(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

Look it up,in this very news group.I done told y'all before that
Atlanta,Georgia is a Commie democrap town,,,,, Look it up.Want to know
about neal boortz and his jihad cronies?
cuhulin

Oh, please. It's 2005 and you're still paranoid about Communism.
Communism is dead. McCarthy was a maniac, and you might be too. Live
with the fact that you need to find some other chicken**** scapegoat.
As for Atlanta, Georgia, you don't have to worry. Your Nazi Homeland
Security agents are hard at work protecting the city's citizens from
anti-ham vegans:

http://tinyurl.com/c2242

King Righter

Denver,Colorado is also a commie town.
www.theorator.com Typical Democrats.
cuhulin

Kansas City,Missouri is a commie town,the Kansas City Star newspaper is
known as the Kansas City Red (as in commie Red) Star,Chicago is a
commie town and east Iowa is commie.All of the left coast and most of
New England is commie.
cuhulin

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied
class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal!"
{Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank Fenno
Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash. He earned his bachelor's and master's
degrees at Harvard University; afterwards, he moved to St. Louis,
where he worked as a social worker and became chief probation officer
of the St. Louis Juvenile Court. He also co-wrote Juvenile Courts and
Probation with Bernard Flexner at this time; this book became very
influential in its era, and was, in part, the foundation of Baldwin's
national reputation.

In St. Louis, Baldwin was also greatly influenced by the radical
social movement of the anarchist Emma Goldman; he joined the
Industrial Workers of the World, and developed a lasting sympathy for
the Soviet Union and Communism that lasted until 1939, when he was
disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties.
In 1927 he visited the Soviet Union and published a book, entitled
Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained extensive praise for the
country he later denounced.

Baldwin was a lifelong pacifist; he was a member of the American Union
against Militarism, which opposed World War I, and spent a year in
jail as a conscientious objector rather than submit to the draft. It
was out of the American Union against Militarism (specifically, its
legal arm, the National Civil Liberties Bureau) that the ACLU formed
after the war, with Baldwin as its first executive director.

As director, Baldwin was integral to the shape of the association's
early character; it was under Baldwin's leadership that the ACLU
undertook some of its most famous cases, including the Scopes Monkey
Trial, the Sacco and Vanzetti murder trial, and its challenge to the
ban on James Joyce's Ulysses. Baldwin retired from the ACLU leadership
in 1950, but remained active in politics for the rest of his life.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur invited him to Japan to foster the
growth of civil liberties in that country, where he founded the Japan
Civil Liberties Union and was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun by
the Japanese government. In 1948, he was invited to Germany and
Austria for similar purposes.

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:12:30p, David wrote in message
:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism
is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank Fenno
Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash.

And pursued the following life-long ideal, stated in his own words:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

Obviously that didn't sink into the 'tard boys head the first time around.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:33:28 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



-=jd=- wrote:

On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:12:30p, David wrote in message
:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism
is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank Fenno
Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash.

And pursued the following life-long ideal, stated in his own words:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

Obviously that didn't sink into the 'tard boys head the first time around.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


When did he say that?
(X)Tard Boy

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 08:36:15p, "FDR"

wrote in message :


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:12:30p, David wrote in message
:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism
is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank Fenno
Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash.

And pursued the following life-long ideal, stated in his own words:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

Aww c'mon jd, you couldn't refute him.


Though you lack the integrity to admit it, I did - merely by reiterating
the
man's very own words. Has rickets or anyone else been able to refute that
Baldwin lived by those words? Well, given the ACLU's agenda, actions and
advocations, how could they refute them? It's unarguably self evident. It
would take a truly heroic effort to spin Baldwin's very own words into
something different. It must be frustrating for you guys to be stuck
defending such tenuous positions...

There was a lot else to his life besides those words. But that's ok if you
can't refute it.


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"David" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:13:23 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

They fought for the Nazis right to march in Skokie and to keep Rush
Limbaugh's medical records out of the prosecutor's hands.


Well, that just shows what a bunch of commies they are.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 10:17:05p, "FDR"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 08:36:15p, "FDR"

wrote in message :


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:12:30p, David wrote in
message :

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism
is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank
Fenno Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash.

And pursued the following life-long ideal, stated in his own words:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

Aww c'mon jd, you couldn't refute him.


Though you lack the integrity to admit it, I did - merely by
reiterating the
man's very own words. Has rickets or anyone else been able to refute
that Baldwin lived by those words? Well, given the ACLU's agenda,
actions and advocations, how could they refute them? It's unarguably
self evident. It would take a truly heroic effort to spin Baldwin's
very own words into something different. It must be frustrating for you
guys to be stuck defending such tenuous positions...

There was a lot else to his life besides those words. But that's ok if
you can't refute it.


Do I really need to? Does not the very agenda, actions and advocations of
the ACLU bear out the relevancy of those words today? Or do you have some
odd, twisted, leftists spin-logic that can be applied to reach some other
conclusion? Can you refute that by standing in defense of the ACLU, you
are
complicit in their work as surrogates on behalf of the "North American
Man-
Boy Love Association"? Is that part of what you champion? Again, it must
be
frustrating, and quite a bit repulsive in this case, for you guys to be
stuck defending such tenuous positions.

You're getting awfully fustrated and defensive there jd. You sure can dish
it but you can't take it. Sorry that I make you stoop to such baseless and
hyperbolic statements.



-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

FDR wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 10:17:05p, "FDR"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 08:36:15p, "FDR"

wrote in message :


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:12:30p, David wrote in
message :

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:40:44 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism
is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

-=jd=-
Roger Nash Baldwin was born in Wellesley, Massachusetts to Frank
Fenno Baldwin and Lucy Cushing Nash.

And pursued the following life-long ideal, stated in his own words:
"I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal!" {Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU}

Aww c'mon jd, you couldn't refute him.


Though you lack the integrity to admit it, I did - merely by
reiterating the
man's very own words. Has rickets or anyone else been able to refute
that Baldwin lived by those words? Well, given the ACLU's agenda,
actions and advocations, how could they refute them? It's unarguably
self evident. It would take a truly heroic effort to spin Baldwin's
very own words into something different. It must be frustrating for you
guys to be stuck defending such tenuous positions...

There was a lot else to his life besides those words. But that's ok if
you can't refute it.


Do I really need to? Does not the very agenda, actions and advocations of
the ACLU bear out the relevancy of those words today? Or do you have some
odd, twisted, leftists spin-logic that can be applied to reach some other
conclusion? Can you refute that by standing in defense of the ACLU, you
are
complicit in their work as surrogates on behalf of the "North American
Man-
Boy Love Association"? Is that part of what you champion? Again, it must
be
frustrating, and quite a bit repulsive in this case, for you guys to be
stuck defending such tenuous positions.

You're getting awfully fustrated and defensive there jd. You sure can dish
it but you can't take it. Sorry that I make you stoop to such baseless and
hyperbolic statements.

Oh come on... He's got you face down in the dust again.

LMAO at the hapless 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:17:42 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:13:23 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

They fought for the Nazis right to march in Skokie and to keep Rush
Limbaugh's medical records out of the prosecutor's hands.


Well, that just shows what a bunch of commies they are.


How did someone as dumb as you ever learn the alphabet? Or do
you have someone else read the postings to you and type your moronic
replies?

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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.

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

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:17:42 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"David" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:13:23 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:

They fought for the Nazis right to march in Skokie and to keep Rush
Limbaugh's medical records out of the prosecutor's hands.


Well, that just shows what a bunch of commies they are.


How did someone as dumb as you ever learn the alphabet? Or do
you have someone else read the postings to you and type your moronic
replies?

Uhm, sarcasm anyone?

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Wed 28 Sep 2005 07:01:00p, wrote in message
:

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.


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

Well somebody's got to do it.


-=jd=-

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...

ACLU = enemy of the state.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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

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

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.



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


In your case illiteration would be the better word.

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? How about its support of lunatics
like Joe McCarthy and that disgrace to the Cathlic Church, Father
Coughlin? 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.

Or you proud of all that?

-=jd=-

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 18...

ACLU = enemy of the state.


Anti-ACLU = enemy of the Constitution.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal SpecialI...
 

All democraps and libs have an illness called BSD,the Brain Sickness
Disease.
cuhulin

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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,

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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
:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.




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.



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.



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?




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.

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

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


-=jd=-

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

wrote:

[Crap nipped in the bud]

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

dxAce
Michigan
USA

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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=-

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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=-

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

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

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

"K" - " 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. "

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

On 5 Oct 2005 20:07:11 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

"K" - " 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. "
.
"K" - So then 'you' would not restrict the Rights of . . .
the Boy Scouts of America from Doing the Same ? ? ?

Same what -- discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation
and expel kids to whom they've already granted the rank of Eagle
Scout? That sounds like a pretty religious view for a
government-supported entity to be enforcing. Bible-thumping religious.

(OT) : Democrat's now being controlled by the Liberal Special I...
 

"K" - So you stand with the ACLU and NAMBLA ~ RHF