INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: punkdrew on April 02, 2010, 12:02:20 AM
-
Don't believe me? Take a picture, any picture, of them with their signs--the more the better. Then use Photoshop or Microsoft Paint or whatever program you like to remove the text from their signs. Once you've done that, you'll realize--Hello!
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
-
Ha ha. There's some twisted irony going on in that little story.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If I could buy you a beer for this, I would.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If I could buy you a beer for this, I would.
Hey thanks man. :)
Ha ha. There's some twisted irony going on in that little story.
Really? Do tell.
-
Really? Do tell.
The literal casting of stones. Think about it.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
OK. But you DO realize I'm taking the piss and trying to start an Internet rumor that will have them foaming out of all orifices.
-
Really? Do tell.
The literal casting of stones. Think about it.
Nothing? Reading about throwing rocks at religious people is funny, and it's likely the most ineffective way to protest against them. It's just to easy to whip out a verse against that one.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
OK. But you DO realize I'm taking the piss and trying to start an Internet rumor that will have them foaming out of all orifices.
But... that's too easy to do. Calling them closest faggots would incite the same thing.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
-
All they want is attention. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. The most effective thing you can do is what most of the mass media have chosen to do, ignore them.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
OK. But you DO realize I'm taking the piss and trying to start an Internet rumor that will have them foaming out of all orifices.
But... that's too easy to do. Calling them closest faggots would incite the same thing.
Yeah, but I'm lazy and can't be arsed so am letting the Intertube do it for me.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
OK. But you DO realize I'm taking the piss and trying to start an Internet rumor that will have them foaming out of all orifices.
But... that's too easy to do. Calling them closest faggots would incite the same thing.
Yeah, but I'm lazy and can't be arsed so am letting the Intertube do it for me.
Is the Intertube anything like the World Wide Net? :blonde:
-
Really? Do tell.
The literal casting of stones. Think about it.
I've always suspected this. They doth protesteth a bit too much in the gay department. I bet they are a bunch of closet fags who are trying to hide it. :rofl:
-
Really? Do tell.
The literal casting of stones. Think about it.
I've always suspected this. They doth protesteth a bit too much in the gay department. I bet they are a bunch of closet fags who are trying to hide it. :rofl:
Spread the message far and wide, my son, as freely as you may! :2thumbsup:
-
They are gay for my magnificent PINGAS!!! :zoinks:
-
They are gay for my magnificent PINGAS!!! :zoinks:
You would love some gay men lusting over you wouldn't you Duke. I imagine you look like Mr Smithers in real life and carry on pretty much the same.
-
They are pretty much harmless.
I'd worry about the other Christian nutjobs - the ones with actual clout.
-
They are pretty much harmless.
I'd worry about the other Christian nutjobs - the ones with actual clout.
Me too. That's why I never vote Republican! :tinfoil:
-
http://embed.break.com/MTg5NjY0
-
Mob mentality is always such an interesting thing to observe.
-
http://embed.break.com/MTg5NjY0
:LMAO:
It seems that the Karma Police damn near got to the WBC!!! Here's the part where BintySoph accuse me of whining about karma ::)
-
(http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/fredphelps.jpg)
-
They are pretty much harmless.
I'd worry about the other Christian nutjobs - the ones with actual clout.
Me too. That's why I never vote Republican! :tinfoil:
:agreed: That's one of the reasons I could never call myself a conservative. I'm a proud Libertarian Anarchist!!! :arrr: :viking:
-
Anarchism is :viking: :arrr:
-
They are pretty much harmless.
I'd worry about the other Christian nutjobs - the ones with actual bombs.
Fixed. And noted. Am just fucking w/WBC for lulz anyhoo.
-
I doubt that anyone takes them seriously.
-
Would that that were true. Ajudge just ordered the father of a gay Marine to pay the church's court costs. The father sued them because they were picketing his son's funeral. In an unexpected side note, Bill O'Reilly--yes, Papa Bear--has offered to pay in lieu of the father.
-
Fred Phelps is a typical hateful, evil NT out to exploit us good guys.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
Have you ever lost someone close to you?
I have.
I can't even imagine how much the grief of these people who have lost loved ones is magnified when Fred Phelps' group pickets their funerals.
Matthew Shepard lived fairly close to here and what happened to him was very much in the news here.
He was beaten into a coma, robbed, hung on a fence, and left for dead by two men who set out to rob and murder a gay man.
Then Fred Phelp's group picketed his funeral carrying signs saying things like "God Hates Fags" and "Matthew Shepard rots in Hell".
They also picket the funerals of servicemen who are killed, saying that they are being killed as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
I know it's not illegal to picket, but I think it's evil to picket people's funerals like this.
I think what they do goes beyond First Amendment protected free speech and I don't blame people for throwing rocks at them.
-
Correct, a funeral picket does seem closer to personal harassment Surely it is. All good points, but still no defense for vigilante acts of violence.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
first amendment rights works both ways
-
Fred Phelps is hott.
-
.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Shirley is a looker too
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
Have you ever lost someone close to you?
I have.
That's irrelevant.
I can't even imagine how much the grief of these people who have lost loved ones is magnified when Fred Phelps' group pickets their funerals.
The First Amendment guarantees them the right to picket a funeral and yell at people.
Matthew Shepard lived fairly close to here and what happened to him was very much in the news here.
He was beaten into a coma, robbed, hung on a fence, and left for dead by two men who set out to rob and murder a gay man.
Then Fred Phelp's group picketed his funeral carrying signs saying things like "God Hates Fags" and "Matthew Shepard rots in Hell".
They're within their rights to protest a funeral.
They also picket the funerals of servicemen who are killed, saying that they are being killed as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
I know it's not illegal to picket, but I think it's evil to picket people's funerals like this.
I think what they do goes beyond First Amendment protected free speech and I don't blame people for throwing rocks at them.
I thought the military was fighting for its citizens freedom... I would think you'd support these people and their rights to assemble and their right to yell at people. Just because you find whatever they're doing offensive, doesn't mean their rights should be restricted or anyone else.
Is it okay for people to throw rocks at you?
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
Have you ever lost someone close to you?
I have.
That's irrelevant.
I can't even imagine how much the grief of these people who have lost loved ones is magnified when Fred Phelps' group pickets their funerals.
The First Amendment guarantees them the right to picket a funeral and yell at people.
Matthew Shepard lived fairly close to here and what happened to him was very much in the news here.
He was beaten into a coma, robbed, hung on a fence, and left for dead by two men who set out to rob and murder a gay man.
Then Fred Phelp's group picketed his funeral carrying signs saying things like "God Hates Fags" and "Matthew Shepard rots in Hell".
They're within their rights to protest a funeral.
They also picket the funerals of servicemen who are killed, saying that they are being killed as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
I know it's not illegal to picket, but I think it's evil to picket people's funerals like this.
I think what they do goes beyond First Amendment protected free speech and I don't blame people for throwing rocks at them.
I thought the military was fighting for its citizens freedom... I would think you'd support these people and their rights to assemble and their right to yell at people. Just because you find whatever they're doing offensive, doesn't mean their rights should be restricted or anyone else.
Is it okay for people to throw rocks at you?
Well, you better start praying there isn't a religious group who thinks someone with a disability is an abomination in God's eyes.
Because, quite frankly, what is the point of retards, they will just recreate more retards....about time for some genetic cleansing.
Same concept.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
-
Stoning people is plain wrong, no matter what they say to you. Try insulting their retarded religion to make them angry. The vigilante thing ends up making you look bad.
-
Stoning people is plain wrong, no matter what they say to you. Try insulting their retarded religion to make them angry. The vigilante thing ends up making you look bad.
But it's satisfying though. But I wouldn't be cruel enough to throw rocks, I'd use a rifle to splatter their brains all over the pavement. :orly:
-
Stoning people is plain wrong, no matter what they say to you. Try insulting their retarded religion to make them angry. The vigilante thing ends up making you look bad.
But it's satisfying though. But I wouldn't be cruel enough to throw rocks, I'd use a rifle to splatter their brains all over the pavement. :orly:
You do that where nobody can see you do it. Vigilantes that attract attention to themselves are idiots. You don't get caught so you can do it again and again. Your reaction in a public setting can't go the way of stoning. If the person mysteriously disappears a few days after the offense, that is a different matter entirely.
-
Stoning people is plain wrong, no matter what they say to you. Try insulting their retarded religion to make them angry. The vigilante thing ends up making you look bad.
But it's satisfying though. But I wouldn't be cruel enough to throw rocks, I'd use a rifle to splatter their brains all over the pavement. :orly:
You do that where nobody can see you do it. Vigilantes that attract attention to themselves are idiots. You don't get caught so you can do it again and again. Your reaction in a public setting can't go the way of stoning. If the person mysteriously disappears a few days after the offense, that is a different matter entirely.
Well to state the obvious here, stealth is always the best approach; especially when touching on such morally questionable actions like vigilantism.
-
Stoning people is plain wrong, no matter what they say to you. Try insulting their retarded religion to make them angry. The vigilante thing ends up making you look bad.
But it's satisfying though. But I wouldn't be cruel enough to throw rocks, I'd use a rifle to splatter their brains all over the pavement. :orly:
Yeah, except ammo is expensive these days, and i'm not sure that any members of the WBC are worth a bullet. Not only that, spattering their brains is too quick of a death. I say these fucks deserve death through impalement!!! :evillaugh: :evillaugh: :evillaugh:
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
Have you ever lost someone close to you?
I have.
That's irrelevant.
I can't even imagine how much the grief of these people who have lost loved ones is magnified when Fred Phelps' group pickets their funerals.
The First Amendment guarantees them the right to picket a funeral and yell at people.
Matthew Shepard lived fairly close to here and what happened to him was very much in the news here.
He was beaten into a coma, robbed, hung on a fence, and left for dead by two men who set out to rob and murder a gay man.
Then Fred Phelp's group picketed his funeral carrying signs saying things like "God Hates Fags" and "Matthew Shepard rots in Hell".
They're within their rights to protest a funeral.
They also picket the funerals of servicemen who are killed, saying that they are being killed as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
I know it's not illegal to picket, but I think it's evil to picket people's funerals like this.
I think what they do goes beyond First Amendment protected free speech and I don't blame people for throwing rocks at them.
I thought the military was fighting for its citizens freedom... I would think you'd support these people and their rights to assemble and their right to yell at people. Just because you find whatever they're doing offensive, doesn't mean their rights should be restricted or anyone else.
Is it okay for people to throw rocks at you?
Well, you better start praying there isn't a religious group who thinks someone with a disability is an abomination in God's eyes.
Because, quite frankly, what is the point of retards, they will just recreate more retards....about time for some genetic cleansing.
Same concept.
I'm indifferent about others religious beliefs. I believe they should be able to practice whichever religion they choose. Why should I start praying that there isnot a religious group who thinks people with disabilities are an abomination? Why should I be concerned about their beliefs? How does their religious beliefs affect me?
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals. The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing. Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
What's your point about the Supreme Court?
-
Well, you better start praying there isn't a religious group who thinks someone with a disability is an abomination in God's eyes.
Because, quite frankly, what is the point of retards, they will just recreate more retards....about time for some genetic cleansing.
Same concept.
I'm indifferent about others religious beliefs. I believe they should be able to practice whichever religion they choose. Why should I start praying that there isnot a religious group who thinks people with disabilities are an abomination? Why should I be concerned about their beliefs? How does their religious beliefs affect me?
Well I assume you have some form of disability if you are here. And my statement was an example. What's say one day a group decides to form who physically attacks those with disabilities? Same thing.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals. The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing. Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
What's your point about the Supreme Court?
What about the rights of family and friends who assembled to mourn and farewell the deceased? How come they get their rights trampled upon?
Plus shouldn't a funeral be considered a semi-private affair? As in anyone has the right to turn up to pay their respects but they can be refused access if they are there to cause trouble.
And aren't these protesters interfering with someone else religious beliefs and burial rites.
-
Well, you better start praying there isn't a religious group who thinks someone with a disability is an abomination in God's eyes.
Because, quite frankly, what is the point of retards, they will just recreate more retards....about time for some genetic cleansing.
Same concept.
I'm indifferent about others religious beliefs. I believe they should be able to practice whichever religion they choose. Why should I start praying that there isnot a religious group who thinks people with disabilities are an abomination? Why should I be concerned about their beliefs? How does their religious beliefs affect me?
Well I assume you have some form of disability if you are here. And my statement was an example. What's say one day a group decides to form who physically attacks those with disabilities? Same thing.
No it's not the same thing. Yelling at people is different than physically attacking people, Pretty self explanatory. Again, why should I care if some religious group believes I'm evil for having Autism? You didn't answer. You just started discussing something that's irrelevant.
-
I hear they make passes at people in public rest rooms :o
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals. The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing. Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
What's your point about the Supreme Court?
What about the rights of family and friends who assembled to mourn and farewell the deceased? How come they get their rights trampled upon?
They're not having their rights trampled on.
Plus shouldn't a funeral be considered a semi-private affair? As in anyone has the right to turn up to pay their respects but they can be refused access if they are there to cause trouble.
And aren't these protesters interfering with someone else religious beliefs and burial rites.
You're not American, are you?
These people aren't interfering with someone else religious beliefs.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals. The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing. Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
What's your point about the Supreme Court?
What about the rights of family and friends who assembled to mourn and farewell the deceased? How come they get their rights trampled upon?
They're not having their rights trampled on.
Plus shouldn't a funeral be considered a semi-private affair? As in anyone has the right to turn up to pay their respects but they can be refused access if they are there to cause trouble.
And aren't these protesters interfering with someone else religious beliefs and burial rites.
You're not American, are you?
These people aren't interfering with someone else religious beliefs.
You're not intelligent, are you?
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.
Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.
-
The WBC doesn't stone or kill anyone. They just talk shit and make signs to protest things that are against their religion. This enrages people, and gives them the desired effect. They want this attention.
-
I don't really care them, nor can I take them seriously. Just IRL trolls.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
Why even care? Typing that bollocks makes you appear like an unintelligent twat, even if your point may be correct.
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
I'm here for me, not you.
-
I don't really care them, nor can I take them seriously. Just IRL trolls.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
Why even care? Typing that bollocks makes you appear like an unintelligent twat, even if your point may be correct.
Yep, all they are is IRL trolls. If people ignored them, they would have no real power or influence.
-
No agree dude. They came to fort leavenworth once while I was stationed there. Off the record, a bunch of guys pelted them with rocks. I won't say I did.... but.. ;)
If anyone deserves stoning, it's them.
Why? They're not doing anything illegal. The First Amendment guarantees they're allowed to do what they're doing.
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals. The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing. Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
What's your point about the Supreme Court?
What about the rights of family and friends who assembled to mourn and farewell the deceased? How come they get their rights trampled upon?
They're not having their rights trampled on.
Plus shouldn't a funeral be considered a semi-private affair? As in anyone has the right to turn up to pay their respects but they can be refused access if they are there to cause trouble.
And aren't these protesters interfering with someone else religious beliefs and burial rites.
You're not American, are you?
These people aren't interfering with someone else religious beliefs.
I would consider it my first amendment right to kick their ass if they did that at the funeral of a relative of mine. thats just me . and I am all american.
-
In the case before the Supreme Court, the protestors were far enough away that the family never saw or heard them and found out about it when they saw the news. Why isn't freedom of the press also under attack? It's all the same amendment.
-
No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.
Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.
The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.
Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.
Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.
The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.
Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.
Actually, what I wrote is that if anyone deserves stoning, it's them. I think picketing people's funerals goes beyond constitutionally protected free speech particularly when they shout despicable things to the mourners and carry signs targeted to the deceased person and to bereaved family members.
I think that you are the one who is having difficulty understanding the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is not absolutely protected in all circumstances and Phlexor's question wasn't stupid at all. I think he's right.
These people who died and their mourners aren't public figures and the bereaved have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble. The WBC picketers did interfere with their constitutionally protected rights to bury their loved one in accordance with their religion in a private funeral. Fred Phelps's whole purpose in going was to disrupt the funeral and he requested police protection because he planned on the confrontation becoming violent. Matthew Snyder's funeral procession had to be rerouted and the Catholic school associated with the church where the funeral was held also had to be put into lockdown because of the WBC. The WBC protesters carried signs that said, "Pope in Hell" "Matt in Hell" "You're Going to Hell" "God Hates You" and "Semper Fi Fags" which targeted Matthew Snyder personally as a Catholic and as a Marine and interfered with his right to be buried in peace.
-
I take that you're unable to answer.
If you are American, it's reasonable for me to assume you would understand the First Amendment and you would not of asked the questions you asked. Unfortunately, you don't understand the First Amendment, if you did, you wouldn't of bothered asking those question because they're ridiculously stupid.
I ask you, how are the WBC members interfering with these people religious beliefs? They're not doing anything that's preventing or keeping anyone from practicing their religion. They're not preventing anyone's right to assemble. They're not trampling on anyone's rights. Protesting and yelling at people doesn't prevent others from doing anything. The WBC have the right to Free Speech and the right to assemble. The Constitution doesn't state that Free Speech be unoffensive or in good taste. The First Amendment forbids the government from censoring people.
You and others on here seem to approve of censorship because you don't approve of what these people are doing. I don't understand this group thinking that appears to go on here.
I doubt you're going to write an intelligent response. Most likely you'll write something similar to you previous response. But, maybe you'll prove me wrong and write something halfway intelligent.
If something they were doing impacted you, you would be pissed off about it.
Stoning and killing people IS limiting their rights in case that point was lost on you.
The WBC doesn't stone people, they yell at people and hold up signs displaying that "god hates fags." I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the WBC members stone people. You should reread the previous comments and then try to explain your point.
Callaway wrote on here that she believes the WBC members should be stoned because the WBC members protest funerals and say offensive things.
Actually, what I wrote is that if anyone deserves stoning, it's them. I think picketing people's funerals goes beyond constitutionally protected free speech particularly when they shout despicable things to the mourners and carry signs targeted to the deceased person and to bereaved family members.
Tough shit. What you think doesn't matter.
I think that you are the one who is having difficulty understanding the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is not absolutely protected in all circumstances and Phlexor's question wasn't stupid at all. I think he's right.
You're right, I don't understand the First Amendment and neither do the courts. Thank goodness for Callaway. LOL
Hate to break it to you, but what the WBC members are doing is protected by the First Amendment and the courts seem to agree with me.
These people who died and their mourners aren't public figures and the bereaved have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and the right to peaceably assemble. The WBC picketers did interfere with their constitutionally protected rights to bury their loved one in accordance with their religion in a private funeral.
The courts disagree with you. Fred Phelps's whole purpose in going was to disrupt the funeral and he requested police protection because he planned on the confrontation becoming violent. Matthew Snyder's funeral procession had to be rerouted and the Catholic school associated with the church where the funeral was held also had to be put into lockdown because of the WBC. The WBC protesters carried signs that said, "Pope in Hell" "Matt in Hell" "You're Going to Hell" "God Hates You" and "Semper Fi Fags" which targeted Matthew Snyder personally as a Catholic and as a Marine and interfered with his right to be buried in peace.
Since when do the people in the US have the "right to be buried in peace?"
All in all, you just repeated what you stated earlier. Nothing new. You don't need to inform me on what the signs say that the WBC members have.
Offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. I don't understand why it is so hard for some of you people on here to understand that. What did they teach you in school?
-
I agree with HH. Fred and his kids et.al. have the right to say anything they want. And I have the right to mock them, call them "very proper Charlies," and imply that they protest too much because they are the very thing they seem to abhor. The worst things you can do to terrorists are mock them or ignore them. Since the US gov't hasn't the sense to do either, I'm willing to take a few spare moments here and there to give my take on the situation.
And it all started as a joke, when I realized that if you removed the text from their signs, the signs themselves would be indistinguishable from any that you'd see at a gay pride rally.
-
I agree with HH. Fred and his kids et.al. have the right to say anything they want. And I have the right to mock them, call them "very proper Charlies," and imply that they protest too much because they are the very thing they seem to abhor. The worst things you can do to terrorists are mock them or ignore them. Since the US gov't hasn't the sense to do either, I'm willing to take a few spare moments here and there to give my take on the situation.
And it all started as a joke, when I realized that if you removed the text from their signs, the signs themselves would be indistinguishable from any that you'd see at a gay pride rally.
or a Tea Party rally
-
That hasn't been decided yet, the case is going to the supreme court.
As of right now, the First Amendment guarantees these people the right to assemble, protest, and yell at people attending funerals.
No you fucktard, it's a local statute that is protecting them. ::)
The Supreme Court did agree to hear the case and they have not ruled. Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for these people to do what they're are doing.
No, the legality of what they did is being disputed, if they do it again the can be charged.
Taking a case to the Supreme Court doesn't automatically put the law or subject at hand into limbo.
:zombiefuck: R U srysly dat stoopid?? If you're taking a case to the supreme court, it means the issue is still being litigated. The law IS in limbo untill the supreme court decides.
-
I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. :eyelash:
Squiddy does have a dark side. :zoinks: :litigious:
-
No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.
Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob. :laugh:
-
I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. :eyelash:
Squiddy does have a dark side. :zoinks: :litigious:
I guess I was wrong about the Supreme Court, since they upheld their right to protest 8 - 1.
I think that some vocal protesters need to picket Fred Phelps's funeral.
-
In the case before the Supreme Court, the protestors were far enough away that the family never saw or heard them and found out about it when they saw the news. Why isn't freedom of the press also under attack? It's all the same amendment.
-
No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.
Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob. :laugh:
I didn't know how to answer this then and I still don't know how to answer it now.
Are you saying that it's really the news media's fault for covering the loonies protesting at funerals?
-
I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. :eyelash:
Squiddy does have a dark side. :zoinks: :litigious:
I guess I was wrong about the Supreme Court, since they upheld their right to protest 8 - 1.
I think that some vocal protesters need to picket Fred Phelps's funeral.
Better yet.
Hold up a sign saying "FREE BBQ" :zoinks:
-
Are you saying that it's really the news media's fault for covering the loonies protesting at funerals?
Not really, just saying no one would even know who they are or what they do, or care what they think, if not for the media's fascination. What's more harmful, the group spouting hate, or the group who shares it with the world? Don't have issues with the media; more thinking out loud, really. Am very pro free speech, and easily refrain form the news.
-
No one wants to discuss who really upset this family, who is drawing the lines of connection between protestor and protest, and where lies the source of this groups influence? Some conversations are like pulling teeth here. Not sure if it's an unfamiliarity or chopped liver effect.
Wah, no one wanted to talk to the noob. :laugh:
Poor little fleur! But you persisted! :2thumbsup:
-
I'd like to line all members of this church up against a wall and shoot them all with a machine gun personally. :eyelash:
Squiddy does have a dark side. :zoinks: :litigious:
I would prefer to catch them one at a time and use a garotte, then duct tape over the mouth and pinch nostrils shut, then a baseball bat etc 3 to 4 months apart w/no come get me notes. :zoinks:
-
If you want to kill someone for fun or revenge, a gun isn't the best choice. Old fashion torture is always funnier. :viking:
-
If you want to kill someone for fun or revenge, a gun isn't the best choice. Old fashion torture is always funnier. :viking:
Oh I know but I was planning on doing it dressed in dominatrix gear , and forcing each one to renounce god and display his love for satan first.
I'm more about humiliation. :zoinks: :evillaugh: