only ernie

[David]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2007/09/18/4506417.html

[schovil69]

hahaha I read that **** in the Daily Nebraskan. Then wiped my ass with it. :lol:

Earnie does some dumb **** just to prove a point. How do you sue god and keep the separation of church and state? I mean, you have to believe in god to sue him, right?

[coop]

ernie is the man

[MadmaX]

hahaha I read that **** in the Daily Nebraskan. Then wiped my ass with it. :lol:

Earnie does some dumb **** just to prove a point. How do you sue god and keep the separation of church and state? I mean, you have to believe in god to sue him, right?

I think that reinforces his point.

I'm actually surprised the side he chose. I would have expected him to stand up against the judge.

[Bobby Light]

what a waste

[moparornocar]

I think that this is a slippery slope? get a judge to state that there is NO god and set a precidence to have god removed from everything?

[schovil69]

I think that this is a slippery slope? get a judge to state that there is NO god and set a precidence to have god removed from everything?

hmmm...


not likely a judge will claim he's an atheist.

[David]

I guarantee you ever law class around the country will be talking about this today.

[MadmaX]

I don't think he's trying to get a judge to say there is no God.

[David]

ya.. not the point of his filing... however it brings up an interesting questions.

[dave]

seems like no one even read the ****ing article! wtf people?

[coop]

i did

[Tushick]

no impermiable evidence that God exists right now

[MadmaX]

lol, irrelevant.

[coop]

i would like to place the 10 commandments into evidence as exhibit 1

[MadmaX]

okay okay, but back on topic...

Do you think that the judge was within the law to limit the vocabulary of the alleged rape victim? I don't know enough of the details, but it on the surface I'd say no.

[David]

i would like to place the 10 commandments into evidence as exhibit 1


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: oh mang thats awesome.

[coop]

okay okay, but back on topic...

Do you think that the judge was within the law to limit the vocabulary of the alleged rape victim? I don't know enough of the details, but it on the surface I'd say no.

if a medical doctor said that there was evidence of RAPE then it should be able to be said...but if its inconclusive (maybe consentual) then its a slippery slope....however closing arguments you can say whatever you want anyways....

[flyfrito3800]

A+ for Earnie, we need more people like him in elected spots.

[MadmaX]

noooooooooo. nothing, and I mean nothing, would get done.

One is fine, 2+ would be counterproductive.

[schovil69]

I thinks it's BS that the judge didn't allow the words. That is all.

[David]

I wish there were more like him... but with a compass pointed in the right direction..

[Ervin]

:sillyme:

[JesterMX6]

:turbin:

[82355]

ernie is the man


I concur.

Martin

[82355]

I wish there were more like him... but with a compass pointed in the right direction..

Why, he represents his constituents, doesn't he???

Martin