On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:54:12 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Mon 03 Oct 2005 03:39:13a, wrote in message
:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:14:05 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 29 Sep 2005 09:49:06p, wrote in message
:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:13:59 -0500, "MnMikew"
wrote:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 188.18...

ACLU = enemy of the state.


Anti-ACLU = enemy of the Constitution.


Where in the constitution does it provide for the right to sexually
molest children, sunshine? Yes, you are an idiot! LOL!!

-=jd=-


Since you have the inellectual capacity of a sllug, you're too
dim to even understand what the issue was,



Well that's a particularly lame dodge, so I'll ask you again using simpler
words: How long have you cheered for a group of socialist lawyers that
currently, knowingly & willingly defends and protects a group of child
molesters?"

As long as the SC has agreed that the defenses proffered have
merit. The issues had to do with the right of people to assemble on
public property for meetings under the protection of the first
amendment. Acting upon the presumed topic of discussion of the
meetings (pedophilia) was never defended by the ACL. Likewise he
defnse of the Nazis' right to march, with no concomitant defense of
linching blacks.

But, since such dilegal and philosophical distinctions are
clearly beyond the intellectual capacity of an imbecile like yourself,
I guess I've just wasted your time in explaining.

Is it possible you are also a child molester and that is why
you feel such a close kinship with them

**** you, vicious *******. You can't even argue without
extreme, baseless ad hominem. How about if I speculate that you might
be the spawn of a syphilitic whore, based on your lack of intellectual
capacity?

Also, you failed to specify where,
in the constitution, does it provide for the right to sexually abuse
children

Lame ass strawman. Many constitutional rights are derived, not
explicit. One of the founders was strongly against adding the bill of
rights because, as he said, "In two hudred years, some fool will come
along and deny that a right exists because it was not enumerated in
this list." So you're the fool to fulfill his prophecy.

and/or how you would otherwise justify your support for the ACLU's
efforts on behalf of a group that molests children. I say you *can't*
justify it...

The same way I can justify support for a government that gets
the people of the US into a needless war -- you look at the totality
of what it does, not just a carefully slected piece that you don't
agree with.

The fact that the SC has backed up the ACLU in many defenses
of unpopular cases demonstrates cearly that the ACLU's arguments have
merit, despite your incapacity to understand.

Why don't you wipe your ass with the unused side of the
Constitution as well as the first side which you've already used.


-=jd=-