It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biker activists shut down Westboro Baptists in Joplin, Missouri

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 


No, I advocate all of those things against those that beg for it, and act provocatively, and travel 100s or 1000s of miles intent on coming into my own neighborhood just to cause trouble.


Your county?

Beg for it?

There are so many things wrong with that single sentence.

Who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do?

Who are you to tell people what they can or cannot do in public arena's, in the US?

This vigilante bullplop is no good - the only people you empower are the criminals.

You either abide by the law, or you don't - you can't pick and choose.
edit on 31/5/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

If that's "democracy" in action, then I want no part of it - oh wait, that IS the US version of "democracy"


First of all, let me clarify that on Pg. 1 it might be contrued that I said the above. I didn't. It was a typo.

secondly:


Originally posted by budski
So you advocate violence, intimidation and terror tactics against those you disagree with?

Nice


There were two groups who had the legal right to assemble. One was the Westborough bunch, the other were those who were there to remember the victims of the tornado, some of whom were still under the rubble.

Now, there's a tiny little problem here and it lies with those who gave permission for the assembly. Did they think, for one moment, that the Westborough crowd would be well received? Let's extrapolate: There's a Bar Mitzva in San Fran on Saturday afternoon and the American Nazi Party would like to join in on the festivities.

Those who make the choice... should they let them go or say no?

I blame the idiots that gave them permission to be there.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
While i despise the WBC and their tactics, overall the Hells Angels do more to hurt society.

They are top level drug dealers and extortionists. In my home town they have been responsible for the death of quite a few people that are known, and many more im sure unsolved. They are scum, plain and simple, and no better than the WBC.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Who am I?

I am the guy with people in that rubble. I am the guy with 30+ years invested into that town. I am the guy with family that hasn't slept in a week, because they have been dedicatedly searching through rubble and finding bits and pieces of bodies that used to be their friends and neighbors.

Who is Westboro?
What gives them the right to drive cross country to an area they have no connection to, with the single purpose of disrupting the efforts and hurting the people that are already down and out? What gives them the right to quite literally add insult to injury?

There was a time in the US, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, and at that time a simple insult could result in a duel to the death! The same founders that believed in equality and rights and limited government, also believed in violent retribution over an insult!

I'll tell you what gives me the right, it is common decency, and common sense, and respect, and honor, and ethics, being born and raised among the people that are picking up pieces of themselves and their town and trying to recuperate.

I'll stand on this soapbox all day, there is absolutely no way to justify the actions of Westboro, and although I support their right to be free from government intrusion, I also support the right of the community of Joplin to react however they see fit!!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
I blame the idiots that gave them permission to be there.


And now we get to the meat of the problem.

In fairness, under the law as it stands they had little or no choice.

However, unless you have a law "acting in the public safety" and can reasonably enforce it, then this crap will continue to happen.

Until then, weestboro are in the right, having exposed quite a few loopholes in the law.

I would be questioning why this group has not been the subject of an inquiry, at the very least.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 

Who is Westboro?
What gives them the right to drive cross country to an area they have no connection to, with the single purpose of disrupting the efforts and hurting the people that are already down and out? What gives them the right to quite literally add insult to injury?


What gives them the right?

Are you for real?

OK, go ahead, and tell people they can only drive to certain area's when the locals allow you to.

OMG, I can't believe I just read that.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


So the answer is more laws? No way.

If we let the government restrict the rights of WBC, then they will also restrict the rights of everyone else. There is no need for more laws. WBC has the right to knowingly risk their lives in this protest. I support their right to do exactly that. I do not want to see the government take that right away.

What I want to see, is a community so united and willing to sacrifice that some idiots like WBC would not dare make the boneheaded decision of showing up in the first place. If they did show up, they should face the natural consequences of their actions.

I know there are sharks in the ocean, I don't expect the government to tag everyone of them and tell me when and where I can swim. If I choose to go into the deep water, and I get eaten, there is no one to blame but myself, and I can live with that.

More government is never the solution.
More common sense and natural consequences can fix a whole lot of stupid.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr
While i despise the WBC and their tactics, overall the Hells Angels do more to hurt society.


Oh... so it was the Hells Angels, was it? You sure?

There's one heck of a lot more people riding Harleys than Angels and Mongols. I rode one for years and never touched 1%rs. Anyways, I didn't see any telling patches in the crowd. Not saying there couldn't have been, but...

There will come a time when the tactics used by Westborough will draw real heat. You can only push grieving people so far before they react. All I can say is that the American public should be praised for showing such steady restraint.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 

Who is Westboro?
What gives them the right to drive cross country to an area they have no connection to, with the single purpose of disrupting the efforts and hurting the people that are already down and out? What gives them the right to quite literally add insult to injury?


What gives them the right?

Are you for real?

OK, go ahead, and tell people they can only drive to certain area's when the locals allow you to.

OMG, I can't believe I just read that.


You didn't answer my question. You deflected. It was a serious question. What gives them the right?

I'm not talking about the legal right, I've already stated that I agree with their legal right, and I don't want to see it infringed. I'm talking about the moral right and ethical right to drive into a devastated community and tell the grieving families that their loved ones are going to rot in hell.

I don't know where you come from, but I come from Joplin, MO, and doing something stupid like that in Joplin will win someone a trip to the emergency room and some wires for their jaw for a few weeks. By the time the wires come off, maybe they will have learned some manners! Of course, some people are slow learners, so Joplin will still be there if they need a second dose of finishing school!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 


So the answer is more laws? No way.

If we let the government restrict the rights of WBC, then they will also restrict the rights of everyone else. There is no need for more laws. WBC has the right to knowingly risk their lives in this protest. I support their right to do exactly that. I do not want to see the government take that right away.

What I want to see, is a community so united and willing to sacrifice that some idiots like WBC would not dare make the boneheaded decision of showing up in the first place. If they did show up, they should face the natural consequences of their actions.

I know there are sharks in the ocean, I don't expect the government to tag everyone of them and tell me when and where I can swim. If I choose to go into the deep water, and I get eaten, there is no one to blame but myself, and I can live with that.

More government is never the solution.
More common sense and natural consequences can fix a whole lot of stupid.


There are plenty of laws already in place - no more are needed.

What YOU want is all the benefits of central government, with none of the responsibilities - it's the same old mantra.

Common sense?
You lost me when you started to talk about "fixing stupid"

I don't know who the hell you think you are, but you might want to consider the downside of what you are saying, and think about what might happen if you were in a place where your views didn't fit - should they fix what they see as your stupid?
edit on 31/5/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 

Who is Westboro?
What gives them the right to drive cross country to an area they have no connection to, with the single purpose of disrupting the efforts and hurting the people that are already down and out? What gives them the right to quite literally add insult to injury?


What gives them the right?

Are you for real?

OK, go ahead, and tell people they can only drive to certain area's when the locals allow you to.

OMG, I can't believe I just read that.


You didn't answer my question. You deflected. It was a serious question. What gives them the right?

I'm not talking about the legal right, I've already stated that I agree with their legal right, and I don't want to see it infringed. I'm talking about the moral right and ethical right to drive into a devastated community and tell the grieving families that their loved ones are going to rot in hell.

I don't know where you come from, but I come from Joplin, MO, and doing something stupid like that in Joplin will win someone a trip to the emergency room and some wires for their jaw for a few weeks. By the time the wires come off, maybe they will have learned some manners! Of course, some people are slow learners, so Joplin will still be there if they need a second dose of finishing school!


The LAW gives them the right - who are you to subvert it?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



I don't now who the hell you think you are, but you might want to consider the downside of what you are saying, and think about what might happen if you were in a place where your views didn't fit - should they fix what they see as your stupid?


Yes.

If I go into a place where my views don't fit, and I have no personal investment there, AND, I push those views on emotional people, grieving people, people already pushed to the brink, AND I push those views graphically, at maximum volume, and I stand alone or with a small group, and I face off against thousands of emotional and aggravated people, then surely I am fully prepared to take a beating from the crowd.

If I were to do something like that, would I really be correct in placing the blame on those people that reacted that way? Hell no! The blame would be mine for provoking an emotional crowd with unsolicited hate speech.

So, I suppose "stupid" is relative, but natural consequences are not. We all recognize the opportunity for natural consequences, and I don't believe it is "civilized" to interfere with those consequences. In fact, I think it is uncivilized to interfere with such a prime learning experience!



The LAW gives them the right - who are you to subvert it?


Why are you ignoring my question? Could it be that you do not have an answer?

I support their "legal" right. Now what gives them a moral or an ethical right? Please tell me how their actions are justified and should be defended.
edit on 31-5-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I guess personal responsibility must be hiding behind the laws of the land.

Say someone dear to me is being buried and a guy shows up in an evil clown costume dancing, blowing his plastic horn and loudly relegating the deceased to hell, I'd be hard pressed not to react... erm... negatively.

However, this is Canada and provocation will play a part in my sentencing.

Yay



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I think it's only a matter of time before one of them gets to meet their maker and I 'm afraid the conversation will be a lot different than they expect



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Have I ever said their actions are justified or that they are morally right?

No.

What I HAVE said is that the kind of vigilante action which you condone has no place in the modern world.

Without Law, we're just monkeys with fancy gadgets.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I agree to an extent - however, that was an extreme example.

I find that "personal responsibility" lasts until it infringes on a persons beliefs or way of life.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Without Law, we're just monkeys with fancy gadgets.



So, you're an evolutionist!


There are times when the law is an ass. This is one of them. Joplin is not Arlington, the mourners are not soldiers and immediate family, they're a large group of very hurt people.

That WBC took the time to go there with their disgusting hate shows how lacking they are in good sense. What did they expect?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
there are some venues and messages that just do not mix, i agree to everybodies right to freedom of speech but if i protested at an animal rights gathering about the rights of fur coat manufacturers i doubt i would be welcomed or even get a nice reaction.

so yes everybody has a right to freedom of speech but if you are going to stand in a place or put yourself in a place where you know people will be angry then expect people to be angry.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by budski
Without Law, we're just monkeys with fancy gadgets.



So, you're an evolutionist!


There are times when the law is an ass. This is one of them. Joplin is not Arlington, the mourners are not soldiers and immediate family, they're a large group of very hurt people.

That WBC took the time to go there with their disgusting hate shows how lacking they are in good sense. What did they expect?



NOOOO, don't label me!
I am nothing - not evolution or christian, or muslim, or anything else.

Yes, the law is an ass, but does that excuse breaking the law?

I'm not saying that WBC were right, I am saying that people cannot take the law into their own hands, tempting as it is sometimes.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



What I HAVE said is that the kind of vigilante action which you condone has no place in the modern world.

Without Law, we're just monkeys with fancy gadgets.


That is a fair assessment. I disagree, but I see its merit.

I say the missing element in today's society is personal responsibility and too much reliance on government intervention.

You call it vigilanteeism, but I just call it responsibility toward one's personal vested interests. People should look out for their own self, their own family, their own neighborhood, their own town and community. They should make their views known, and they should provide ample warnings and opportunities for people to take heed, but when they are entirely ignored or intentionally provoked, then they should follow through on the warned consequences.

Your "civilization" and my "civilization" look differently. Yours is probably more utopian, where mine is just natural and makes decent sense. I don't want a perfect world, I just want a world that makes perfect sense. If I kick a bear it should bite me. Anything less just doesn't make any sense to me, and I wouldn't like that world.
edit on 31-5-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join