Westboro Babtist Church Tries to Disrupt Marine's Funeral & Gets Owned!!

reply to post by Wildbob77

You're foolish. I don't think that most people in this county will ever have the attitude that it's OK to kill Christians.

Well you're wrong there because it's a stated goal of the trilateral commission to usher in a one world government and a one world religion to support their fascistic agenda and rid the world of real Christians.

WBC members should realize that they are not acting in the name of most Christians.

You got that right because most Christians are fake.

Can you imagine Jesus, protesting at the funeral of a soldier?

No but I can imagine Jesus saying "Let the dead bury their dead"

How would you feel if it was your brothers funeral that these morons were going to protest?

I'd want to find out exactly what they are about. I'd speak with them to find out if they are shouting weirdos or if they have a good point. If they make a good point I'd listen.

This is not about religion. This is about constitutional rights. This is not about people "forgetting" what they saw. This is about the police detaining and questioning people because they want to keep them from exercising their rights. I have a much bigger problem with the police/government deciding whether or not I can exercise my rights than I do with the WBC message as disgusting and inappropriate as it is.

Originally posted by DanUKphd
reply to post by truthseeker1984

 

This is about a group of sick, twisted individuals abusing the Constitution for their own ends. It's not right, but the First Amendment protects their hateful vitriol. They are not Christians,

So you read 3 words on sign and concluded they are sick and twisted before you even heard what they have to say. Well there is an explanation for that.

There is something that is a bar to all knowledge, and that is condemnation before investigation.

Wow. So you assume that I haven't watched the hundreds of hours of these people saying the most hateful things one could think of? Good job with that. You know what assuming does, don't you? Have you ever been to their webpage? How about the fact that they are indoctrinating their children into this hate as well?

Supporting their right to free speech is one thing. Supporting the things that they say is another. I unequivocally do NOT support their hate speech in any form, but I will gladly give my life for their right to say it.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

Oh I'd love to punch Fred in the face.

I got bond money, 1st assault charge is just a misdemeanor.

reply to post by truthseeker1984

Wow. So you assume that I haven't watched the hundreds of hours of these people saying the most hateful things one could think of? Good job with that. You know what assuming does, don't you? Have you ever been to their webpage? How about the fact that they are indoctrinating their children into this hate as well?

45 seconds onwards: Oh yes. Sure. This really doesn't looks like hate to me. *snip* You've not watched anything about them at all.

While I agree with freedom of speech, there must be some form of control as well. If WBC had something to say fine, but not at that time. They were trying to intrude on a family burying their loved one and they should be able to without any form of harassment veiled as freedom of speech. There is an appropriate time, and the appropriate time should have been at a later time or date, not at the expense of the families mourning. It is a simple concept of respect, and I think the people did the right thing. Glad to see the people with some intestinal fortitude finally stepping forward.

Originally posted by DanUKphd
reply to post by grumpydaysleeper

 

I am always the first one to support freedom of speech;however,

Oh please. You should read your own words. "I'm all for free speech but I'm not for free speech" You might as well say "I'm all for war but I'm not for war" "I'm all for ATS but I'm not for ATS"

Give it a rest and think for yourself. If it wasn't for Margie Phelps winning a case that supports your first amendment rights then I wouldn't have the pleasure of reading any of your posts here.

edit on 20-4-2011 by DanUKphd because: (no reason given)

Perhaps if you believe in free speech to the letter--- you should go into a movie theater and shout "FIRE"!!!
anyway you are entitled to your opinion and "I" to mine.

Why can't people keep their out-dated superstitious idiotic beliefs to themselves instead of going around making jack asses out of themselves attempting to stir up chaos.

If they protested a funeral of one of my friends..... May their God help them.

reply to post by Skewed


If you think government should be able to control rights, what good are they in the first place?

Should I post the definition of abridging for you as used in the 1st Amendment?

reply to post by ViperChili


Actually, what I think, the police should have stayed out of it and let the citizens handle it. They seemed to have been on the right track. Blocking cars slowed them down. Then the citizens get in touch with the tow truck companies and inform them of their intentions and work together for a couple of hours to keep the Kansas people at bay. Yes, there is a fine line here, but at the same time they were wanting to spread propaganda at the expense of a fallen soldier. What about the families rights of the soldier, they deserve privacy.

reply to post by Skewed

there must be some form of control as well

Do you enjoy the ongoing injustices to your rights perpetrated by the USG? Suggesting " any " form of control is asinine.

reply to post by Skewed


Oh, so you are perfectly ok with citizens violating the law and rights of another simply because they disagree with what they say then.

Correct?

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by Skewed

 

there must be some form of control as well

Do you enjoy the ongoing injustices to your rights perpetrated by the USG? Suggesting " any " form of control is asinine.

No, I do not and that is my point, those citizens were taking matters into their own hands and they were taking care of the issue themselves, they potentially did not really need to involve the police. After all, The Constitution protects us from the government, not each other. If the control I speak of cannot be maintained by common decency and respect on their own accord then if a fellow citizen steps on the rights of another, then so be it.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by Skewed

 

there must be some form of control as well

Do you enjoy the ongoing injustices to your rights perpetrated by the USG? Suggesting " any " form of control is asinine.

Absolutely I totally agree with you. It's impossible to support freedom of speech while at the same time saying it needs to be controlled - that's double speak. Starred your post.

reply to post by DanUKphd


I don't respond lightly to someone calling me a liar. And just to prove my point, here are several "interviews" where this woman is spreading her hate:



Yeah, this first one is Fox News, but listen to her rant anyway.



Where she goes on another rant spreading her filth on CNN



Her praising the deaths of the Amish girls shot dead in Lancaster, PA a few years back.



Listen to the song that her daughters have been taught. Sick.


I could post another hundred videos on their filth, but I think I have proved my point.





Peace be with you.

-truthseeker

reply to post by Skewed


No one has a right to not be offended.

reply to post by Skewed


I think you are on the right track. As long as government officials are not attempting to restrict rights, such as detaining people, telling the tow trucks not to respond, encouraging people to forget what they saw, etc. I would view this as a non-violent (and very creative) counter demonstration. The bill of rights guarantees your rights against government infringement, not against "infringement" from other citizens.

reply to post by Doc Gator


And everyone should just overlook the crimes the citizens committed in the process right?

That makes it ok?

Originally posted by DanUKphd

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
reply to post by Skewed

 

there must be some form of control as well

Do you enjoy the ongoing injustices to your rights perpetrated by the USG? Suggesting " any " form of control is asinine.

Absolutely I totally agree with you. It's impossible to support freedom of speech while at the same time saying it needs to be controlled - that's double speak. Starred your post.

Thanks, but Im just saying. Someone wants to argue " rights " and " law ", a basic, fundamental understanding of said laws would help.

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Doc Gator

 

And everyone should just overlook the crimes the citizens committed in the process right?

That makes it ok?

And what were their crimes again.

I think I missed that part.