wrote:

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
8.18...

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, you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to spell the word 'slug'
properly, stem. And you should have put a period at the end of that sentence
rather than a comma.

Stupid liberal twit! Stop drooling and start paying attention.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 06:15:27 -0400, dickAce
wrote:



wrote:

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
8.18...

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, you don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to spell the word 'slug'
properly, stem. And you should have put a period at the end of that sentence
rather than a comma.

Stupid liberal twit! Stop drooling and start paying attention.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



When you can't refute the issues, there's always an
opportunity to stoop to being a typo and grammar nazi.

Come back when you have a thought to contribute, dickbite.

wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:07:17 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

So you're childish enough to believe all that Godwin crap,
huh? Nice indicator of your knowledge of logic.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:07:17 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

So you're childish enough to believe all that Godwin crap,
huh? Nice indicator of your knowledge of logic.

Godwin's Law was made up by someone that didn't want to discuss anything
being akin to Hitler or Nazism.

For example, it would not and could not be applied to any discussion about
the Holocaust, skinheads, WWII, etc.. and should not be applied to any other
discussion because the easiest way for something like the Holocaust to
happen again would be to ignore similarities.

wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:07:17 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

So you're childish enough to believe all that Godwin crap,
huh? Nice indicator of your knowledge of logic.

Logic, stem? All I need here is a knowledge of shortwave.

You might try it, 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

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=-

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:10:57 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Mon 03 Oct 2005 03:47:36a, wrote in message
:

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:12:55 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Thu 29 Sep 2005 09:44:35p, wrote in message
:

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:23:10 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

On Wed 28 Sep 2005 07:01:00p, wrote in message
om:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:35:56 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


What leads you to the assumption that I am "fustrated and
defensive"? On the contrary, my statements are neither baseless nor
hyperbolic and are grounded in fact. The ACLU is working on behalf
of NAMBLA, plain and simple. Google "ACLU" and "NAMBLA" and see what
you get. Then come back and explain why you are championing their
causes and how you can deny being complicit in furthering the causes
of an organization of *pedophiles*. It sounds to me like *I* have
absolutely nothing to be defensive about. *You* on the other hand,
have *ample* reason to begin back-peddling furiously. I would *if* I
was in your untenable position: championing an organization that
defends pedophiles...


The ironic thing is they'd even defend a worm like you if
someone tried to prevent you from saying what you just did.


I would immediately reject any offer they might extend. They have
absolutely nothing I want and I most definitely have no need for their
assistance in any shape, form or fashion. If you want to be associated
with them, then you are free to trash your own reputation.

Your call, but they might well be your only choice.


No, I can't conceive of any situation where I would need, or desire
their assistance.

Too bad your parents were able to conceive.



Too bad you choose to dodge the issue rather than refute it...



Since when is any group you disagree with to be deprived of
legal counsel for any reason?


I haven't said they should be deprived of legal counsel. I have said
that the ACLU is working on behalf of NAMBLA, which is an organization
of overt pedophiles.

Which still retains constuitutional rights, even though a jerk
like you can't see how.


I'm not required to champion a group of child molesters. You freely
*choose* to support an organization of perverts who sexually abuse
children. Where in the constitution does it provide for the right to
sexually abuse children? Your silence is deafening...

Your ignorance is without bounds. I don't have to support any
group's agenda in order to recognize their first amendnment rights, in
which, incidentally, the Suprme Court agrees with me, not you.




If you want to champion the ACLU and be complicit
in assisting an organization of pedophiles, then you are free to sully
your own reputation.

The lowest form of ad hominem I've yet seen.



Yet, you openly choose to support that organization of pedophiles, ad-
hominem or not. Your choice -- I'm merely pointing out *your* choice. If
you aren't comfortable being shown as someone who fights for pedophiles,
then why do you freely choose to do so?

The distinction I made above is clearly too deep for you to
understand. You'd prefer to just stand on your silly little pedestal
like a mindless demagogue, shrieking vainly for everyone to cheer for
your distorted views.

You're as bad as the duplicitous Hoover shrieking about
getting deviates out of government, then going home to his own little
lipstick-and-pumps show in front of the mirror.

Are you saying that no one is allowed to be
disgusted by your choosing to support the ACLU as they protect an
organization of pedophiles? You are clearly the "worm" here! LOL! Does
your family know you are complicit in the support of an organization
of child molesters?


You're too ****ing dim for words.


And *You* are at a loss for words and have resorted to dodging the issue.
You have also painted yourself into the "child-molester" corner. Comfy?

You did the painting, unfortunately with no basis in reality.
Did you also beat up on gays when you were in high school, because it
made you and your gang feel manly?

Are they proud of your perpetuation of perversity?
(pardon the alliteration)...


In your case illiteration would be the better word.


That's your bag.

Ooohhhh, brilliant repartee, child.


Keep on dodgin'. I'll keep on pointing out your failure to deny it...

Nothing to dodge except baseless accusations from a
sibgle-digit-Iq POS.



If you want to go over the top, is your family proud you're a
citizen of a nation which has spent its history defending slavery,
whether within or without the law?

Neither me or my family supported slavery and we're proud that we are
citizens of a nation that *ABOLISHED* slavery! Try again, sunshine!

It still goes on.


Please point out where, within the jurisdiction of the USA, is involuntary
servitude legalized? Otherwise, you stand corrected!


Wrong -- you stand stupid.



How about its support of lunatics like Joe McCarthy

Me and my family did not support McCarthy are proud that McCarthy was
rightfully discredited, defeated and shown for the putz he was! Try
again, sunshine!

Yeah, throw in some Yiddish to show what a man of the world
sounds like.



Keep on dodgin'. I'll keep on pointing out your failure to deny it...



and that disgrace to the Cathlic Church, Father
Coughlin?

We're not Catholic and we don't even know who Coughlin is! Try again,
sunshine!

Then you are indeed an ignoramus. What's what the obsession
with nunxhine -- isn't there any where you keep your head?



I have no idea what any of that gibberish means.

It's because you're too stupid to know American history.

When you regain control of
the frustration I've induced and can properly articulate a thought, try
again...

The only thing you've induced is a tendency to vomit at the
thought of the depth of your ignorance.




How about its history of sending Japaanese American citizens
to concentration camps, leaving them to suffer the continued loss of
their former possessions after release and was too ****ing cowardly to
consider apologizing unti recently. Hell of a lot you have to be proud
of.


Me and my family condemned the internment of Japanese Americans and feel
that they should have been liberally compenstated and apologized to! Try
again, sunshine! We have everything to be proud of! We are also proud
that we don't openly champion and support a national organization that
prides itself on protecting child-abusing pedophiles like you and your
family apparently do! Why, you must be *beaming* with pride every time a
little boys life is ruined! It must suck to be *you*!!

Sunshine and suck obsessions. Oh, my.


Keep on dodgin'. I'll keep on pointing out your failure to deny it...


Too lame-ass to compose another reply. SIck asshole.




I just love the way you wannabe shrinks can tell all about the
family of someone they don't know a ****ing thing about.


Keep on dodgin'. I'll keep on pointing out your failure to deny it...


Yank your head out and smell the roses instead of the feces.



Keep on dodgin'. I'll keep on pointing out your failure to deny it.
Just so we're all aware, how many "sexual-offender" lists do you
currently appear on?

Fewer than the number of lists of mental deficients you're on.


-=jd=-

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:54:00 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:07:17 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

So you're childish enough to believe all that Godwin crap,
huh? Nice indicator of your knowledge of logic.

Godwin's Law was made up by someone that didn't want to discuss anything
being akin to Hitler or Nazism.

For example, it would not and could not be applied to any discussion about
the Holocaust, skinheads, WWII, etc.. and should not be applied to any other
discussion because the easiest way for something like the Holocaust to
happen again would be to ignore similarities.



Anything that stifles debate is to be despised.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:01:14 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:07:17 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

Ooooops... you mentioned Nazi, stem, rendering you irrelevant.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

So you're childish enough to believe all that Godwin crap,
huh? Nice indicator of your knowledge of logic.

Logic, stem? All I need here is a knowledge of shortwave.

Then why did you bring it up as making me irrelevant, except
to prove the stem between your legs is smaller than the one at the
other end of your alleged spine?


You might try it, 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA