Treason/ the A.C.L.U.

[Maverick3000]

Perhaps you did miss it

A.) The Boy Scouts are not a private club, they are publicly funded. Thats why they get more scrutiny for their membership restrictions.

B.) The second one is a god awful source and shouldn't be relied on. The only source for the allegation is an accusation made by the opposing organization. And the club wasn't denied from existing or being able to use school property, they just were not recognized as an official school club. Schools have the right to be able not to recgonize some clubs, especially when it involves giving public money to them.

 

[MachZer0]

A.) The Boy Scouts are not a private club, they are publicly funded. Thats why they get more scrutiny for their membership restrictions.

B.) The second one is a god awful source and shouldn't be relied on. The only source for the allegation is an accusation made by the opposing organization. And the club wasn't denied from existing or being able to use school property, they just were not recognized as an official school club. Schools have the right to be able not to recgonize some clubs, especially when it involves giving public money to them.

Somehow, you've missed the entire point. I suggest you go back over the thread starting at the post I linked, because I have no intention of rehashing my argument(which thoroughly exposed the left wing double standard) from the beginning

 

[Maverick3000]

Somehow, you've missed the entire point. I suggest you go back over the thread starting at the post I linked, because I have no intention of rehashing my argument(which thoroughly exposed the left wing double standard) from the beginning

What point? Its clearly obvious you don't know how the ACLU runs, its history, nor how law actually works. I already pointed out how the two accusations were horribly inaccurate. Maybe you should reread the post where I mentioned the ACLU's history of backing Christian groups.

 

[MachZer0]

What point? Its clearly obvious you don't know how the ACLU runs, its history, nor how law actually works. I already pointed out how the two accusations were horribly inaccurate. Maybe you should reread the post where I mentioned the ACLU's history of backing Christian groups.

What's clearly obvious is that you chose not to read my posts

 

[Nathan Poe]

Somehow, you've missed the entire point.

You had no point, Mach -- missing it is inevitable.

I suggest you go back over the thread starting at the post I linked, because I have no intention of rehashing my argument(which thoroughly exposed the left wing double standard) from the beginning

IOW, your phantom arguments have once again been exposed for your usual smoke and mirrors, and it's time for you to desperately change the subject -- again.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What's clearly obvious is that you chose not to read my posts

Few people do, Mach -- you should be used to being marginalized.

 

[MachZer0]

You had no point, Mach -- missing it is inevitable.



IOW, your phantom arguments have once again been exposed for your usual smoke and mirrors, and it's time for you to desperately change the subject -- again.

I'll mark you down in that category of folks who didn't read my posts

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll mark you down in that category of folks who didn't read my posts

A category also known as "The general public."

 

[MachZer0]

A category also known as "The general public."

If the general public doesn't read my posts, I'm not surprised since the general public is not here at CF, only a very small part of it is. However, some who are indeed here seem to enjoy criticizing those posts even without reading them. That attitude never ceases to amaze me. There's an expression for that I think. If I remember it, I'll let you know

 

[Nathan Poe]

If the general public doesn't read my posts, I'm not surprised since the general public is not here at CF, only a very small part of it is.

Fair enough -- I should've substituted "doesn't take you all that seriously" and/or "doesn't think you have much worth reading." Then we could quite easily (and accurately, I surmise) use CF as a representative sample for the general public.

However, some who are indeed here seem to enjoy criticizing those posts even without reading them. That attitude never ceases to amaze me.

You're amazed that people have you figured out? Really, Mach, it's not that complicated.

There's an expression for that I think. If I remember it, I'll let you know

Doubtful.

 

[MachZer0]

Fair enough -- I should've substituted "doesn't take you all that seriously" and/or "doesn't think you have much worth reading." Then we could quite easily (and accurately, I surmise) use CF as a representative sample for the general public.

I stand corrected. You were talking about the people who can't respond to my arguments and know they've been bested

Can't blame them for not reading my posts. It's bad for their egos