SCOTUS Deliberates Funeral Potests

[charles the hammer]

No insult there, it was an observation on what was ostensibly a post meant to share some insight, but failed to do anything and reflected on the lack of an issue this is, and more so the lack of a point the author of the post tried to make.

Your post on the ther hand, reflects the neanderthalic incompetence which is exhibited in nearly every post you've made (again your posts are neanderthalicly incompetant, not you as a person.) Further, it does nothing but project the lack of any form of constructive thought that your series of posts represents (again not you as an individual, but the common behavior in your exhibited by your posts.)

On the issue, it's essentially freedom of speech. Can't see why anyone is getting worked up about it. It's such a non issue, I find it hard to believe anyone really cares.

hmm, I was just making a observation, which ironically you go on to prove in your very next post. Thank you, it feels good to be correct. I just think you have no reason to call peoples post idiotic when your posts are the same if not worse, I am talking about this particular topic I do not care about your other posts.

[Pra]

I rest my case. Your posts make no logical sense, and your response bears no connection to my original post. Where did I question that you were making observations? I stated that my original post wasn't an insult, merely an observation.

Additionally, you continue the Off-Topic rant. You really have nothing constructive to say whatsoever.

Anywho, I repeat. It's essentially an issue regarding freedom of speech. Can't see why anyone is getting worked up about it. It's such a non issue, I find it hard to believe anyone really cares.

[charles the hammer]

I rest my case. Your posts make no logical sense, and your response bears no connection to my original post. Where did I question that you were making observations? I stated that my original post wasn't an insult, merely an observation.

Additionally, you continue the Off-Topic rant. You really have nothing constructive to say whatsoever.

Anywho, I repeat. It's essentially an issue regarding freedom of speech. Can't see why anyone is getting worked up about it. It's such a non issue, I find it hard to believe anyone really cares.

I had a constructive point, you have no room to criticize when your posts literally contribute nothing in themselves, and tend to be moronic. Which makes you a hypocrite. I can see why people care, never been a huge fan of free speech myself though.

[Gaidin]

never been a huge fan of free speech myself though.

To be honest, everyone says this until they have something they want to say.

[charles the hammer]

To be honest, everyone says this until they have something they want to say.

Not really

[Pra]

I had a constructive point, you have no room to criticize when your posts literally contribute nothing in themselves, and tend to be moronic. Which makes you a hypocrite. I can see why people care, never been a huge fan of free speech myself though.

First three sentences make no sense regarding the issue. It's a pretty funny defense mechanism though.

No that point isn't constructive though. I really can't see why people care. In the US, freedom of speech is sacrosanct. I don't care where you live, but here it is something we hold dear. It's such an open and shut case; I think it's moronic (again not you as an 'individual', but the general population) for people to get their feathers all ruffled over this.

[charles the hammer]

First three sentences make no sense regarding the issue. It's a pretty funny defense mechanism though.

No that point isn't constructive though. I really can't see why people care. In the US, freedom of speech is sacrosanct. I don't care where you live, but here it is something we hold dear. It's such an open and shut case; I think it's moronic (again not you as an 'individual', but the general population) for people to get their feathers all ruffled over this.

I am an American. I thought my sentences were fairly clear, but I guess I shouldnt really be taking advice on coherence from you. But fair enough this should end.

[Barry Goldwater]

Sadly the ers have been really really careful not to cross the line, so not much can be done against 'em and something called the law prevents me from showing up at one of their protests and giving them the beatings they so richly deserve.

However...

I would simply wait for members of the congregation to die...then organize HUGE, celebratory, anti-bigotry tailgater "wakes" to complement their services. Background CHORUS: Na naa...na na na naaa...hey hey hey, GOODBYE (you narrow-minded prick).

I like this idea.

[Pra]

I am an American. I thought my sentences were fairly clear, but I guess I shouldnt really be taking advice on coherence from you.

No you probably should. Your posts consistently go off-topic and lack any general form of logical thought.

Essentially you are saying 'you don't care for free speech, and I'm an American so that's valid'.
Great opinion. However, this is an issue of free speech. It doesn't matter whether you care for it or not. Your deeply myopic viewpoint, and probably your boiling blood (for what reason I have no idea) fails to inculcate the First Amendment. It is a deeply sacrosanct institution in our law.

To me it's an open and shut case. No elocutions necessary. The fact that you'd contest this makes it clear how unAmerican and subversive you really are to free expression.

Furthermore, the fact that you would continue to troll and flame me and consistently post off-topic shows how subversive you are to this message board.

[charles the hammer]

No you probably should. Your posts consistently go off-topic and lack any general form of logical thought.

Essentially you are saying 'you don't care for free speech, and I'm an American so that's valid'.
Great opinion. However, this is an issue of free speech. It doesn't matter whether you care for it or not. Your deeply myopic viewpoint, and probably your boiling blood (for what reason I have no idea) fails to inculcate the First Amendment. It is a deeply sacrosanct institution in our law.

To me it's an open and shut case. No elocutions necessary. The fact that you'd contest this makes it clear how unAmerican and subversive you really are to free expression. The fact that you would continue to troll me shows how subversive you are to this message board.

Never said that, you said I dont know where you are from, so I told you.

[Pra]

Where clearly where you are from, and the values you hold do not match. You can be an American by birth, but you clearly do not share our ideals.

Clearly, it is an open and shut case. Freedom of speech. End of discussion.

[charles the hammer]

Where clearly where you are from, and the values you hold do not match. You can be an American by birth, but you clearly do not share our ideals.

Clearly, it is an open and shut case. Freedom of speech. End of discussion.

Clearly that doesnt matter, you said that I used being American as a justification, which is clearly something you made up in your own mind. Plus I never said I hated Free speech or wanted it abolished I am just not a big fan of it. I mean if you want to go off on your own rants at least pick things to rant against that I said instead of making things up for it.
Now that I have said that, that is the last I will post on this issue, as you clearly do not like logic or reason, as it is off topic.

[Pra]

Clearly that doesnt matter, you said that I used being American as a justification, which is clearly something you made up in your own mind. Plus I never said I hated Free speech or wanted it abolished I am just not a big fan of it. I mean if you want to go off on your own rants at least pick things to rant against that I said instead of making things up for it.
Now that I have said that, that is the last I will post on this issue, as you clearly do not like logic or reason, as it is off topic.

Congratulations on completely losing the plot. And then conveniently retreating when you've been utterly defeated.

Trimming off all the excessive off-topicness from your post, the rants, and the flaming, you present no clear justification for your viewpoint. In fact you don't even present a viewpoint. All I can infer, and I say that loosely, based on your incoherant ranting, is that you are against the demonstrations. Which means you are inherently against freedom of speech.

That's all I can infer because you don't make any explicit point anywhere; you use the entire issue as a shield to insult me, therby demonstrating the neanderthalic incompetence inherent to your posts when faced with actually talking about the issue.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I'd rather not let the thread be trolljacked, so why don't the rest of the "neanderthals" in the room ignore trollish statements and move on. No doubt he'll earn a point for disruptive posting soon enough.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And instead of writing juvenile slurs, I will simply demonstrate who is mature and who is not by being the first to return to topic.

So, this is an interesting case for the new Surpreme Court, with Stevens out and Sotamayor and Kagan in. Being that there is such a strong emotional factor in this case it'll be interesting to see how they handle it.

Sadly the ers have been really really careful not to cross the line, so not much can be done against 'em and something called the law prevents me from showing up at one of their protests and giving them the beatings they so richly deserve.

That's just it. And it's interesting to me that some of the Justice's comments reveal a similar attitude. I just hope they don't act on it. Besides, I'm sure there'll be a sizeable crowd at Phelp's funeral.

Or, in perhaps an even greater putdown, maybe people will give his family the peace that they never gave to others.

By the way, Barry, I can't help but notice the parallels between your statement and what's going on in this thread with *ahem*, certain members.

[Pra]

Ooh subliminal jabs. That's interesting. What's more interesting is how you belabor a point that seems to be so much a non issue.

Honestly, I think almost everyone is in agreement that this is a Freedom of Speech issue. It's completely clear cut, yet you continue to use this issue as a shield to launch some poorly aimed *ahem* hidden insults.

I take back the statement I said earlier, even drivel would have been more purposeful than the above post. Or maybe we could talk about the same nonissue for another few pages.

Again I really how this isn't such an obvious open and shut case.

[Boyar Son]

Once again the twisted misanthropes at Westboro Baptist have managed to propel themselves into the headlines. It goes without saying what well-adjusted people think about this group, but I'm more interested in the apparent difficulty that the Supreme Court is having with this decision.



Source

The strangest statement I found here was the accusation that WBC has committed "psychological terrorism." I don't think I need to discuss what a slippery slope that can be.

I'm disturbed by the idea that the SCOTUS is searching their personal conscience to determine the limits of the First Amendment. I could see them rescinding the church's 501C3, sure. But lay out boundaries on what we can and cannot say? That's a fine line and I'd rather not let it hinge on 9 people's personal preferences.

What do you all think?

To think emotional damage cannot be as severe as physical damage is stupid. More and more people nowadays are being attacked verbally, setting off normal human reaction of anger. It's a matter of time before someone acts out what is natural to him.

I'd wonder what captain america would do about this?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Look, Pra I'll just say it once: if your posts are the measure of intelligence, than I am honored to be a dimwit. This discussion was going well before you came along; it will move on whether you troll or not. That is all.

To think emotional damage cannot be as severe as physical damage is stupid. More and more people nowadays are being attacked verbally, setting off normal human reaction of anger. It's a matter of time before someone acts out what is natural to him.

I'd wonder what captain america would do about this?

I see what you're saying; I hadn't thought of it that way. But where do we draw the line? How can emotional damage be quantified? How can we make a standard for what is acceptable and what is not. How do we make it consistent and ensure that it doesn't move too far one way or another?

It's a complex problem to say the least. But then, can we give up just because it's hard to measure, and not acknowledge real, ongoing emotional damage that is inflicted every day?

[Boyar Son]

Look, Pra I'll just say it once: if your posts are the measure of intelligence, than I am honored to be a dimwit. This discussion was going well before you came along; it will move on whether you troll or not. That is all.



I see what you're saying; I hadn't thought of it that way. But where do we draw the line? How can emotional damage be quantified? How can we make a standard for what is acceptable and what is not. How do we make it consistent and ensure that it doesn't move too far one way or another?

It's a complex problem to say the least. But then, can we give up just because it's hard to measure, and not acknowledge real, ongoing emotional damage that is inflicted every day?

There is no way to fix this; violence because of insults to honor will be around forever IMO. The best we can do is build coliseums that allow combat sports to satiate my thirst for blood.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I guess so. Yeah, sometimes I wonder if there isn't a place for special "discussions" in the back alley. But again those are the kind of thing you can't really regulate and there would be a lot of abuse.

So how do you think this particular case should go?

[Boyar Son]

I guess so. Yeah, sometimes I wonder if there isn't a place for special "discussions" in the back alley. But again those are the kind of thing you can't really regulate and there would be a lot of abuse.

So how do you think this particular case should go?

I think westboro church should seriously off. Freedom of speech or not. As if forbidding harsh words against grieving families will crack the walls of freedom.

As to random street fights because of insults

The best we can do is build coliseums that allow combat sports to satiate my thirst for blood.

EDIT: WAIT, Freedom=walls? My analogy is completely absurd....