Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

If ‘domination’ is your goal, NOM, have at it. We’ll stick with education


Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

If by “dominates” NOM means “eats up the most amount of time using the same rhetorical talking points and unrelated asides that could never hold muster in an actual court of law (which is why you don’t see Brian Brown on any witness stand),” then yes, perhaps this headline holds some merit:

Screen Shot 2011-02-27 At 5.15.22 Pm

But if you, the viewer, come from a perspective that values substance that can withstand the scrutiny of constitutional law, civil marriage conversations that stick to the subject at hand instead of an ancillary element like procreation, and scientific definitions of sexual orientation that don’t call into question why the American Psychological Association shuts out obviously biased efforts to undermine their peer-reviewed work with “gays can change” agendas (something Fox News host Lauren Green suggests the APA should reconsider), then you might have a hard time putting a “W” in Mr. Brown’s victory column. Have a look:


Brian seriously sounds like he’s going to cry throughout much of it. Or like he’s going to take his toys and go home. His tired, deceptive rants are not so much dictatorial or angry: Instead they are soaking in falsely-victimized, self-righteously whiny, undeniably preachy tones. And that’s not a criticism of his performance, either, since that tone is EXACTLY the one that NOM has adopted as a strategy. The one they’ve carefully workshopped. The goal is to dominate the air time with rapid fire lists of concerns and supposed “horribles”, conveyed though a falsely-shocked “can you believe what they’re doing to us?” filter, in hopes that the viewers’ sympathies will fall not with the gay man who wants so badly to marry his husband in his own home state, but rather with the already-married heterosexual man who quite literally profits from Sean Eldridge’s knot tying inabilities.

This domination strategy probably works with some (especially on Fox News). But our money’s ultimately on the team who cares not for domination, but rather coexistence.


  • 1. Ronnie  |  February 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    "His tired, deceptive rants are not so much dictatorial or angry: Instead they are soaking in falsely-victimized, self-righteously whiny, undeniably preachy tones."

    TRUE THAT!!!….<3…Ronnie

  • 2. Cat  |  February 27, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    BB is a victim of fear enforced by money producing shallow and false arguments resonating in an echo chamber… When any reasonable counter argument could be heard and a teachable moment is within easy reach, his mind goes la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

  • 3. Ed Cortes  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:53 pm

    la-la-la – reminds me of a certain senator when "discussing" DADT repeal, doesn't it?

  • 4. Ed Cortes  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    and now….chekin' da box! 🙂

  • 5. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Teachable moments? Counter arguments?


  • 6. Martin the Brit  |  February 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Having watched that Fox clip, was anyone else wondering what the hell the presenter was talking about when she commented on the APA?

    Presenter: "But I do have to take umbrage with the APA because it- they have notoriously rejected any kind of paper that has anything negative to do with homosexuality or with any kind of, um, study that shows perhaps that homosexuality is not born bred. And that's my problem with the APA. They've got all these great studies out there but the studies have been -(???)- flawed and then many people have actually shown the flaws in them."

    I’m genuinely interested to know what she’s referring to here. Does anyone have any ideas?

  • 7. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    There is a widely circulated meme that the APA and other mental health scientific bodies are 'controlled by the evil homosexual conspiracy menace' and make determinations regarding same-sex attraction based on scientific experimentation and scrutiny as opposed to well thought out biblical arguments and studies compiled by the Family Research Council.

    These so-called 'societies for the public good' are notorious for rejecting any intellectual opinions based on self-proved theories that portray deviant immoral peoples in a way that is inconsistent with the obvious fact that heterosexual people can 'choose' to have aberrant and abhorrent sexual interactions namely that of homosexuality. These flaws have been pointed out by 'many people' (the same 'many people' as quoted by many other people) and so therefore are by default NOT moral or religious.

    Hope that clears things up for you.


  • 8. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    I want to point out one more thing…

    The APA denies that people are all born BY DEFAULT as heterosexual. This is one of the flaws… it is like saying that we are not all conceived BY DEFAULT as female in utero and that some of us are simply 'choosing' to lead a masculinizated lifestyle with penises and pecs.

    Again, this is Fox News. If you are looking for some sort of factual information then please refer to your Bible for the truth about EVERYTHING. It is all there, Jesus told me so.


  • 9. Ginger  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I hate to be a nit-picky naysayer, but biologically everybody actually is "conceived by default as female." Unless you produce and therefore are exposed to androgens at some later stage in embryonic development, then you will develop as female. There is a syndrome – androgen insensitivity syndrome – where genetically male individuals develop as female because they do not respond to male hormones.

    This obviously does not mean that you are choosing to be male when you start producing testosterone. 🙂

  • 10. Felyx  |  February 28, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Dear Ginger,

    That was the point! 😉

  • 11. Martin the Brit  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    So this was just the usual regurgitated, propagandist crap spread by the likes of the Family Research Council (now a fully recognised and registered hate group (^_^)) and their ilk. I think I may have been having a moment of naiveté. Sometimes I’m just too trusting :’-(

  • 12. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    it is not just the FRC. There are several such groups that do research into the moral sciences. They will frequently submit papers to be published by the established scientific associations that currently 'dominate' scientific mental health understanding. Furthermore, there actually are many people, such as the many people frequently quoting the many people being quoted, that do indeed point out the flaws in the current 'dominant' understanding of the LGBT phenomenon. It is provably obvious to most moralists that heterosexuals who chose to be something other than heterosexual are indeed in violation of the morals being promoted by the moralists in accordance with their correct interpretation of their moral god. Associates that reject these moralific sciences are deeply flawed when they are ignorant of the Truth™ of the god will that must underline all of reality.

    So then, it is understandable that you would be naive and ignorant of things that other people make up out of thin air with no factual or historic basis what-so-ever. Please just don't let it happen again.


  • 13. Michelle Evans  |  February 27, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Brain wants to dominate the entire world and make sure that everyone thinks and acts exactly as he does. Then he’ll be happy. And the fact that Faux News even gives him a platform id heinous.

  • 14. Mouse  |  February 28, 2011 at 5:29 am

    It's Fox. It's not like Brian won a debate on a News program. Fox is a platform for a fringe conservative agenda, so yeah, In a crowd of unthinking, likeminded people, Brian gets more air-time than the discriminated against minority he's trying to repress.

    It would be a news story if the Sean Eldridge "dominated" while on Fox, or if Brian managed to have the better argument in an unbiased journalistic forum or courtroom.

    "Our propaganda agency made me look good" isn't news, that's what you pay them for.

  • 15. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 27, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    And the only reason it works with most of the viewers of Faux News is because those people are sheep, and if you listen to Brian, his tone is so close to that of a sheep’s lonesome bleat when it gets separated from the rest of the flock!

  • 16. JonT  |  February 27, 2011 at 7:38 pm

  • 17. Ann S.  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:45 am


  • 18. Kathleen  |  February 27, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    There’s that familiar lopsided smirk. Ewww. it’s so creepy.

    And he’s wrong that no court has ever determined that g&ls are a suspect class. And I suspect he knows it, which would mean he’s just flat out lying.

  • 19. MJFargo  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:36 am

    I was surprised Brown's statement about suspect classes went unchallenged. It's decidedly untrue.

  • 20. JT1962  |  February 27, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Brian Brown just doesn’t like the fact that someone has a different thought than he does. He stated that Sean Eldrige was wrong with what DOMA was actually all about. He stated that no one has found homosexuals to be a suspect class, again wrong. And I loved how he said that children are born to have both a mother and a father. Gee, tell that to every single woman who decided to have a child using sperm donors. Sorry, Brian. Your morals hold no interest for me.

  • 21. Sagesse  |  February 27, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    “The state has an interest in marriage and parenting”… he said that… he did, he did.

  • 22. Rhie  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Education, education, education. That’s what is necessary for a populace who can actually determine their own destiny. Which is exactly what NOM et al don’t want.

  • 23. Mouse  |  February 28, 2011 at 5:32 am

    They want education! Homeschooling, by the biological mother and father, according to studies they just made up because nobody checks their facts anyway, is the best method.

  • 24. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 5:34 am


  • 25. Tigger  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    Its amazing that Fox allowed someone so smart, eloquent, and factually correct to be on the air. No, not Brian Brown…

    All kidding aside, I bet dollars to donuts that fat boy Brown is not allowed to debate Sean again, ever. He was owned.

  • 26. Carpool Cookie  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:52 am

    But I think we DO want to be supportive of Brian and Mags as speakers for Their Cause, in some way….because who could possibly do a worse job? (Maybe that William Tam guy?)

    They're a bunch of pouty-pants babies (and that's being generous)

  • 27. Michelle Evans  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    We are so used to seeing people like Brain expose their hate, that I was not shocked by anything he said. What did shock me was the blatantly horrible things the host stated about how any studies done by groups like the APA showing that being LGBT is natural, were wrong–and then no response from Sean to try and correct that at all.

    I know they were there to talk about DOMA, but allowing her statement to stand as some sort of fact, was a very bad position to take.

  • 28. Martin the Brit  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Oops, I didn’t notice your post when I commented further down :-P. I was thinking the same thing when the presenter started lambasting the APA. What was that about? ‘They have notoriously rejected any kind of paper that has anything negative to do with homosexuality’. Err, did I miss something here or is this a completely unfounded opinion? I suspect Sean Eldrige didn’t know how to address this because he had no idea what she was talking about. I didn’t either.

  • 29. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Funny, I got a different feeling. I was thinking Good for Sean that he did not let himself get sucked into a non-issue with the interviewer. Her comment was NOT about DOMA. If he had addressed it, he would have lost what few precious minutes he had to speak about the real issue. Obviously the APA has a predilection for real and honest science; they need no defense for being correct in rejecting pseudo-scientific papers. I am glad that he just brushed her off for the complete and total non-issue that it was.


  • 30. Martin the Brit  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    You're right; when I watched it again that was actually my impression, too. He didn't allow her to dictate the dialogue and blew it off like it wasn't worthy of any attention. The problem is I don't think your average Fox viewer will see it that way and will probably interpret it as an evasion. It may have been better if he'd quickly pressed her for details of, you know, actual specific cases of the APA 'notoriously reject[ing] any kind of paper that has anything negative to do with homosexuality’. Anyway, I see both perspectives.

  • 31. Sagesse  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Others can answer this question more fully, but I took it that the interviewer was talking about the thoroughly discredited groups like American Academy of Pediatrics, a small Christian-based splinter group whose members publish junk science and who have been ejected from the mainstream professional associations that represent virtually all the medical and psychology practitioners in the US. I heard her asking why their work was not given credence. Eldridge deflected it very well.

  • 32. Martin the Brit  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    But why would a news anchor from the reputable, ‘Fair and Balanced’ Fox News team be interested in the views of a discredited fringe group? :-O I do hope she wasn't being biased.

  • 33. Felyx  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Please Martin,

    She never actually even mentioned any so-called 'hate group' that is being classified as such by a reputable agency. (I.e. the SPLC.) Clearly she was only referring to the groups that don't apply to whatever it was that you said she was interested.

    You yourself quoted her as saying, "They’ve got all these great studies out there but the studies have been -(???)- flawed and then many people have actually shown the flaws in them." The 'they' that she was referencing was not the 'them' that you think that 'they' are but rather it is the 'them' that are the things that 'they' think that they are. Or, to be absolutally unequivocably clere about this, "THEY are wrong because HE didn't make THEM that way!!!"

    Also, when you put "‘Fair and Balanced’ Fox News" in scare quotes, it might insinuate that somehow the show is mean-spirited and biased in its presentation of the Truth™. god doesn't like it. (Baby Jesus cries.)

  • 34. Martin the Brit  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:12 am

    Felyx, I’m sorry but your last post was a bit convoluted and you’ve lost me. I really hope you realise my response to Sagesse’s was a flippant piece of sarcasm (of which I am very guilty of indulging in) and nothing else. I’m also not sure what you meant when you mentioned hate groups. When I said ‘discredited fringe groups’ I was referring to the American Academy of Paediatrics and others that Sagesse brought up.

  • 35. Felyx  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:44 am

    Hehehe… actually, Martin, the reason my comment was hard to understand is because my comment(s) are being written in NOMSpeak or some dialect thereof. None of it is supposed to be particularly intelligible. I, too, enjoy the occasional flippant bit of sarcasm!

    Read them and laugh or be befuddled (much like when trying to understand the BS Brown speak) but please don't be concerned with these comments… they are written just for the (pseudo-intellectual) fun of it.


  • 36. Rhie  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Heh Martin. 🙂

    Yea, trusting Fox is like trusting the Daily Mail. Or worse.

  • 37. Valerie  |  February 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    We can always play their game if we want to. Banning same-sex marriage has resulted in the voiding of heterosexual marriages (largely because of defining male and female so specifically) under law. The mostly forgotten T in lbgt and the intersexual community, are great secret weapons against defining marriage between a man and a woman.

    Find cases like the Littleton case (Texas) where heterosexual marriages were destroyed because of bans on same-sex marriages. Beat them at their own game.

  • 38. Sagesse  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:35 am

    Was it Tennessee Ernie Ford who used to say "Bless his little pea-pickin' heart"?

  • 39. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:50 am

    Yes, Of course, I still have to wonder if Brian has a heart to bless?

  • 40. Sheryl Carver  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:06 am

    I understand your skepticism, Richard, but science would insist that Brian has some internal organ that pumps blood throughout his body. While it could be artificial & likely made of very cold metal (lead, perhaps?), whatever is doing the circulating is failing to get enough oxygen to his brain, hence his difficulties with logic, facts, etc. Hmmm, which organ, when malfunctioning, is the origin of lies & hatred, do you think? That one is in clearly in an unhealthy state, too.

    In any event, if we all send enough blessings his way, maybe he will actually develop a real heart, eschew his bigoted ways, & become a fully realized being.

    One can hope, right?

  • 41. Carpool Cookie  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:59 am

    "science would insist that Brian has some internal organ that pumps blood throughout his body"

    No. No! He very well could be like that "Ash" character in Alien!

    Remember that I said it first, when the truth is revealed!

  • 42. MJFargo  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:43 am

    When Brown brought up the Catholic Charities case in Boston, it was the closest he came to being honest. However, he omitted that because GLBT people are a suspect class in that city as defined by that State's Constitution, it's the reason why Catholic Charities was viewed, rightly, as discriminatory. He would be much more effective if he said, "Catholics believe…." It would also help those who listen to him to decide if they want to embrace the teachings of that church (and whether or not his arguments are worthy to argue the status of civil law and rights, since not all churches view the matter the same as the Catholic Church..)

  • 43. Sheryl Carver  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:57 am

    And if I remember correctly, Catholic Charities COULD have continued to discriminate against LGBT parents. HOWEVER, they would have had to do so without public funds. There's that nasty money thing again. "We want to do our own thing, don't tell us what we can & can't do, but continue to give us your money while we do it." Of course, some of that public money is from the very citizens they wish to demonize.

  • 44. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:08 am

    Exactly, Sheryl. They CHOSE to close their doors because they would no longer be receiving the public funding that would allow them to continue discriminating.

    They could have chosen instead to stop discriminating and continue to receive the funding, or to continue discriminating without public funding. That they decided it was better to ignore the very real needs of children than to admit that they might be wrong about their discrimination is another poor reflection on the leadership of the Catholic Church, I am afraid.

    Perfectly within their rights to do, but a sad choice.

  • 45. Carpool Cookie  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:04 am

    Yes! That's one of the other huuuuge lies out there, and that your average churchgoer can get confused about. No church-based social services group has been "forced" to close, they just lost public funding. Which shouldn't be a real stumbling block, as its counter-balanced by their upper organizations receiving tax breaks? They have a lot more money to work with than agencies that AREN'T backed by tithing.

  • 46. Sheryl Carver  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:44 am

    And, AnonyGrl, so typical of the Religious Right, in all its incarnations.

    Major uproar & fund raising & fund spending over abortion & even information/access to contraception, but after the baby is born, pffft, "not really our problem anymore."

    This goes beyond hard-hearted to evil, IMHO. Hard-hearted is not helping someone who knowingly got themselves into difficulty. Evil is encouraging/forcing that someone into the mess in the first place.

    (Tried to post this yesterday before leaving for work. Connection to P8TT got stuck for some reason & it didn't go through.)

  • 47. AnonyGrl  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Good point. It is the problem I have always had with the death penalty. Protect a few cells until birth, then kill an actual person?

    It is a mindset I simply do not understand.

  • 48. Jon  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:33 am

    The whining is practiced, rehearsed, designed. It's theatre.

    Thomas Frank summarized it:

    This theme of victimization by these "elites" is pervasive in conservative literature, despite the fact that at the time conservatives controlled all three branches of government, was being served by an extensive media devoted only to conservative ideology, and conservatives had won 6 of the previous 9 presidential elections

  • 49. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Indeed. One of the talking points in NOM's arsenal is that they need to avoid the phrase "banning same sex marriage." And why is that?

    Mostly because the idea that something is being taken away from someone is what stirs people here in this country. The idea that rights are being kept from us is one that might actually serve to make THEIR supporters think twice about things, which is a situation NOM can't bear. And the obvious correlation to that point is that if their supporters are convinced by Brian's rhetoric that something is being taken away from THEM (no matter how patently false that concept actually is) tnen they rally around the "pro-marriage" flag that Brian and his croneys wave.

    Thus, playing the victim works for them. Up to the point where we keep calling them on it, and showing how ridiculous that claim is, of course.

  • 50. Jon  |  February 28, 2011 at 5:15 am

    Absolutely. Call them on it.

    Marriage equality does not have any victims. Does not hurt you. Does not hurt me. Does not hurt society. Does not hurt children. And claims to that effect are ridiculous and should be ridiculed.

  • 51. MJFargo  |  March 1, 2011 at 12:32 am

    Of course. How often do people with a conservative mind bent trot out the victimization of the Caucasian white male. It's pure fantasy but appeals to those in power…so they can keep from examining the whole idea that they just my be oppressors. And heaven help us when you get the Christians talking about how "persecuted" they are (particularly when it comes to the whole subject of school prayer). It's an appealing tactic because it prevents tough self-examination and permits people who discriminate to keep on truckin'.

    Whether it's practiced or a form of delusion depends on the individual. I know people who are convinced they are persecuted, but in fact, it's quite the opposite. In some ways, making such ridiculous claims publicly is the first step to the realization that something might be amiss. Usually, getting laughed at for making such statements causes the individual to explore why no one sees their ridiculous point of view.

  • 52. Sagesse  |  March 1, 2011 at 3:03 am

    To the privileged, challenging their privileged state IS persecution. It's part of the entitlement mindset. They fail to distinguish rights everyone is entitled to from accidents of history that grant them benefits others do not have.

  • 53. Ed  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:18 am

    OT, but I still get a giggle when I read NOM's blog and think about all the pdf files, not actual links….Their thinking has got to be…..We cannot let our followers see the whole story…..

  • 54. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 3:27 am

    From the top of all the New York Times PDFs they post…

    "This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution
    to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now."

    Which leads me to believe that they are now not even reading the things THEY are posting…

  • 55. Law  |  February 28, 2011 at 4:14 am

    Brian believes there is a Federal Law regarding Polygamy…

    Well, here it is!

  • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 27, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    lol thanks! Another of BBs lies exposed.

    I think we should list all of his lies 1 by 1 – and show the truth – then get it in the comments of every news section we can out there, including FOX news'.

  • 57. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Who has the kind of TIME it would take to document ALL of Brian's lies? That would be a full time job!!

  • 58. AnonyGrl  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Of course, were we to press him for truth in advertising, the first thing we could do was insist that they change the title of this article from "Brian Brown Dominates DOMA Debates…" to "Brian Brown Shows Up For DOMA Debates…"


  • 59. Sheryl Carver  |  February 28, 2011 at 12:32 am

    Poor, poor Brian. You just have to feel sorry for the guy.

    Caught between a rock & a hard place. Either admit he's too uneducated in his own self-proclaimed area of expertise (marriage) to present actual facts, or confess that he's outright lying. As his publicly stated falsehoods, deliberate or otherwise, are such that other folks can prove they are falsehoods, he really ought to own up to one or the other.

    All of this falsehooding is the result of being between another rock & hard place. If Brian would present only facts, completely & honestly, his reasons to prohibit marriage equality would be reduced to "my religion doesn't like it" & "I think it's icky." Not going to get him much support, even from the majority of other Catholics. So if he wants to continue his crusade, he must lie, thus violating some of the tenets of the very religion he's supposed to be defending.

    Yeah, you just have to feel sorry for the guy. Bless his little heart.

  • 60. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:25 am

    Is it possible to bless Brian's heart? I thought you had to have one before it could be blessed.

  • 61. MJFargo  |  February 28, 2011 at 1:47 am

    Truthfulness has never been a high ideal in the arguments of those against same sex marriage. We just have to look at what happened to the witness list of the proponents in the Prop 8 trial. When their veracity was challenged, they decided–just maybe–they had some other engagement on the day they were called to testify. I'm so glad that Olson/Boies got some of those depositions entered into testimony.

  • 62. Carpool Cookie  |  February 28, 2011 at 2:56 am

    They still stand by the lie that those "experts" were terrified of being shown on camera…but funny how after it was ruled there would be no cameras in the courtroom, none of them came slithering back?

    I wonder if the next step will be that these "experts" testify behind a screen on Faux News, and we just get silhouettes and scrambled voices.

  • 63. BobbyBear  |  February 28, 2011 at 4:19 am

    I have a question. Did Brian Brown testify at the Prop 8 trial?

  • 64. Kathleen  |  February 28, 2011 at 4:29 am

    No. The only two witnesses for the Proponents were David Blankenhorn and Kenneth Miller and one of the official proponents, William Tam, was called as a witness for Plaintiffs.

  • 65. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 28, 2011 at 5:33 am

    He's an expert on nothing so wouldn't/couldn't have been called as a witness…..unless one considers expert liar helpful LOL

  • 66. JoeRH  |  February 28, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Boy is Brian a wind bag. Literally. He was practically out of breath. And yea, he "dominated" the interview because he wouldn't shut up! His points were thoughtless, but he just kept rambling on. It was like he was filibustering the interview!

  • 67. Regan DuCasse  |  March 1, 2011 at 2:39 am

    Maggie G and BB are always complaining that our side is 'trying' to silence them.

    That sort of bald faced lie is evidenced by the fact that these people are given a lot of opportunities to speak their tiny minds all over the media!

    Of course, if someone actually challenged them on these lies, confronted them with their distortions of fact and exposed them for the LIARS they are, BB no doubt would whine that they aren't being allowed equal time.

    Neglecting the fact that lying whiners who are actively damaging lives by doing so, don't deserve equal time.
    Slander and libel are not protected speech, Brian!

  • 68. mulberry outlet  |  June 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    The almost messenger shape of the Tillie is super practical and versatile without coming off as completely utilitarian. The front strap detail gives the bag a little bit of an edge, but the concealed magnetic closures mean it will never be hard to get in and out of it. The short top strap has a few too many buckles on it to make it comfortable for hand carrying, but luckily there's also a detachable shoulder strap.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!