Don't kill the Legal Services Corporation: Christian lawyer

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Tue Apr 11, 2017, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

From the article:

Most of the legal needs of the poor go unmet. The result is a crisis of justice....

The battle over the budget proposed by the Trump administration is just beginning, with hot debates over cuts to programs like the Public Broadcasting System. Unfortunately, one of the casualties getting less attention is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides free legal representation and access to the law for those who can’t afford it. The Trump budget would completely defund it.

To read more:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/07/dont-kill-legal-services-corporation-christian-lawyer-column/100070446/

What you do for the least of these, you do also for me.

Edited to add:
It is apparent from the responses that some here feel that anything progressive that is done is completely outweighed by the totality of positions taken by the organization. Providing free legal service is a progressive idea, as is feeding the poor and dealing with other social justice issues. If we are to reject all with whom we do not agree on every issue, it is the same type of infighting that we saw in the 2016 campaign wherein the "more progressive than thou" tactic divided people.

If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is. We can either try to grow the big tent or not.

[trotsky]

1. "What you do for the least of these, you do also for me."

FYI, a lot of anti-choice Christians use that as their rallying cry to oppose reproductive rights.

[guillaumeb]

2. And the substance of the post?

Your opinion.

[trotsky]

3. Well, let's just say you picked another real "progressive" winner.

https://www.clsnet.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=496

David Nammo is executive director and CEO of the Christian Legal Society since 2012.

He is the former executive vice president of the Leadership Project for America, where he worked closely with conservative leaders such as former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, Publisher Al Regnery, Club for Growth founder Steve Moore, and U.S. Rep. David McIntosh, in preparation for the 2012 election cycle.

He also was the executive director of the Family Research Council Action (FRCA), the 501(c)(4) arm of the Family Research Council. While at the Family Research Council, he worked on political issues, interfaced with Congress, and met with candidates from across the country. He also started the first PAC for the Family Research Council and engaged in the 2008 election cycle in over 40 states.

THE FAMILY FUCKING RESEARCH COUNCIL! Jesus Christ dude, you just keep digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole. You are humiliating yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Well, in fairness, it's so hard to tell, and confirmation bias and all that.

[guillaumeb]

5. Still waiting for your pure and perfect progressive list.

Again, cue Jeopardy music.

[trotsky]

12. And I'll tell you again, I'm not honoring your random demands.

It's not my job to provide you a way to distract from your blunders.

You need to stand by your "progressive" theists. YOU initiated these threads as a way to honor believers that you think are worthy. YOU need to defend your Family Research Council dude.

[Heddi]

6. OMG. You're quoting this guy?

https://clsnet.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=496

DAVID NAMMO
David Nammo is executive director and CEO of the Christian Legal Society since 2012.
He is the former executive vice president of the Leadership Project for America, where he worked closely with conservative leaders such as former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, Publisher Al Regnery, Club for Growth founder Steve Moore, and U.S. Rep. David McIntosh, in preparation for the 2012 election cycle.
He also was the executive director of the Family Research Council Action (FRCA), the 501(c)(4) arm of the Family Research Council. While at the Family Research Council, he worked on political issues, interfaced with Congress, and met with candidates from across the country. He also started the first PAC for the Family Research Council and engaged in the 2008 election cycle in over 40 states.

Yeah. Real progressive. Here are some of the feelings of the Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/

http://www.frc.org/faqs
Q - Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer? A...
A - The Marriage and Religion Research Institute's (MARRI) Dr. Pat Fagan and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi reviewed 72 epidemiological studies and concluded:

"Developmental biology and the results of epidemiologic and ecological epidemiological studies show that induced abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Studies often cited as demonstrating no link between induced abortion and breast cancer are fatally flawed. As such, these studies are insufficient evidence for the claim that induced abortion has no influence on a woman's risk of breast cancer.

By contrast, many studies--none perfect, but some characterized by better methods-show induced abortion to have an influence on breast cancer risk. This influence is found in many studies to be positive, and statistically significant. The size of the influence varies across studies, depending on the population considered and the methods used."

The study can be found here.

The studies and their significance can be found at MarriPedia- Studies on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link in Additional Resources section.
--
Q - With all of the divorces that are occurring in the United States, shouldn't FRC address this issue instead of same-sex marriage? A...
A - Divorce causes tremendous devastation to families, children, and society. The issue of divorce reform has been an issue that FRC has dealt with since we began in 1983. We have consistently called for the repeal of no-fault divorce laws in all 50 states. We continue to promote the sanctity of marriage, and we will not relent in our insistence to reform divorce laws. Yet, the issue of divorce reform at the political level has struggled to receive much attention.

Currently, FRC is faced with protecting the religious liberty of those who believe in the natural marriage of one man and one woman. With our limited resources and staff number and considering the fact that the religious liberty of believing Christians is seriously threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage, this is our current priority when it comes to public policy about marriage.

Additional Resources
FRC resources on deterring divorce
Focus on the Family
Marriage Savers

Q - I am struggling with homosexuality. Will you please refer me to organizations that can help me? A...
A - Many people, including Christians, struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions. There are support groups that help persons such as yourself deal with those feelings in a way that pleases God. We recommend contacting the organizations at the below links:

Additional Resources
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays

Q - My child's school has begun a gay and lesbian group. What can I do to prevent homosexual activism from being taught in our school? A...
A - We recommend ordering our publication "Homosexuality in Your Child's School," which will be helpful as you face homosexual activism in your local school (see links below). We commend you for standing for truth and for seeking information that will help your community.

You may also want to visit the organizations' websites at the below links.

For legal information, we recommend contacting the Alliance Defending Freedom.-
------

Never thought I'd see the day where Family fucking Research Council is posted on DU as evidence of progressive religious values. Sickening that this bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, hateful organization is being touted as some progressive bastion of religious freedom

[guillaumeb]

7. And the legal services provided to the poor?

As to this:

Never thought I'd see the day where Family fucking Research Council is posted on DU as evidence of progressive religious values. Sickening that this bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, hateful organization is being touted as some progressive bastion of religious freedom

I made no claim that he is a progressive, or that he is perfect, or that I agree with any or all of his political positions. I am simply posting examples of religious people doing good works.

You are aware that the religion group is not reserved solely for posting of negative news and opinions about religion, are you not?

Feel free to post about non-theist progressives. I would appreciate the learning opportunity.

[Lordquinton]

8. So what's your point?

Monsters can do good things too? You are just underlining the argument that religious people use the poor to make themselves look better. These people love helping the poor, it distracts from them making people poor in the first place.

[guillaumeb]

9. Blaming the legal service operation for making people poor?

Monsters?

Okay.

[Lordquinton]

10. Yea, actual monsters

If you did any research at all you'd be as embarrassed as the rest of us.

[guillaumeb]

11. And if they cease operating, who provides the legal services?

And is providing free legal service a bad thing?

This type of argument reminds me of the purity arguments that some theists like to make. That one must be 100% in accord with a certain faith outlook to be called good.

[Lordquinton]

14. Do you seriously have no idea who you're talking about?

You see "Christian" and "Free legal services to the poor" and absolutely ignore everything else about them? These people are actual monsters, which you would know if you had read like, I dunno, any of the information posted in this thread.

Maybe visit their site and read their gushing praise of the new SC justice, and how god placed him there and think about the kind of legal services they will provide.

[trotsky]

13. That hey, maybe he hates homosexuals, women, and everything about the progressive agenda,

but he provides legal services to the poor! Well that, and he's a Christian, so HE'S PROGRESSIVE!!!!

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. HE. BELONGS. TO. A. HATE. GROUP

What you're doing here... it's like praising David Duke for working in a soup kitchen.

Please stop.

[beam me up scottie]

17. No kidding.

What's next - a rousing defense of other hate groups? I hear the Aryan Brotherhood has a mentoring program.








Shouldn't need this but that's folks.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. The Deutsche Arbeitsfront established atheletic and educational programs for German workers...

...pretty progressive for the 1930's. Except they were fucking Nazis.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Hitler was a vegetarian.

Also pretty progressive for his time. And how about those good works for the Hitler youth?

If it wasn't for that whole Nazi thing...








Again - shouldn't be necessary but that's

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. He was also a staunch anti-smoker...

...and initiated an anti-smoking campaign decades before the US followed suit.

He's also personally responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews, but you know, praise 'em for the good things they do, amirite?

(Also shouldn't be necessary, but since dishonesty and functional illiteracy combined can be a dangerous thing: )

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. Hitler loved his dogs

Doesn't make him a good person or someone you'd want to use an example of Progressive theists on an internet message board.

To reiterate: you used the head of a HATE GROUP as an example of the wonderful things believers do. Then edited your post to try to hide the fact that you pointed to said HATE GROUP.

[guillaumeb]

22. This post is NOT part of my PPOF series.

I said that what they were doing, providing free legal services, is a progressive thing. I did not indicate that the group is progressive, or that I agree with any of their other positions.

Sorry, you do not win a prize for being the first to make a Hitler/NAZI reference. Sean Spicer won that earlier.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Nammo is a lawyer for the extremist hate group the Family Research Council.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate groups:

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people as the organization battles against same-sex marriage, hate crime laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

In Its Own Words

“Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.”

– Family Research Council website, 2016

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

The FRC advocates the oppression and persecution of lgbt people.

"What you do for the least of these, you do also for me"

Since they don't think lgbt people are deserving of human rights that sounds like hypocrisy.

[Lordquinton]

21. As to your edit

No, the tent isn't big enough for bigots and hate groups.

Those services they provide aren't free, they are getting benifits out of them like tax breaks and PR, which they need...

[guillaumeb]

23. Given that no one has defined what a progressive is, I am left with

deciding for myself. I am posting progressive actions taken by people of faith. When I posted about a religious order feeding the homeless, one poster immediately assumed that the Sisters are/were anti-choice. There is no proof of that, nothing mentioned about that, but the poster assumed something and offered zero evidence to back up the assumption.

SO what motivates such a response to a post about people of faith taking progressive actions?

By your logic, are all charitable donations motivated solely by tax breaks? Another assumption of motivation for which there is zero evidence offered in support. Interesting, and revealing, in my opinion.

[trotsky]

25. Yes, and as many of us have pointed out, YOUR definition of "progressive"...

means that one can oppose LGBTQIA* rights, the equality of women, healthcare access, reproductive rights, and EVEN FUCKING BELONG TO A KNOWN HATE GROUP (the Family Research Council), and yet still be considered "progressive."

I am beyond disgusted. This is easily the worst stunt you've pulled - and that's saying a lot. Here on DU, I have to see someone praising a fucking hate group. Imploring that we make them part of the "big tent." Chastising those who disagree.

Your hatred of those who dare criticize religion, and desperate need to try and find something to counter that criticism, has led you to a very evil, dark place and ally yourself with the most putrid bedfellows. I implore you to take a step back and realize what you are doing.

[guillaumeb]

29. Pure misrepresentation.

You said, of me:

YOUR definition of "progressive"...
means that one can oppose LGBTQIA* rights, the equality of women, healthcare access, reproductive rights, and EVEN FUCKING BELONG TO A KNOWN HATE GROUP (the Family Research Council), and yet still be considered "progressive."

I talked about taking progressive actions. Your attempt at reframing fails because you cannot point to one instance where I said anything like what you are claiming.

Amazing that you would make such an unsupported accusation.

[trotsky]

33. Bullshit. It's an ACCURATE representation.

You have presented multiple individuals in multiple threads as doing good things in the name of their religion. Multiple people have pointed out the decidedly NON-progressive things those individuals are doing / have done as well, but you have ignored all concerns in the name of promoting religion as a wonderful force for good.

All of your selections have been sketchy in one way or another, but this one really took the cake. The Family Research
Council. Unbelievable.

Your hatred has totally consumed you.

[guillaumeb]

35. Again, nothing to back up your very specific accusations.

And anyone reading the thread will realize it.

As far as hatred, it is obvious what motivates the anti-religion posts that are so prevalent here, as well as the mischaracterizations of believers.

[trotsky]

36. I am perfectly happy letting everyone read your threads and come to their own conclusions.

Seeing that this thread itself has a total of ZERO recommendations, I believe readers have quite properly done exactly that.

[guillaumeb]

37. So recommendations are a sign of what exactly?

Is there a contest going on for recommendations?

How about for sheer number of posts in a specified period?

You could admit that you cannot support what you claim is my position by any actual evidence.

[trotsky]

38. My claim is perfectly supported by everything you have posted.

I will continue to wage war on you and your threads as long as you continue to promote groups like the Family Research Council.

That is INEXCUSABLE and you can't even bring yourself to condemn them.

Plenty of other DUers have weighed in, and plenty more have refused to endorse your praise of the FRC.

You stand all alone with the FRC.

As it should be, on DU. This is no longer a religion vs. non-religion issue. It's people who want to praise hate groups versus people who want to oppose them. You've made it clear which side you want to be on, and it's solely because of your hatred of atheists posting their opinions about religion.

And that is so very sad.

[guillaumeb]

39. You claim is baseless.

It is that simple. As is your claim that I am supporting or praising the FRC in any way other than recognizing the one good thing that they do.

[trotsky]

40. So you think.

Others have clearly made up their minds.

Your behavior in defending the FRC has been duly noted by everyone here.

[Lordquinton]

43. So... Can you start with acknowledging that this is a hate group?

You haven't even done that.

[guillaumeb]

44. If I have not exolicitly denounced the vast majority of what they do,

my opinion should be obvious based on what I have written here. And I see no need to constantly swear an oath of progressive allegiance.

SPLC has labelled them a hate group, but there has been controversy about SPLC ratings. Do you accept the SPLC as your supreme arbiter?

[beam me up scottie]

46. So now you question whether or not they're actually a hate group?

A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians.

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people as the organization battles against same-sex marriage, hate crime laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”

In their OWN WORDS:

“The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”

“(H)omosexual activists vehemently reject the evidence which suggests that homosexual men … are … relative to their numbers, more likely to engage in such actions (childhood sexual abuse) than are heterosexual men.”

“The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle."

"Those who understand the homosexual community—the activists—they're very aggressive, they're—everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They're intolerant, they're hateful, vile, they're spiteful. .... To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation."

"We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men."

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

"A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”

"One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/family-research-council

You just asked:

SPLC has labelled them a hate group, but there has been controversy about SPLC ratings. Do you accept the SPLC as your supreme arbiter?

Do you actually deny that the Family Research Council is a hate group? Do you really need them to spell it all out for you?

I don't.

Is the Family Research Council an anti-lgbt hate group?


ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

I WOULD RECOGNIZE THEM AS A HATE GROUP EVEN IF THE SPLC DIDN'T EXIST.

Does that answer your question?

[guillaumeb]

47. Are you LQ's official spokesperson?

If so, in future I will address my replies to you rather than LQ.

And while the FLC is not a group I would ally with, the CLS does valuable work in representing people from all communities.

And the LSC work was the actual subject of the post until it was hijacked and replaced with a straw man that could be more easily attacked.

This should clarify, but...........

[beam me up scottie]

49. Answer the question please.

You questioned the validity of the SPLC listing the FRC as a hate group:

SPLC has labelled them a hate group, but there has been controversy about SPLC ratings. Do you accept the SPLC as your supreme arbiter?

Now answer the question please:

Do you actually deny that the Family Research Council is a hate group?

[guillaumeb]

50. Not the subject of the post about the CLS.

And you did not answer my question abut your role as spokesperson.

Do you feel that the work of the many affiliated CLS groups is controlled by the FRC?

[beam me up scottie]

51. Answer the question please.

Do you deny that the Family Research Council is a hate group?

[guillaumeb]

52. When you admit that the subject of my post was the LSC, (IN the post's title)

and when you stop trying to change the subject to your preferred narrative, and after you answer what I asked first, I will answer your question.

With that in mind, I will wait.

[beam me up scottie]

53. I have no idea what you're talking about. The topic of discussion is the FRC - a known hate group.

In fact that was LQ's original question:

So... Can you start with acknowledging that this is a hate group?

Maybe that was confusing, let me rephrase:

Do you admit that the Family Research Council is a hate group?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

[guillaumeb]

54. I agree with your first sentence.

First, look at the title of my post. Notice that the post concerns the LCS. The confusion probably came when you accepted the hijacked version that one poster introduced.

And after the hijacking, the original post was ignored so a group of posters could attack the total straw man of the FRC.

Now that we have cleared that up, why do you feel that someone thought it was necessary to hijack the thread?

And to help a bit, if you care to read it:

Here is a link. Note that they represent many types of clients in a wide variety of situations.



Here is one example:

Justice and Mercy Legal Aid Clinic
Steve Thompson, JAMLAC Director
913 N. Wyandot Street
Denver, CO 80204
JAMLAC provides legal services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Our services include victim advocacy, legal consultations and representation on a case by case basis. We provide services for victims in the following areas:
Family Law Matters (divorce, child custody, child support, protection orders)
Immigration Matters
Bankruptcy
Sealing of Records
General Civil Matters

Perhaps this will clear up some confusion.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Tl;dr.

Please answer the question.

Is the Family Research Council a hate group?


Yes or no.

[guillaumeb]

56. I actually asked a few questions first.

Which you ignored.

You are not the interrogator here.

[beam me up scottie]

57. If you want to go there then LQ asked first and so did I. You never answered.

I don't understand why you won't simply answer the question.

What's so difficult about admitting the Family Research Council is a hate group?

It's not like we haven't provided you with relevant facts and quotes proving they fit the definition.

This is all rather bizarre.

[guillaumeb]

58. What is bizarre is how one poster derailed the thread

and how a group of people insist on only discussing the derailment.

What is so difficult about you answering my previous questions?

[beam me up scottie]

59. How is discussing a hate group in a thread about a member of that hate group derailing the thread?

David Nammo is member of a hate group, you posted his LTTE and we took offense because ... one more time:

HE'S A MEMBER OF A HATE GROUP.

It's a simple yes or no question:

Is the Family Research Council a hate group?

[guillaumeb]

60. Another repeat, with the same faulty information.

Read the title of my post. It is the first line.

If you really want to know, look up the SPLC listing for the FRC, and while you are there, look for a listing for the actual subject of this post and report back on your results.

I already did prior to posting.

Hint: the actual subject of this post is not listed.

[beam me up scottie]

61. None of that is relevant to the subject we're discussing - which is hate groups.

And whether or not the Family Research Council is indeed a hate group.

It's a simple question.

Are they a hate group, yes or no?

[guillaumeb]

62. Have a nice night, and if you get a chance, do that research.

If you wish to discuss my actual post, not your preferred topic, I will check tomorrow.

Perhaps you should devote a post to hate groups and see if you can find this group. The actual group that I posted about, that is.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Thanks but I've done all the research on hate groups I can stand for now.

The Family Research Council definitely qualifies and I will never praise David Nammo or any other member who belongs to it.

[Lordquinton]

41. And piling on more straw

You are still ignoring the glaring fact that the people in this case actually are monsters. A wise person would cut their losses.

[Lordquinton]

42. To your comment about the nuns

They are Catholic, therefore they are anti-choice. And anti-LFBTQIA. We can safely say this because the church has strict dogma about those issues.

If Catholics don't want to be seen that way they should leave the church.

[guillaumeb]

45. Determining what Catholics MUST do, are you?

And also determining what their positions MUST be?

So certain are you?

This is getting very close to the no true Scotsman argument, but approaching it obliquely.

[ExciteBike66]

26. Ok, but

"If conservatives are doing progressive work, even if on one issue, we should recognize that work for what it is."

Ok, but let's not call them "Progressive people of faith" if they are conservatives who, like the broken clock, always get things right twice a day...

[trotsky]

27. And when they are ACTIVELY promoting hatred against the LGBT community...

I don't even care about the one good thing they're doing. The Family Research Council doesn't need our validation, nor do they care one iota about being congratulated by liberals.

[ExciteBike66]

28. I'm just waiting for our friend Guillameb to

start congratulating the KKK for adopting that highway in Georgia.

[guillaumeb]

31. Rather than wait, see my reply at #30.

[guillaumeb]

30. I did not call them PPOF.

Some posters here have apparently decided that because I do have a PPOF series of posts that all of my posts must be of that series. Simply not true.

[ExciteBike66]

32. Good.

Don't. Because they are not.

[trotsky]

34. No, this wasn't in his special "series" of threads.

But it was in exactly the same vein, trying to highlight alleged "progressive" acts or positions by Christians.

This one really bit him in the ass though. Promoting a known hate group.

[guillaumeb]

48. Still trying to divert and reframe?

I hope that you buy straw in quantity. Did you look at my few links to the CLS? I ask because the CLS is the actual subject of the thread even if there has been so much hijacking and building with straw and baseless charges that the original post seems almost lost.

By the way, it seems that the PPOF has inspired another to post similarly.

And judging by the huge number of views, this controversy is of interest at DU. My hope is to present a more balanced view of faith by trying to counter the very large number of posts that focus solely on the negatives of religion.

[trotsky]

64. Hate. Group.

You are defending them, and praising them for alleged "progressive" acts.

You own it. No amount of deflection on your part is changing any of this.

Yeah you have a shit ton of views, because most people are like me and SHOCKED that DUer is taking the side of hate groups. You still have ZERO recs. That's the take-home point. No one else is supporting your defense of a hate group.

Keep drawing this out, let MORE people see what you are doing. I'm loving this.

[guillaumeb]

65. Entirely wrong on your part.

And your constant attempts at reframing and deflecting threads exposes your tactics.