Mint Berry Crunch wrote:
and a very angry trained sniper will emerge and do justice.
you can't honestly think that would be justice?
Mint Berry Crunch wrote:
and a very angry trained sniper will emerge and do justice.
you can't honestly think that would be justice?
Tounces wrote:
No, I was just pointing out the police were not amiss in doing their job. They can't arrest anyone if they don't know who to arrest.
his point was that the police obviously used the situation to violate the WBC's free speeck rights, basically through a loop hole or technicality
not a precedent you want set...
yup, and it would make me lol
Insane Idiot wrote:
"A rye?"
Yep drunken...
Like froggie went a courtin
A he did go
A ha
Mint Berry Crunch wrote:
who in the right mind wouldn't want to punch one of those picketers in the face? one day they will protest the wrong military funeral, and a very angry trained sniper will emerge and do justice.
Terry Jones burns a Koran and people react violently. LetsRun users claim that Afghans are inherently violence and it is their own fault. After all, freedom of speech is sacred.
WBC heckles funerals and people react violent. LetsRun users support the violence and some say it doesn't go far enough. Suddenly, freedom of speech (in an 8-1 decision) is an excuse to react violently and take "justice" into their own hands.
Five minutes with those WBC picketers and I'd have them going ballistic and in the pokey soon after. I know their vulnerable points and I would just smile the whole time....
Whether we admit it or not, we all know when someone should be punched in the face and stopped from doing what they are doing. This is one of those cases.
Would you people who are crying about this also protest the police tracking down a non-violent stalker? What is the difference? Stalkers are just exercising their rights to say and do what they want.
The moral ambiguity that permeates western society will be our downfall.
i don't think it would be right to do violence against them, i just think that it will happen. freedom of speech is a right that i do not believe they are entitled to when they dishonor (to say the least) those who died to protect it.
I would get a ticket for overtaking a funeral procession. But I can drive behind the funeral procession to the cemetery, then get out of my car and shout hateful obscenities at them.
Mint Berry Crunch wrote:
yup, and it would make me lol
you're sort of a sick f*** with no concept of justice...
so what law do you feel should be passed to rectify the (in your mind) unjust situation?
Not sure about the specific law, but since funerals are hard to hold in an entirely indoor setting there should be some way to ensure the privacy and dignity of the gathering is protected even though it's "out in the open".
believe it or not, Fred Phelps started out as a civil rights lawyer before gradually descending into madness. Odd no?
I dunno, I know several lawyers who completely lost their marbles at some point.
Though none of them went batsh\it Christian, to be honest.
Insane Idiot wrote:
"A rye?"
Yum.
So long freedom of speech.
I'm comin out!
what???!!? wrote:
He's always taken the Bible 100% literally. He hates racism, because the Bible hates racism. The God of the Bible also hates fags. He's perhaps one of the only true Christians on the planet.
because you have to take the bible 100% literally to be a "true" christian?
believe it or not...there is no such thing as a "true" christian...if a person believes in christ...they are a true christian
you...are a prick
Not the first time Phelps has been shut down:
I think that it might be a good exercise for some of you to actually read the opinions in the Supreme Court case -- especially the majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, although Alito's dissenting opinion makes some colorable arguments from the other side and presents some additional facts in the case. My impression is that very few people who have views about constitutional issues have ever actually read the pertinent Supreme Court opinions on the issues and have little sense of the factual and legal nuances that may incline the justices toward one side or the other. These matters are generally not as simple as so many people seem to believe. In this particular case, a certain amount of legal training would be helpful in understanding the precise issues and reasoning, but I don't think that the opinions are terribly technical. Here are the opinions:
The Stache wrote:
AWESOME! Good work boys in blue. Good work, indeed.
Southern Boys know how to get the job done.