ACLU Hates Boy Scouts, Love Hypocrisy
Posted on July 26, 2008
The ACLU, beacon of Hypocrisy and Haters of all that is wholesome has been suing the Boy Scouts since at least 1999.
The ACLU, in all of their hypocritical glory, went after the Boy Scouts (still) in San Diego. The ACLU contends that the government leasing facilities to the ACLU is tantamount to the government endorsing religion. That’s a bunch of hooey. Actually it’s a bunch of another substance but on this site we don’t use profanity but it rhymes with spit. Now the Boy Scouts are going to be defended by Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The situation is devolving, and the ACLU is throwing a spit fit about the government siding with the Boy Scouts. Score one for the government coming to their senses. The Scouts aren’t a “religious” organization, as evidenced by the fact of Muslim Boy and Girl Scout troops.
But that doesn’t matter to the ACLU, whose hypocrisy will be thrown in your face momentarily. But first this bit;
Jordan Budd, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, said he was disappointed the federal government sided with the scouts.
“It’s distressing that the civil rights division of the Department of Justice is defending the right of a discriminatory organization to receive a public subsidy,” he said.
Pay attention to that last bit. It becomes very important in a moment.
In a stunning move of chutzpah proving perhaps the ACLU’s position in First Place for Hypocrites of the Year the very same ACLU suing the Scouts and the city of San Diego is also suing the City of San Diego for CHARGING RELIGIOUS GROUPS to use meeting rooms. The whole crux of their argument rests on this:
The ACLU argued that fees cannot be based on what the groups renting city rooms are saying or doing, but rather on conditions such as cleanup costs.
I love the smell of Hypocrisy in the morning.
The whole dust up about room fees started when a manufacturing group started a petition drive to enact term limits.
It was sparked by the Escondido Mobile/Manufactured Homeowners Positive Action Committee, which had been using community rooms for free until it started a petition drive to impose term limits on members of the City Council.
I say the city is in the right here. The rules were in place stating political and religious groups must pay. When the “Positive Action Committee” started pushing a political petition they became a de facto political action committee, subject to the rules in place. I’d wager some of the people the “positive action committee” were aiming to get out of office are also some of the same folks the ACLU would like to see out of office. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if there was some behind the scenes collusion between members of the “positive action committee” and the local ACLU branch. I also wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a person in one group is married/living with a person in the other groups. Of course that is speculation on my part. Instead of speculation we’ll call it Accountability journalism, like the AP, that way the ACLU can be held accountable to me.
The hypocrisy of the ACLU on this stance is so thick and so smelly it’s as if a super tanker full of hypocrisy ran aground and spilled its load.
But that’s what we have come to expect from the ACLU. If they can take a stance against common sense, decency or the government they will do so without blinking and without regard as to whether the current stance they are taking goes against a stance they have had in the past. When you get right down to brass tacks it shows the thunderous heights to which the ACLU will go in pursuit of their anti-American agenda.
The fact that so many people are still members of this group is also telling. It shows they are either completely oblivious, i.e. ignorant of the facts (which is forgivable IF they are willing to learn) or they are stupid to a point of being a danger to themselves and others or they really do hate America and all she stands for and they willingly go along aiding our internal enemies. I pray it’s the first choice. I really don’t believe it’s the second choice and I am terrified the third choice is closer to the truth.
Either way (and at risk of getting sued by the ACLU) God Save Us All.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Activist Judges, Boyscouts, Communism, Homosexual Agenda, News, Secular Humanism
Trackback URL
Comments
46 Responses to “ACLU Hates Boy Scouts, Love Hypocrisy”
Leave a Reply
Incredible. Even by ACLU standards.
I would guess that some people join just because of the name — it sounds so righteous and patriotic. And that of course is the biggest hypocracy of all.
WTF? Where’s Molby with his pro-ACLU spin-doctoring on this one?
“The fact that so many people are still members of this group is also telling.”
I’ve wondered, but never been able to calculate, how many people join ACLU and how many leave.
I suspect that pliable, wide-eyed youths join (just like many join Scientology or Amnesty International — because it sounds good at the time and they haven’t been educated enough to have context), and drift off when social and economic reality smacks them one too many times, but Lordie, try getting a metric on it!
The ACLU certainly ain’t disclosing.
How is this hypocracy?? The ACLU is saying that groups cannot be charged based on their message or viewpoint, ie either all must be charged or none should be charged. I understand that for most lay people this is over your head and beyond your ability to comprehend.
The reason you hate the ACLU is because the ACLU defends the minority against the majority. If you are in the majority, then of course you will hate the ACLU. We live in a Democracy where individual rights are protected by a Constitution. A democracy can become a tyranny of the majority without protection of individual minority rights. A constitution and Bill of Rights are not needed to protect the rights of the majority, as those rights are protected by the legislature and elected officials. For example, the 1st Amendment is not needed to protect popular speech, as the majority would not attempt to silent popular speech. So the next time you think about how wacky the ACLU is, just remember that you are in the majority on that issue and be thankful that there is someone out there protecting the rights of the minority because some day you might find yourself among the minority.
Bill? Two things….one, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy, BTW, is mob rule. Please, if you are going to wander in here and try to edumacate us dummies please at least know what it is you are talking about. Then again maybe you like the taste of foot.
Second (and the point of the post) is the ACLU sued san diego to stop the boy scouts from meeting on city land BECAUSE they said they are a religious organization and that city property couldn’t be used for religious purposes AND THEN the very same branch of the ACLU wants to city to NOT CHARGE religious groups for meeting rooms stating “that fees cannot be based on what the groups renting city rooms are saying or doing, but rather on conditions such as cleanup costs.”
I don’t know HOW you can’t see the hypocrisy, Bill. You are either blinded by ideology or stupid. So which is it Bill?
As usual, stoptheaclu.com gets it wrong.
The ACLU is not suing to stop the BSA from meeting on public property; the BSA must be treated the same as any other group.
The ACLU is suing the city for leasing public land for $1/year to the BSA, and for allowing the BSA to reserve this public land, preferring their own members over the general public.
PS: it took you over two years to comment on this news story from 2006?
Mr. Westley, thank you for your comment. I wish to point out that you missed the point of the article. The ACLU attacked the Scouts (yes, attacked) because of the lease with the city. The ACLU just can’t stand when someone stands up for a group that honors decency as the Scouts do. I guarantee if a satanic nudist organization dedicated to sacrificing small furry animals to the devil while having sex with children was able to lease the land for a dollar a year the ACLU wouldn’t say a word.
Now the very same ACLU is telling the city that it doesn’t matter what the group is about, they should only be charged on cleanup costs.
The hypocrisy is astounding. Attack the boy scouts and accuse them of being a religious organization in 06 and now they try to stop the city for charging religious organizations?
BTW, nice website you used as a link in your comment…your partisanship is showing…..I’d wager you got tossed from BSA for being gay, huh?
So the point of your article was NOT to completely mischaracterize the San Diego situation, it was to vilify the ACLU?
And sorry, you don’t get to “prove” your point by making up ridiculous situations and claiming you “know” what the ACLU will do. You don’t even know what the ACLU has done in actual court cases like the San Diego case, as evidenced by your inaccurate statements about it.
The ACLU says that the city has to treat people equally, regardless of their views (something you seem to be unable to grasp). No $1/year leases to the Scouts, but no charging religious groups for room use that other groups get for free, either.
And your batting average guessing about me is also 0%; I’d get tossed for being an atheist, but not for being gay. But I know that accuracy is not important for stoptheaclu.com
Brian, nobody knows what anyone will do about any given situation. We can only go on past performance. Given the ACLU’s past performance of attacking groups that are patriotic and/or promote decency I am taking a very educated guess about the ACLU’s inaction if naked pagans getting the same deal as the scouts.
The ACLU’s entire argument was predicated on the the Scouts being a religious organization. They claimed the Scouts, as a religious organization, should not be allowed the deal they had as it violated the separation of church and state (words that do not appear in the Constitution BTW).
Their argument was based on religious grounds. Now they are stating that religious and political groups should not be charged differently (I actually agree with that) but the point of the post is to point out the hypocrisy. If they were being even handed across the board they would sue the city to stop them from renting out space to any religious group.
See the difference?
Well, at least you admit that you just make up crap about the ACLU, though it’s pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with real ACLU cases.
Sorry, your argument still makes no sense. Only the Boy Scouts were offered the chance to lease land for $1/year; judge Jones found the lease to be improper because the city didn’t even follow its own procedures for leasing public land — they just gave the lease to the BSA. The BSA was NOT treated the same as everyone else in that situation.
Brian, I didn’t make up anything about the ACLU, and your false accusation exposes your class and the weakness of your position. Thank you for playing.
Of course you made up stuff:
“I guarantee if a satanic nudist organization dedicated to sacrificing small furry animals to the devil while having sex with children was able to lease the land for a dollar a year the ACLU wouldn’t say a word.”
That’s not made up?
Or how about this:
“Second (and the point of the post) is the ACLU sued san diego to stop the boy scouts from meeting on city land BECAUSE they said they are a religious organization”
That’s utterly FALSE.
The ACLU did not sue San Diego to stop the Boy Scouts from “meeting on city land,” they sued because San Diego leases public land to the Boy Scouts for $1/year via a lease that was not open to the city’s competitive bidding process.
But as I’ve said, you don’t appear to care about being accurate.
brian, from the article in 2006;
The case revolves around two elements of scouting: the organization’s ban on gay troop leaders or members and its oath that requires a scout to “do my duty to God,” among other principles.
THOSE are the reasons the ACLU attacked the Scouts. Not because they were getting land for a dollar a year. The lease started in 1957, so if the lease was the big deal why did the ACLU wait over 40 years to go after the city and the scouts? I will tell you why.
Because the ACLU despises organizations that back God and Country, promote traditional moral values and actually stand up for their beliefs.
You on the other hand seem to be on the side of perversion and indecency. I am guessing you are an atheist from an earlier comment you made.
I bet it just chaps your hide that there are still people in this country who stand up and say “our group believes in a Creator and so shall our members” doesn’t it? I am sitting here laughing imagining you getting spit on your screen just thinking about the fact that the Scouts have a moral standing you are unable to attain and it just causes you no end of grief.
Stop the hating Brian and get some help.
“The case revolves around two elements of scouting: the organization’s ban on gay troop leaders or members and its oath that requires a scout to “do my duty to God,” among other principles.
THOSE are the reasons the ACLU attacked the Scouts. Not because they were getting land for a dollar a year.”
Now you seem to be too stupid to even argue with.
The ACLU sued because the city was subsidizing the BSA’s discrimination by giving them public land for $1/year.
Plus, out come the usual insults. What, you’ve stopped trying to defend your false statements about the ACLU? You won’t even attempt to justify your grossly inaccurate statements about the San Diego lawsuit? Big surprise there.
It’s probably better that you’ve reached the mindless insult stage, as you aren’t doing very well when it comes to facts, or admitting your earlier false statements. Just foam at the mouth more.
“I understand that for most lay people this is over your head and beyond your ability to comprehend.”
Do you really believe that you advance your cause with this kind of obnoxious condescension?
As one of those uncomprehending lay persons, I have a simple question for you. At some point you (ie, the ACLU) had to decide whether or not to go after the Boy Scouts of America; did it ever occur to you that it might not be in America’s best interests to do this?
what insult brian? I haven’t insulted you…yet….but if I reach a point where I am of the opinion you no longer can discuss things in a civil and logical manner I may very well start with the insults.
I believe you are reaching that point so don’t be surprised if the insults do start.
Why you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of the ACLU on this issue is beyond me. Perhaps (and I am merely pointing out a supposition I am making and NOT insulting you) you have a reading comprehension problem. Maybe you are so blinded by your hatred of either the Scouts or Christian morals you simply don’t have the capacity for logical thought.
Quite possibly (and it is my belief this is the truth of the matter) you have issues about being mistaken and simply cannot admit you are wrong.
Which is it, Brian? Or have I missed the boat completely and you are suffering from a yet undiagnosed problem that causes you to fail to grasp simple concepts?
Brian he does get to do anything he wants on his blog, in case you don’t get it let me try and help you understand. This blog belongs to Kender, not the ACLU, not you, it is not funded by government money so Kender can write anything he wants. He can even send you to spam which is what I would have done a long time ago… Kender my friend, why are you even bothering with this person I know you have better things to do
Having read all the discussion, I have this to say. The Boy Scouts of America, which has been in existence for almost 100 years, is a “good” organization and one which provides a healthy program for young boys. According to their history, over 110 million young men have been through the scouting program (including me).
The Boy Scouts of America is not a religious organization, but they do require young men to be moral and to live their lives based on the ten commandments, and to do their duty to God, without specifying the particular religion. I am a Jew and came from a religious Jewish home. I had no problem with any aspect of the scouting program as far as my being Jewish.
If a young boy is an atheist and doesn’t believe in God he has two choices. He can join the scouts and just ignore the fact that there are some generic religious aspects or he can choose not to join the scouts. As far as the prohibition against homosexuals, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. Boy scouts camp out in tents with two or more boys living together in the tents. It would not be unreasonable to me for parents to be concerned about homosexual scouts or scout masters.
The Boy Scouts have a tradition that has worked over time. They should not be forced to change that tradition to satisfy some misplaced sense of equality. There are private clubs that set rules for belonging. If you don’t meet their criteria, you can’t be a member. That is the way life is.
Since the Boy Scouts do good in society, it seems only natural that societal institutions, such as municipal governments, ought to encourage the continuation of the scouting program by subsidizing meeting places or campgrounds when they can. We want to encourage those organizations that are good for our society.
I am all in favor of governmental organizations granting benefits to the Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts), or for that matter any other youth program which benefits our society.
For the ACLU to interfere, it seems to me, is to act against the best interest of our society. The ACLU is in the interesting position of opposing the Boy Scouts but supporting NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association). Don’t you find that the ACLU is on the wrong side of both those issues when it comes to deciding what is best for American society?
For those boys who are either atheists and do not want to participate in the Boy Scout program because of the references to God, or who are homosexuals, why not start a different scouting program which accepts atheists or homosexuals? Why try to force an organization which does so much good to change its policies?
Because they want to do away with “good” and replace it with paganism across the country; and deviant sexual practices.
In Afghanistan men take young boys as their concubines and serve as their “mentors” also.
Maybe these people should move there.
Brian, you might be in the minority, but that doesn’t mean you should win. Just because you want to put 8-year old boys in tents with predatory gay men doesn’t mean you should have the right to. And no, you shouldn’t be defended in a court of law to try and allow that.
The ACLU absolutely despises the Boy Scouts because they are a good organization. NO ONE is forced to join. Those who do join learn good things about this country. If you want to be gay, you go ahead and be gay — but stop trying to force others who don’t want to be gay to accept and love you.
Kender writes:
“Why you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of the ACLU on this issue is beyond me.”
Your summary of the San Diego lawsuit is WRONG. What you said was this:
“ACLU sued san diego to stop the boy scouts from meeting on city land BECAUSE they said they are a religious organization and that city property couldn’t be used for religious purposes”
That’s WRONG. The ACLU has never said this, nor would they sue anyone over it, and, as you yourself point out, the ACLU has said that religious (and political) groups have the SAME rights to use public facilities.
You keep thinking this is an example of ACLU hypocrisy, but it’s only due to your complete ignorance of the San Diego lawsuit. THAT lawsuit is over the city leasing land to the BSA for $1/year, thus subsidizing a discriminatory organization using public property. Yet you can’t understand this.
Brian, I am going to reiterate (that means repeat) my point. Before I do I want to point out something Gary Aminoff wrote (since I am not certain you are even reading comments now);
“Since the Boy Scouts do good in society, it seems only natural that societal institutions, such as municipal governments, ought to encourage the continuation of the scouting program by subsidizing meeting places or campgrounds when they can.”
Now on to the reiteration of a point from earlier. Pay very close attention to this next part Brian because it explains my point about the ACLU attacking the Scouts;
““The case revolves around two elements of scouting: the organization’s ban on gay troop leaders or members and its oath that requires a scout to “do my duty to God,” among other principles.”
The ACLU did not truly care one whit about the lease. Not one whit. They were suing because the Scouts ban gay troop leaders and have an oath to “God.” You know, for all the proclamations the left makes about being so tolerant they really aren’t tolerant of Christianity at all, are they Brian?
As Mr. Aminoff pointed out, the ACLU attacks the Scouts and supports NAMBLA. This leads me to wonder, Brian, what kind of person you may be. I don’t think I’d be going camping with YOU anytime soon there Mr. Brian Westley.
Sorry, you’re still misrepresenting the San Diego lawsuit. Your baseless charge of hypocrisy depends on the ACLU being against the BSA “meeting on city land,” which is completely false. It’s easy to knock down straw men that you yourself set up. Yes, I KNOW what your “point” is; you’re lying about the ACLU’s San Diego lawsuit to try and paint them as hypocrites. Pretty pathetic.
Now, since you’ve commented on an article that’s over two years old, you might want to know that the judge sided with the ACLU. But there I go unfairly injecting facts into this.
By the way, all the good the BSA does can’t outweigh the constitutional problems of using tax money to subsidize a private club that has religious requirements for membership.
The BSA has been losing public support since the Dale decision because of this. Public schools, the largest single sponsor of Cub Scout packs 10 years ago, now cannot charter any Cub Scout packs, because public schools can’t run private clubs that exclude atheists.
Yes, I know you want to see the Boy Scouts continue to leech off government welfare and make everyone pay for it by using tax money, but you don’t get everything you want.
I think I see your problem here, Brian. You hate the concept of God. The BSA doesn’t have a reiurement of religion. They teach their members to live in a moral fashion and expect them to hold to moral ideals. Maybe your problem is with morals. Are you immoral, Brian? The city leasing resources to the BSA is no different than them leasing resources to, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. Both do good works. If the city leased land to AA would you disagree with it, Brian?
Again I say it is you missing the hypocrisy of the ACLU on this issue…Speaking of issues I believe you have quite a few. One against religion or morals (possibly both) maybe one against decency and certainly one that keeps you from being able to admit when you are wrong.
Must suck to be you.
I think I see the problem here; you can’t form a coherent argument, so you keep throwing up straw men.
The San Diego case hinges on the BSA’s $1/year lease awarded without following the city’s own competitive bidding process. But since you can’t argue against that, you try to claim that the ACLU is being inconsistent, when it isn’t.
And now you can’t even argue against me, so, like a lot of people with pretend invisible friends, you say it’s because I don’t believe in YOUR special invisible friend.
Now see you are ascribing belief in a “special invisible friend” to me. I have never argued from a religious standpoint. BTW that’s quite an insulting phrase to toss out to someone you think may be religious. I haven’t even started insulting you yet and here you are offending believers in a creator.
Nice way to show your tolerance there Brian. If I wasn’t laughing so hard imagining you sitting in yoru basement yelling up for your mom to bring you another Mt. Dew I might be upset.
Oh geez….there I go tossing out insults….back to the point at hand.
The ACLU can claim all day the reason they sued is because of the lease, but it took them over 40 years to get around to complaining about that lease, which shows me it wasn’t about the lease, it was an emboldened ACLU attacking a group that promotes morals and clean living.
Rail all you want, brian, the fact remains that the ACLU attacks organizations that promote morals and defends organizations that promote vile indecency.
You can comment all day about the lease but everybody reading this with an ounce of understanding and reading comprehension will see the point and understand the ACLU’s attack on decency continues unabated and aided by people such as yourself, whose unresolved issues continue to interfere with you ability to live a life worth living.
As I said, Brian, it must suck to be you.
Facts sure do twist in the wind with you, don’t they Brian? The BSA has actually been gaining support since the “Dale” decision. Any many, many public schools ARE still being used by the Boy Scouts. Many honestly don’t care what the judge says, they know that the Boy Scouts are a good organization that helps everyone — even people who want to be gay.
However, the ACLU, and you, Mr (or is it Mrs) Westley, simply don’t like any organization that doesn’t accept, approve, support, and advance the radical gay agenda. Fortunately, not everyone hates people being free to associate with one another.
“Now see you are ascribing belief in a “special invisible friend” to me. I have never argued from a religious standpoint.”
Of course you have:
“I think I see your problem here, Brian. You hate the concept of God.”
And 40 years ago, the BSA wasn’t claiming to be a private organization that can discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. Now that they are, they are losing government largess, as they ought to.
And to “Ogre,” please learn the difference between public schools SPONSORING cub scout packs, vs. cub scout packs that meet in schools. Public schools can no longer be chartering partners for cub scout packs; cub scouts packs sponsored by outside groups can meet on school grounds on the same basis as any other outside group. Again, they are being treated equally instead of being given special treatment.
Brian, where have I said I was a religious person? Where in these pages have I proclaimed a belief in a creator? My beliefs are my beliefs and I never trot them out as a defense for any argument.
You have gone from a weak argument to outright lying. Seems about right for those of you who hate decency and morals.
So, Brian, what particular fetish of yours is it that caused you to despise morals and decency to this extent?
“Brian, where have I said I was a religious person?”
I guessed from what you’ve said. Since you guessed I was gay (incorrectly), and later said “I am guessing you are an atheist from an earlier comment you made”, you don’t seem opposed to guessing.
If I’m wrong, feel free to say so.
“You have gone from a weak argument to outright lying.”
You know, being called a liar by a liar has no effect on me.
Being called a liar would have an effect on any person capable of logical, rational thought regardless of who was doing the calling, liar or no, Brian.
So I guess my calling you a liar will have no effect on you.
The opinions of liars like yourself are worthless.
And opinions of people whose intelligence is lacking is of no consequence whatsoever. Especially those who are lying when they call others liars….if you can grasp the flow of logic there, which I would wager you cannot.
All in all Brian, even though you seem to be of sub par intelligence, lacking in the capability to think rationally and logically and blind to all facts save those you chose to grasp in a singular attempt to prove yourself correct while ignoring the truth presented to you I must say the commentary to have posted here is highly entertaining.
It’s fun to watch the short bus riders expound on their reality…simply fascinating stuff. Thanks.
As usual, you’re reduced to making ridiculous and pathetic insults.
That’s the thing about my insults, Brian. They may border on ridiculous (the their targets that is) but that are far from pathetic. A pathetic insult would be one such as this (which I offer as an example);
You’re a moron, Brian.
Now see, what I did was not pathetic like my example. It was more of a roundabout insult couched in my opinions of you formed from the never ending drivel of pathetic comments you leave on this site.
See what I did there, Brian? I inserted another roundabout insult in the explanation of roundabout insults. Basically I said (and I am only explaining this in detail because I am not certain you would understand it otherwise) the comments you leave are pathetic. Most people are going to carry that one step further and take for granted the person leaving pathetic comments is also, by extension, a pathetic person in general. Basically (just so we are clear here) I called you pathetic in a roundabout way.
What’s really funny is while my insults are far from pathetic I turned it around and called your misrepresentation (I won’t call it a lie…yet) and by extension you, pathetic.
Please keep commenting Brian…..this is the most entertainment I have had in hours…really…I feel like a cat with a mouse….better yet, I feel like a certain mouse with a cat;
En garde monsieur pussycat!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Man, you’re really a fool, aren’t you? By the way, how’s that “stopping the ACLU” going, eh? 400,000 members, I bet your lying about ACLU lawsuits really cuts into their numbers.
400,000 out of 300 million plus? That’s an awful small percentage of the population. It shows just what percentage of the population is either completely obtuse or hates the country. Actually I feel good about those numbers.
That is a really small number of idiots and traitors. To listen to the MSM one would think the percentage of American hating morons was higher than that…just goes to show what having the media on your side can do for you.
So, which group ado you fall into Brian? Are you with the “hate America” crowd or the “I don’t have a clue” group?
Since the ACLU, for the most part, simply brings up cases before the US court system, I guess you consider judges to be traitors or idiots too, eh? The ACLU doesn’t render verdicts, judges do.
What a fool you are.
Brian, point one that is called judicial activism, a practice the folks around here despise but one which your side embraces.
Two, thank you for commenting. I have a side bet going on how many more times you will come back to drop your turds. I am up to five bucks.
Come on brian, make it ten…..
So, you consider judges to be traitors? Not surprising, as you don’t seem to care about the US legal system.
Hey c’mon kender, make some dumb remark again. Completely forget about making a coherent argument, just babble. Here, I’ll leave room:
that enough?
So where are you? Say something funny, like “I didn’t make up anything about the ACLU” again.
Running scared? thought so. Byeeee……
Thank you Brian. That’s ten bucks. And there’s a difference between a Judge and a Judicial activist, but this is yet another issue I don’t expect you to be able to grasp.
Is it time for simple, gratuitous insults, Brian? Or do you actually have something worthwhile to say?
Wow, take a five minute break from working and get accused of running scared? BTW that’s 21 bucks I am up to (the price per comment dropped after 4)…as I asked Brian, don’t you ahve anything worthwhile to say?
Or are you just going to sit here and drool at us?
Looks like he gave up. But he hung in there a lot longer than someone with sense would have.