these asshats need to be taken out.

A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday ordered liens on the Westboro Baptist Church building and the Phelps-Chartered Law office

We all need somebody to LIEN on!

Let it be Freddie "Felcher" Phelps.

He's a mad dog.

Be Well.

If this stands we have lost America. The First Amendment is at stake.

Larry Mohr

these asshats need to be taken out.

Posted by nanc at 2008-04-06 01:50 AM

I couldn't agree more. These assholes showed up at the funeral of a girl killed at the Northern Illinois University in February. Fucking lowlifes, the whole lot of them.

Larry, Rock Chalk, Jayhawk!

come on, larry - they're a regular hatefest - giving christians a bad name and they make a mockery of funerals which should remain private to family and friends!

they're worse than somebody wanting to come and perch on the side of your tub while you take a dump.

Nanc America was founded upon the very ideal of Free thought and Free Speech. The very idea of a true American is one that may not like what their neighbor says but nevertheless fights to the death for the right of that neighbor to say whats on His or Her mind. The very idea of trying to quash that speech You find most disgusting is the epitomy of an UnAmerican. Nanc I don't like what Fred Phelps does but He is after all an American and He has the right to spew forth His venom no matter how vile it may be AND IT IS make no mistake about it. What happens when YOUR SPEECH Nanc gets quashed, it could very well happen to You.

Larry Mohr

AMEN Rein Bill Self wiped the hardwood with Roy Williams face and I couldn't be happier. Serves Him right. Karma is a bitch baby and She bit hard tonight(Last night for many)

Larry Mohr

Oh and btw the Constitution doesn't protect You from being offended. Just a thought.

Larry Mohr

America was founded upon the very ideal of Free thought and Free Speech.

Why does Phelp's free speech trump the free speech rights of the grieving family's, Larry? Don't they have the right to express their free speech in the form of a dignified funeral for their loved ones?

Gotman they both have Free Speech rights. Fred Phelps has the right to express Himself how He pleases and the Greiving Families have the Free Speech rights to honour their loved one at their funerals. Why do YOU want to limit one sides Free Speech rights over anothers?? Why do YOU want to Trump the rights of the Greiving over the rights of Fred Phelps.

Larry Mohr

Goatmen^

Larry

Why do YOU want to Trump the rights of the Greiving over the rights of Fred Phelps.

If you have to ask why a the rights of a family wanting a dignified funeral for there loved ones would trump a loud mouth, agenda seekking asshole like Phelps, an explanation would be lost on you, Larry, so I will not attempt to offer one.

Translation: You don't have one Goatman.

Let's face it Fred Phelps is a vile sick man. That being said He has the right to say those vile sick things He espouses.

Larry Mohr

Without Free Speech You don't have America and what She stands for.

Larry Mohr

Laterz

Without Free Speech You don't have America and what She stands for.


Exactly. That'a why families should be allowed to exercise their free speech by burying their loved ones with dignity.

Translation: You don't have one Goatman.

It seems it is you who doesn't have an answer, Larry. I asked you a question at 4:29. You response was another question at 4:50.

So since I asked the first question, isn't it only fair that I get an answer before I answer your question, Larry? Or are you turning into buffalo bob -- the guy who always asks, but never answers?

I have to agree with Larry on this one. Freedom is a bitch baby.

The US Constitution does not protect the rights of the Greiving Family to have a Peaceful Funeral Service. It DOES Protect the Free Speech rights of ALL who fall under Her Jurisdiction.

Larry Mohr

IOW, TFDN, the families forfeit their rights, huh?

Since Larry won't answer my question, maybe you can, TFDN: Why do Phelp's rights trump those of the grieving families?

The family wants to exercise their rights of free speech by way of a dignified funeral. Why do they have to forfeit that right, Larry? Don't they get the right to free speech, too? Everything you say tells me they have to forfeit their own right to free speech. I just wonder why Phelp's rights to free speech are more important than the grieving family's rights to free speech?

Here's a hypothetical.

Fred Phelps comes and pickets a soldiers funeral and starts disrespecting him while he's being put in the ground. Father of dead son pulls out a gun and plugs the fat bastard dead as a doornail. Claims temporary insanity on the stand.

Would you convict if you were on the jury?

Spud wouldn't.

Hell, Spud would prolly buy him a beer afterwords.

Fuck Fred Phelps.

Free Speech don't mean consequence free speech.

Ya wanna protest the war there are way more appropriate venues.

Protesting at someones funeral is just asking for trouble. If Assholes like Phelps must do so they should hafta do it outside of the cemetary itself and hopefully out of earshot

...and if they get hurt?

So be it.

Be Well.

/Spud's the biggest supporter of free speech ever but there are limits or should be.

//Outta here, as it's getting a li'l late, as a tater do,
stage left.

Under the US Constitution they do not have a right to a dignified burial. No such right exists. The Constitution doesn't protect people from being offended.

Larry Mohr

Spuderick Yes I would convict the Father for Murder. You can't take the Law into Your own hands.

Larry Mohr

TFDN: Why do Phelp's rights trump those of the grieving families?

Posted by goatman

Two people can't walk down the street at the same time? Who says anyone's rights are being trumped? As long a Phelps and his inbred army are on the public street and not invading the funeral home or cemetery, they have the right to protest.

/Spud's the biggest supporter of free speech ever but there are limits or should be.

//Outta here, as it's getting a li'l late, as a tater do,
stage left.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-04-06 05:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Actually No You are not a big supporter of Free Speech. You are a supporter of POPULAR speech. HUGE Difference.

Larry Mohr

AMEN TFDN

Larry Mohr

In a way he was invading the cemetary- from the street.

A case could probably be made that this protest was staged to create some kind of riotous situation, and therefore, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre, would not be protected by the first amendment.

That said, the idea of silencing a protester scares me.

Last time I checked a street is PUBLIC property. Fred Phelps IS disgusting to no end but He has the right to be disgusting.

Larry Mohr

"Free Speech don't mean consequence free speech."


Posted by dethspud at 2008-04-06 05:36 AM | Reply |

Actually it does.

It used to be the concept in America that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

That's Free Speech

Now the concept in America runs to "I may not agree with what you say, but I reserve the right to beat you, shoot you, or ruin you in business.

That is not Free Speech.

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

Same with the religious concept of Free Will. It isn't Free at all since one of the choices would entail an eternity of suffering. That seems like a high price to pay for something that is Free. Its like saying you are free to eat at my house but if you do I'll poison you. The strange thing is that a lot of people would look at that as a Free Meal.

Not me.

;-)

Two people can't walk down the street at the same time? Who says anyone's rights are being trumped?

The family says.

If there are two conflicting free speech issues, I'll vote for the less hostile, one. I'll vote for the one that is of more value to society and the community and is more decent.

Apparently there are some who go for the evil choice -- society be damned. It is your right to support the malevolent vs the decent side. Thankfully the courts are more and more disagreeing with misanthropes like Larry and TFDN and agreeing with decency.

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

How idiotic is that? So a truly free nation would have no consequences for murder, rape, robbery, etc.?

As usual, you are way off the track crazy, bOoB.

Goatman You obviously do not believe in Free Speech because You support the one that is Popular and less offensive and wish to quash the speech that You find most offensive.

Larry Mohr

How idiotic is that? So a truly free nation would have no consequences for murder, rape, robbery, etc.?

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 06:57 AM | Reply

How much mercury have you ingested in your life?

Do we say this is a nation that has Free Murder--that there are no consequences to murder? No.

However we are a nation that purpoerts to have Free Speech. As stated--this country used to have Free Speech when people weren't attacked for speaking Freely. That is not the case anymore.

How you got from---Actions that have strings attached are not free----Murder has no consequences truly shows how fucked up your brain is. On many levels.

Oh and Goatman I would say the speech that is most vile is more important than the speech that the Populace agrees with. It shines light upon the bigotry Homophobia what have You that is still in society. You want to quash the speech You most hate?? Teach tolerance Teach acceptance to people who are different than You. Education is the only way to do away with folks like Fred Phelps.

Larry Mohr

Do we say this is a nation that has Free Murder--that there are no consequences to murder?

You can pretend you didn't say this:

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

But if you PGUP (remember that little hint I keep giving you? Write it down, please) you'll see that you wrote something very idiotic. Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions.

That is blatantly wrong, bOoB. Because there are strings to actions. Murder someone, the "string" is that you go to prison.

Goatman You obviously do not believe in Free Speech

Yes I do, Larry. I'll say it again, but after four times, I doubt if you'll get it this time either.

I believe the grieving family also has a right to free speech and they have the right to exercise it in the form of a dignified funeral.

I recognize the Phelps also has the right of free speech. So there is a conflict. In the case of a conflict, where both sides have the same right of free speech, I choose the side that is more acceptable to society and benefits the communtity.

You, TFDN, and the bOoB obviously choose the more evil and malevolent side. That is your right. However, the courts who see two equal sides in the free speech issue are also choosing the more socially acceptable of those sides and disagreeing with misanthropes like you, bOoB, and TFDN.

I don't understand that with all else being equal you choose the rotten side. That says a lot about you, TFDN and the bOoB.

Oh and Goatman I would say the speech that is most vile is more important than the speech that the Populace agrees with

I figured that out, larry. How sad for you that you choose the vile over the socially acceptable when both are equal in a legal sense.

For fuck sake there is no right to a dignified funeral found in the US Constitution. To equate a Funeral to free speech is Bollocks Goatman.

Larry Mohr

For fuck sake there is no right to a dignified funeral found in the US Constitution

You are right, there is not. But there is the right of free speech. The grieving families wish to exercise that right by having a dignified funeral. That is how they wish to speak. Why do you want to rob them of that right?

When You side with the more socially acceptable speech over the speech the majority hates You have left the Free Speech side and have gone over to the POPULAR speech one. When You do not support Your neighbors vile speech You cease in Your promotion of what this Country was founded upon and that is Free Speech.

Larry Mohr

To equate a Funeral to free speech is Bollocks Goatman.

In your opinion. However in the opinion of the courts who I assume know the law much better than you, a dignified funeral is a form of free speech. If you disagree, don't tell me -- tell the judges making the decisions.

God fucking damn a FUNERAL is an event it is NOT a Free Speech thing Goatman. You are trying to link a funeral with free speech and it's BULLSHIT.

Larry Mohr

You have left the Free Speech side and have gone over to the POPULAR speech one.

So you are saying Popular speech (as you call it -- I've never heard that term) cannot be free speech as well? That certainly seems odd.

When the masses overwhelmingly cheered, say, the apollo astronauts when they returned to earth, it became popular speech and was no longer free speech?

I don't buy that, larry.

You are trying to link a funeral with free speech and it's BULLSHIT.

Not just me -- the courts do to. I assume they know the law better than you do Larry.

Popular speech isn't Free Speech because the majority of society aproves of it. Free Speech protects that speech You most hate because if the majority approved of the speech it don't need protecting now does it.

Larry Mohr

Popular speech isn't Free Speech because the majority of society aproves of it.

What an odd concept. The majority approves, therefore it is no longer free.

(you're not on the sauce this early in the morning, are you?)

"God fucking damn a FUNERAL is an event it is NOT a Free Speech thing ..."

Larry, a funeral is a First Amendment-protected event. It just isn't "free speech."

It is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

Hans

Hans read what I wrote.

Larry Mohr

Goatman I just love how You call names, when You know Your groose is thoroughly cooked.

Larry Mohr

Goatman I just love how You call names, when You know Your groose is thoroughly cooked.

I don't recall having called you a name, Larry, except "Larry" -- which is your name, right?

And yes, I'll let you know when my groose is cooked.

you're not on the sauce this early in the morning, are you?)

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 07:50 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

As Berry Sheck would say How about THAT Mr Goatman.

Larry Mohr

How about it, Larry? Are you?

I don't really care -- I gotta get to work.

Adios amigo mio

There is no right to not be offended.

Peaceable assembly doesn't mean non-offensive assembly. It means non-violent assembly.

The protection of popular speech isn't noble. it's nothing. Anyone approves of that.

What's made this Nation powerful is the protection of speech the majority finds challenging and even offensive.

BTW, I can't stand Phelps and his brood. I find their words offensive, disgusting. I abhor the protest at funerals.

I used to love discussions about fred phelps because it would get all sides worked up into a tizzy. Now it's just boring because it is the same handful of people. There's no one new offering up a different viewpoint.

Some would defend phelps because he's protesting 'faggotry'.

Some would defend him because he's practicing his right of free speech.

Then there's everyone else who doesn't want fred phelps to protest because his speech offends them. Oddly enough, many of these people also happen to be the people who claim to dislike political correctness.

Well folks, this is what you get when people are free to speak their minds. Sometimes, someone will say something that you don't like. You do not have the right to silence them. If you do, there are consequences.

There's no one new offering up a different viewpoint.

How about this? They can protest a few hundred yards away. There are zones around abortion clinics. Of course those zones are nothing like the ones around political conventions, Those "free speech zones" (what a fucking joke in AMERICA!) are miles away. Same with Bush when he was campaigning.

Without Free Speech You don't have America and what She stands for.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-06 05:10 AM

You sdvocate total free speech, eh? Coarse people intruding on private funerals is A-okay with you? Then you certainly won't mind someone coming on here and stating that your seduction/force/cruelty/abuse of animals is appalling to most, will you?

Not to worry, dog lover, Hans or others will be around shortly to aid you in your attempts to defend the indefensible.

"they're a regular hatefest - giving christians a bad name..."

Take a long look in the mirror, bitch.

Yer right there with 'em.

"...attempts to defend the indefensible."

Since when is the 1st amendment "indefensible"?

As with everything else, our lawmakers have made a real knot out of our "free speech" laws. You can't say the "N" word, can't engage in hate speech and other restrictions, but you CAN burn a flag. I think it is somewhere in Georgia where they passed a law that the penalty in court for punching someone burning a flag is one dollar. I don't think we should restrict Phelps' free speech but perhaps they should make the fine for bashing Phelps or one of his "congregation" a dollar too?

"Apparently there are some who go for the evil choice -- society be damned. It is your right to support the malevolent vs the decent side."

That's a shitty way to frame it. The speech is hateful, and yes, evil, but not the hearts of those who believe the concept of free speech should trump one family's feelings.

Is Phelps being decent? Hell, no. Does he have that right? Hell, yes.

"But if you PGUP (remember that little hint I keep giving you? Write it down, please) you'll see that you wrote something very idiotic. Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions."

What an incredible leap of mercury induced logic.

Please explain to me how saying:

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

MEANS

Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions.

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

To me it seems that if there is a string attached, it isn't free, means that since society has strings attached to things like murder--murder isn't free. Strings meaning things like lifetime prison sentences and death penalties.

Let's see your logic---let's see you cook your own "groose".

;-)

I would say that there is no right to peaceful assembly in this country, and there is no right to free speech.

Not when your "Free" speech can cause you to lose your job and your future.

Not when you want to march in protest. Ya gotta ask for permission from the government. Not exactly free is it.

MLK tried a little Free Speech. We saw how Free it was.


MLK tried some peaceful assembly. We saw how that worked out too.

Saying you live in a country with Free Speech does not mean you live in a country with Free Speech. Reality says whether you have Free Speech in your country or not.

Saying you live in a country with the right to Peaceful Assembly does not mean you live in a country with the Right to Peaceful Assembly.

Reality speaks louder than words.

BuffaloBob

There's free speech and then there's free speech.

Phelps has no right to interfere and cause disturbances at these military funerals. The families of the deceased have the right to bury their loved one in peace.

You're so big on the right for "peaceful assembly."

What about the family's right to a "peaceful assembly" at the funeral being held to bury their loved one? "Peaceful" means not having to listen to the shouts and profantiy of that nutjob Phelps as he screams obscenities from across the road.

The judge was right. You are wrong.

"Phelps has no right to interfere and cause disturbances at these military funerals. The families of the deceased have the right to bury their loved one in peace."

He has that right if we have Free Speech in this country.


"What about the family's right to a "peaceful assembly" at the funeral being held to bury their loved one? "Peaceful" means not having to listen to the shouts and profantiy of that nutjob Phelps as he screams obscenities from across the road."

They don't have that right unless the government gives them that right. The government should move the Phelps family down the road so their protests won'rt be heard by the family.

Free Speech is only really a valuable right if people are allowed to say things you object to strenuously.

I would say an effective counter to Phelps would be to put up stalls around their protest and sell lemonade and tickets to people to come look and laugh at them like animals in a cage. They have Free Speech too.

The judge is a Nazi--you are wrng in supporting his ruling. Offensive Free Speech is the ONLY reason to have laws about Free Speech. If you can't defend Phelps right to Free Speech--then no one has Free Speech.

Reality speaks louder than words.

Yes it does, bob. And in reality what happened to MLK was by far the exception, not the rule. To judge our society by a couple of incidents is absurd. Why not look at the thousands of peaceful assemblies and acts of freedom of speech that did not result in violence?

But of course the cherry picking of a couple of isolated incidents instead of looking at the whole adds a touch of melodramaticism that is your style, bOoB.

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

um -- I did "spit it out" as you put it upthread, bOoB. Why do I always have to remind you of the PGUP key? Is it really that difficult of a concept for you to wrap your mind around? Or is that key broken on your keyboard?

Quick -- right now before you forget -- write PGUP on a sticky pad and put it on your monitor as a reminder.

Goatman

Those few instances are the definition of Free Speech. Either ya got it or ya don't. We ain't got it.

I see you ignore your ass kicking from above.

How C O N V E N I E N T

;-)

"Peaceful" means not having to listen to the shouts and profantiy of that nutjob Phelps as he screams obscenities from across the road.

Obviously it is easier for the bOoB to empathize with Phelps, being a nutjob himself.

Those few instances are the definition of Free Speech. Either ya got it or ya don't. We ain't got it.

Wrong again. Those few instances are the exception, not the rule. If they were the rule of free speech, there would be more than a few. Is this a difficult concept for you? I'm amazed that even the exception/rule thing escapes you.

Here's how it goes: The rule is when something happens by far the majority of the time. The exception are the very few instances when the rule is broken.

Got it?

I see you ignore your ass kicking from above

???

If you say so, bOoB. Mount my ass-kicking right right up there with those lunar smokestacks.

Goatman

I must have missed your response. Let's try again.

Please explain to me how saying:

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

MEANS

Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions.

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

To me it seems that if there is a string attached, it isn't free, means that since society has strings attached to things like murder--murder isn't free. Strings meaning things like lifetime prison sentences and death penalties.

Let's see your logic---let's see you cook your own "groose".

;-)

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

um -- I did "spit it out" as you put it upthread, bOoB. Why do I always have to remind you of the PGUP key? Is it really that difficult of a concept for you to wrap your mind around? Or is that key broken on your keyboard?

Quick -- right now before you forget -- write PGUP on a sticky pad and put it on your monitor as a reminder.

let's see you cook your own "groose".

What is a groose? Do they have to be cooked?

"The families of the deceased have the right to bury their loved one in peace. "

Where, exactly. in the Constitution? Because I can find the part that okays Phelps' free speech.

""What about the family's right to a "peaceful assembly" at the funeral being held to bury their loved one?"

That's a complete misinterpretation of the right to assemble.

Goatman

Now you lie. Let's try again. You can cut and paste your answer can't you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Please explain to me how saying:

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

MEANS

Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions.

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

To me it seems that if there is a string attached, it isn't free, means that since society has strings attached to things like murder--murder isn't free. Strings meaning things like lifetime prison sentences and death penalties.

Let's see your logic---let's see you cook your own "groose".

;-)

Simple way to fix this without stomping on the rights of that asshole phelps, or ruining the families funeral.

Make the property private during a funeral. Invite only. Then Phelps can be kicked out of the cemetary for interrupting a service.

Now you lie. Let's try again. You can cut and paste your answer can't you?

Yes, but it's much easier for you to use the PGUP key. Besides, you need to familiarize yourself with it so call it a learning experience.

No need to thank me.

What is a groose? Do they have to be cooked?

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 04:08 PM


Who knows dUmMy--you used the word before I did--remember?

"And yes, I'll let you know when my groose is cooked."

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 07:59 AM

Alexandrite then You quash Free Speech and THAt is UnAmerican. How dare ANY American claim they believe in America while trying to quash someone's right to free speech when they dispise it.

Larry Mohr

Goatman

Now you lie. Let's try again. You can cut and paste your answer can't you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Please explain to me how saying:

When there are strings or consequences to an action---it isn't Free.

MEANS

Your statement implies -- no, outright says -- that a free society has no consequenses for actions.

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

To me it seems that if there is a string attached, it isn't free, means that since society has strings attached to things like murder--murder isn't free. Strings meaning things like lifetime prison sentences and death penalties.

Let's see your logic---let's see you cook your own "groose".

;-)

Isn't the right to assemble about picketing and what they do at Government Meetings?? Therefore Funerals are NOT Protected First Amendment rights to assemble.

Larry Mohr

Phelps had his day in court. He lost. History is littered with misguided folks who marched to their own drummer - thinking they stood for all that was right and just.

knows dUmMy--you used the word before I did--remember?

And if you looked at the post you saw that that word was in italics. Here on the DR that is the generally accepted convention for a quote. Therefore it was not I who originally said it . . . dummy

And if you looked at the post you saw that that word was in italics. Here on the DR that is the generally accepted convention for a quote. Therefore it was not I who originally said it . . . dummy

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 04:24 PM | Reply


And if YOU look dUmmy, you will see that you used the word before me and then asked what it meant.

;-)

CalifChris the Judge and You are totally wrong. There is no rights for a dignified funeral found in the US Constitution. You are trying to quash Frd Phelps Free Speech. Either You believe in the American way or You do not. If You support Popular speech then You do no support Free Speech. Simple as that.

Larry Mohr

Let's see your logical progression. Spit it out kid.

um -- I did "spit it out" as you put it upthread, bOoB. Why do I always have to remind you of the PGUP key? Is it really that difficult of a concept for you to wrap your mind around? Or is that key broken on your keyboard?

Quick -- right now before you forget -- write PGUP on a sticky pad and put it on your monitor as a reminder.


last time for this, bOoB. If you can't figure it out, ask the third grader next door to give you a hand.

OohRah and when Fred Phelps lost You lost as well. I still do not see how You can caqll Yourself an Americqan and support this verdict. You can'do so with any symbolance of conscience. A TRUE AMERICAN WHIL:E HATING HIS NEIGHBORS SPEECH NEVERTHELESS FIGHTS TO THE DEATH FOR HIS NEIGHBORS RIGHT TO SAY WHAT IS ON HIS MIND. Either You stand for AMerica or You do not PERIOD.

Larry Mohr

Phelps had his day in court. He lost. History is littered with misguided folks who marched to their own drummer - thinking they stood for all that was right and just.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-04-06 04:23 PM | Reply


Phelps didn't lose anything--he had nothing. America lost. Free Speech lost. Some peop-le are just too stupid to see the reality

America has Free Speech---as long as you don't say anything anyone objects ot.

You and goatman are too fucking stupid to be Americans. You should form your own Nazi/Commie/Animal Farm party where Free Speech means saying what you like to hear, and Freedom of Peaceful Assembly means you can go to a football game if you have a ticket.

assholes

Alex

Simple way to fix this without stomping on the rights of that asshole phelps, or ruining the families funeral.

Make the property private during a funeral. Invite only. Then Phelps can be kicked out of the cemetary for interrupting a service.

I would have to go back and check the details on the various funerals but if these men were buried at VA cemeteries then it would be federal -- not private -- property.

Also, I believe Phelps and his motley crew did not actually enter the cemetery grounds, per se, but protested from outside along the street but had made sure their protest would still be heard from inside the cemetery grounds where the burial was taking place.

Many cemeteries have public streets encircling them and many do not even have a fence -- making Phelps' protests more easily heard. I remember seeing the old cemeteries back East with all the large tombstones (they don't have that out here in California). You could drive right past them and see it easily from the road.

You suggested making the cemetery "private property" but that's doubtful that under any circumstances that could be done -- even temporarily -- regarding public roads or at a funeral held in a VA cemetery.

And if YOU look dUmmy, you will see that you used the word before me and then asked what it meant.

(I guess you didn't "get it" the first time)

And if you looked at the post you saw that that word was in italics. Here on the DR that is the generally accepted convention for a quote. Therefore it was not I who originally said it . . . dummy

You are boring me to tears, bOoB. Even the dullest ordainary seaman on board is able to provide wittier repartee than you.

Let me know when that third grader explains things to you.

Goatman

I didn't say you originated it DumMY I said you used the word before I did and then asked what it meant.

Read much stupid--comprehension impaired by years of mercury huffing?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA

;-)

Spud: Free Speech don't mean consequence free speech.

BBob: Actually it does.

It used to be the concept in America that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

That's Free Speech

Now the concept in America runs to "I may not agree with what you say, but I reserve the right to beat you, shoot you, or ruin you in business.

That is not Free Speech.

Picketing a funeral is so egregious a social action that it is not just a free speech issue but also an obvious incitement to violence. A deliberate attempt to incite violence so beyond the pale that bubble zones, as in the case of abortion protesters are a sane and neccesssary compromise to completely unfettered consequenceless free speech..

Spud: Protesting at someones funeral is just asking for trouble. If Assholes like Phelps must do so they should hafta do it outside of the cemetary itself and hopefully out of earshot.

You do not have a right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house.

That's dangerous to public safety.

You do not have the right to openly call for the murder of any individual or identifiable group.

That's dangerous hate speech.

You do have a right to protest an abortion clinic but the law has wisely brought in bubble zones.

Why? Cos to not do so would invite acts of violence.

Spud aint calling fer any eradication of free speech just a sane and realistic assesment of the consequences of various types of free speech including this egregious practise.

Allowing people to bury their family in relative peace is also an expression of free speech that must be guarded. To not do so is to defy thousands of years of human evolution. The very first thing we did as a species that made us different from the other beings was have funerals. To not recognise the sanctity and sacredness of that act as being neccessary for public order, the general welfare and the pursuit of happiness is to be a narrow minded, unthinking, unblinking, unfeeling fool.

Serously, if Fred Phelps got shot by an enraged parent after being riled up by Phelps at a funeral would you think Phelps had it coming, would you convict the grieving parent of murder, would you accept the "temporary insanity" defense?

Spud sez Yes, No and Yes.

Be Well.

correction

but that's doubtful = but it's doubtful

An American says:

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

A NAZI says:

Free Speech don't mean consequence free speech.

Phelps had his day in court. He lost. History is littered with misguided folks who marched to their own drummer - thinking they stood for all that was right and just.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-04-06 04:23 PM | Reply


That is the classic definition of what it means to be a true American. Marching to their own drummer. I can not believe You think You are an American while trying desperately to quash the speech of a fellow American. THAT is UnAmerican that is UnPatriotic. That is NOT what Our Country was founded upon. Please Leave if You can not support Your fellow Americans rights to say what is on His or Her mind. Iran has plenty of room.

Larry Mohr

Phelps had it coming, would you convict the grieving parent of murder, would you accept the "temporary insanity" defense?

Spud sez Yes, No and Yes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx

Yes--yes---no

Spud aint calling fer any eradication of free speech just a sane and realistic assesment of the consequences of various types of free speech including this egregious practise.

Allowing people to bury their family in relative peace is also an expression of free speech that must be guarded. To not do so is to defy thousands of years of human evolution. The very first thing we did as a species that made us different from the other beings was have funerals. To not recognise the sanctity and sacredness of that act as being neccessary for public order, the general welfare and the pursuit of happiness is to be a narrow minded, unthinking, unblinking, unfeeling fool.

Serously, if Fred Phelps got shot by an enraged parent after being riled up by Phelps at a funeral would you think Phelps had it coming, would you convict the grieving parent of murder, would you accept the "temporary insanity" defense?

Spud sez Yes, No and Yes.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-04-06 04:37 PM | Reply


Spuderick You do not I repeat do NOT believe in Free SPeech. You believe in Popular Speech HUGE DIfference. You do not have a constitutional right to a diginified Burial and You God damned right I would convict the Parents for killing Fred Phelps You can't just kill anyone and get by with it.

Larry Mohr

Sometimes people can be sincerely wrong.
Fred Phelps may think he has good intention of pleasing God by insulting gays and calling on judgments on those who disagrees with him.

His theology is wrong and his passion is misdirected. Plus his style of overreacting is unbiblical.

No wonder he is getting out of business. I pray for this man but does not agree with his position. May his eyes open.

LARRY-
You and I have debated this issue before - in great detail when I posted this story when the lawsuit was initially filed.

Is there ANY limit on speech you could support? What limit(s) and why?

Is there ANY limit on speech you could support? What limit(s) and why?

Posted by OohRah at 2008-04-06 04:46 PM | Reply

Public Safety National Security. ONLY Times ONLY TIMES OohRah.

Larry Mohr

Oohrah

When you place limits on Free Speech---don't call it Free Speech anymore. Call it what it is. Government Regulated Speech.

"Public Safety"
"National Security"

Defined by whom, Larry? And how?

I agee with Larry on those limits. Those instances do not concern an individual opinion, but concern safety for others and may cause harm to others.

Someone saying that a person who died in military service to the country was evil, is certainly offensive, but it hurts nothing but peoples feelings.

Defined by whom, Larry? And how?


Posted by sitdown at 2008-04-06 04:55 PM | Reply

SCOTUS they are the highest judges in the Land.

Larry Mohr

Public Safety"
"National Security"

Defined by whom, Larry? And how?


Posted by sitdown at 2008-04-06 04:55 PM |


By the government of course, that's where all rights come from. In fact, those limits have already been set.

LARRY-
In addition to SIT's concerns over who determines the guidelines (I know you say the SCOTUS, but they only rule on the constitutionality - judges don't make law) I will bring up something tossed out there the last time we had this discussion.

How legal would it be for me to discover the web sites you've visited and stand on the street outside your home and blare for the world to hear all those sites? And, then post these sites throughout the town. What if I simply made up those sites - just to publicly humiliate you and your family? You think that's protected or should be?

See, when speech is purposefully meant to intimidate or cause undue pain it becomes an area for concern. Phelps and his folks had stepped into this area in the past. For once, a family called them on it - and won.

I will grant you that Phelps could stand outside the White House or at some other public venue and say those exact same things. However, when those words are spoken at a private individual's funeral as a way of making some statement against our gov't, that's the wrong venue for such discourse and shouldn't be permitted.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-06 01:58 AM

If this stands we have lost America. The First Amendment is at stake.

When you place limits on Free Speech---don't call it Free Speech anymore. Call it what it is. Government Regulated Speech.

Go speak wherever you will Phelps. Try your church building while you still have it.

johnson

"This isn't "speech" that's being regulated. No one has limited Rev. Phelp's "right" to express himself and make as many statements as he wants to make promulgating his doctrine."

True. No one has taken away his right to Speech--but at 5 million dollars, I wouldn't say it was Free--would you?

OohRah the COnstitution is clear. There is NO Constitutionally protected right from being offended. You state that How legal would it be for me to discover the web sites you've visited and stand on the street outside your home and blare for the world to hear all those sites? And, then post these sites throughout the town. What if I simply made up those sites - just to publicly humiliate you and your family? You think that's protected or should be? Strawman and not anywhere connected with Free Speech. Please stick with apples to apples comnparison. THANK YOU Fred Phelps Is Free to speek out anywhere in Public space whether on the street corner or in front of the White House. Oh and a Funeral is a PUBLIC eventg and is not protected Free Speech.

Larry Mohr

There was an old common law tort called "Trespass upon the close." Essentially that meant that you couldn't get in anybody's face while you were doing what you were doing, or else you would need to respond in damages.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-04-06 05:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Please do try again being 300 to 1000 feet from someone is NOT being face to face. Nexxxxxxxxxxxxxt.

Larry Mohr

Spuderick You do not I repeat do NOT believe in Free Speech. You believe in Popular Speech HUGE Difference.

You couldn't be more wrong, Larry.

In fact you yerself are not an absolutist on this issue you give examples of when Free Speech gets trumped. You sed...

"Public Safety"
"National Security"

Public safety?

So you thinks that yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie house in an attempt to start a panic in which people might get trampled, possibly to death is one example of where free speech stops and public safety begins?

Well that's a start.

National Security?

In wot sense? That's the one BushCo used to justify their "free speech zones" which are located miles from the events that folks are trying to protest.

Spud has a real problem with that one, actually.

That one's BULLSHIT.

What about uttering death threats?

Is that a free speech versus public safety issue?

What about Hate speech calling for the death of gays and women and adulterers and infidels?

Is that covered under free speech or does that one get trumped by public safety as well?

If you can't see how disrupting a funeral can also be considered a public safety issue then you are basically retarded or just being deliberately obtuse.

...or both.

Be Well.

Spuderick National Security You know telling STate Secrets.

Larry Mohr

Oh and spud Hate Speech must be protected as well.

Larry Mohr

If you can't see how disrupting a funeral can also be considered a public safety issue then you are basically retarded or just being deliberately obtuse.

...or both.

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-04-06 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You are so full of shit on this spuderick it's laughable. Fred Phelps exersizing His Fiurstr Amendment rights 300 to 1000 feet from a Funeral is Hardly a public safety deal. Lets face the facts Tater tot. You want to quash His right to speek out because You find His speech abhorant. There is no public safety issue here NONE whatsoever. Please do try again.

Larry Mohr

"Strawman and not anywhere connected with Free Speech. Please stick with apples to apples comnparison." - LAR

First of all, I'm no Williams backer but I like to see UNC do well.

On topic, you dismiss my hypothetical as a strawman without comment to the crux of the matter. Why? The intent was to cause you harm/grief. So was Phelps'.

I echo SPUD's comments. You either are bone ignorant or purposefully stringing along a conversation in order to remain relevant. We'll have to disagree.

Dethspud

Many names and insults have been thrown around on these threads.

Now say we were all in the same room when these insults were said.

Now imagine that someone attacked someone for what was said.

Should the person who attacked the person who was speaking be allowed a pass because he was pissed off?

I would say --no. If I'm standing in the same room as you and insult you so that you attack me---you are wrong. You go to jail, and I own your house.

Same as with the funeral. Just because they are being insulted does not give them a free pass to injure or kill someone. Your feelings are hurt? Too fucking bad---attack someone and go to jail.
Larry is right. You have no concept of Free Speech.

From your point of view--MLK had no right to Free Speech since it was liable to cause violence and be a threat to public safety.

On topic, you dismiss my hypothetical as a strawman without comment to the crux of the matter. Why? The intent was to cause you harm/grief. So was Phelps'.

I echo SPUD's comments. You either are bone ignorant or purposefully stringing along a conversation in order to remain relevant. We'll have to disagree.

Posted by OohRah at 2008-04-06 05:28 PM | Reply


OohRah it's not the same and has no Free SPeech conotations. Unbelievable thjat Youy wioth Your supposed education can't figure that out or at least Be honest about it.

Larry Mohr

Spuderick National Security You know telling State Secrets.

As a rule Larry people who possess state secrets don't get up on a soapbox in the park and start preaching they usually sell it to the highest bidder if they are independents or they turn it over to their handlers if they are professional spies.

People like the journo guys who informed us that America was running secret black sites around the world where the US was torturing people w/o due process?

Those guys are Heroes.

People like BushCo who revealed the name of a NOC CIA employee working on WMD suppression are traitors who should be offered a blindfold or a cigarette before their court appointed firing squads finish 'em off.

Oh and Spud, Hate Speech must be protected as well

Hate Speech including death threats must be protected?

Why is that, Larry?

You don't see a public safety angle there?

Seriously?

Wot's the one rule of blogworld, Larry?

The one thing that RCade simply must remove as a post and then punish the offender?

Think about that.

Get back to me.

Be Well.

Hey SPuderick the Retort is Not a Public Forum. SUre it is Open to the Public but it's someones' House RCADE's Huge difference. Oh and Yes Death Threats must be protected Free SPeech. See ANn Coulter See Pat Robertson. See Jerry Falwell(Well I wouldn't want to see Him now but You get My drift) Sorry You can't see this Spuderick You usually have common sense on things. Just not here I am afraid. You are running on emotion and little else. Let's face the facts the verdict was an emotional verdict. It should not nor must not be upheld.

Larry Mohr

Let Me qualify My answer from above. General death threats like Gays should die conservatives should die Must be Protected Free speech. Now if I were to say Spuderick I am going to kill You then THAT would be a public safety deal. Understood??

Larry Mohr

"How legal would it be for me to discover the web sites you've visited and stand on the street outside your home and blare for the world to hear all those sites. And, then post these sites throughout the town."

Very illegal. There are laws against invasion of privacy.


"What if I simply made up those sites - just to publicly humiliate you and your family?"

Again, against the law.


"You think that's protected or should be?"

It is not protected. The government beat you too your scenario long ago. You can't make up lies about people--it is called slander.

slander Audio Help /sl ... nd'r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[slan-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.

Should the person who attacked the person who was speaking be allowed a pass because he was pissed off?

Certainly not. Picking a fight is one thing in a public place but in the instance you cite the one being insulted could chose to merely walk away from the insulter. If the insulter continued to follow the insulted out into the street and so much as put a single finger on him or spit on him while raving than it would be assault and the person in question could seriously kick the living shit out of the insulter and claim self defense and would prolly get off on any charges filed.

A funeral is different.

You can't just walk away from a funeral leaving yer loved one unburied. Yer saying that people have an obligation to allow peole to insult and scream at you while attending a funeral. Spud thinks that is a clear case of breaching the peace.

Obviously not the same thing as the example you cited above.

Same as with the funeral. Just because they are being insulted does not give them a free pass to injure or kill someone. Your feelings are hurt? Too fucking bad---attack someone and go to jail.
Larry is right. You have no concept of Free Speech.

From your point of view--MLK had no right to Free Speech since it was liable to cause violence and be a threat to public safety.

MLK had no right to Free Speech?

Nice straw dog argument.

Do you get a discount on that straw due to large volume purchases?

MLK spoke out against hate and intolerance and injustice and unprovoked violence and he withstood the violence of others in order to make his message knows. His Free Speech did cause violence but not by himself and his followers but to humself, he was ultimately murdered for avaling himself of his right to free speech.

Do you not think that a funeral is an exceptional situation that would permit an exception in the name of public safety? Not a total ban but a bubble zone which is all Spud is talking about here? You don't think people have a right to bury their family in peace then you are an unfeeling fucktard who's understanding of the human condition is woefully inadequate.

Spud sees the tactics of Fred Phelps at these soldiers funerals as being ones designed not to make a political or religious point but to deliberately incite violence and to self aggrandise Phelps and his messianic complex.

Society has a right to make sane and sensible exceptions to any and all rules. Even murder is permissable in some case such as self defense.

Yer stubborn black and white interpretation of "Free Speech" shows an absurd absolutist mindset that Spud ordinarily only encounters on the Right.

Be Well.

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-06 05:18 PM

There was an old common law tort called "Trespass upon the close." Essentially that meant that you couldn't get in anybody's face while you were doing what you were doing, or else you would need to respond in damages.

Posted by Johnson at 2008-04-06 05:13 PM

| Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e<

Please do try again being 300 to 1000 feet from someone is NOT being face to face. Nexxxxxxxxxxxxxt.

Picketing a funeral?

It's just wrong. If someone picketed a funeral
of a loved one of mine...you get the idea.

However...
Let's be clear about deaths' PUD's position:
deaths' PUD is only angered about the funeral being
picketed 'cuz da dude in da box be a fag.

(Remember, deaths' PUD's moral compass is broken)

Be it a fag, a soldier, or whatever, allow persons
to bury their loved ones without distractions
or interruptions.

Should the person who attacked the person who was speaking be allowed a pass because he was pissed off?

"Certainly not. Picking a fight is one thing in a public place but in the instance you cite the one being insulted could chose to merely walk away from the insulter. If the insulter continued to follow the insulted out into the street and so much as put a single finger on him or spit on him while raving than it would be assault and the person in question could seriously kick the living shit out of the insulter and claim self defense and would prolly get off on any charges filed.

A funeral is different.

You can't just walk away from a funeral leaving yer loved one unburied. Yer saying that people have an obligation to allow peole to insult and scream at you while attending a funeral. Spud thinks that is a clear case of breaching the peace.

Obviously not the same thing as the example you cited above."


It is exactly the same. The concept of walking away has nothing to do with the scenario. Your logic is flawed. What you are saying is that if it is inconvenient for you to walk away from an insulter, you have the right to kill them. That is incorrect.

General death threats like Gays should die conservatives should die Must be Protected Free speech.

No Larry, they mustn't.

Inciting violence is wrong.

As wrong as specifically threatening the life of an individual, in fact, maybe even more so. Saying "kill Fred Phelps cos he's a jerk" fer example is actually not as bad as saying "Kill all Black Folks" or "Kill all Gays" because of the scope of the directed violence.

How can you possibly justify even general death threats and not see them as being a danger to public safety?

How are they NOT a danger to public safety?

Why do you think they must be protected?

What is your reasoning here?

Be Well.

Yes SPud They must because that is part of Free SPeech. I know You don't like the Speech but they have a right to it. The KKK Has a right to spew Kill ALl Jews Kill all Blacks. Just the same way I have a right to say Kill all KKK's It must be protected because it is a form of Hate speech.

Larry Mohr

"MLK had no right to Free Speech?"

Not according to your definition. His speeches could be a danger to public safety

"Nice straw dog argument.

Do you get a discount on that straw due to large volume purchases?"

Actually you are trying to say straw man, but at any rate, you are again, incorrect. You cite Phelps speech as a public safety danger, and the same could have been said about Kings speech.


"MLK spoke out against hate and intolerance and injustice and unprovoked violence and he withstood the violence of others in order to make his message knows."

"Withstanding the violence of others" proves my point about his speech being a danger to public safety."


"His Free Speech did cause violence but not by himself and his followers but to humself, he was ultimately murdered for avaling himself of his right to free speech."

It wasn't exactly Free then was it---it cost his life. However the reason behind the threat to public safety isn't at issue--public safety is at issue--so you say. Both Phelps and King were a threat to public saftey and should have had their Free Speech restricted--so you say.


"Do you not think that a funeral is an exceptional situation that would permit an exception in the name of public safety?"

No. Free Speech over rides hurt feelings. I don't think the dead guy really cares a bit.

"Not a total ban but a bubble zone which is all Spud is talking about here?"

There is a bubble zone.


"You don't think people have a right to bury their family in peace then you are an unfeeling fucktard who's understanding of the human condition is woefully inadequate."

We aren't talking about emotions, and that is where the problem comes in. You think your emotions should rule the law. Again you are mistaken.

As to the "right" to bury their family in peace---no---I don't think that right exists. I seem to recall reading about millions upon millions of people being killed and their remains were never buried by their family in peace---so I don't think that right exists anywhere. Maybe you have a link to where it exists outside of your emotional imagination?

Yes SPud They must because that is part of Free SPeech.

Hate speech is a part of Free speech therefore it must be legal?

That's yer rationale? That's the extent of your reasoning here?

No exceptions for death threats at all?

Sorry, but funerals are exceptional circumstances and should NEVER be picketed by anyone for any reason.

People's rights to bury their family in peace and with dignity trumps absolute free speech handily.

To interpret free speech otherwise would be to favour uncivilised behaviour over civilised.

It would be a lessening, a de-evolution.

What about bullying? Some kids never get hit but they get so degraded and picked on verbally that they too often take their own lives because of that speech. Do you think that that is free speech that is worth being protected under the law too?

Spud appreciates a slippery slope argument in that doing "X" will lead to "Y" and so to "Z" but yer slippery slope that we will lose our right to free speech if don't allow disruptions of funerals and hate speech is false.

Appreciating nuances and subtleties is vital to our social evolution.

This one isn't even that.

This one is a no-brainer.

Be Well.

As to the "right" to bury their family in peace---no---I don't think that right exists.

You think wrong.

Obviously.

But then you think rights come from Government don't you?

Wrong there too.

Rights are inherent and inalienable. Whether rights are respected, recognised or observed in reality doesn't make a damn bit of difference to whether or not the rights exist in the first place.

Be Well.

"Sorry, but funerals are exceptional circumstances and should NEVER be picketed by anyone for any reason."

Emotion

"People's rights to bury their family in peace and with dignity trumps absolute free speech handily."

Bullshit/emotional bullshit

"To interpret free speech otherwise would be to favour uncivilised behaviour over civilised."

Says you

"It would be a lessening, a de-evolution."

Exactly the opposite--it would be reverting to animal instincts to attack that which offends. The higher logic would be to ignore their rants as unimportant---which is true.

No spuderick there is no constitutionally protected right for a greiving Family to bury their loved one in a dignified way. It is NOT a Free SPeech thing. To try and make it so just shows Your dishonesty. Oh and it does NOT trump a Persons right to Free SPeech. Let's face facts SPuderick You want to quash Free SPeech becqause You find it abhorant. While I totally agree that what Fred Phelps does is morally reprehansable He has EVERY RIGHT to be that way. Hate speech is the eptiomy of Free SPeech.

Larry Mohr

PS For Hans. The COnstitution does not protect Funerals. It is not what a Peaceable assembly is.

"Rights are inherent and inalienable."

Says who? The government?


"Whether rights are respected, recognised or observed in reality doesn't make a damn bit of difference to whether or not the rights exist in the first place."

Which means a great deal of bullshit to a guy about to be shot through the head in Darfur. At the millisecond just before the bullet enters his skull, if he could choose the value of his "right to life" to that of a nickel--I think he'd have to go with the nickel.

The rights you claim aren't worth a turd in a shit storm.

;-)

I don't understand that with all else being equal you choose the rotten side. That says a lot about you, TFDN and the bOoB.

Posted by goatman

Who ever said it's one or the other? Not Me. Personally I think both parties should get over themselves. If Fucked-up Fred's ranting, just ignore him, that's the best way to make an annoying child go away. You don't think he's loving all this attention this lawsuit is bringing?
Goaty, if we go down the path you advocate, sooner or later were going to have the most boring, dumbed down, bland culture that I could imagine.
Oh wait, that is exactly the path we are on, and that is what's happening.

BuffBob, I'm sorry that you have such a sad lack of your own dignity. It's really the only thing anyone truly owns that no one can take away. If that man in Darfur is lucky, he'll still have his dignity (along with all his rights, which come from it) as they are shooting him.
I know I'll always have mine. It's a shame the Military families are letting Fred Phelps steal theirs. But that's their choice, not his.

TFDNihilist

I must have missed something there. Maybe you could use your giant intellect to explain to me the value of his right to life when he just got shot through the brain?

He has his dignity as he's lying by the side of the road like a run over dog as the maggots and rats eat him? Is that your point?

You want to hear an Irony?? You are pissing upon the Graves of those YUou want to protect by trying to limit the Free Speech rights of it's citizenry. Yes that is right. If You believe these Soldiers died to protect Our way of life then why do You want to slander their sacrifice??

Larry Mohr

I know I'll always have mine.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2008-04-06 06:50 PM

It's hard to keep your dignity when your scrotum is hooked up to an electric current. I know you could manage it---but I bet you'd have a funny look on your face.

Maybe you could use your giant intellect to explain to me the value of his right to life when he just got shot through the brain?

BB,

Genuine curiousity.

In your opinion is there anything worse than death?

Is there anything worth dying for?


Cheers

Grendel

Lots of things. Freedom of Speech for one thing. I made that decision on the runway while sitting in that plane to Nam. I'm not afraid of death at all. I am afraid of an electric current to the scrotum. How about yourself?

;-)

Grendel

Lots of things. Freedom of Speech for one thing. I made that decision on the runway while sitting in that plane to Nam. I'm not afraid of death at all.

;-)

Fair enough.

I imagine a response one could fashion to your statement would be:

Which means a great deal of bullshit to a guy about to be shot through the head for standing up for free speech. At the millisecond just before the bullet enters his skull, if he could choose the value of his "right to free speech" to that of a nickel--I think he'd have to go with the nickel.

The rights you claim aren't worth a turd in a shit storm.


I am afraid of an electric current to the scrotum. How about yourself?

I can honestly say that I have no fear of electric currents to your scrotum.


Cheers

I can honestly say that I have no fear of electric currents to your scrotum.


Cheers

Posted by Grendel at 2008-04-06 07:23 PM | Reply

Wait till you try it.

As to the guy with the bullet. It goes to the point that all rights come from the government. No government--no rights. Bad Government--no rights. "Rights" without government support are worthless, and the government decides who and what rights are in effect. That's the point of Darfur. That's the lesson of the Killing Fields.

The only thing that protects your rights is a government with the realistic threat of punishing those who would try to take those rights away. Other than that you have no rights. None that are worth anything as far as protection goes. Governments that actually attempt to show human participation in their laws are relatively recent, and the truly liberal ones like our government are rare--and easy to lose.

Americans say--"I may not agree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it."

What do you say?

;-)

"I have no fear of electric currents to your scrotum."

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me ...

I killed them.

"Wait till you try it."

Posted by Bluffalo_bOOb


Another one of Mistress Heather's satisfied customers.

"I have no fear of electric currents to your scrotum."

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

Why thank you, Zat for the finger wagging. I have been sleeping under a rock for the past sixty years and have no knowledge of the holocaust, of the march for civil rights, of the anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and this decade.

Coming from your extremely tolerant and patient voice your williningness to be a moral guide for me means a great deal.

Perhaps, I should have put a little winkie emoticon at the end of my original remark to let you know of my little attempt at humor.
I know that biting, sarcastic humor is so alien to you. ;-]

Cheers

Let's face it Fred Phelps is a vile sick man. That being said He has the right to say those vile sick things He espouses.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-04-06 05:07 AM | Reply |

Agreed and agreed.
And I don't agree with Larry (and visa versa) on too much.
It shouldn't be too hard to see that if you limit the free speech rights of ONE, THAT may come back to harm YOU.

I think the solution to the difference between Phelps' free speech rights and the free speech rights of those conducting a funeral would be to conduct the funeral on private property, then one could legally limit who is on the private property.

We don't have a constitutional right for things to be CONVENIENT for us.

I think liberals and conservatives here would agree that this guy is a D-bag--that's not the heart of the issue.

It goes to the point that all rights come from the government. No government--no rights. Bad Government--no rights. "Rights" without government support are worthless, and the government decides who and what rights are in effect. That's the point of Darfur. That's the lesson of the Killing Fields. . .

What do you say?

Actually, no government no laws. Governments don't give rights or take them way. They merely permit, restrict or require behavior.

Inalienable rights are a matter of faith. I believe in them, and you are lucky that you live in a country in which many people do and enact laws that take in account these beliefs.

We are both lucky that we live in a country in which people were and are willing to die for those beliefs. You have just claimed that you are willing to die for a belief--freedom of speech.

Cheers

Since Larry won't answer my question, maybe you can, TFDN: Why do Phelp's rights trump those of the grieving families?

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-06 05:28 AM | Reply |

I just answered it.
ALL OF OUR RIGHTS are subject to the US Constitution in these here borders.
The family can find a private cemetary and free speech rights for all are preserved.
Trust me, I'm very sympathetic of the family here, just as I am of Jewish people when the white supremacist Nazi speak out, but freedom sucks and is great at the same time.

You guys ever watch that on-line film "Fitna" that talks about Islam?

One of the things I took away from it (and from all the threads on here where people liken Christianity and Christians to Islam and Muslims) is that the vast majority of Christians will fight and die for the free speech rights of others, including abortion doctors, voodoo, Muslims, etc.

I defended Santeria practitioners (a twisted, sinful religion in my view) against the city of Hialeah, Florida and would do so again in a heartbeat. Our RIGHTS do not come from man, they come from God, and subsequently it should be HARD for us as men to take men's rights away.

No one has taken Phelps' right to speak away.

Only MohrOns believe that bullshit.

However, if you say things that are INFLAMMATORY, DEGRADING, SLANDEROUS AND UNTRUE, you can be sued as Phelps was and a jury can assess CIVIL damages for loss of reputation or emotional distress.

CIVIL not CRIMINAL.

Oh and from now on I ask that You do not dinigrate My Family's Name Mike Thank You very much.

Larry Mohr

However, if you say things that are INFLAMMATORY, DEGRADING, SLANDEROUS AND UNTRUE, you can be sued as Phelps was and a jury can assess CIVIL damages for loss of reputation or emotional distress.

CIVIL not CRIMINAL.

Posted by OzarkAggie at 2008-04-06 08:54 PM | Reply

Good pointing out the difference between civil and criminal. True.

Like O.J. Simpson. Not guilty of criminal (req's beyond a reasonable doubt), yet found responsible civilly (preponderence of the evidence).

I've not heard that "inflammatory" or "degrading" were things you could sue for--got a citation or evidence for that?

No spuderick there is no constitutionally protected right for a greiving Family to bury their loved one in a dignified way. It is NOT a Free SPeech thing. To try and make it so just shows Your dishonesty. Oh and it does NOT trump a Persons right to Free SPeech. Let's face facts SPuderick You want to quash Free SPeech becqause You find it abhorant

The right to mourn and bury yer dead in peace is a basic human right that trumps anyone's attempts to protest at sed funeral.

No argument can be made for giving anyone the right to distrupt a funeral.

If you stand up in a court of law and start shouting at a judge you will be hauled away.

If you stand on a soapbox and incite a riot you can and should be charged for it.

If you yell fire in a crowded movie house you can be charged.

This is about a thousand times worse than all that.

Don't particularily give a flying fuck if you think the Constitution specifically allows or prohibits it. Spud is basing his opinion on this matter not on legal precedent but on core moral values and social mores that date back to ancient times.

Yer argument is that to make an exception in this case would somehow diminish the value and the meaning of free speech and that is patently absurd.

To allow this behaviour to continue is to invite disaster. It diminishes our essential humanity and makes a mockery of the inherent sacredness of life and death.

What is the value to society of allowing people to spew hate speech at gravesites?

Wot do we gain by countenancing such behavior?

Wot do we lose?

It is an assault, plain and simple and in Spud's rarely humble opinion it justifies almost any kind of response up to and including violence.

Having his church taken away from him is certainly a nice start here anyway.

Spud sincerely hopes his bus full of losers gets stalled on some railroad tracks at just the right moment.

That would be funny! ^_^

Be Well.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO A DIGINIFIED FUNERAL. How many bloody times do I have to say this Spud.

You said it here Spud.

Don't particularily give a flying fuck if you think the Constitution specifically allows or prohibits it. Spud is basing his opinion on this matter not on legal precedent but on core moral values and social mores that date back to ancient times.

Having his church taken away from him is certainly a nice start here anyway.

Spud sincerely hopes his bus full of losers gets stalled on some railroad tracks at just the right moment.

That would be funny! ^_^

Be Well.

Posted by dethspud at 2008-04-06 09:20 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Who ever said it's one or the other? Not Me. Personally I think both parties should get over themselves. If Fucked-up Fred's ranting, just ignore him,

Posted by TFDNihilist

just ignore him,

Tell me where you live so i can stand out in front of your house and chant how badly your wife's pussy smells.
Fair enough?
Will you get over it?


rwd

Tell me where you live so i can stand out in front of your house and chant how badly your wife's pussy smells.
Fair enough?
Will you get over it?


rwd

Posted by rightwingdon

Email me. You can stand in front of my house all day and night for all I care. If you want to insult my wife's hoochie, you'll have to do it cross town as I got tired of that stank last year. C'mon, I guarantee I can wait you out.

got a citation or evidence for that? by kirk


Over and above slander and libel you also have a broad range of offenses that are grounds for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Let's say someone accuses you of fraud to dissolve a contract, and you show no fraud committed, then you can sue for breach of contract, slander, and emotional distress from both the accusation and business difficulties or loss.

Phelps was judged to have made statements to hurt the family that were "outrageous" and so offensive that no justification was satisfactory. That was the opinion of 12 jurors.

==============================
Of course I think it's hilarious that our MohrOn in Chief defends Phelps' use of these soldier's deaths as a forum for his perverted ministry and yet objects to my coining the term MohrOn.

The icing on the Comedy Cake comes when the MohrOn-Pud joins in with his morally bankrupt meanderings. Another disingenuous degenerate spouting mock outrage for our fallen soldiers even as he mocks their last wishes as he did with K'gar.

Fuck Phelps and the MohrOns.

C'mon, I guarantee I can wait you out.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Ok then how about your mothers house?
Sister?
Aunt?
What if i followed your kids home from school screaming at them that you killed their mother?
Would that be ok?
What if i stood outside from where you worked and yelled that i think you are a asshole?
Would that be ok?



The point appears to be lost on you.

rwd

Fred Phelps deserves death. Sooner the better.

Fred Phelps deserves death. Sooner the better.

Posted by LetUsPrey

What i would really liked to have seen is some family members go over to them and give them a beat down.
I know i would.

rwd

Why not Sue Everyone who Protests Homosexuality?

Well if you can "Sue" a particular group for their protesting against homosexuality,because you state it "caused you emotional stress" you could then, by extrapolation "Sue" everybody in the USA or even the world who condemned or who expressed a "righteous" aversion or prejudice to homosexuality?
Who knows maybe even pedophiles can sue anyone who protests against them???

Why not Sue Everyone who Protests Homosexuality?

Well if you can "Sue" a particular group for their protesting against homosexuality,because you state it "caused you emotional stress" you could then, by extrapolation "Sue" everybody in the USA or even the world who condemned or who expressed a "righteous" aversion or prejudice to homosexuality?
Who knows maybe even pedophiles can sue anyone who protests against them???

If these soldiers were gay then I might see Phelps' protest as a tirade against homosexuality.

But he's starting with the illogical conclusion that God is killing them because of gay rights in America.

Why doesn't focus his protests on the White House, the Pentagon, Congress?

Because the outrageous behavior gets him noticed, and that's what people see it for: A Publicity Stunt at the Expense of a Family's Grief.

You can do it without being arrested, but one jury decided that hurting the family and aggravating their pain and suffering for the purposes of self-aggrandizement was unfair. So Phelps essentially is paying for his publicity, and he got more than he bargained for in more ways than one.

There is a bunch of talk on this thread about phelp's constitutional right to speak out in his manner.
He wasn't charged with violating someones civil rights.
He was sued in a civil trial which is covered by the constitution.
Big difference in arguments.

rwd

HOLY CRAPPE!

can't even go off and have a weekend - now, i must get caught up on the comments to see where everybody stands.

at least now i know of two subjects that stir the masses - izlam and fred phelps, two subjects which have more in common than even i realized.

You have just claimed that you are willing to die for a belief--freedom of speech.

Cheers

Posted by Grendel at 2008-04-06 08:28 PM |

True--and that right is only valid because it comes from the government--the government backs up that right. I would die for a government that gives that right. Without the government to back up that right, the right would not exist--at least beyond a philosophical standpoint, which is worthless.

Tell the Chinese dissidents sitting in jails in China they have the right to Free Speech. Explain it to them slowly--they may not understand.

;-)

Oh and from now on I ask that You do not dinigrate My Family's Name Mike Thank You very much.

Larry Mohr

This has to be the funniest post on this thread so far. Larry screaming for freedom of speech and allowing Phelps to denigrate the soldiers, but is trying to quash the someone else's rights to the same to himself.

You are funny, Lary. LOL

True--and that right is only valid because it comes from the government--the government backs up that right. I would die for a government that gives that right. Without the government to back up that right, the right would not exist--at least beyond a philosophical standpoint, which is worthless.

Tell the Chinese dissidents sitting in jails in China they have the right to Free Speech. Explain it to them slowly--they may not understand.

I don't know about the Chinese dissident, but many here have explained it slowly and repeatedly to you and you still not have learned.

Of course taking a long time to learn something is not tantamount to what is being learned is untrue.

You alluded to Nam. I will make some assumptions and say that you were drafted and went to fight against your will.

Perhpas you complained about it, but I am sure you explained to everyone after you complained that you were being treated fairly by the US government and that at no times were your rights trampled on. After all because the government defines rights, they logically define fairness and justice--which flow from the (governmental) establishment of rights. (You can't say that rights come from the government, but appeal to some higher non existant platonic ideal of fairness and justice to complain about the government.)

You must have concluded that it was fair and just to send you and countless other young men to Vietnam. As you an others shot an killed men you never met, you must have thought this too is fair and just. I have a right to do this, because my government has given me the right. At night, you slept a troubleless sleep.

All those Vietnam vets who came back traumatized by what they saw and did should have realized that there was no moral or ethical problem with anything they did. After all, they can have no ideals of fairness and justice or rights higher than their government. They sadly threw their minds away by thinking otherwise.

Too bad they didn't listen to you.


Cheers

Grendel: You made the same point I was going to make yesterday, but pertaining to this topic. I thought it'd be futile, so I didn't. However, I will now go ahead and throw mine out with your elegantly written version:

Bob thinks that Phelps has the right to protest the funerals. Bob says all rights come from the government. However, the government, via the courts system, is saying that Phelps does not have that right.

So where does bob come off saying that Phelps is being wronged? The government has clearly said that Phelps does not have the right to disrupt funerals.

Poor bob thinks he can have it both ways.

"So where does bob come off saying that Phelps is being wronged? "

This will eventually be overturned, as it will be obvious the initial judge let emotion triumph over law.

So where does bob come off saying that Phelps is being wronged? The government has clearly said that Phelps does not have the right to disrupt funerals.

Poor bob thinks he can have it both ways.


Goatman,

Exactly. In order to complain about a government being unfair, unjust or what authority can he turn to?

Or for that matter, if he wishes to praise a government for being just and fair what measure does he use?

Whenever one turns to a yardstick to measure, one implicitly recognizes the authority of the yardstick to make a judgment over what is being measured.

If government is the ultimate authority on rights, fairness and justice how can one ever say government is unjust or unfair?

For BB, all governments by their very nature are always just and fair. He may not like the "rights" they award or that they choose not too award some other kind of right, but that is not the same as saying it treat its citizens unfairly or unjustly.

The U.S. government was thus just in ordering its citizens into the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. The U.S. government was just and fair in the past when it denied women the right to vote. The U.S. government was just and fair in the past when it condoned slavery.

The government is the final authority on rights; therefore it is always right, always just, always fair.


Cheers

I guess lots like to see bad things happen to bad people

Of course I think it's hilarious that our MohrOn in Chief defends Phelps' use of these soldier's deaths as a forum for his perverted ministry and yet objects to my coining the term MohrOn.

Posted by OzarkAggie at 2008-04-06 10:27 PM | Reply

The DIFFERENCE is that Larry is asking you, one private citizen to another, to politely comply.

The civil government requiring someone to do something at the threat of imprisonment is quite another thing. Surely---shirley?--you can come close to comprehending that, can't you?

The civil government ruling in favor of the family in a civil trial is quite another thing too. Remember O.J. and the differences between his civil and criminal trials?

You sdvocate total free speech, eh? Coarse people intruding on private funerals is A-okay with you? Then you certainly won't mind someone coming on here and stating that your seduction/force/cruelty/abuse of animals is appalling to most, will you?

Not to worry, dog lover, Hans or others will be around shortly to aid you in your attempts to defend the indefensible.



Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2008-04-06 10:28 AM | Reply



This whole Phelps ordeal can be solved by punching the living hell out of the protester. Don't give me some bullshit about "illegal" either. People get punched out each and every day and nobody gets arrested for it.

If your loved one is being waked, and Phelps shows up to protest and you don't fuck him up then you are a pussy. It really is that simple.

"and yet objects to my coining the term MohrOn."
--OZARKAGGIE

I thought I was pretty clever a long time ago with LarryMohrCurly, but no one laughed.

=/

It is a wondrous thing to behold that somehow some posters believe that if a person is "talking," the fact that he is "talking" confers "rights" on him that empower him to engage in actions that would otherwise be prohibited.

As a matter of public policy, the "government undertakes to defuse situations that have a great potential for resulting in violence. I'm intrigued by the failure of the good Rev. to elicit such a response to date, a group of "citizens" so enraged by this rude disregard for "the close" of others that they use baseball bats to break up the convocation of the Phelps family.

The Phelps family are disturbing the peace of others. Their "speech" is not being constrained. They are free to make their positions clear, just not in the vicinity of the ceremony. The right of the government to sequester protestors in particular areas has been upheld repeatedly.

Speaking does not create a license that unconditionally waives all restrictions just because a person is blathering.

The idea that "free speech" is a right that absolutely obviates everything else is the declaration of those unfamiliar with the practical applications of "the right." These "rights" are limited so as to permit society to function unimpeded.

In my area a group of "animal rights" proponents decided to gather repeatedly in front of the homes of university researchers, block access to the neighborhood, make noise to disturb the sleep and peace of the researchers, and generally comport themselves in such a way as to harass other people. The city in which they are operating passed an ordinance to prohibit such "assembly" as it went beyong the right to assemble and peaceably seek redress of grievances, but rather was an attempt to intimidate the peaceful living of their lives by those attacked.

These nut cases are not exercising a right of assembly or freedom of speech to express their ideas, they are trying to disturb the peace of other people, and asserting that they have a license to do so. Society says no. And if a person attending a funeral were to bash in the head of Phelps and some members of his family as they disturbed a funeral, if I were on the jury trying him there would be jury nullification and the assailant would be acquitted for offing Phelps. Good riddance of bad rubbish. There is a limit to what people must endure.

Grendel/Goatman

Just because all rights come from the government doesn't mean that the government is always fair or always right.

The right of Free Speech comes from the government. The current discussion is whether the government will continue to enforce Free Speech or rescind it if people don't like what is being said.


Do I have to talk even slowed and use smaller words?

What a couple of slow wits.

Larry, you are right, the 1st Amendment does protect citizens right to offend others, to a degree. And this is why I and many others believe that the constitution needs a little overhaul, especially as it pertains to citizen risk and reward, and the 1st amendment. I look forward to that day. MAKE NO MISTAKE...GET RIGHT DAY IS COMING!

Fredflintstone

So---how would you correct the first amendment?

Do I have to talk even slowed and use smaller words?

Nope, you don't have to talk "even slowed". You just have to expand your small thoughts and realize what a contradictory fool you are.

You think Phelps should be able to shout down funerals. By what authority does he have to do this? What gives him that right? Certainly not the government; the government is telling him through the courts he doesn't have that right.

So by your own logic, everything is hunky dory.

Now if his right to shout down funerals was an inherent birth-given right, then there is a problem. But all rights come from the government, the government says "no", so there is no problem -- unless there is higher "force" (or whatever you want to call it) than the government that DOES give him that right. But there's not. No problems. The end.

You've got to be careful that you don't get caught in your own web, bOoB.

"You think Phelps should be able to shout down funerals. By what authority does he have to do this? What gives him that right? Certainly not the government; the government is telling him through the courts he doesn't have that right."

Then he doesn't have the right--get it dumMy?

What a couple of slow wits.

It is you who is the slow wit, bOoB. Though everyone one else realizes it, you don't realize you've contradicted yourself and you want it both ways -- You say Phelps has the right to shout down funerals, yet the government says he doesn't and according to your twisted mind, all rights come from the government. Therefore, Phelps does not have that right, no matter what you say -- unless of course you admit that certain rights are unalienable and birthgiven.

Can't have it both ways, bOoB. So sorry.

Do I have to talk even slowed ...

(I can just see the bOoB behind his keyboard mouthing the words a syllable every two or three seconds and taking 30 minutes to type his post while muttering to himself, "I hope they understand this time. I can't say it much slower")

Then he doesn't have the right--get it dumMy?

That's right. But you've been arguing for two days that he does. (and I'm the dummy? LOL)

Once again, the contradictions flow. Get it, bOoB?

Then he doesn't have the right

DING! DING! DING! We have a wiener!

Goatman

I've been arguing for two days that I think he has the right. However, what I think has no bearing on whether he has those rights or not. Only the government makes the decision that counts.

Do you understand that I am not the government? Does that much get through? Do you understand that my opinion has no bearing on what rights the government actually allows?

"I've been arguing for two days that I think he has the right. However, what I think has no bearing on whether he has those rights or not."
--BUFFALO_BOB

So he has the right but then he doesn't?

my opinion has no bearing -- BOOB!

"By what authority does he have to do this? What gives him that right?"

You're joking, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Live or Die

He has whatever rights the government says he has.

As do you.

Just because I talk about what his rights should be, doesn't mean that that is what his rights are. His rights don't come from me--they come from the government.

I understand you are too stupid to understand the words you are reading, but others do understand.

If the government says you killed someone and that you should die--guess what your future looks like.

I've been arguing for two days that I think he has the right

Well, you think wrong. The government says he doesn't and all rights come from the government according to the bOoB.

Think again, bOoB. But this time get it right.

"but others do understand"
--BUFFALO_BOB

Who are these others? And what planet are they from?

You're joking, right?

No, of course not. I was asking that question in the context of bOoB's continual assertion that all rights come from the government. If that is so, I was wondering where that right came from.

I talk about what his rights should be,

From what authority do you judge what his rights "should be". All rights come from the government. That makes them the ultimate authority. There is no higher one that says what they "should be".

Who's authority dictates what rights should be? Is it a birthright?

I talk about what his rights should be,

From what authority do you judge what his rights "should be". All rights come from the government. That makes them the ultimate authority. There is no higher one that says what they "should be".

Who's authority dictates what rights should be? Is it a birthright?

All rights come from the government. That makes them the ultimate authority.
There is no higher one that says what they "should be".


You forgot God.

You forgot God.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-04-07 02:57 PM

I think you forgot that god bestows no rights. No right to life from god. No right to breathe from god. No god

;-)

BBob -

"You forgot God.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-04-07 02:57 PM "

I think you forgot that god bestows no rights....

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-04-07 03:04 PM


I just KNEW you'd bite. (grin)

Just because all rights come from the government doesn't mean that the government is always fair or always right.

Then you are measuring the government against some yardstick which you see as a greater authority.

What is that greater authority? Where did it come from? Who gets to decide what is fairness and justice?

You are appealing to a sense of fairness and justice that you perceive has a higher value than government.

(Keep on going BB you are do not realize you are walking into an argument in which you support what you don't believe in.)


Your fundamental problem in your argument is really one of equivocation. You equate legal rights with inalienable rights (human rights). When you say all rights come from the government, you mean all legal rights--as basic human rights don't exist for you. Fortunately for you, you live in a country in which those legal rights have been fashioned by people who believe in something you do not think exists--basic human rights.

For example, when you critique the government for violating someone's legal rights--such as free speech-- you are telling the government that they are not keeping to their in the idea of basic human rights, which again ironically you don't believe exists.

It is like stating you do not believe in God, but then justifying another position by appealing to the existence of God.

I am sure you won't agree with this. I have read enough of your posts to know that the most important thing about you is not always to be right, but never to be wrong.

It doesn't matter to me what you admit and will not admit.

Cheers

I am allowed to express an opinion.

But your opinion means naught since all rights come from the government. That's like expressing an opinion that the world is flat. Who cares because you would be wrong. Or is you expressed an opinion that there is no such thing as gravity. You would be wrong, so your opinion means naught.

Likewise, you are wrong when you think that Phelps should have the right to disrupt funerals since the government says he doesn't. After all, all rights come from the government.

But your opinion means naught since all rights come from the government.

True. Get it DumMy?


"That's like expressing an opinion that the world is flat. Who cares because you would be wrong."

True. Get it dUmMy?

"Or is you expressed an opinion that there is no such thing as gravity. You would be wrong, so your opinion means naught."

True. Get it dummY?



"Likewise, you are wrong when you think that Phelps should have the right to disrupt funerals since the government says he doesn't."

Wrong--by using the word "should" I am expressing an opinion. The government says I can do this--I have that right. My opinion is always right for me, but has no bearing on the rights the government actually bestows.


"After all, all rights come from the government."

True. Get it dUMMy? I doubt it.

;-)

Larry's got it wrong. They are not invitied to what is to be a private ceremony for family and friends only. This is not a public function so Phelps has no "rights" to be rude, loud or obnoxious. When your rights infringe upon my rights, then your rights are wrongs. It's that plain and simple. Speaking of simple, your logic and lack of knowledge belies your supposed education at KU. If this is the best they have to offer, people should think about sending their children elsewhere. Anyone who stands up for bigoted hatred is sad.

But your opinion means naught since all rights come from the government.

True. Get it DumMy?

You admittedly express falsehoods and you call me "dummy"?

LOL!

My opinion is always right for me,

No it's not. You could express an opinion that the world is flat and it would still be wrong to everyone -- including yourself.

And you call me a dummy?

LOL!

Or you could say that all rights come from the government, then express an opinion that they are wrong. How can an established tenet be wrong?

And you call me a dummy?

LOL!

bOoB -- Grendel is right in his post. You've caught yourself in your own tangled web. Now we'll sit back and watch you devour yourself.

"They are not invitied to what is to be a private ceremony for family and friends only.'

Phelps was situated on public ground.

"Phelps has no "rights" to be rude, loud or obnoxious. "

Try rereading the first amendment. Do it as many times as it takes you to understand.

"Anyone who stands up for bigoted hatred is sad."

Anyone who thinks Larry is standing up for bigotry is sadder still.

Grendel

Just because all rights come from the government doesn't mean that the government is always fair or always right.

"Then you are measuring the government against some yardstick which you see as a greater authority."

Not at all. Your assumption that it has to be a "greater authority" is incorrect.


"What is that greater authority?

There is no authority greater than the government.


"Where did it come from?"

The authority for our government came from our government. The Constitution was written by government workers--government employees and representatives of various states. The "people" had little to do with the formation of our government, which could just as easily been a monarchy.


"Who gets to decide what is fairness and justice?"

The government. Who did you think did it all this time? Your mom and dad? You? The "people"? Ask the "people" what they think of government taking private land for rich private businesses. Then ask the government what it thinks.



"You are appealing to a sense of fairness and justice that you perceive has a higher value than government."

Not at all. That is your perception, and misconception.


"(Keep on going BB you are do not realize you are walking into an argument in which you support what you don't believe in.)"

I bet you wish you knew what you were talking about.


"Your fundamental problem in your argument is really one of equivocation. You equate legal rights with inalienable rights (human rights)."

There are no such thing as inalienable rights. All rights can be alienated. Rights are an illusion made up by humans.


"When you say all rights come from the government, you mean all legal rights--as basic human rights don't exist for you."

They don't exist for anyone unless the government says they exist.

"Fortunately for you, you live in a country in which those legal rights have been fashioned by people who believe in something you do not think exists--basic human rights."

You fail to realize your sentence proves my point. The government is what makes your statement true. I am lucky to live under a government that gives those rights. You fail to realise that not living under that government means you don't have those rights. You seem to think those right would exist without the government. You are mistaken.

"For example, when you critique the government for violating someone's legal rights--such as free speech-- you are telling the government that they are not keeping to their in the idea of basic human rights, which again ironically you don't believe exists."

I believe the government exists and that all rights come from the government. SO---if the government gives basic human rights--I believe basic human rights exist---as long as the government says they exist. I believe basic human rights don't exist for the people of Darfur. Their government says they don't have basic human rights, and guess what---they don't have basic human rights.

The government of Cambodia said their citizens had no basic human rights, and guess what--their citizens had no basic human rights.

The government of Russia said its citizens had no basic human rights, and guess what--their citizens had no basic human rights.

The Japanese who conquered China said the Chinese had no basic human rights, and guess what--their citizens had no basic human rights.

The government of Gerany decided the Jews had no basic human rights, and guess what----their Jews had no basic human rights.



"It is like stating you do not believe in God, but then justifying another position by appealing to the existence of God."

Not at all. The flaw in your thinking is that you think I think rights don't exist. They do exist---when the government says they exist.



"I am sure you won't agree with this. I have read enough of your posts to know that the most important thing about you is not always to be right, but never to be wrong."

I have said I was incorrect when proven incorrect. I have told Goatman he was correct on several occasions. You just don't read enough. When have YOU ever said you were mistaken?


"It doesn't matter to me what you admit and will not admit."

Good--then why post to me?

"And you call me a dummy?"

Posted by goatman at 2008-04-07 03:29 PM

Finally you understand something I have said.

;-)

Anyone who stands up for bigoted hatred is sad.

Posted by Ozark_Sunshine at 2008-04-07 03:27 PM | Reply


How about the KKK. Should we stop them from marching and making their hate speeches on public property? Would you stand up for their right to make bigoted hatred speeches?

Goatman

Why not quit flapping your gums and make a point? Where is the flaw in my logic dUMmy? Spit it out kid.

;-)

Bob,
You are a punk and a liar. Not to mention, a real dummy.

Not at all. The flaw in your thinking is that you think I think rights don't exist. They do exist---when the government says they exist.

Fine, then the government is the last and final word on what rights are. As such they are the last and final word on what justice is and what is fairness.

Logically you cannot appeal to idealism in order to critique the government and then turn around and deny ideals exists in regard to human rights.

If you think that it was unjust for men to have slaves in the South prior to the Civil War what do you base this belief on?


The government of Cambodia said their citizens had no basic human rights, and guess what--their citizens had no basic human rights.

If the government said you were not human; you were an animal and should be treated as such, you respond to them with: "I do not like being treated as an animal, but I have to agree with you that I am an animal since you have the power to equate me with one and I don't. In addition, since there is no higher authority than you, dear government, I can make no appeal to any other authority to convince you otherwise as you will recognize no such authority. I am grateful for my bowl and my slop, dear Masters."

My guess is that in the face of such a government, you would not grovel like a dog, but assert your humanity even if it were to lead to your own death. In doing so you would go to your death knowing that the government can call you what they want and they can deny you what you need; they can take away your life, but they can not diminish or take away your humanity and all that goes along with it.

That! Yes, that idea and belief in intrinsic in your self; it exists independent of any political institution transcends life itself.

So, would you declare yourself human and die, or, or,

Or would you rather be a mule?

[Everybody Sing!]

A mule is an animal with long funny ears,
He kicks up at anything he hears.
His back is brawny and his brain is weak,
He's just plain stupid with a stubborn streak,
So if you don't...........go to school,
You may grow up to be a mule.

[LOUDER. Tap your feet.]

Or would you rather swing on a star,
Carry moonbeams home in a jar,
And be better off than you are,
Or would you rather be a pig?

[NOW, just the humans in the audience]

A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace.
He has no manners when he eats his food.
He's just plain lazy, and extremely rude,
So if you don't care a feather for a fig,
You may grow up to be a pig.

[Now, you, Goatman! Your turn! LOOK at BB and sing!]

And all the monkeys aren't in a zoo,
Every day you meet quite a few.
So you see, it's all up to you.
You can be better than you are.
You can be swinging on a star.

[Keep on humming.]

Cheers

That brought back memories. My mom used to sing that song to me. I haven't heard it or thought of it in decades.

Fine, then the government is the last and final word on what rights are. As such they are the last and final word on what justice is and what is fairness.


Not at all. You can not explain this laughable leap in logic.

However, I just scanned up a bit and saw your post. It seems when you run out of logic you resort to ad hominum attacks and ridicule. I was trying to have a decent conversation with an asshole.

My fault.

But as a parting thought---why not tell those people in Darfur about their rights. I'm sure they can explain your stupidity before they are shot.

;-)

The problem with the song is that once you hear it and get it in your head, it won't leave for a decade.

It's been in my head for 30 minutes now. Only 3652 days, 23.5 hours to go until my head is mine again. I'll probably be tempted to pull it off with my own hands before then.

Thanks, Grendel

why not tell those people in Darfur about their rights

I'm sure they understand and appreciate their inherent rights far better than you do, bob.

Fine, then the government is the last and final word on what rights are. As such they are the last and final word on what justice is and what is fairness.


Not at all. You can not explain this laughable leap in logic.

I did.


See above,

"Logically you cannot appeal to idealism in order to critique the government and then turn around and deny ideals exists in regard to human rights."

It seems when you run out of logic you resort to ad hominum attacks and ridicule.

Gentle teasing, BB. At least that was the intent. Since you are a person who is no stranger to taking condescending tones and making ad hominem attacks, I assume you would appreciate it. I was simply trying to deal with the natives according to their customs.

I see I was wrong. I obviously struck a nerve.

My apologies for hurting you.


Cheers

Hope you enjoyed the spit I got all over your face.


- Goatman

The Goat and the Buffalo crack me up.

swinging on a star

Ha! Spud lufs that one. Used to have it on an album called "Bing sings for kids" waaaay back in the long ago. The Sinatra version is better than the Crosby version but either way it's a definitely a catchy tune.

Odd that Frank didn't include it on his "Songs for Swinging Lovers" album! ^_^

Oscar Peterson did a nice version of it too!

Be Well.

If this stands we have lost America. The First Amendment is at stake.

Larry Mohr

Ya..... the first amendment protects demonstraters at a funeral. Don't you have any couth at all?

Ya..... the first amendment protects demonstraters at a funeral. Don't you have any couth at all?

Posted by Sniper at 2008-04-07 07:16 PM | Reply

The First AMendment protects Uncouthed speech. In case You are wondering.

Larry Mohr

Don't you have any couth at all?


What MohrOn does?


The fact is Phelps can protest at another funeral at the next opportunity. His only restrictions have been those normally imposed on groups who intend to assemble, counter-protests have been peaceful, and he hasn't been arrested for speaking.

He may be penniless and subject to garnishments but he can say what he likes, and those who wish to assist his "ministry" may do so.

But MohrOns in general, and the MohrOn-pud in particular, do not respect Oath that the military requires, and that is to place your life in danger. It's that simple: You are sworn to defend to the death, and that is why veterans and military personnel alike respect the memory of all those who have served and passed on.

You might not even like the guy, but he took the Oath and lived by it, and that's enough.

I apologize for only having read 2/3 of this thread, so if this has already been brought up I am sorry. However, there is free speech in this country, of course there is, however there is also the tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress" which means if your "free speech" intentionally causes me "emotional distress" I can sue you and I can get a judgment against you, once I have that judgment I can get a lien on your property. What this asshole Phelps did was cause "intentional infliction of emotional distress" to the family burying the loved one, they sued, the jury sided with them. You are entitled to all the "freedom of speech" you wish, so long as it does not cause the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" of others. Don't like it, change the law. Other than that, all you "freedom of speech" people, live with it.

"I apologize for only having read 2/3 of this thread"

Why so much?

Zat - cause I didn't want to bring up a point that perhaps had already been raised in the 1/3 of the thread that I didn't read. I hate that :)

"a point that perhaps had already been raised"

It's April 7.
My pool is ready for business and warmer than Barton springs, which is hopelessly fucked.

Every time I see the headline I read it as "Judge puts lions on Fred Phelps property". Keep him in the house. Problem solved.

How about the KKK. Should we stop them from marching and making their hate speeches on public property? Would you stand up for their right to make bigoted hatred speeches?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-04-07 04:09 PM | Reply |

Yes, I would.
It's not for ME or even less for the CIVIL GOVERNMENT to determine what speech is acceptable.

I might also pepper spray them and face a jury trial and whatever conviction and/or sentence they might dole out.

Let's face it Fred Phelps is a vile sick man. That being said He has the right to say those vile sick things He espouses.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr


He haS a riGht to saY Them, but nOt the rigHt to Say them anyWhere he Wants to.

There are limits on free speech, and this is a reasonable one.