http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/westboro-baptist-church-moore-oklahoma_n_5104904.html
I don't support them, but I do support their first amendment rights. Yes the funeral protests are tacky, again the first amendment issue.The bigger idiots are the counter protesters.
... is the WBC hurting or helping, The Peoples right to free speech?
No further explanation is needed.
Not in the case of protesting the funeral of a private person in such close proximity to a grieving family.
I'm proly going to be in the minority on this one, but someone's "rights" should extend only so far as to not to take away the rights of another. The First Amendment is extremely important, but it is not sacrosanct. There are numerous limitations to unfettered free speech by the courts and imho, this should be one of them. There are many ways these nuts can protest in today's world (websites, twitter, email, printed materials, etc) and even march if they want to, outside of the families eye/ear shot.
and in a grief stricken rage kills one or more of these fucktards. Count one vote for "not guilty".
I am really surprised this hasn't happened yet, but give it time. Someone won't be able to contain their rage and is going to end up killing one of these fuckers and I won't shed a fucking tear for them.
I think a case like this is similar to the "yelling fire in a crowded movie house" example. Most have accepted that as a logical restriction of the First Amendment.
Why? Because rational people understand you are risking serious injury by doing so. As you point out, pouring salt on the victims families wound risks serious injury as well.That is the real issue, I agree protesting a private citizens funeral lacks taste
I'm going to laugh when you are summoned for jury duty
That's why people hate them, they are violating social decency that would lead people to believe that a funeral for a private person is a grieving event in someone's life and should not to be exploited as a platform to make a statement.
are not the issue, the issue is the first amendment.
They were still given permits to protest and picket lines, so their rights weren't violated. That people crossed the picket line is true for many protests, they chose to leave after 8 minutes...obviously it didn't really matter too much to them otherwise they would have stood there and fought for what they believe.
people were rational, logical and realistic. They had principles and personal ethics they lived by and special interest lazy asses who can’t make decent living without their stupid ideas and other stupid people blindly following them did not exist. Political Correctness did not exist people mostly told the truth.
Today, people will say and do anything for bucks so today blindly applying free speech blindly to everyone is not appropriate. It is rather stupid.
EOMIt can't happen soon enough for me. You can't appreciate what a horrible transgression this is until you've buried a child.
modern leaders don't? You really think that our forefathers were working for free solely for the good of man kind? They weren't imposinit's special interests on native Americans and eventually earning the term "white men speak with forked tongue"? They weren't going against Britain in a mass coup in pursuit of own interests?
Seems to me, people were driven by the same greed and goals hundreds of years ago compared to today. Free speech is part of freedom and that's why you have that freedom to blurt out as many dumb posts as you have over the years. the only one saying truly stupid things is you.
Fungy is not the only one saying "truly stupid things" Don't forget about Pimples, he says shit every bit as stupid as Fungy.
Aside from that, I agree, and don't forget the "Founding Fathers" were also by and large slave owners. I doubt that black people long for the "good old days" Come to think of it, people with slanted eyes weren't held in high regard back then either.
chinks could be trusted. lol
That's the term used for those who'r truly interested in finding a church home.
I don't support fanatics but my idea of "finatic" differs from the next person. There are churches who permit homosexuals to become members and even excel to positions of leadership. Quite anti-biblical. Love the sinner;hate the sin. Never accept the sin. That is finaticism.
I even support the KKK's right to hold rallys, but suggest(publically)that their rallys typically result in some sort of violence.
Btw, one posters insistence of public decency has no legal standing that I know of. The police, can however, make a legal plunder by making a wrong snap judgment and trample someones civil rights
"Why do people hate them?" I believe they hate them because they show a lack of social decency.
Or at least that's why I hate them.Certainly not me white man. lol
which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."?
Why of course it was Thomas Jefferson during the presidential election of 1800. John Adams retorted with "Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." Adams went on to claim that if Thomas Jefferson wins the election then "murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced." You must have been thinking of those OTHER founding fathers that were rational, logical and realistic ones that had principles and personal ethics.Above and beyond reiterating AF's obnoxiously narcissistic lack of understanding of history, I thought maybe you were going to mention that their prose was too lengthy for DA to properly appreciate.
cuz that word can be offensive to most
but I'd rather be blowing chunks than blowing chinks roflpersonal compassion. They see themselves as providing a prophetic role, much like warning the people of Sodom and Gomorrah before the Flood. However, they ignore the Golden Rule for Christians, Jews, and most other religions around the world: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
You should have heard some of the shit I used to say to the last black GF I had, and the shit she used to say in return.
Considering how free I am with the racial epithets, I would be one hell of a hypocrite to get offended by something as lighthearted as ND's chink statement. I say much worse on a daily basis about just about every race I can think of. Chink, gook, heeb, spic, even nigger, it's all in the way it's said, and who it's said to that counts. Not to mention the intent behind the word.
Which is more offensive "I don't think Asian Americans are very trustworthy" from a stranger, said in a dead serious tone? Or "Chinks can't be trusted" by a friend in jest? I think you know which one offends me and which one doesn't