Supreme Court to Hear Mojave Cross Case

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Look at you ....all focused on anal sex. You poor repressed homo.
Sorry to disappoint you honey but i do enjoy my hubbys hairy balls just as he enjoys my voluptuous breasts. Oh, and the back door's always closed in my bedroom. Obviously not in yours, though.

Too much information!

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Look at you ....all focused on anal sex. You poor repressed homo.
Sorry to disappoint you honey but i do enjoy my hubbys hairy balls just as he enjoys my voluptuous breasts. Oh, and the back door's always closed in my bedroom. Obviously not in yours, though.

LOL so now you admit that you are just a hugely overweight tranny?

Which are you? A ugly fat chick with a dick or an ugly fat dork with breast?

Now the only question that remains... whos got the bigger dick, you or your "husband"?

What ever you are... please never spawn... cockroaches have more intelligence than you.

x0x0x wrote:

<quoted text>Look at you ....all focused on anal sex. You poor repressed homo.
Sorry to disappoint you honey but i do enjoy my hubbys hairy balls just as he enjoys my voluptuous breasts. Oh, and the back door's always closed in my bedroom. Obviously not in yours, though.

Excellent response to a dimwit!
Why are these folks so obsessed with someone elses sexuality? I figure it's none of my business who someone else loves or who someone else screws. WTF do I care?

WeTheSheeple wrote:

Burn that sucker down. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to support one x-tianity.

You sorry ass son of a (B) you have no Idea what the price of freedom is do you ?
you never served with true honor for this country in your life you are the type of person who wants everything for them self and lives with that kind of greed in their heart, I feel sorry for a deminted mind like yours you are truly the example of a sorry son of a (B).

Why is it the athiests that get pissy and not Buddhists, jews, Islamic, hindi, etc?

Hyrax wrote:

Why is it the athiests that get pissy and not Buddhists, jews, Islamic, hindi, etc?

Actually this case started when some Buddhists were denied permission to erect their own monument...

...it's nice to have the facts, eh?

Hyrax wrote:

Why is it the athiests that get pissy and not Buddhists, jews, Islamic, hindi, etc?

Atheists are no piss-ier than wacko christian fundamentalist types.

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually this case started when some Buddhists were denied permission to erect their own monument...
...it's nice to have the facts, eh?

No it didn't. It started when a park worker felt that a monument that's been at the ass end of the park for 70 years was offensive.

That buddhist shrine thing was a useless fact a reporter threw in. Reports offer no background information about the buddhist shrine incident. I tryed looking it up and it does not exist on the internet.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
No it didn't. It started when a park worker felt that a monument that's been at the ass end of the park for 70 years was offensive.
That buddhist shrine thing was a useless fact a reporter threw in. Reports offer no background information about the buddhist shrine incident. I tryed looking it up and it does not exist on the internet.

Wrong. Your search evidently did not include the COURT DOCUMENTS.

"In 1999, the NPS denied an individual’s request to
erect a Buddhist memorial (known as a “stupa”) in
the area near the cross, stating that NPS’s
“management policies and 36 Code of Federal
Regulations 2.62(a) prohibits the installation of a
monument, memorial, structure or other
commemorative installation....”

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs...

Next time, do your homework.

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Your search evidently did not include the COURT DOCUMENTS.
"In 1999, the NPS denied an individual&#8217;s request to
erect a Buddhist memorial (known as a &#8220;stupa&#8221;) in
the area near the cross, stating that NPS&#8217;s
&#8220;management policies and 36 Code of Federal
Regulations 2.62(a) prohibits the installation of a
monument, memorial, structure or other
commemorative installation....&#8221;
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs...
Next time, do your homework.

I knew that already. What religion was that individual. Can you answer that?

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Your search evidently did not include the COURT DOCUMENTS.
"In 1999, the NPS denied an individual&#8217;s request to
erect a Buddhist memorial (known as a &#8220;stupa&#8221;) in
the area near the cross, stating that NPS&#8217;s
&#8220;management policies and 36 Code of Federal
Regulations 2.62(a) prohibits the installation of a
monument, memorial, structure or other
commemorative installation....&#8221;
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs...
Next time, do your homework.

If you did your honeowrk, you would know that the NPS or the federal gov did not erect teh cross.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew that already. What religion was that individual. Can you answer that?

So you lied then? I do believe it was you that claimed the Buddhists had nothing to do with this.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
If you did your honeowrk, you would know that the NPS or the federal gov did not erect teh cross.

And if you had the reading comprehension of the average 5th grader, you would realize I never claimed such a thing.

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
So you lied then? I do believe it was you that claimed the Buddhists had nothing to do with this.

No, I don't see how Buddhism is related to the court case.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't see how Buddhism is related to the court case.

Then I cannot help you. If you cannot lick the link, read the damn brief and see for yourself how it is cited in the record of the court, then I guess you need some help beyond what this board can provide.

You were proven wrong.

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
Then I cannot help you. If you cannot lick the link, read the damn brief and see for yourself how it is cited in the record of the court, then I guess you need some help beyond what this board can provide.
You were proven wrong.

No I proved YOU wrong. You can't tell me WHO asked for the buddhist shrine to be put up. The link does not mention WHO asked for the buddhist shrine? was it a Buddhist monk? an atheist looking to make trouble?

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs...
The amicae sure seem to think so, see page 2.
A Buddhist stupa isn't Buddhist?
Your claim was that Buddhism had nothing to do with the case. The court records say otherwise.
Not that it matters. I did see allegations that the requesting party was not Buddhist, but no proof, and considering the source (WND...LOL) I can safely dismiss the allegation.
It's irrelevant anyway, since Buono, a practicing Roman Catholic, has standing to bring the case.
Which he is winning, by the way. LOL

Fabioso wrote:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced /preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08- 472_PetitionerAmCu11States.pdf

Thanks for pointing that out to me! Why you choose to sound like an ass instead of discussing civilly is beyond me. I guess it
s the internet effect. I think the park should have allowed the shrine. I again, agree that the Buddhist should have made more noise about it.

You realize this is the same reason the obama birth certificate cases is being throne out of court. The person, like this park worker, have no standing.

Hyrax wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for pointing that out to me! Why you choose to sound like an ass instead of discussing civilly is beyond me. I guess it
s the internet effect. I think the park should have allowed the shrine. I again, agree that the Buddhist should have made more noise about it.
You realize this is the same reason the obama birth certificate cases is being throne out of court. The person, like this park worker, have no standing.

I'm as nice to you as you deserve, considering you are seriously misrepresenting the facts and the law here. I feel no obligation to be polite to dishonest people.

Buono's standing has already been established. If he had no standing the original trial would have been thrown out on a motion to dismiss. It wasn't, so you're being dishonest once again.

And I think the word you are looking for is "thrown."

Fabioso wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm as nice to you as you deserve, considering you are seriously misrepresenting the facts and the law here. I feel no obligation to be polite to dishonest people.
Buono's standing has already been established. If he had no standing the original trial would have been thrown out on a motion to dismiss. It wasn't, so you're being dishonest once again.
And I think the word you are looking for is "thrown."

Uninformed is more like it. If preying on the uninformed is how you want to spend your time so be it. A kid beat a person to death and was only convicted of manslaughter. A woman sued because and won a gender discrimination lawsuit because their was no bathroom at her worksite with other men who also had no bathroom. Courts make bad rulings.