You can't possibly be this dense.
You started out with an attitude of arrogant condescension riding on a raft of false statements (which I patiently rebutted with facts) and finally you get around to the ad hominem. Sooner or later people show themselves for what they are.
FWIW I did read the article you FINALLY gave a link to, after umpteen verbose and rambling posts, and it far exceeds the WND article in proving the author's contention that Christian influence on our nation's law and founding is being laundered out of history. If you had an ounce of common sense or decency you would have pointed everyone to that link at the beginning of your little jihad on my reading skills.
Yeah, shame on me. How indecent of me to not realize you missed the link in the article! I beg your forgiveness.
BTW, I think a person with "an ounce of common sense" would have read DuBord's article *before* commenting on the thread. Look, when you read an AP story about a NYT article (for example), do you assume the AP's version is accurate, or do you read the NYT article to get the original story? I don't know about you, but I go to the source anytime I read an article about another article. *That's* common sense if you ask me.
You started out with an attitude of arrogant condescension riding on a raft of false statements (which I patiently rebutted with facts) and finally you get around to the ad hominem. Sooner or later people show themselves for what they are.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly think if you had followed the link in Unruh's article, you wouldn't have been so confused. It's nothing personal, and it's not just you. Your comment #14 just happened to be the one I noticed first. There's plenty of others on this thread who also misunderstood Unruh's article and wrongly concluded that there's workers in the Supreme Court building saying essentially, "That's not Moses on that frieze, and that's not the 10 Commandments in his hands." (See replies 60 and 40 and 41 and 46 for some examples.) Either Unruh's a horrible writer or he *wanted* his readers to come away with that wrong impression. Either way, I can understand why you misread his article; his article is crap.
However, what I *don't* understand is why you're having such difficulty understanding what *I* was writing (which btw is why I pointed out your reading comprehension problem). Look, multiple times you called me a liar, and each time I showed you why you were wrong and how I wasn't lying, but somehow you missed each correction and proceeded to call me a liar again and continued to not understand my posts. Yet somehow it's wrong for me to point out your inability to comprehend my posts? Please, spare me your indignation, *especially* while in the same breath you're calling me a liar for the umpteenth time. That dog don't hunt, particularly now that you've actually read DuBord's piece--there's no longer any reason for you to *still* find my posts incomprehensible.
I did read the article you FINALLY gave a link to, after umpteen verbose and rambling posts
"FINALLY"? In fact, I told you about the link as soon as I realized you had overlooked it in Unruh's article. You seriously think *I'm* somehow at fault for not having spoon-fed Unruh's article to you? Why on earth would I have presumed from the get-go that you didn't see the link in the article? Get real. You were posting on the thread; forgive me for assuming that you had actually read the article at issue.
Oops! Silly me; how could I forget? The link to DuBord's article isn't *really* in Unruh's article! I made that up! It was one of my many lies which you caught and corrected me on. Remember? ;-)
Yeah right; keep dreaming.
Anyway, it's time for my meds. I'm done with this thread. Later.