Can't believe a judge had ruled for these numbnuts!!!

[12voltman59]

Don't read this post till past noon your local time--they say that from 6 am to noon we are at biggest risk of having a heart attack---reading this could raise your BP enough to give ya one,;):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100331/ts_csm/291560

The Phelps people are some sick puppies in my book!!!!!

[TwylaTwobits]

Sigh....I am getting extremely annoyed with that church. While I am against the war I am not against our boys. And this kind of protesting....yeah it's just what the first amendment is about. But we can't pick and choose what the right is applied to, it has to be free speech for all, even the assholes of the world.

[darkeyes]

Its quite shocking..I hate the war, hate the military and my pacifism is the most important thing in which I believe.. yet I could not bring myself to protest at the funeral of any soldier. They are not those against whom we should protest and many give their lives doing that in which, rightly or wrongly, they believe.. the grief of their families and loved ones is not the time or place to raise a grievance.. there is simply too much pain and it is an appalling abuse of the right to protest.. the proper protest is the protest against those who decide on the war and continue it as a matter of policy and ideology while sitting safe and sound on their fat arses in high places and send thousands of young people to do theiur dirty work...

Groups protest here at British military funerals and quite vociferously as well.. it is in bad taste and only alienates those they wish to get on their side...

[MarieDelta]

I suppose even the rights of people we actively despise should be protected.

However, I can find nothing worthwhile in these folk's actions. They seem to believe in a God of Hatred and Prejudice. If there were to be a nomination for anti-christian values , these folks would win my vote easily.

Only thing that can be done, it seems to me. is to counter protest. Which some folks are already doing. Anyone have some nice stink bombs for these fools? Or would that be going too far? Maybe some rotten eggs?

This sucks. People shouldn't be forced to endure such at the funereal of their loved ones.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

This pissed me off back then when it happened, and it pisses me off even more now. It looks like the family of any soldier could request the police protection could be afforded during the funeral of a soldier. I know in certain parts of the country protesting at a Southern funeral, it might not be too healthy for those ole boys to try this...might be a little hazardous to Their heath.
That Phelps gang is just pure hate, and as reprehensible as they come. Sick Bastards....:(
Cat

[cliffordmontero]

If I had the means I would begin to protest them . . . constantly . . . get a large group together to start protesting at them and see how they like it. Disrupt their church service with protest chants . . . follow them to the grocery store with picket signs . . . trail them during their daily commute . . . if only i had the means . . . whats going to happen eventually is someone at a funeral is going to snap and assault or kill one of these people . . . and when it does i hope they use an insanity plea . . . already broken down over the loss of a loved one i snapped at the protesters disturbing my time of mourning . . . a man can dream

[12voltman59]

If I had the means I would begin to protest them . . . constantly . . . get a large group together to start protesting at them and see how they like it. Disrupt their church service with protest chants . . . follow them to the grocery store with picket signs . . . trail them during their daily commute . . . if only i had the means . . . whats going to happen eventually is someone at a funeral is going to snap and assault or kill one of these people . . . and when it does i hope they use an insanity plea . . . already broken down over the loss of a loved one i snapped at the protesters disturbing my time of mourning . . . a man can dream

clifford---you are on to something----it might be cool if some group of people actually did shadow the Phelps knuckledraggers crew and do what you say---protest their every move--when they have their "services" and such---I'd make signs that would say things like this:

"GOD HATES THOSE WHO WASTE THE INTELLIGENCE HE GAVE THEM!!!!" and "IT"S A SIN TO WASTE YOUR GOD GIVEN INTELLIGENCE!"

That just might get them---don't yell at them----just hold up a dozen or so such signs!!!

[FalconAngel]

I read about that on Care2.com.

My suggestion is for every decent human being to picket the homes and church of the WBC, Picket and boycott every business that is owned by, operated by or has employees of that vile and evil group. Also boycott businesses that they purchase goods and services from, as well.

It will be interesting to see how quickly they all get run out of town when the townsfolk realize that their businesses are losing money for even hiring them.

Without money and having a congregation of only about 100 people, they will fast run out of cash for their road trips for harassment.

[TwylaTwobits]

I read about that on Care2.com.

My suggestion is for every decent human being to picket the homes and church of the WBC, Picket and boycott every business that is owned by, operated by or has employees of that vile and evil group. Also boycott businesses that they purchase goods and services from, as well.

It will be interesting to see how quickly they all get run out of town when the townsfolk realize that their businesses are losing money for even hiring them.

Without money and having a congregation of only about 100 people, they will fast run out of cash for their road trips for harassment.

So your suggestion is to destroy lives of people that have not a thing to do with the church activities? Sorry, where I come from, we don't slay the dog that has puppies we spay the dog and find the puppies good homes. The only really proper way to deal with the asses is to deny them the reactions they long for. Their purpose is to gain support for the antiwar movement, the way they are going about it is detestable but within the law. Advocating terroristic activities in response is not within the law and might result in jail time for those that follow your suggestion.


Editing to enclose a link, see don't give them what they desire:Attention, and they leave.

http://militarytimes.com/valor/army-pfc-sammie-e-phillips/3033485/

[FalconAngel]

So your suggestion is to destroy lives of people that have not a thing to do with the church activities? Sorry, where I come from, we don't slay the dog that has puppies we spay the dog and find the puppies good homes. The only really proper way to deal with the asses is to deny them the reactions they long for. Their purpose is to gain support for the antiwar movement, the way they are going about it is detestable but within the law. Advocating terroristic activities in response is not within the law and might result in jail time for those that follow your suggestion.


Editing to enclose a link, see don't give them what they desire:Attention, and they leave.

http://militarytimes.com/valor/army-pfc-sammie-e-phillips/3033485/

As long as these individuals (the nicest thing that I can call them) continue to prosper, they will spread hate.

In the short term, many of those people will lose their jobs rather than their employers keeping them and losing business.

Internationally, boycotting rarely works, but an economic boycott of a few businesses and such can have a very dramatic effect on those that support the WBC through employment or patronage.

Remember that all businesses have the right to refuse service. Most don't because the want business. But if having certain employees or patrons costs them business, then the firings and refusals to do business will begin, just to keep a larger customer base.

Plus, have you seen the vile hate that they spew. They are a loss of patience and a bomb away from being listed as an official terrorist group.

Look at their website and some other links about the group and see if you still disagree.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Phelps-Roper
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

This one is from the son that Fred disowned, when the kid left because of the abuse:
http://atheistnexus.org/page/nate-phelps-2009-aa-speech

Something to consider with these people.

[TwylaTwobits]

Falcon, I'm not saying they are right, I think they are about as right as the sun rising in the west. What I am saying is that they desire attention, any attention even negative is still attention. The link I posted about Sammie Phillips funeral, I was at work that day, not even 100 yards away from Stithtown Baptist Church. They didn't get the attention they wanted, they left. They get donations from everywhere, there is no way to stop it with a boycott. They are not a business that has something for sale that can be bought or not bought. They are a church that forgets that worshipping God is about love not hate. They view everything from Obama as the antichrist to the fact that sodomy laws were upheld as the proof that God hates America.

But there is only one way to stop them and it's not to stoop to their level, it's to deny them the reaction they crave. Stalking members of the church to find out where they live and work is a crime. Picketing outside a funeral is not a crime. Both are tasteless actions of cowards but one carries jail time the other carries no ramifications in THIS world. Someday they will have to answer for their actions and I doubt it will be pretty, but it's not up to us to decide their lives or to limit their freedoms because we don't agree with the crap they spew.

[12voltman59]

I am mostly for "free speech"--but in this case I thnk that the right of free speech is impeding upon the rights of the family and friends who are burying and memorializing their loved ones----I am not saying that Phelps and his crew cannot say the things they do----what I am saying is that they should have the common human decency to not protest outside a place of burial----that offends all the families of those who are buried in such a place.

It has long been custom and tradition that a cemetary is not a place for political and social protest and that is what pisses me off about this decision-----if the Phelps people had any common decency---they could go to a town where one of those soliders are being buried but find a neutral site some distance away like a mile minimum and then spew their drivel----but to do what they do just shows that they are people of litttle character, decency and respect---I bet they would not care to have anyone do a protest at the funeral of one of their loved ones!!

I know that by moving someplace a discreet distance from the cemetary might not have their intended effect-----but the media would still come cover the event and you'd probably have a group of counter-protestors---which away from a cemetary might be kinda interesting since maybe it would become a "battle royale" of sorts. I wouldn't mind if a few of Phelp's crew got their asses wiped!!

From their perspective too----they would actually not be so loathed since they are showing some repsect for the age old ways we say goodbye to our departed loved ones----but then again---they are obviously so full of hate and such----they want to engender a "hateful" response to their actions and they obviously lack some basic fundamental decent human qualities and let the baser ones shine through.

You really do have to feel sorry for such twisted souls, as much as we might want to "hate" them.

[FalconAngel]

Falcon, I'm not saying they are right, I think they are about as right as the sun rising in the west.

I would never presume that you ever did say that they were right. Nor would anyone else (not counting trolls) on this site.



What I am saying is that they desire attention, any attention even negative is still attention. The link I posted about Sammie Phillips funeral, I was at work that day, not even 100 yards away from Stithtown Baptist Church.

I hope that the Patriot riders were there.



They didn't get the attention they wanted, they left.

But that is not the case for many of their "road trips". More often than not, they are in a place where they cannot be kept far enough away to remain unnoticed.



They get donations from everywhere, there is no way to stop it with a boycott.

But that is where you are wrong. Because they are listed as a religious organization, rather than just as another hate group, their 501(c)3 status is public information and so are their donor sources (at least as far as groups that donate). Those groups/individuals should be boycotted and protested against.

Remove or interfere with the income and the group withers and dies. And because they are all over the country, which means that people from all over the country can do what they can to help shut them down.



They are not a business that has something for sale that can be bought or not bought. They are a church that forgets that worshipping God is about love not hate. They view everything from Obama as the antichrist to the fact that sodomy laws were upheld as the proof that God hates America.

Actually, they are a business. A 501(c)3 business. Their members also own, operate and work for other businesses, mostly to support the church.
Hurt them in the pocket and they soon have to face the choice of either food on the table or the church. Either choice is destructive for the church and the choice they make shows where their priorities truly lie (hatred or family).




But there is only one way to stop them and it's not to stoop to their level, it's to deny them the reaction they crave.

That is a wonderful thought, but has been proven to be mostly ineffective; at least here in the US. With the American mindset, hitting them in the pockets is the most effective method.

Take a look at how it has worked for all sorts of industries here. People boycott them and they lose money. When they make things right, the people come back.

This is not really very different.



Stalking members of the church to find out where they live and work is a crime.

Absolutely true, but one need not stalk these people to get their addresses. One need only look in the phone book or on the internet in a search for their name and location.
And, worst case scenario, their church building location is very public knowledge, so that can still be picketed.



Picketing outside a funeral is not a crime. Both are tasteless actions of cowards but one carries jail time the other carries no ramifications in THIS world. Someday they will have to answer for their actions and I doubt it will be pretty, but it's not up to us to decide their lives or to limit their freedoms because we don't agree with the crap they spew.

They are going to answer for their moral crimes against the people of this nation and those that defend it. But, considering what they have done and the things that they promote, they are way overdue for paying their penance.

As a grandparent, I understand that some unruly children must, at least once, be put over a knee for a spanking. Well, it's time for the WBC's spanking.

Governments put down undesirable movements; people put down and remove undesirable people and groups within their communities. The WBC is not only undesirable, but completely against the ideals that this country was founded on.

They wore out their welcome a long time ago. It is time to get rid of them. Not through violence, but by using their tactics against them. See how they like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

According to the Bible, it is said to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "what you sow, so shall ye reap", Protesting and boycotts are just following the Bible, isn't it.

They have done unto the nation as they would have done unto themselves, so it is time for them to reap what they have sown.

[etncple]

It is just a matter of time till someone snaps and kills a few or these idiots. I doubt any court or jury will convict someone for taking a stand. I know I wouldn't.

I hate the war(s) and all the suffering caused by them, but it doesn't stop me from truly admiring the bravery of the kids who volunteer to serve. I do wish the Congress would take back the right to "declare" war rather than let the president (whoever it is) decide where and when we send our troops in harms way.

[TwylaTwobits]

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.[7][8]

Another provision, 26 U.S.C. § 170, provides a deduction, for federal income tax purposes, for some donors who make charitable contributions to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations, among others. Regulations specify which such deductions must be verifiable in order to be allowed (e.g., receipts for donations over $250). Due to the tax deductions associated with donations, loss of 501(c)(3) status can be highly challenging to a charity's continued operation, as many foundations and corporate matching programs will not grant funds to a charity without such status, and individual donors often will not consider making a donation to such a charity due to the unavailability of the deduction.


Donations are accepted by organizations that have an IRS status of 501 (c) (3) so my point still stands. There is no way to force them to behave to standards others would impose. They have not broken any laws. I have provided a link that shows when a town doesn't give them the attention they crave they leave. So my method for dealing with them also works. But any attention they garner is attention to their cause. What I am saying is that is not up to either you or me or any other American to try and force them to stop their activities. They are well inside the limits set by the First Amendment, unfortunately. But we can not pick and choose where to apply the amendments of our constitution or it wouldn't mean much at all now would it? How fast do you think they would slap a lawsuit on anyone that physically attacked them or began to picket and interfere with the businesses where people who attend the "church" work? Not long at all, and we've already seen from the link that Voltie posted to start this thread, that the law is on their side as long as they don't break it.

So it's all well and good to say someone should shoot one, all it would be is another precedent for the church to continue their activities like martyrs shielded by a law that protects all of our rights to free speech and free expression.

[12voltman59]

Even though I am no fan of the Phelps people and I think them to be pretty messed up people--I would not want anyone to go and kill them in reality even if I have joked about it in the past---and if someone did---it would not be excusable at all for many reasons---the least of which--is that we do have "the rule of law" and we don't live by the old testatment code of "an eye for an eye" because if someone were to kill a Phelpser----then someone sympathetic to them would think its fine, in the name of retaliation and revenge to, say, kill someone attending the funeral of a fallen soldier---we already do have a pretty amped up environment out there----the Jusitice department says that since Obama's election----there are something like over 500 new "hate" groups that they are aware of having been formed.

Look at that group they just busted in Michigan---the vid they had of them doing war games was pretty scary--they were engaging in a military style screening movement----one part of the team provides cover fire---the next part uses that to move to a new forward position and they then provide cover so the other group can move up and they continue to advance on "the enemy" in this leap frogging fashion---it was apparent that their plan was to take on the law enforcement officers who would gather at the funeral of the police officer they had murdered just so they could set this situation up----ya got to wonder how many more whack jobs are out there prepping for stuff like that----I think we may have more to worry about from people like this now than we do from those affiliated with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

[FalconAngel]

So it's all well and good to say someone should shoot one, all it would be is another precedent for the church to continue their activities like martyrs shielded by a law that protects all of our rights to free speech and free expression.

I don't know who suggested going out and shooting any of them, but goddess knows there are some of them that deserve some form of severe punishment.

But that right of free expression is pretty much terminated when inciting riots or violence......we have been through that and you have been in those discussions.

However, as an alternative, we can always get a federal law passed that would make it a 3rd degree felony crime to disrupt or protest funerals of Service members. If that seems too one sided, then we could make it a illegal to protest or disrupt any funeral.

It is already unlawful to fail to yield the right of way of a funeral procession that has legally entered an intersection as well as illegal to enter a funeral procession if one is not a lawful participant in that procession. In Florida, that is covered under FL Statutes Ch 316.

[YottaByte8472]

I actually agree with the ruling. I disagree with WBC but will defend their right to say what they want.

[Long Duck Dong]

I tend to stand with many americans, I dislike the manner in which the church conducts themselves, but under us law, they have that right, regardless of if we agree with their views or not

I was drawn and quartered in a thread for questioning if a persons desire to protest and disrupt a school prom was ok when it impacted unfairly on people that were not directly involved in the issue, that ended up costing a school prom
I do find it funny that its being endorsed that people disrupt, boycott and cause unneeded issues for people and business, not associated with the church protects...

now....

when we speak up and incite others to disrupt the normal running of businesses and individuals, we become no better than the individuals of the church that protest funerals...... and why...???? cos we do not like what they are saying so we wanna silence them

in simple terms.
the difference however, is the church is making a stance about their beliefs.... the other group are stating ways to * silence voices *....

the similarities between the fight for civil rights, lgbt rights, equal rights etc etc have been between two groups.... those making a stance to have their voices heard..... and the ones that want to silence the voices...

how many roads can a man walk before they walk the same road but on the opposite side....and still tell the ones walking in the middle of the road, that walking both sides is right..... walking the middle, is wrong

[darkeyes]

I tend to stand with many americans, I dislike the manner in which the church conducts themselves, but under us law, they have that right, regardless of if we agree with their views or not

I was drawn and quartered in a thread for questioning if a persons desire to protest and disrupt a school prom was ok when it impacted unfairly on people that were not directly involved in the issue, that ended up costing a school prom
I do find it funny that its being endorsed that people disrupt, boycott and cause unneeded issues for people and business, not associated with the church protects...

now....

when we speak up and incite others to disrupt the normal running of businesses and individuals, we become no better than the individuals of the church that protest funerals...... and why...???? cos we do not like what they are saying so we wanna silence them

in simple terms.
the difference however, is the church is making a stance about their beliefs.... the other group are stating ways to * silence voices *....

the similarities between the fight for civil rights, lgbt rights, equal rights etc etc have been between two groups.... those making a stance to have their voices heard..... and the ones that want to silence the voices...

how many roads can a man walk before they walk the same road but on the opposite side....and still tell the ones walking in the middle of the road, that walking both sides is right..... walking the middle, is wrong

Sorry Duckie.. we have a lil parting of the ways here..

I will start by saying I would never protest a funeral.. thats is impinging on the grief of people.. they have quite enough to contend with without being harangued at the funeral of a loved one.. but the rest I think you go too far..

I have picketed churches (well a church..twice, once on a Sunday as people rolled up for their weekly prayers..) and if I felt the need would do so again.. it does depend on the issue.. I have picketed schools, workplaces, Government buildings, demonstrated against war both by marching and demonstarting outside military bases.. I first remember doing this at Greenham Common at the women's peace camp when only about 3.. but am told I had been taken on many demos and pickets from the time I was but a few months old. I have eben on strike and picketd my workplace.. I will no doubt be again.. I have pickted in support of many other groups of workers by marching and supporting them in their picket lines.. these I will also do again.. All of these things involve disruption, and all involve disruption to some degree for those who are not involved in or even against the actions I and others took..all of these things are my right as citizen on my country and are a basic human right.. I choose to exercise my right to protest when I believe in the issue.. I choose to strike and picket beacuse I have been a part of the democratic process of my union, bec ause I believe in the issue and because I will not sit around and do nothing while managements try and get away with murder.

All of these things involve disruption and affect many who have no direct interest in the reason for the protest.. it is not a matter of shutting people up, it is a matter of showing our strength of feeling, a matter of rallying public support (and protests do get much public support) fighting for our rights and letting those in authority know that they have a fight on their hands.. strikes and pickets also get more support than is usually publicised.. that's the right of workers to withdraw their labour in support of their cause..

Fighting for rights, or demonstrating against injustice, war and a million and one other issues involves by its nature disruption for many who are not directly involved.. strikes are more of a blunt instrument but are used as a last gasp measure against intransigence.. we cannot avoid disruption against many not involved, and yet the alternative can only be to sit in out hands and do nothing in both cases.. progress is not made by sitting on our hands and letting Government, Employers or any other authority just do as they wish.. whatever the issue, we have a right to protest and we have the right to withdraw our labour.. if many cases if they did not have at least some disruption of the public, of business and of government, they would be of no value..

....and walking in the middle of the road? Bit dangerous that isn't it?

[Long Duck Dong]

lol I think it comes down to the style of protesting with me.... I don't see protesting as just protesting...I see it in different aspects
and with my last post, I was refering to the us first amendment laws and how its interesting that people will praise somebody for something, then nail others for the same effect.....

but as for protesting in different aspects...
I will use some examples of protests in nz that can be googled

the anti apartheid ( springbok ) protests in the 80s, protestors armed with sticks and batons, and crash helments etc, locked horns with the police..... and people ( cops and protestors ending up in hospital ).....

the wanganui gardens invasion, it was a case of maori occupied some gardens in the center of town, claiming it as their land.... it took the death of a child to start to get that lot sorted out... but caused lil disruption

the hikoi by maori over land rights, down the main auckland harbour bridge, it disrupted a massive amount of traffic and emergency services.....and dammed near cause a few lives, cos the emergency services could not get to people

and my fav, the civil union protests...... that was a large number of protests over a number of dates and locations in nz, but done to create the minimum of disruption to businesses and people


I fully support the right to protest...to have your voice and your concerns heard
but I do not support protests that result in injury and harm to people, animals, businesses or individuals that are not involved..... to me, that undermines the result for the protest.....

there are examples like the anti GE protests in nz, in motueka, by a anti ge group that invaded and destroyed a farm full of crops, thinking it was a GE fram..... but it was the wrong farm, and the farmer lost 10,000s of dollars cos the insurance did not cover acts of vandalism.....

the green peace idiots, that were protesting the importation of palm oils, so they chained themselves to a ship in protest..... the wrong ship.... and cost the wrong company 40,000 a day....

the recent attack by ploughshare protestors on a us spy base in nz, 25 miles form where I live, doing one million dollars in damage... and got found not quilty in court cos the judge ruled they believed what they were doing was a legal move.... ( the government is looking at having the court case redone again )

but the idea of targeting individuals and businesses cos of a church mouthing off ????? seriously, that makes no sense to me.... its like targeting a muslim mosque in your country cos of the actions of extremists in iraq........ it brings undue attention and disruption to them for something that may have no connection with, other than the shared faith......

so yeah, I am being two faced, I am supporting peoples rights to protest but opposing how it is done at times..... and also disagreeing with some of the reasons people protest, but supporting their rights to protest as well.....
thats the trouble with walking the middle line... it makes me look like a hypocrite.... but its the only way I can be fair to all sides equally

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay I'm going to boil it down to one yes or no question. No qualifiers no arguments. Just yes or no.

The question: Does the First Amendment of the Constitution apply to all Americans?

[darkeyes]

lol I think it comes down to the style of protesting with me.... I don't see protesting as just protesting...I see it in different aspects
and with my last post, I was refering to the us first amendment laws and how its interesting that people will praise somebody for something, then nail others for the same effect.....

but as for protesting in different aspects...
I will use some examples of protests in nz that can be googled

the anti apartheid ( springbok ) protests in the 80s, protestors armed with sticks and batons, and crash helments etc, locked horns with the police..... and people ( cops and protestors ending up in hospital ).....

the wanganui gardens invasion, it was a case of maori occupied some gardens in the center of town, claiming it as their land.... it took the death of a child to start to get that lot sorted out... but caused lil disruption

the hikoi by maori over land rights, down the main auckland harbour bridge, it disrupted a massive amount of traffic and emergency services.....and dammed near cause a few lives, cos the emergency services could not get to people

and my fav, the civil union protests...... that was a large number of protests over a number of dates and locations in nz, but done to create the minimum of disruption to businesses and people


I fully support the right to protest...to have your voice and your concerns heard
but I do not support protests that result in injury and harm to people, animals, businesses or individuals that are not involved..... to me, that undermines the result for the protest.....

there are examples like the anti GE protests in nz, in motueka, by a anti ge group that invaded and destroyed a farm full of crops, thinking it was a GE fram..... but it was the wrong farm, and the farmer lost 10,000s of dollars cos the insurance did not cover acts of vandalism.....

the green peace idiots, that were protesting the importation of palm oils, so they chained themselves to a ship in protest..... the wrong ship.... and cost the wrong company 40,000 a day....

the recent attack by ploughshare protestors on a us spy base in nz, 25 miles form where I live, doing one million dollars in damage... and got found not quilty in court cos the judge ruled they believed what they were doing was a legal move.... ( the government is looking at having the court case redone again )

but the idea of targeting individuals and businesses cos of a church mouthing off ????? seriously, that makes no sense to me.... its like targeting a muslim mosque in your country cos of the actions of extremists in iraq........ it brings undue attention and disruption to them for something that may have no connection with, other than the shared faith......

so yeah, I am being two faced, I am supporting peoples rights to protest but opposing how it is done at times..... and also disagreeing with some of the reasons people protest, but supporting their rights to protest as well.....
thats the trouble with walking the middle line... it makes me look like a hypocrite.... but its the only way I can be fair to all sides equally

I agree with ya in this..not all protest is good protest.. violent protest is not someting I can ever accept being a part of.. but protest or strike, which hits many, even millions with no direct involvement or responsibilty for the reasons for such protest or strike is perfectly valid.. it may be a small thing like traffic disruption because of a protest march (such as happened all over the world prior to the invasion of Iraq) or something much more hard hitting like striking to try and force an employer to accede to a demand or even simply to get them to negotiate.. this has always been valid and it is often necessary to hit the customers of an employer one way or another (short of violence) to make him or her realise you mean business.. yes it may cost those other customers money, business, time, or delays in getting to work.. that is a risk any employer takes.. all I say is tough on them.. for often workers have no option when they are forced into a corner.. to get some return out of an intransigent employer sometimes it is necessary to hit him hard by hitting his customers.. hence his business..

Of course unions are always wrong arent they? They are extreme, militant and only interested in bringing the employers and state to its knees and dont care how they do it.. which is nonsense but it is an argument wheeled out again and again..people want to work..they want to work with dignity and not be taken a loan of or abused by an employer, be paid a decent rate of pay and have decent sick and holiday arrangements.... when employers break agreements, which they do with alarming regularity.. somehow the media and the business classes turn it round to be the fault of the unions.. unions are only as strong as their memberships allow them to be.. and when, in most cases the most extreme action is taken it is in defence of employment rights.. employers hold most of the cards..we know it and they know it.. they think nothing of taking action which affects anyone the feel like if it means they can coe unions and their memberships into submission .. they do that too..often.. so when a union goes through a democratic vote about action on a particular issue.. whatever action they take so long as it is not violent, is fine with me..

Employees are always being told they owe loyalty to their employer.. that goes both ways.. without employes the employer can produce and do nothing.. where is his or her loyalty to the workforce? When something breaks down short of violence, people have the right to do anything which directly or indirectly affects their employers business.. and that unfortunately.. all to often means hitting the other people or general public at large. Protest or strike..it is often all too necessary.. and sometimes those not directly involved unfortuantely also have to pay a price by getting caught up in the middle..

[FalconAngel]

Okay I'm going to boil it down to one yes or no question. No qualifiers no arguments. Just yes or no.

The question: Does the First Amendment of the Constitution apply to all Americans?


Yes, it does.

And I am going to qualify and explain it, in order to prevent that single word answer being used to protect them, thinking that just because they use that right, doesn't mean that others may not respond in kind under the same right.

Does everyone really understand what consequences there are to having those rights? It is a two way street, and people like the WBC are going to learn that lesson, eventually taking the lesson to heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rights that we enjoy, in this country, does not prevent others from taking Constitutionally protected actions against those who have intentionally offended others under those rights.

As individuals, we have the same right to respond in kind, as long as we do not violate the reasonable restrictions of free speech or the laws of the land (as explained in detail in more than a couple threads on the subject).

Just because they offend others under their constitutionally protected rights, does not mean that there may not be legal and lawful methods of punishment for their words/actions.

The right to speak our minds has a responsibility to consider others when we do so.
One cannot have rights without commensurate responsibility toward those rights as they apply to everyone. Just like any other citizen.
The citizens that choose to speak hate at others seem to think that they have no responsibility for their words or actions, but they do. Just like every other citizen.

Like many people both within and outside of this country, too many think that with freedom comes a lack of need for responsibility; that they can do or say what they please without consequence, as the WBC and other hate groups do, but that is a false assumption.

All who benefit from those rights, have a responsibility to respect those rights for others. Failing to do so negates those rights for those that believe that they do not apply to others. Which is why I support peaceful and lawful protest of the WBC and it's members.
Give them a taste of what they give out to the nation that has given them the right to spit on it and those that protect it.

They are lucky, since there are countries that would have them tried for treason and executed, the children sent to re-education camps or worse.

What I have suggested is barely a slap on the wrist by comparison to what they would get in some other countries.

And as stated in more than one thread here, on that subject, the right of free speech ends where one encourages rioting, violence, encourages the causation of harm (as opposed to simple hurt, such as simple insult, etc.) to innocents or other crimes against other people.

They protest because they are allowed under the 1st Amendment. We the people can also protest them because we are allowed to, also under the 1st Amendment.

The right applies to all, as does the responsibility that goes with those rights.

[TwylaTwobits]

And as stated in more than one thread here, on that subject, the right of free speech ends where one encourages rioting, violence, encourages the causation of harm (as opposed to simple hurt, such as simple insult, etc.) to innocents or other crimes against other people.

They protest because they are allowed under the 1st Amendment. We the people can also protest them because we are allowed to, also under the 1st Amendment.

The right applies to all, as does the responsibility that goes with those rights.

Exactly. They are very careful not to break the law. I do not agree with their methods or their reasonings, but I do feel strongly they have a right to do what they do. They hold signs, they do not impede mourners entering or leaving, they do not intefere with funeral processions. That's more than you can say for the paparazzi at the funeral of anyone important. As I have stated again and again the same right that allows a teen to make a passive protest at her prom by bringing her same sex date and wearing a tux is the right that the WBC exercises. It's a double edged sword, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not free speech it's dangerous, the protests of the WBC, while abhorrent to anyone with a sense of decency, are peaceful protests and are protected. Some day they will wither and die as more and more people tune them out and don't pay any attention at all to their protests. I wait for that day eagerly but until then I can ignore them, even when they come to my town.

[darkeyes]

Ta Falcie... It helps in answer to Pasa who will insist you have ABSOLUTE freedom of speech in the US.. thought these lil extracts from the Political Dictionary and Columbia Encyclopaedia would better explain restrictions than anything I could say and with some authority..

1.Political Dictionary

Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment. Despite the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the United States, legal systems have not treated freedom of speech as absolute. Among the more obvious restrictions on the freedom to say just what one likes where one likes are laws regulating incitement, sedition, defamation, slander and libel, blasphemy, the expression of racial hatred, and conspiracy. The liberal tradition has generally defended freedom of the sort of speech which does not violate others' rights or lead to predictable and avoidable harm, but it has been fierce in that defence because a free interchange of ideas is seen as an essential ingredient of democracy and resistance to tyranny, and as an important agent of improvement. The distinction between an action falling under the description of speech and one which does not is not clear cut, because many non-verbal actions can be seen as making a statement—for example, burning a flag or destroying a symbol. Again, valued freedom of speech embraces publication—writing, broadcasting, distributing recordings—as well as oral delivery of ideas.

— Andrew Reeve


2.Columbia Encyclopedia: freedom of speech

Like freedom of the press (see press, freedom of the), which pertains to the publication of speech, freedom of speech itself has been absolute in no time or place. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from "abridging the freedom of speech"; since the 1920s the amendment's protections have been extended against state, as well as against federal, action.
Although speech is freer in the United States than in many societies, federal and state laws do restrict many kinds of expression. Some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., "fighting words" that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). The government also limits speech that threatens it directly; although sedition laws are rarely prosecuted in the United States, such rationales as a danger to "national security" have been invoked to silence criticism of or opposition to the government. Laws designed to silence opposition to organized religion (e.g., laws against blasphemy or heresy), common in some other countries, would run afoul of the First Amendment.

In recent decades speech controversies in the United States have involved, among other issues, whether and how "hate speech" directed at racial or other groups can be suppressed and what limitations may be imposed on speech in an attempt to combat sexual harassment. The definition of speech itself has been broadened to encompass "symbolic speech," which consists of actions that express opinions; thus, U.S. courts have held that burning the American flag as a protest is protected speech.


Whether the US has more freedom of speech than anywhere else is debatable, but it may well be the case..and good for you if that is so.. but it does gall when some people tell me with absolute certainty that the US has absolute Freedom of Speech. No society has absolute Freedom of Speech.. there are restrictions in what we can say and do irrespective of what any constitution says.. however much freedom we have to say what we like, you and I both agree that it is an enormous responsibility we take on not to abuse the rights we have.. we must use it responsibly or people suffer..and ultimately we may lose it..

[FalconAngel]

Exactly. They are very careful not to break the law. I do not agree with their methods or their reasonings, but I do feel strongly they have a right to do what they do.

And I agree with that, however, as I pointed out, there are responsibilities that go along with those rights and those who oppose them have the same right to picket them for their broadcasting of views that are found, by the vast majority of citizens (in the US) to be abhorrent.


Like I said, they are accountable for their words and actions. Just like every other citizen and those same, lawful methods that they use on others can be equally used on them.

[FalconAngel]

Hi Darkeyes.

I never said that they exceeded the 1st amendment protections, but they have come very close in a number of their publications on their website as well as at places that they have protested.
I would bet that a lot of those people who's children and family members that they have protested would say even worse things about them than many here would even say.

But, as I have said before, the rest of this country could very easily use the same lawful means to tackle them that they repeatedly use to offend every single American that believes in the Constitution, freedom and respect for the dead; even if we do not care for those that are dead (for whatever reason).

Even the KKK was smart (or respectful - not sure which) enough to not protest at the funeral of M.L. King, when he was assassinated. And I think that it is safe to say that we all pretty much know what white racists think about blacks.

[Long Duck Dong]

the patriot riders have common sense.... they go after the speakers of the voices, standing proud and tall.... showing respect for the fallen as well as making a strong stance against speakers of voices....

that is what is needed, more people like the patriot riders.... not the targeting of businesses and individuals that are saying nothing.... thats simply bullying people.... and the sort of crap that many of us left behind in the school yard....

btw, the kkk are not white racists, they are white supremacists, white racists are anti other races, white supremacists seek to preserve the best of their race, hence the kkk are anti communists, homosexuals, jews etc of any race, including their own.....

as for protesting m.l.king.... the kkk knew better, as they would be singled out as the reason m.l.king was killed, and become the target of the building aggression.... the history books tell you about the rising unrest in the days before the assassination, and the starts of riots....... only a idiot would stand up in the middle of that, and protest

[darkeyes]

btw, the kkk are not white racists, they are white supremacists, white racists are anti other races, white supremacists seek to preserve the best of their race, hence the kkk are anti communists, homosexuals, jews etc of any race, including their own.....

*cofused*

... being anti any race other than their own is not racist? They sure are more then simply racist, but to say they are not because they are white supremacist seems kind of at odds with itself... the National Socialists in Germany were more than racist. but nevertheless racism was a core plank of their philosophy..

[Long Duck Dong]

helps uncofus fran

ok. falcon used a blanket statement to define the kkk .... and they are made up of different groups with different ideals....
its a bit like taking catholics, seventh day adventists, mormons and interdenominational christians and refering to them all as christians that go to church on sunday at 11 am

hitler was a supremacist ( separatist )
hitlers aryan race had a set appearance.... blond and blue eyed, and perferably of the nordic bloodlines.....

the kkk advocate separation of race, culture, sexuality, religion and political belief from within their own race and other races..... as the kkk view themselves as a white christian group ..... and reject people such as jews, people of color, communists, gays etc etc as socially unacceptable and part of the reason society is decaying..... they will even turn on members of their own race if they deem them to be unacceptable

the racist arm of the kkk are the extremists, the race haters, the knights of the kkk... they are not interested in preserving the * white christian * aspect of society, they want all people of colour wiped off the face of the earth..... or turned back into slaves and treated like animals


now to put that in normal terms, if we use law abiding citizens and criminals as a example.....
as a society, we want the criminal element removed and locked up, we want our perfered choice of government to rule and we want our rights upheld...
thats a supremacist / seperatist type thinking

as a society, the us used to have slavery, treated people as slaves and not as humans.... then slavery was abolished, but for the next 200 years, they were no better off as they struggled to be seen as people too.....
that is a racist form of society.....

just out of interest, I am not implying or saying that america supports, will support or did support slavery or that america is a racist country..... I was refering to a aspect of us history, that many people are not proud of, never supported or agreed with, and fought hard to win the freedom of slaves, against people of their own country.....

[TwylaTwobits]

While I agree that there is a difference between white supremicists and racists, I do not agree that the US as a whole was a racist society. Yes, I have made comments regarding the fact that we fought the Civil War to free the slaves then it was many years later that they were given the right to vote. Still many years later that the rights of seperate but equal were ruled unconstitutional (See Brown vs the Board of Education) and we began to become an integrated society. While there were still pockets of racism and even still today there are huge areas where if you are not white and in good standing with your church you need to stay the hell out of there, America as a whole was not a racist society. That's tarring everyone with the same brush and denying all the good that was done by people of all races as we sought to end the seperation. I have said it before I'll say it again. There is one race: Human. And many Americans like me feel that way, and many Americans like me are not proud of the history of our nation but we understand that history is there for a reason it teaches. It's up to us if we choose to learn the lesson.

[darkeyes]

helps uncofus fran

ok. falcon used a blanket statement to define the kkk .... and they are made up of different groups with different ideals....
its a bit like taking catholics, seventh day adventists, mormons and interdenominational christians and refering to them all as christians that go to church on sunday at 11 am

hitler was a supremacist ( separatist )
hitlers aryan race had a set appearance.... blond and blue eyed, and perferably of the nordic bloodlines.....

the kkk advocate separation of race, culture, sexuality, religion and political belief from within their own race and other races..... as the kkk view themselves as a white christian group ..... and reject people such as jews, people of color, communists, gays etc etc as socially unacceptable and part of the reason society is decaying..... they will even turn on members of their own race if they deem them to be unacceptable

the racist arm of the kkk are the extremists, the race haters, the knights of the kkk... they are not interested in preserving the * white christian * aspect of society, they want all people of colour wiped off the face of the earth..... or turned back into slaves and treated like animals


now to put that in normal terms, if we use law abiding citizens and criminals as a example.....
as a society, we want the criminal element removed and locked up, we want our perfered choice of government to rule and we want our rights upheld...
thats a supremacist / seperatist type thinking

as a society, the us used to have slavery, treated people as slaves and not as humans.... then slavery was abolished, but for the next 200 years, they were no better off as they struggled to be seen as people too.....
that is a racist form of society.....

just out of interest, I am not implying or saying that america supports, will support or did support slavery or that america is a racist country..... I was refering to a aspect of us history, that many people are not proud of, never supported or agreed with, and fought hard to win the freedom of slaves, against people of their own country.....

So Apartheid in South Africa was not a racist sytem as it was only a system for seperate development of the races? The Government of South Africa turned on their own were they deemed socially unnacceptable.. sorry Duckie.. I think you are on a loser here... any system which does now accept equality for all the races within a society, is racist.. we are as Twyla says one race.. and as Rabbie says in his hymn to universal brotherhood.. A man's a man for a' that..:)

[Long Duck Dong]

lol not a loser... darkeyes....

apartheid is not racism.... its racial segregation.... you are separating the races...
the thing there is you are drawing a line in the sand and saying one group on this side, one group on that side.....

zola budd zola budd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_Budd)
it was ruled that her record breaking effort was not acceptable because of where she lived.....
yet one year later, representing great britain... it was ruled legit and accepted

thats not racism at work.... thats segregation....as the race was never the issue, its what group she was standing with......

now any country that stands all its citizens equally together, is a united country.... so to say that its a racist country.... ??? what race is every person in that country ???? and do they all agree to be that race

[darkeyes]

lol not a loser... darkeyes....

apartheid is not racism.... its racial segregation.... you are separating the races...
the thing there is you are drawing a line in the sand and saying one group on this side, one group on that side.....

zola budd zola budd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_Budd)
it was ruled that her record breaking effort was not acceptable because of where she lived.....
yet one year later, representing great britain... it was ruled legit and accepted

thats not racism at work.... thats segregation....as the race was never the issue, its what group she was standing with......

now any country that stands all its citizens equally together, is a united country.... so to say that its a racist country.... ??? what race is every person in that country ???? and do they all agree to be that race
Duckie.. I'm pretty fond of u ya daft bugger.. but at times you have the oddest view of the world.. Apartheid was racist.. not everyone within the state was treated equally.. not everyone had the same opportunities.. not everyone had the same rights..the same political representation or opportunity.. the same ability to travel without restriction or live and work in places of their choice.. seperate development was a way of keeping the non whites down, the native african most of all, and providing the minority white population, the Afrikaaner principally, but other whites also, the reigns of power and access to the wealth of the country.. the African was substantially denied any of that, the Asians also to a lesser degree.. it was an unequal society.. one which was rightly termed.. racist.

A segregated society where the races are kept apart is a racist society..even if each group has exactly the same rights and privileges.. its ne'er the twain shall meet.. South Africa was a racist state prior to the fall of the Apartheid regime.. nothing you can say my dear, will convince me otherwise, nor I think very many others.. what you are saying reminds me of the bam who tried to tell me that National Socialism is a left wing political philosophy.. it simply flies in the face of all logic..

[Long Duck Dong]

you just made the same mistake so many people do.....

when people make the claim of racism and racist, they often refer to the skin tone of people, hence the terms black and white racism, and that is also why you hear about white and black supremacy....

race is defined by characteristics and traits predominate to different groups of individuals .... not by skin tone....
black and white are not races, they are skin pigmentations..

the segregation in sa, was defined predominately by skin tone,...
there are 4 races referred to under apartheid, the black, the white, the colored and the indian...... not by term of hottentot, zulu, european, caucasian etc etc, which would have been racial segregation.....


the reason it was done like that, is cos of the mixing of the bloodlines thru interracial contact and births...... and its a dammed sight harder to separate people by bloodlines, than by skin tone, as you would have light and dark skinned people in all groups...... and it would be a lot harder to tell what group is * acceptable * and what group is not

[darkeyes]

you just made the same mistake so many people do.....

when people make the claim of racism and racist, they often refer to the skin tone of people, hence the terms black and white racism, and that is also why you hear about white and black supremacy....

race is defined by characteristics and traits predominate to different groups of individuals .... not by skin tone....
black and white are not races, they are skin pigmentations..

the segregation in sa, was defined predominately by skin tone,...
there are 4 races referred to under apartheid, the black, the white, the colored and the indian...... not by term of hottentot, zulu, european, caucasian etc etc, which would have been racial segregation.....


the reason it was done like that, is cos of the mixing of the bloodlines thru interracial contact and births...... and its a dammed sight harder to separate people by bloodlines, than by skin tone, as you would have light and dark skinned people in all groups...... and it would be a lot harder to tell what group is * acceptable * and what group is not

I made no mistake Duckie.. I know what we are irrespective of skin colour, hair colour, eye colour or anything else.. what I refer to as racism is what is in common usage throughout the English speaking world.. that we are one species I know.. one single race.. I do not accept your definition.. I have written about it in forums before now and probably will again.. so you know exactly what I meant.. as does just about anyone else...

People in my country.. Scottish people.. have been prosecuted for racist crimes against other white people.. most of whom have their origin in a little country just to the south.. a people who belong to the same state as Scots.. it is a convenient if not entirely accurate word to describe a crime of intolerance and hatred against a group of people who are in some way different from the natives.. and as a word it is a convenient if not entirely accurate word to describe the negative attitudes of people with one skin colour and ethnic origin against another.. you know it.. I know it.. and so does just about anyone else who reads these posts..

[FalconAngel]

the patriot riders have common sense.... they go after the speakers of the voices, standing proud and tall.... showing respect for the fallen as well as making a strong stance against speakers of voices....

that is what is needed, more people like the patriot riders.... not the targeting of businesses and individuals that are saying nothing.... thats simply bullying people.... and the sort of crap that many of us left behind in the school yard....

And have the Patriot riders silenced the hate from the WBC? No. They have not even made a dent in their cause.

Their job is to protect the mourners from those people, acting as a physical barrier against the WBC.

As far as bullying the WBC and their supporters, how is that different than the bullying that they do on others?
And an additional benefit is that anything that takes away their financial base silences them a little bit more.

They need to learn that there is a penalty for promoting hatred and racism and the method of depending on the patriot riders (as the sole bastion of defense) is ineffective, ill-conceived and lazy.

If you oppose something, then you must stand up to it and not depend on others to do so in your stead, for if you do not stand against it, then there will be no one to stand up for you.

What you are suggesting everyone do is to cut the weeds above the ground. Problem with that is that they keep coming back stronger.

You kill the weeds by pulling them up at the root. Kill the root and the weed dies.

Protesting them and their supporters kills the roots of this weed. The Patriot riders are not weed killers, though some may be, they are the fence that keeps the weeds out of the flowerbed.

All of the people that are opposed to hatemongers are the weed killers. They are the ones that hit the weeds at the root.

The nice thing about free speech is that they can say what they want to say (within already established and reasonable limits), but that also means that the same lawful methods that they use may also be used against them.

If you refuse to take a stand against them, then you have no right to complain about them.


btw, the kkk are not white racists, they are white supremacists, white racists are anti other races, white supremacists seek to preserve the best of their race, hence the kkk are anti communists, homosexuals, jews etc of any race, including their own.....

Don't nit pick over semantics again. It became tiresome in the last thread that you tried it and I very seriously doubt that it will be less tiresome in this thread.

Everyone understood what I said. You may not have, but others did.


as for protesting m.l.king.... the kkk knew better, as they would be singled out as the reason m.l.king was killed, and become the target of the building aggression.... the history books tell you about the rising unrest in the days before the assassination, and the starts of riots....... only a idiot would stand up in the middle of that, and protest

You mean that it wasn't a white raci.......supremacist.......that pulled the trigger and fired the shot?
btw, if you look up both words (racist/supremacist), properly, you will find that their meanings overlap each other.
One opposes other races/ethnicities as inferior and the other advocates a single race/ethnicity above all others as superior. One can very easily be both and thinking logically, neither precludes on from being both, but actually encourages one to be both.

The unrest had been building long before MLK came onto the scene. Perhaps you missed the black vote protests, the "separate but equal" laws where the Black voter laws prevented blacks from voting based on education and literacy levels (standards to which whites were not held), that were being fought by the black community. Most of that had been going on before MLK was even born. In most areas of the south, it was at a fever pitch years ahead of MLK's rise to fame, but it was in small pockets here and there.

[Long Duck Dong]

if you are going to weed a garden, its best to get advice so you save the flowers and remove the weeds.... as not everybody is a gardener, but plenty of people will give advice on how to weed it
as for the wbc, I am not complaining about them, I do not agree with their beliefs or their teachings..... but I am the type of gardener that doesn't endorse spraying the whole garden, flowers and all, to kill the weeds.....

i studied race relations and discrimination to gain some of my social relations certs for counseling..... so yeah, I will not make blanket statements about groups that even seperate themselves from other groups under their umbrella

i have walked with christians and churches in support of the nz civil union bill..... yet I watch christians and churches get slammed in this site for their teachings about homosexuals... and labels like right wing lgbt haters....
just cos christians read the bible, doesn't mean that they missed the verses about not judging others, and allowing god to sit in judge of all
and about how what is done to the least of gods children, is done unto god


as for who shot m.l.king.... officially it was james earl ray.... as for the reason they did it, and their affiliates .... again, there is what we are told, and there is the truth...
but honestly, its like the jessica lynch story.... there is the official story.... and the truth.....
or jfk..... we know who is said to have pulled the trigger.... but do we know the truth of what happened.....

now falcon, I post a opinion .... its right or wrong in the eyes of the reader..... so it doesn't make me right or wrong, and nor do I claim to be....
so if you have that ever burning need to be right..... I am happy to say that you are right and that you win and all that crud..... rather than have this thread turn into a repeat of the other thread.......
or you can simply agree to disagree, as we do not see eye to eye....

[FalconAngel]

if you are going to weed a garden, its best to get advice so you save the flowers and remove the weeds.... as not everybody is a gardener, but plenty of people will give advice on how to weed it



as for the wbc, I am not complaining about them, I do not agree with their beliefs or their teachings..... but I am the type of gardener that doesn't endorse spraying the whole garden, flowers and all, to kill the weeds.....

And in America, Americans know what they can and cannot do to weed our own social garden, lawfully. Which is what I have recommended.
And sometimes it requires "killing" some of the flowers to get all of the weeds and it's roots.


i studied race relations and discrimination to gain some of my social relations certs for counseling..... so yeah, I will not make blanket statements about groups that even seperate themselves from other groups under their umbrella

Does not apply in this case. So anything that you have does not apply. In your case, a little (emphasis on little) knowledge is a very dangerous thing.



i have walked with christians and churches in support of the nz civil union bill..... yet I watch christians and churches get slammed in this site for their teachings about homosexuals... and labels like right wing lgbt haters....
just cos christians read the bible, doesn't mean that they missed the verses about not judging others, and allowing god to sit in judge of all
and about how what is done to the least of gods children, is done unto god

you are still not getting the obvious. It isn't about "Christians Vs anyone", it is hatemongers (hiding behind religion) vs American values of equality and respect for the dead (particularly as it applies to our troops).



as for who shot m.l.king.... officially it was james earl ray.... as for the reason they did it, and their affiliates .... again, there is what we are told, and there is the truth...
but honestly, its like the jessica lynch story.... there is the official story.... and the truth.....
or jfk..... we know who is said to have pulled the trigger.... but do we know the truth of what happened.....

I raised a point as a comparative argument and you are going to run with it, just like the last time, as if it is the subject, in order to distract from the real issue......again.

It did not work last time and it will not work this time. If you cannot focus on the issue, then just leave the discussion.



now falcon, I post a opinion .... its right or wrong in the eyes of the reader..... so it doesn't make me right or wrong, and nor do I claim to be....

But you opinion is not from our viewpoint. You are not dealing with these people like we are here, so your opinion, in this case is radically uninformed. Have you even read the statements and articles that they have written for their website?

Try looking at it from the American perspective, since they are doing this on American soil, not New Zealand soil.



so if you have that ever burning need to be right..... I am happy to say that you are right and that you win and all that crud..... rather than have this thread turn into a repeat of the other thread.......

You are the one turning it into a repeat. And your opinion of how things should be done here, has the same value as if I were to try to tell you how you should handle the same situation in your country; no value at all. Which is why I don't tell you how to fix your problems, there.

Why is it that you can't just dump the BS for ONCE in your pathetic "one-upsmanship living" life?

You are the one making this like the other thread. And if you cannot see that, then everyone else does.



or you can simply agree to disagree, as we do not see eye to eye....

Not when someone who DOES NOT LIVE HERE tries to tell me how we Americans should handle our own internal social issues, which you just don't want to stop doing.

This isn't about agreeing to disagree. It is about making opinions based on being there, in the thick and not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback for the people that are there and know the situation first hand.

You do not know simply because you are nowhere near here.

When was the last time the WBC sent their band of miscreants to NZ to harass the funerals of your service members? If the answer is "never" then you cannot understand how we Americans feel about it in the way that we feel about it, nor are you qualified to suggest to us what we should do about it.

So far, in other threads, and now this one, your ideas are the same ones that do not solve the problem, but do make it worse.

I don't believe that we could solve any problems following any of your advice to date.

[Long Duck Dong]

falcon

you are actively spouting the reason why people do not like the us..... and its the attitude that the us is not like the rest of the world so the rest of the world should not question or make opinions, but should shut the fuck up and just do what the us tells them to

I take heart in the fact that many americans do not share that sentiment, including my partner and others, that do live in the us.... cos they are the ones that welcome people from other countries with open arms, into the site, and make them feel like they are in a community site... not a site where only american opinions may be stated, accepted and posted in the site.....

think about it......

[darkeyes]

Not when someone who DOES NOT LIVE HERE tries to tell me how we Americans should handle our own internal social issues, which you just don't want to stop doing.



When America and Americans stop commenting upon and involving themselves in the internal affairs of other peoples then the world may cease commenting upon those of the United States.. this is an international site Falcie, and we are all thinking caring human beings(well most of us are) irrespective of nationality.

We all keep talking of the global village and in this day and age we get an idea of what life means for the peoples of all countries. The picture we get from the media..and not our own media let me add, but that of the US, allows us an inkling of how and what things are in your country.. it is not as accurate as if we lived there, but it is enough to allow us, as caring human beings and as friends to comment on what we see as ills which befall another people or that those people bring upon themselves.. the US on your and other American's own admission is an imperfect society, just as is mine own.. we would do you and ourselves a disservice if we failed to point out where we think you are in error.

So chill and don't get so huffy...grow a thicker skin sweetheart, and keep telling us when we are talking bollocks.. don't go all defensivel and tell us to piss off its none of our business its America... cos thats not how it works...

[Long Duck Dong]

americans, aussies, poms, nz'ers, scots etc.... I will drink with them all.... lgbt and hetros, I will drink with them too..... christians and non christians, people of all beliefs.... I will drink with them too.... hell even the people that seriously need a lobotomy.... I will drink with them too.....

its a scots way of doing things..... cos that way, if the bastards wanna mouth off, they can do it to my face..... or they can run away, and then do it.... and prove themselves to be cowards.....

its the same reason i would stand up face to face with the wbc, and give them the chance to speak their truth .... and I can give them a earful of my truth.... cos its not the scots way to wait til a clan is at war and then go hounding their folks that stay behind........
no scots man is worthy of wearing a tartan if they can not face their foe....

[elian]

This should give you quite a bit of insight..

http://natephelps.com/10801.html

It isn't that they scream loudly because they want to convert anyone, it's because they figure the louder they scream the more "righteous" they are in the eyes of God.

My stomach turned when I had to think of anyone paying these people more than $20, after all - in a previous court case they were already fined in the millions of dollars.

However, strangely enough, in spite of their ignorance and derogatory stance when they do come around they seem to do a lot of good. I've participated in counter demonstrations where they were present; usually it's their 5 people holding up signs of hatred to our 50 people rallying for tolerance and love.

If they only spewed venom against gay people I'm not so sure that the rest of the community would be up in arms. However, because what they say and do is SO outrageous they become a rallying point for the local community to support each other in a positive way.

I dislike the fact that they picket military funerals but I suppose that's my opinion.

[elian]

Oh, and since a few of Mr. Phelps children are litigators, that is how they support their "ministry" ..

[12voltman59]

Oh, and since a few of Mr. Phelps children are litigators, that is how they support their "ministry" ..

Yeah---they rally about how bad and evil the system is--but yet they game it for their own ends-----real classy, likeable people they are--I want to invite 'em to dinner!! (Nnnnoootttt!!):bigrin:

[hotdick]

Sigh....I am getting extremely annoyed with that church. While I am against the war I am not against our boys. And this kind of protesting....yeah it's just what the first amendment is about. But we can't pick and choose what the right is applied to, it has to be free speech for all, even the assholes of the world.

i am a conservetive and i totally agree that i do not want war and i support those who fight for us overseas.dont forget to stand up for the constitution of the great united state of america, we stand together for all.

[darkeyes]

i am a conservetive and i totally agree that i do not want war and i support those who fight for us overseas.dont forget to stand up for the constitution of the great united state of america, we stand together for all.Wot?? Methinks this b a p***take... if it isn it bloody shud b..:tong:

Wenya say "all".. jus wtf do ya mean? Certainly not lil ole me....

[hudson9]

"I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant" -- (?Don't know who said that first...)

"Thank-you, WBC, for bringing the rest of us together" -- Me. See below link.

http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/saying-not-in-our-town-to-hate/

Jack