted a screenshot of #18 before you moved the photobucket link. rug Jun 2012 #28

I assert the right to organize my photobucket account as I see fit. laconicsax Jun 2012 #29

You posted a link from someone else's photobucket Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #30

There's a large thread in Meta about this. Kaleva Jun 2012 #31

Read it. What happens if I comment further? Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #32

I would say that what rug did was minor compared to what was done to him. Kaleva Jun 2012 #33

As I said above Goblinmonger Jun 2012 #34

Shades of Bill Cosby!!! aka-chmeee Jun 2012 #36

Of course. Just as they knew the Ninth Circuit decision allowed further litigation. rug Jun 2012 #7

Hope springs eternal. 2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #11

I can't wait till Christmas and see what's on the docket. rug Jun 2012 #20

Of course they knew that. Jim Lane Jun 2012 #16

So apart from nitpicking the exact terminology the OP used, trotsky Jun 2012 #13

No, that's about it. You got anything more from the FFR press release? rug Jun 2012 #19

Uh, yeah, the actual news item. trotsky Jun 2012 #35