NationStates Jolt Archive

It is unethical to take away rights because others don't have them. What is ethical is to give the same rights to those that don't have them as those that do have them. However, in order to does this, you have to take small steps in passing bills and this is a good first step. If you were to look at it on a global scale, it would be like taking away all of the rights the citizens of western democracies have because citizens of North Korea don't have those same rights. Afterall, its all or nothing:rolleyes:

Within ONE country, the government can act for equality. If it chooses not to do so, it's unethical. Again, it's not "taking away rights", it's giving them equally. Even under the arguable idea that not being offended is an actual right, it's a right or not for everyone or for none. Laws are not to be made to favor group X or group Y. The US can't claim to stand for equality if it treats its citizens unequally under the law.

Within ONE country, the government can act for equality. If it chooses not to do so, it's unethical. Again, it's not "taking away rights", it's giving them equally. Even under the arguable idea that not being offended is an actual right, it's a right or not for everyone or for none. Laws are not to be made to favor group X or group Y. The US can't claim to stand for equality if it treats its citizens unequally under the law.

Unfourtunately, the world doesn't run in a perfect manner. Things don't happen over night. While a bill giving everyone the right to a peaceful funeral will likely not be passed right now, one giving military families that right may be passed. Once the public gets more used to this idea then a new bill giving everyone that right can be passed. So basically you are saying that it is not worth sacraficing equality in the short term for greater rights and equality in the future?

Not if it's harrassment.

Protests aren't harassment. They may be in poor taste, but they aren't harassment. More than that, Harassment is another example of PC bullcrap. It's one thing if it's threats of harm (that's a crime), or sexual harassment (that's a crime too), but saying something that people don't like while you're on public property is not harassment. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Like I said, these people are in poor taste, and if counter protesters show up more power to them, but they have the right to speak their minds, however foul those minds may be.

Protests aren't harassment. They may be in poor taste, but they aren't harassment. More than that, Harassment is another example of PC bullcrap. It's one thing if it's threats of harm (that's a crime), or sexual harassment (that's a crime too), but saying something that people don't like while you're on public property is not harassment. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Like I said, these people are in poor taste, and if counter protesters show up more power to them, but they have the right to speak their minds, however foul those minds may be.

It's the same people that are sexually harrassing gays so i geuss they will all kinda filter out by that law anyway;)

It's the same people that are sexually harrassing gays so i geuss they will all kinda filter out by that law anyway;)


Once again: protesting their homosexuality, while despicable, is not illegal.

This is the definition I found:

sexual harassment n. unwanted sexual approaches (including touching, feeling, groping) and/or repeated unpleasant, degrading and/or sexist remarks directed toward an employee with the implied suggestion that the target's employment status, promotion or favorable treatment depend upon a positive response and/or "cooperation." Sexual harassment is a private nuisance, unfair labor practice, or, in some states, a civil wrong (tort) which may be the basis for a lawsuit against the individual who made the advances and against the employer who did not take steps to halt the harassment. A legal secretary recently won an award of more than $3 million against a prominent law firm for not controlling a partner notorious for his sexual harassment of female employees

So, unless they engage in those actions they won't be being punished either.

Don't get me wrong, I think these guys are evangelist zealots who are unquestionably evil, but I feel that its the duty of the government to make sure everyone get's their say, no matter how awful what they have to say is.

but I feel that its the duty of the government to make sure everyone get's their say, no matter how awful what they have to say is.

So you would say that a threat is allowable b/c it is just their say. (no need to respond im just being a dick)

Unfourtunately, the world doesn't run in a perfect manner. Things don't happen over night. While a bill giving everyone the right to a peaceful funeral will likely not be passed right now, one giving military families that right may be passed. Once the public gets more used to this idea then a new bill giving everyone that right can be passed. So basically you are saying that it is not worth sacraficing equality in the short term for greater rights and equality in the future?

1- I find it unlikely that the rights will be extended, because people will forget about the issue, AND because the same guys that want to introduce this measure to "protect the military" won't introduce any measure to "protect the gays", because they're republicans and they glorify one while hating another.

2- I find it likely, or, at least, possible, that the military, being granted a priviledge, will want more, and more, and more, until it "decides" to have the right to call which laws apply to whom. Instant dictatorship.

3- This isn't a "short term" sacrifice of equality. It's not needed, because it either will or won't withstand constitutional judgement, regardless of number of people affected. In fact, it'd be MORE likely to pass the Supreme Court if it's equal. Secondly, said "sacrifice" wouldn't result in equality afterwards either, as per point 1.

So you would say that a threat is allowable b/c it is just their say. (no need to respond im just being a dick)

No, it's a reasonable question. A threat, obviously, is an interesting case. A threat made in seriousness with reason to believe it can be carried out (or at least, no reason to believe it cannot) is reasonable evidence that a person is planning to carry it out. I believe that that falls under the broad definiiton of assault (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault).

The question is one of reasonable danger. If someone has been threatened with serious bodily harm, is it safe to allow the person who has made that threat to carry it out? Is it the responsibility of the law to prevent them from carrying it? In general, I'd say yes. That has the potential to be abused strongly (and some "0 tolerance policies" do, in fact, abuse it), but with proper control can be kept safe.

It's not so much one rule for the military and one for civilians. Legislating about free speech is always going to be a series of compromises, matching people's right to freedom against the potential for abuse and harm this can cause to individuals and society. Extended to only military funerals, in only a couple of cemeteries and on relatively infrequent occurances, you aren't materially affecting people's free speech. But if you try to extend that protest-free exclusion zone to every funeral at every church and cemetary in the country then you are seriously impinging into where and when people can freely protest.

Yes, I thought you'd spot that. I think to some degree a military has to feel privileged to some extent. It's sort of an extension of esprit de corps that soldiers should feel proud of their units and the technology they use and so on, but also that given the risk and responsibilty their jobs entail it is natural that they will feel superior to some extent.
Without some feeling of privilege or superiority to compensate for the risk your recruitment is going to bottom out and by and large your soldiers are going to lose confidence in their roles and their missions etc.
The trick is to keep this feeling balanced and directed. In the case of protest-free funerals for soldiers the loss incurred by the soldier in question so far outweighs the benefit given in return that soldiers aren't going to consider themselves too much advantaged by having it.
What it does do on the other hand is, while not giving any practical, abusable advantages to soldiers, it does show the military that the state is concerned by their sacrifices and reinforces the relationship of service and reward. And this limits the possibility of a disgruntled, unappreciated military deciding that it would get a better deal if it ruled the country for itself.

Not to mention this:
How many military coups has:
the US had since birth? None
Brazil had since its birth? too many to count

Our system works. We change it to make improvements. Any country where the military is treated like shit or where soldiers are made to feel their sacrifices mean squat, is more likely to have a military coup. Your country had coups cause of the way you treated your soldiers.

At least in America, soldiers can still vote. Even the ones deployed overseas. Does Brazil allow soldiers to vote? Highly doubtful given the strong antimilitary sentiment there, if Mr, heikoku is any indication.

That reminds me of the flag-burning issue. Quoting President Bartlett, from The West Wing, "is there a flag-burning epidemic in this country I didn't hear of?". Very few (read WBC) people actually do protest funerals. So, arguably, it's STILL a very minor change, considering that this law is basically being made because of ONE ultra-conservative group.



Ah, an actual challenge. You're answering my points with decent points, without "let's kiss some general ass" and, for that, I respect you to no end. I'd say our difference is basically between a view of "how the military would actually do its job without staging coups". This one point boils down to which one makes for a better military, and wether or not a "small" law, albeit clearly made with elections in mind, can make them feel empowered or superior - I admit you may have a point in the last lines of your post, but I also think I do have a point about the possibility of a slippery slope in this scenario. So, congrats, for you actually managed to make me wonder which one would be better in purely practical terms.

That said, there's the ethics issue too. The logic of a law applying only to a certain group is arguable, can be right or wrong, and two fine thought processes can lead to different answers, based solely on a hard-to-judge premise, as per your and mine very good points, but can we agree that it's ethically wrong to apply a law to a group and another law to another group, considering that neither did anything harmful to society (although the military has a tendancy to do harmful things to OTHER societies), and that, in all other issues, they are just alike, except for the presence of an uniform? If it's unethical but logical, is it ok to sacrifice ethics for the sake of keeping a few people that hold lots of power happy? If it's ethical, how to reconcile ethics and unequality? Equal for equals, unequal for unequals, sure, but are the Military actually unequals? If so, is it only because of the power they hold? What are the implications of this?
You sound like a socialist. You think everyone is absolutely equal. In America, we've already learned the lesson that there is no such thing as total equality. That is the source of our differences.

Once again: protesting their homosexuality, while despicable, is not illegal.

This is the definition I found:



So, unless they engage in those actions they won't be being punished either.

Don't get me wrong, I think these guys are evangelist zealots who are unquestionably evil, but I feel that its the duty of the government to make sure everyone get's their say, no matter how awful what they have to say is.
The conservatives are denouncing them so don't call them conservative and the christian church in universal has already denounced them. If you want to call them evangelicals, fine, just don't call them christian evangelicals.
Mr. Phelps is nothing less than an anti christ.

1- I find it unlikely that the rights will be extended, because people will forget about the issue, AND because the same guys that want to introduce this measure to "protect the military" won't introduce any measure to "protect the gays", because they're republicans and they glorify one while hating another.

2- I find it likely, or, at least, possible, that the military, being granted a priviledge, will want more, and more, and more, until it "decides" to have the right to call which laws apply to whom. Instant dictatorship.

3- This isn't a "short term" sacrifice of equality. It's not needed, because it either will or won't withstand constitutional judgement, regardless of number of people affected. In fact, it'd be MORE likely to pass the Supreme Court if it's equal. Secondly, said "sacrifice" wouldn't result in equality afterwards either, as per point 1.
Have you ever lived in the United States? Have you actually met many people in the American military. Unlike latin America, people in the US military don't have such high agendas. They just want support to get through each day. American soldiers are a humble lot.
There was case in the 30's where the corporations decided to try and get such a coup going so they could install a general who would be on their payroll. They didn't have many people to chose from cause America's military personel are very loyal to our constitution and our form of government. They found one general, and offered him a half million man army and lots of money and great power. You know what happened? His loyalty to his nation was stronger than the incentives he was offered. He reported their asses to Congress.

In fact, soldiers from the US have much more loyalty to their nation than people who never join the military. They have a much greater appreciation of the freedoms protected by the constitution because they payed the ultimate price for them. Nonmilitary people didn't pay anything. They got it for free just like they expect and think they have a right to get everything else for free too.

American soldiers are too humble and soft spoken and loyal to their country to support any calls for a military coup.

You sound like a socialist. You think everyone is absolutely equal. In America, we've already learned the lesson that there is no such thing as total equality. That is the source of our differences.

Equality in the face of LAW is a right. Mind you, a right socialists didn't give a shit about, and, seemingly, neither do you.

Not to mention this:
How many military coups has:
the US had since birth? None
Brazil had since its birth? too many to count

Our system works. We change it to make improvements. Any country where the military is treated like shit or where soldiers are made to feel their sacrifices mean squat, is more likely to have a military coup. Your country had coups cause of the way you treated your soldiers.

At least in America, soldiers can still vote. Even the ones deployed overseas. Does Brazil allow soldiers to vote? Highly doubtful given the strong antimilitary sentiment there, if Mr, heikoku is any indication.

Brazil allows military to vote, yes. And the reason we had one out of the two coups in our republic was the nice help of the US. The difference between your statements and Yossarian's is that Yossarian backs his up. We didn't have coups because of "treating our soldiers badly", and, if we did, it'd be no justification. We had coups because of political agendas and of a military being too empowered. Your assumption that I "hate the military" because I favor ethics and equality over kissing the ass of a group is flawed. I'd be against it if the favored group was "occultists", and I'm an occultist.

Have you ever lived in the United States? Have you actually met many people in the American military. Unlike latin America, people in the US military don't have such high agendas. They just want support to get through each day. American soldiers are a humble lot.
There was case in the 30's where the corporations decided to try and get such a coup going so they could install a general who would be on their payroll. They didn't have many people to chose from cause America's military personel are very loyal to our constitution and our form of government. They found one general, and offered him a half million man army and lots of money and great power. You know what happened? His loyalty to his nation was stronger than the incentives he was offered. He reported their asses to Congress.

In fact, soldiers from the US have much more loyalty to their nation than people who never join the military. They have a much greater appreciation of the freedoms protected by the constitution because they payed the ultimate price for them. Nonmilitary people didn't pay anything. They got it for free just like they expect and think they have a right to get everything else for free too.

American soldiers are too humble and soft spoken and loyal to their country to support any calls for a military coup.

In Latin America, the military has an agenda because the US helps them with it. And, if the US military is soft-spoken, then it shouldn't need a special law to KEEP THEM FROM becoming a group of coup-stagers, as you claimed in your other post. Pick a point and stick with it.

if you were saying goodbye to a love for the last time, would you like to to be interrupted by protesters who are calling you and your deceased loved one vile names?

In Latin America, the military has an agenda because the US helps them with it. And, if the US military is soft-spoken, then it shouldn't need a special law to KEEP THEM FROM becoming a group of coup-stagers, as you claimed in your other post. Pick a point and stick with it.
You ignored my question: Have you ever been in the United States?

if you were saying goodbye to a love for the last time, would you like to to be interrupted by protesters who are calling you and your deceased loved one vile names?

If you're a civilian under that same situation, would you like it?

You ignored my question: Have you ever been in the United States?

No. Yet I seem to have more knowledge of its history than you do. How about answering all my other points?

In fact, soldiers from the US have much more loyalty to their nation than people who never join the military. They have a much greater appreciation of the freedoms protected by the constitution because they payed the ultimate price for them. Nonmilitary people didn't pay anything. They got it for free just like they expect and think they have a right to get everything else for free too.

American soldiers are too humble and soft spoken and loyal to their country to support any calls for a military coup.

Yeah... And if you really believe those sweeping generalizations I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to you. :rolleyes:

No. Yet I seem to have more knowledge of its history than you do. How about answering all my other points?
Ha ha ha. Dude, history is my hobby. You clearly don't have a clue about the United States except for the propaganda you seem to be getting from your own government.
I will not answer your points cause pretty you are wrong on just about every account. I will just say that those who have been addressing them, are the ones who are right.
You've never been to America yet YOU are calling America an evil empire. You think America is just like your own nation. People have thought this for ages only to be proved wrong again and again and again....

America will never succomb to a coup. Again, our system of government and the character of our people make us immune to it. Unlike the people of most third world nations.

Seriously dude, this thread is supposed to be about letting people say goodbye in peace. You came in here to turn it into a bash America thread.
You keep ignoring every single point they've been making.

"Equality in the face of LAW is a right. Mind you, a right socialists didn't give a shit about, and, seemingly, neither do you.
Today 12:31 PM "
Do you deny that you said this? The reason the US is still around and still the land of the free and the greatest nation on earth, is that we recognize that things are not simple. We adapt to make our system more flexible.
As I've stated earlier, the fact that the law only addresses military funerals is due to the seperation of powers between the state and federal governments. Unlike Brazil, the US federal government does not have much power to tell the states what to do. In this case, it covers military and presidential funerals because those are basically the ones that the federal government can cover. The other funerals don't fall under federal jurisdiction. They fall under state and local government jurisdiction. The federal government cannot force them to pass laws. Protection for civilian funerals is something that has to be done by the states. The feds don't have the authority to do it.

If the entire millitary ( the ones you want "honored") has their life put on the line every day we should be re evaluating how much we use our miliatary cause there is no reason to be using our millitary that much

But of course you were just saying it to make them sound as noble as possible
I don't fully agree with you but that is not topical, the fact is that they are putting their lives on the line for the United States and your right to speak aginst afore mentioned policys and should recive our respect and thanks for that service.

Yeah... And if you really believe those sweeping generalizations I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to you. :rolleyes:
They are sweeping generalizations that tend to be true. If you've never been in the military, you just can't reach the level of appreciation for our freedom that you would get if you was in the military. The only group in America, that has a comparable level of appreciation are the immigrants who become US citizens because they've come from countries where they don't have the freedoms we enjoy. Our military tends to get deployed to those same places and sees the shit those governments do to their people.
The British, Australians and Canadians are (generalizing) the only two nations on earth who give their people comparable freedoms.

They are sweeping generalizations that tend to be true. If you've never been in the military, you just can't reach the level of appreciation for our freedom that you would get if you was in the military. The only group in America, that has a comparable level of appreciation are the immigrants who become US citizens because they've come from countries where they don't have the freedoms we enjoy. Our military tends to get deployed to those same places and sees the shit those governments do to their people.
The British, Australians and Canadians are (generalizing) the only two nations on earth who give their people comparable freedoms.

I look at it like this,

The three groups of people that vote in the highest percentages are senior citizens, immigrants, and the military.

They realize what they have and what it stands for.

Ha ha ha. Dude, history is my hobby. You clearly don't have a clue about the United States except for the propaganda you seem to be getting from your own government.
I will not answer your points cause pretty you are wrong on just about every account. I will just say that those who have been addressing them, are the ones who are right.
You've never been to America yet YOU are calling America an evil empire. You think America is just like your own nation. People have thought this for ages only to be proved wrong again and again and again....

America will never succomb to a coup. Again, our system of government and the character of our people make us immune to it. Unlike the people of most third world nations.

Seriously dude, this thread is supposed to be about letting people say goodbye in peace. You came in here to turn it into a bash America thread.
You keep ignoring every single point they've been making.

"Equality in the face of LAW is a right. Mind you, a right socialists didn't give a shit about, and, seemingly, neither do you.
Today 12:31 PM "
Do you deny that you said this? The reason the US is still around and still the land of the free and the greatest nation on earth, is that we recognize that things are not simple. We adapt to make our system more flexible.
As I've stated earlier, the fact that the law only addresses military funerals is due to the seperation of powers between the state and federal governments. Unlike Brazil, the US federal government does not have much power to tell the states what to do. In this case, it covers military and presidential funerals because those are basically the ones that the federal government can cover. The other funerals don't fall under federal jurisdiction. They fall under state and local government jurisdiction. The federal government cannot force them to pass laws. Protection for civilian funerals is something that has to be done by the states. The feds don't have the authority to do it.
thank you Whittier

Ha ha ha. Dude, history is my hobby. You clearly don't have a clue about the United States except for the propaganda you seem to be getting from your own government.
I will not answer your points cause pretty you are wrong on just about every account. I will just say that those who have been addressing them, are the ones who are right.
You've never been to America yet YOU are calling America an evil empire. You think America is just like your own nation. People have thought this for ages only to be proved wrong again and again and again....

America will never succomb to a coup. Again, our system of government and the character of our people make us immune to it. Unlike the people of most third world nations.

Seriously dude, this thread is supposed to be about letting people say goodbye in peace. You came in here to turn it into a bash America thread.
You keep ignoring every single point they've been making.

"Equality in the face of LAW is a right. Mind you, a right socialists didn't give a shit about, and, seemingly, neither do you.
Today 12:31 PM "
Do you deny that you said this? The reason the US is still around and still the land of the free and the greatest nation on earth, is that we recognize that things are not simple. We adapt to make our system more flexible.
As I've stated earlier, the fact that the law only addresses military funerals is due to the seperation of powers between the state and federal governments. Unlike Brazil, the US federal government does not have much power to tell the states what to do. In this case, it covers military and presidential funerals because those are basically the ones that the federal government can cover. The other funerals don't fall under federal jurisdiction. They fall under state and local government jurisdiction. The federal government cannot force them to pass laws. Protection for civilian funerals is something that has to be done by the states. The feds don't have the authority to do it.

You study History? Right. Let's check your skill, shall we? You:

- Actually believe the Brazilian Government can feed propaganda to people (it can't, and the media is very much pro-US);
- Believe I'm bashing the US by asking for equal rights to civilians under the law (I'm not, but suggesting that the Military gets off its damn pedestal is just like it to you, so tough);
- Believe that Brazil isn't a federal system (it is, even though states have less autonomy than in the US, which also prevents Bahia from going Missouri and officializing God);
- Failed to account for all the violations against its own citizens, and citizens of several OTHER countries, by the US government (You really should, considering it's the main point I made, against which you offered squat);
- Failed to remember that SOCIALIST countries do have those that run them as people above the law, while democracies do not (South African Apartheid is another example of how well giving rights to only a certain group works);
- Decided to, instead of answering my points, state a priori that I'm wrong and not offer any support for what you said, relying on other people for "your" points (Using "what he said" as a point won't get you anywhere in an argument).

You're a piece of work, Whittier.

You know, I went on leave back in December. The differences in the receptions from Californians and Texans stood out to me.
In Texas and Georgia, we were warmly greeted. People were thanking us for our service to our nation.
A couple of us were going to California to be with our families. Well, when we got to LA you know what happened. Let me tell what happened, in LA people were mad dogging us and talking shit about us behind our backs and in whispers. It's pretty clear from that that Californians care much less about people in the military and have less respect for us than people in Georgia and Texas do.
What the hell is it with Californians? Is it because the state has been overrun by illegals who taking over the state government and everything else there?

thank you Whittier

Okay, this guy's first and second post are on this forum. I'm calling Whittier's clone. Anyone?

I look at it like this,

The three groups of people that vote in the highest percentages are senior citizens, immigrants, and the military.

They realize what they have and what it stands for.
yes. That is exactly my point.

You know, I went on leave back in December. The differences in the receptions from Californians and Texans stood out to me.
In Texas and Georgia, we were warmly greeted. People were thanking us for our service to our nation.
A couple of us were going to California to be with our families. Well, when we got to LA you know what happened. Let me tell what happened, in LA people were mad dogging us and talking shit about us behind our backs and in whispers. It's pretty clear from that that Californians care much less about people in the military and have less respect for us than people in Georgia and Texas do.
What the hell is it with Californians? Is it because the state has been overrun by illegals who taking over the state government and everything else there?

Oh, sure, no way it can be because California despises what Bush is doing right now. For that matter, it's obviously reasonable to insult an entire state because one or two of your peers didn't get their boots licked by its people. Heh.

You know, I went on leave back in December. The differences in the receptions from Californians and Texans stood out to me.
In Texas and Georgia, we were warmly greeted. People were thanking us for our service to our nation.
A couple of us were going to California to be with our families. Well, when we got to LA you know what happened. Let me tell what happened, in LA people were mad dogging us and talking shit about us behind our backs and in whispers. It's pretty clear from that that Californians care much less about people in the military and have less respect for us than people in Georgia and Texas do.
What the hell is it with Californians? Is it because the state has been overrun by illegals who taking over the state government and everything else there?
Mmmmm anecdotal evidence .... yummy

America will never succomb to a coup.

too late

Again, our system of government and the character of our people make us immune to it.

and here is the thinking that is allowing it to happen. fucking ridiculous, naive, "can't happen here" bullshit.

too late



and here is the thinking that is allowing it to happen. fucking ridiculous, naive, "can't happen here" bullshit.

Yeah, I was thinking about the guy that said "there won't ever be any terrorist attacks in the US" in September 10, 2001...

Okay, this guy's first and second post are on this forum. I'm calling Whittier's clone. Anyone?
No. I just happen to be in the ROTC and we most likly share many veiws and experiences, I live in Texas but Austin is very much like LA near the UT campus and going there in uniform is, shal we say, an adventure.

No. I just happen to be in the ROTC and we most likly share many veiws and experiences, I live in Texas but Austin is very much like LA near the UT campus and going there in uniform is, shal we say, an adventure.

Oh, right. Lessee, your third post here, your life is "just like" his, and you agree with everything he said while not being able to add anything of yours at all... You're either his clone or his Mary Sue.

none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.

Homosexuals sure have done a lot to preserve your rights havent they? :rolleyes:

You study History? Right. Let's check your skill, shall we? You:

- Actually believe the Brazilian Government can feed propaganda to people (it can't, and the media is very much pro-US);
- Believe I'm bashing the US by asking for equal rights to civilians under the law (I'm not, but suggesting that the Military gets off its damn pedestal is just like it to you, so tough);
- Believe that Brazil isn't a federal system (it is, even though states have less autonomy than in the US, which also prevents Bahia from going Missouri and officializing God);
- Failed to account for all the violations against its own citizens, and citizens of several OTHER countries, by the US government (You really should, considering it's the main point I made, against which you offered squat);
- Failed to remember that SOCIALIST countries do have those that run them as people above the law, while democracies do not (South African Apartheid is another example of how well giving rights to only a certain group works);
- Decided to, instead of answering my points, state a priori that I'm wrong and not offer any support for what you said, relying on other people for "your" points (Using "what he said" as a point won't get you anywhere in an argument).

You're a piece of work, Whittier.
1. Are you going to blame your anti americanism on the propaganda spewed by your universities and your political party then?
2. The military is not on a pedestal. You are the only one here claiming that it is and you've admitted you've never been to America.
3. That fact alone means that Brazil can't compare to the US in levels of freedoms and rights. All politics is local, the federal role should be limited. That's the way it has been in the US historically. In Brazil, as you've admitted, the federal government can tell the states what to do in just about everything.
4. We are not perfect but we are capable of adjusting. When a flaw is found we fix it through Constitutional amendment. Something only the states and the citizens of the states can do. Neither our President nor our Congress can change the Constitution. In fact, our President really has no say in the matter. If you know so much more than we do about our own history, you will know that the fact is, that while some groups have lacked the same rights as others, we've corrected it over time. The issue of gay marriage will be no different. Unlike in Brazil or France, it doesn't take massive riots or revolts for political change to come or for rights to be expanded to cover more groups. We make the changes peacefully, either with peaceful protests or through political insiding. Look at civil rights, we had a problem with applying it to all groups equally. But those rights were expanded to them without force or violence. I noted it was your main point when I pointed out that you were trying to turn this into one of your bash America threads.
5. Hey, if you knew so much, you would know that having a democracy doesn't guarantee that you won't have people in government trying to abuse their power. The difference is that in America, we have a process for dealing with such people. When the President gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by the Supreme Court we don't have to worry that he'll jail the justices or that he'll abolish Congress and seize all power for himself. As bitter as the fight between the dems and the reps and the anti war and pro war americans, you won't see a civil war or coup in America because we Americans settle even our bitterest differences peacefully.
6. I don't need to address your points if they've already been done by someone who has been a pretty good job of it. The fact is you are losing your argument, I'm the weakest link against your position and naturally, you are trying to attack the weakest link by pulling me into your trap. I won't fall for it.

The fact that my arguments are indeed not as eloquent as those stated by everyone else here, does not detract from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

Homosexuals sure have done a lot to preserve your rights havent they? :rolleyes:

It's more that it's alright to have special anti-discrimination laws for gays and other traditional "leftist" groups, but not for a "rightist" group.

Just like there were "rightists" that opposed Phelps but where are all the "leftists" denouncing Phelps for protesting these funerals.

Hypocrisy goes both ways.

Oh, sure, no way it can be because California despises what Bush is doing right now. For that matter, it's obviously reasonable to insult an entire state because one or two of your peers didn't get their boots licked by its people. Heh.
Do you even know what you are talking about here? Not Californians despise Bush. As it wasn't all Californians who were talking trash. But it was a lot of them. I got one person who talked well of the military.

Oh, right. Lessee, your third post here, your life is "just like" his, and you agree with everything he said while not being able to add anything of yours at all... You're either his clone or his Mary Sue.
Do you know anything or are you just trying to be a troll. If he was my clone, niether of us would still be here because the rules don't allow for the use clones to support ones argument in general. And I don't think the mods would have much tolerance for people who would use puppets in such a manner.
Besides which, it is for the moderators to decide if any one is breaking a rule here, not you. And they have much better ways of telling if someone is using a puppet than you do.

Homosexuals sure have done a lot to preserve your rights havent they? :rolleyes:
Don't knock him. His point is valid and I agree with it.

I find it sad that someone would assume that these "protesters" were left wingnuts. I find Phelps even more sad.
Who is Phelps?
BOISE, Idaho -- A Kansas preacher and gay rights foe whose congregation is protesting military funerals around the country said he's coming to Idaho today to picket the memorial for an Idaho National Guard soldier killed in Iraq.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps' church six years ago.

"We're coming," Phelps said Monday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Westboro Baptist either has protested or is planning protests of other public funerals of soldiers from Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado. A protest is planned for July 11 at Dover Air Force Base, the military base where war dead are transported before being sent on to their home states.
Phelps gained national notoriety in 1998 when he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming.

Since then, Phelps said his church has been the target of hateful words and actions, including a bomb attack six years ago.

Phelps' church has picketed the funerals of AIDS victims for more than a decade.

French, 19, was a Caldwell High School graduate and varsity cheerleader. She was killed June 5 in the northern city of Kirkuk. French served as an ammunition specialist with the 116th Brigade Combat Team's 145th Support Battalion.

Phelps said the fact that French led an all-American life gives him all the more reason to picket her final public tribute.

"An all-American girl from a society of all-American heretics," he said.

"Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.

Caldwell Police Chief Bob Sobba said he cannot bar Phelps from going to the public funeral, which is scheduled for 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Albertson College of Idaho in that city.

"While we respect Mr. Phelps' right to protest, we would hope that he would respect the family and friends of this young person by not disrupting the memorial," Sobba said.

Idaho Air National Guard Lt. Tony Vincelli, acting as spokesman for French's family, said there were no plans to change the funeral arrangements.

The Rev. Brian Fischer, pastor of Boise's Community Church of the Valley, and himself a past target of protest by the Westboro Baptist Church, decried Phelps' plan.

"What Phelps is doing is a reprehensible thing, to take a funeral and turn it into a photo op for his hate cause," Fischer said. "We hope everyone will ignore Phelps' group."

In 2003, Phelps demanded that he be allowed to erect an anti-gay monument in a Boise public park. To avoid a lawsuit from his group, city officials voted in 2004 that a Ten Commandments monument be moved out of the park to a private setting.

BEDFORD - A controversial Kansas church plans to bring its protests to Bedford.

The Westboro Baptist Church announced Tuesday it will picket the Dive Christian Church at 10 a.m. Nov. 6.

The protest is against Sen. Brent Steele, whom the Kansas church has labeled a “lawless, God-hating demagogue.” Steele, meanwhile, is asking residents to “turn their backs” on the protesters should they come to Bedford.

The church is reacting to Steele's plans for new legislation. He wants to make it a felony to commit disorderly conduct at military funerals.

His action is in response to a protest the Westboro church staged in Martinsville Aug. 27 during funeral services for Army Staff Sgt. Jermey Doyle.

Church members held up signs reading “USA=Fag Nation” and “God blew up the troops” outside Doyle's funeral. Westboro church members argue the war in Iraq and the deaths of American troops are God's punishment for a nation that is too accepting of gays.

Steele called the protest “emotional battery.”

The church reacted quickly. It posted a news release on its Web site announcing the protest at Dive, where Steele is a member, and at First Baptist Church, St. John's Episcopal Church and St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church “for creating an evil zeitgeist wherein such a vile, pro-gay person could be elected as a state senator.”

Steele, a conservative Republican, urged Bedford residents not to react to church members should they follow through with the protest plans.

“Just turn your backs on these people and take the high roads,” he said.



“They worship a different God than I worship, I can tell you that.”

Steele - who has drawn criticism from some homosexuals for voting against gay-marriage rights - said he received a copy of the announcement by fax at his Bedford law office Tuesday afternoon.

“God Hates Fags & Fag-Enablers,” the release says in part. “Ero, God hates Steele, Dive, Indiana, America and the Military.”

The Westboro church is run by the Rev. Fred Phelps, who has gained national notoriety for his strong anti-gay views. Among the many anti-gay pronouncements on the church's Web site is an assertion that Hurricane Katrina is another of God's punishments for the United States.

Various press reports estimate that the church has as few as 150 members.

The Topeka Capital-Journal has extensive reports about Phelps and the church.

Phelps grew up in Mississippi, where he graduated high school with honors and earned the rank of Eagle Scout. He became an attorney and received several civil rights awards for representing minorities.

Now disbarred from the practice of law, Phelps and his followers travel the nation with their picket signs.

1. Are you going to blame your anti americanism on the propaganda spewed by your universities and your political party then?

Prove I'm anti-american. And our universities are fine, but your anti-intellectualism is showing.

2. The military is not on a pedestal. You are the only one here claiming that it is and you've admitted you've never been to America.

You put it in a pedestal, and decide to claim I'm anti-US instead of fighting my points.

3. That fact alone means that Brazil can't compare to the US in levels of freedoms and rights. All politics is local, the federal role should be limited. That's the way it has been in the US historically. In Brazil, as you've admitted, the federal government can tell the states what to do in just about everything.

It can't, and I've made no claim to it. But twist my words, why don't you? If you think it might help you have a chance against me, by all means...

4. We are not perfect but we are capable of adjusting. When a flaw is found we fix it through Constitutional amendment. Something only the states and the citizens of the states can do. Neither our President nor our Congress can change the Constitution. In fact, our President really has no say in the matter. If you know so much more than we do about our own history, you will know that the fact is, that while some groups have lacked the same rights as others, we've corrected it over time. The issue of gay marriage will be no different. Unlike in Brazil or France, it doesn't take massive riots or revolts for political change to come or for rights to be expanded to cover more groups. We make the changes peacefully, either with peaceful protests or through political insiding. Look at civil rights, we had a problem with applying it to all groups equally. But those rights were expanded to them without force or violence. I noted it was your main point when I pointed out that you were trying to turn this into one of your bash America threads.

"My bash America threads". Thats rich, trying to pin a label on me by claiming I'm anti-US when I'm pro-equality and you're the one acting like an anti-democratic agent when you want rights only for some people. Also, Brazilians don't need to riot for changes, and I don't know in which hole you read that.

5. Hey, if you knew so much, you would know that having a democracy doesn't guarantee that you won't have people in government trying to abuse their power. The difference is that in America, we have a process for dealing with such people. When the President gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar by the Supreme Court we don't have to worry that he'll jail the justices or that he'll abolish Congress and seize all power for himself. As bitter as the fight between the dems and the reps and the anti war and pro war americans, you won't see a civil war or coup in America because we Americans settle even our bitterest differences peacefully.

The same principle applied to Brazil, up to March 30, 1964, and does apply now, after 1984.

6. I don't need to address your points if they've already been done by someone who has been a pretty good job of it. The fact is you are losing your argument, I'm the weakest link against your position and naturally, you are trying to attack the weakest link by pulling me into your trap. I won't fall for it.

You're claiming to be the weakest link? Fine, you said it, not me. I'm answering to whoever talks to me, and you're it right now. You have no points whatsoever to add to what anyone here said, so you decided to go "he hates America" on me to try and ad hominem me. Liar.

The fact that my arguments are indeed not as eloquent as those stated by everyone else here, does not detract from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.

That would be true if I ACTUALLY didn't know what I'm talking about. The fact that your arguments are not as eloquent as anyone else's have no reflex on me, it just means you're less intelligent than everyone else.

Do you know anything or are you just trying to be a troll. If he was my clone, niether of us would still be here because the rules don't allow for the use clones to support ones argument in general. And I don't think the mods would have much tolerance for people who would use puppets in such a manner.
Besides which, it is for the moderators to decide if any one is breaking a rule here, not you. And they have much better ways of telling if someone is using a puppet than you do.

You're a piece of work, Whittier. You claimed I hate the US twice and YOU call ME a troll. Really. Also, considering you have been banned at least once, you're not one to tell about following rules, now are you?

Homosexuals sure have done a lot to preserve your rights havent they? :rolleyes:
Yes they have ... I had a homosexual buddie save my life one day in a fight ... (granted the fight STARTED by a couple of asses picking on him (and yes one was military but he was an ass before then anyway ... knew him))

He most deffinatly protected my right to life ... and with how the fight turned out (me being knifed in the back) I hope that I did my part to make sure that his right to life was preserved as well

Don't knock him. His point is valid and I agree with it.

Yet you don't seem to care enough to give homosexuals said rights.

It's more that it's alright to have special anti-discrimination laws for gays and other traditional "leftist" groups, but not for a "rightist" group.

Just like there were "rightists" that opposed Phelps but where are all the "leftists" denouncing Phelps for protesting these funerals.

Hypocrisy goes both ways.
I am right here ... I dont know if you are listning but we have been saying nothing other then bad things about the fucktard (phelps)

I dont know if you are just not hearing us cause we are not opposing the rights (for the most part) on this one or what but I have heard no change in the vast majority oposition to that man and what he represents

It's more that it's alright to have special anti-discrimination laws for gays and other traditional "leftist" groups, but not for a "rightist" group.

Just like there were "rightists" that opposed Phelps but where are all the "leftists" denouncing Phelps for protesting these funerals.

Hypocrisy goes both ways.

EVERYONE denounced Phelps, including, yes, leftists, but you choose to ignore the evidence. Nice. Everyone has the right not to be discriminated, INCLUDING CIVILIANS. The Right tends to have the majority groups: Whites, Christians, etc. and you DO have laws protecting them, including ultra-right-wing Fred Phelps himself. So, what's your point?

I am right here ... I dont know if you are listning but we have been saying nothing other then bad things about the fucktard (phelps)

I dont know if you are just not hearing us cause we are not opposing the rights (for the most part) on this one or what but I have heard no change in the vast majority oposition to that man and what he represents

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

Fass made the comment that there were NO "rightists" that opposed Phelps in the past when there were many. I was trying to make the point that it was somewhat hypocritical in that not every "leftist" has jumped on this thread to denounce him.

I also put "rightist" and "leftist" in quotes to show what I think about that bit of pidgeon-holing.

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

Fass made the comment that there were NO "rightists" that opposed Phelps in the past when there were many. I was trying to make the point that it was somewhat hypocritical in that not every "leftist" has jumped on this thread to denounce him.

I also put "rightist" and "leftist" in quotes to show what I think about that bit of pidgeon-holing.
Ok cool I get it now :)

It's more that it's alright to have special anti-discrimination laws for gays and other traditional "leftist" groups, but not for a "rightist" group.

Since when are a nation's armed forces considered political?

I think you should rein in your enthusiasm - until the US military starts publicly backing candidates in elections, that is.

EVERYONE denounced Phelps, including, yes, leftists, but you choose to ignore the evidence. Nice. Everyone has the right not to be discriminated, INCLUDING CIVILIANS. The Right tends to have the majority groups: Whites, Christians, etc. and you DO have laws protecting them, including ultra-right-wing Fred Phelps himself. So, what's your point?

You just made my point. EVERYONE denounced Phelps. Fass claimed no "rightists" did. I pointed out that not every single "leftist" on NS has jumped on this thread.

Would you care to show me the laws that specifically protect "whites, christians, etc".?

I get a kick out of the fact that I call both sides hypocrites and I'm getting jumped on by those denouncing "rightists". How telling.

Since when are a nation's armed forces considered political?

Being the fact that the majority of the military is considered "right" and primarily votes republican.

I think you should rein in your enthusiasm - until the US military starts publicly backing candidates in elections, that is.

And what enthusiasm would that be? Can this red-herring go any farther?

You just made my point. EVERYONE denounced Phelps. Fass claimed no "rightists" did. I pointed out that not every single "leftist" on NS has jumped on this thread.

Would you care to show me the laws that specifically protect "whites, christians, etc".?

I get a kick out of the fact that I call both sides hypocrites and I'm getting jumped on by those denouncing "rightists". How telling.

No laws specifically protect gays either, they say that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sexual option. Which means, a straight couple that got mistreated in a gay bar could sue based on that same law.

No laws specifically protect gays either, they say that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sexual option. Which means, a straight couple that got mistreated in a gay bar could sue based on that same law.

There ARE laws based on particular groups. Here's just a few:

http://www.prideagenda.org/pride/discriminationmap.pdf#search='anti%20discrimination%20laws'

You said that there are laws specifically for "Cristians, whites, etc." I asked you to point those out. Are you now saying thier aren't any.

Most Anti-discrimination laws were put into place to protect traditionally "leftist" groups even though they can be used by both.

There ARE laws based on particular groups. Here's just a few:

http://www.prideagenda.org/pride/discriminationmap.pdf#search='anti%20discrimination%20laws'

You said that there are laws specifically for "Cristians, whites, etc." I asked you to point those out. Are you now saying thier aren't any.

Most Anti-discrimination laws were put into place to protect traditionally "leftist" groups even though they can be used by both.
While I think thoes laws should be reworded to be universal most deffinatly can you honestly blame them? while they may be "left" they are also the groups that were most discriminated against ... or at least most severly. sometimes people end up being prudent rather then doing everything correctly

I would like to correct that now but I dont expressly blame them for a lot of it

There ARE laws based on particular groups. Here's just a few:

http://www.prideagenda.org/pride/discriminationmap.pdf#search='anti%20discrimination%20laws'

You said that there are laws specifically for "Cristians, whites, etc." I asked you to point those out. Are you now saying thier aren't any.

Most Anti-discrimination laws were put into place to protect traditionally "leftist" groups even though they can be used by both.

Can the statutes to allow for teaching ID apply?

Also, can this law be used by civilians?

While I think thoes laws should be reworded to be universal most deffinatly can you honestly blame them? while they may be "left" they are also the groups that were most discriminated against ... or at least most severly. sometimes people end up being prudent rather then doing everything correctly

I would like to correct that now but I dont expressly blame them for a lot of it

The Military has been nothing but glorified by those in power. Blacks, gays and others, on the other hand...

You just made my point. EVERYONE denounced Phelps. Fass claimed no "rightists" did. I pointed out that not every single "leftist" on NS has jumped on this thread.

Would you care to show me the laws that specifically protect "whites, christians, etc".?

I get a kick out of the fact that I call both sides hypocrites and I'm getting jumped on by those denouncing "rightists". How telling.
Now you know how *I* feel! :D

While I think thoes laws should be reworded to be universal most deffinatly can you honestly blame them? while they may be "left" they are also the groups that were most discriminated against ... or at least most severly. sometimes people end up being prudent rather then doing everything correctly

I would like to correct that now but I dont expressly blame them for a lot of it

I don't blame them at all. I also agree the wording should be made more universal.

The opposite then is that it is military funerals that are being targeted. How many of the individuals complaining now would have complained had a law been passed barring protests at gay funerals? Would they have cried "discrimination" or "barring freedom of speech"? While I think a broader law would be better, it would follow the precedent of previous laws to make individual protections first.

Can the statutes to allow for teaching ID apply?

Also, can this law be used by civilians?

Now that there have been decisions barring ID in several states and preventing the 10 commandments except in a non-religious setting, the arguement is weak.

Being that it's the military funerals that are being targetted, the law is specific at this point.

Would you oppose a law that barred protests at gay funerals if it couldn't be used by "straights"?

I don't blame them at all. I also agree the wording should be made more universal.

The opposite then is that it is military funerals that are being targeted. How many of the individuals complaining now would have complained had a law been passed barring protests at gay funerals? Would they have cried "discrimination" or "barring freedom of speech"? While I think a broader law would be better, it would follow the precedent of previous laws to make individual protections first.
Well I cant speek for everyone but most I know would be protesting if there is any ban on free speach

I hate this guy but personaly I would be protesting any law that restricted even his detested speach

It just adds a bit more salt to the wounds that it is not universal

Being the fact that the majority of the military is considered "right" and primarily votes republican.



And what enthusiasm would that be? Can this red-herring go any farther?
but how the majority of the soldiers vote is telling of the kind of people who decide to join the military not the position or the organization, it is individual choice who they vote for.

Would you oppose a law that barred protests at gay funerals if it couldn't be used by "straights"?

I would, but that might be because, while being straight, I'm also an occultist, which is ALSO the kind of group fundies would attack. However, I think I still would if I were a WASP, as well.

actually the military have been granted speical laws in the pass, think of the GI bill (part of Johnson's New Deal) for example that gave a chance for military personal to go to college. They passed that because military people were being discrimated against and not allowed to return to their jobs, plus the horror of war left many world war 1 vets homeless

So i wouldn't mind a law for military personal is passed. Only wackos protest soldiers funerals. Most protesters aim their anger at the US government. Soldiers deserve speical laws because they put their life online for the nation and go to war with no questions ask

Also not all freedom of speech is allowed. Speech that is racist, fight words, sexual remarks, and insults are not free speeh according to pass rulings of SCOUS

But then again its discrimnation to allow one group of people speical protection and not others, plus the freedom of speech is at risk.

I don't know if this new law pass and is questioned...it would be interested to see how the Supreme court rules

Well I cant speek for everyone but most I know would be protesting if there is any ban on free speach

I hate this guy but personaly I would be protesting any law that restricted even his detested speach

It just adds a bit more salt to the wounds that it is not universal

Honestly, I'm of mixed opinion on it. I don't like the idea of restrictions on freedom of speech but I also can see it in a "intended to instigate" light.

Personally, I'ld like to see a group pound the crap out of them and a judge fine the"attackers" $1.

I had something like that happen to a guy in the military. A guy was beating his wife. Some of his buddies found out, stuffed him in a foot locker and defenestrated him. The CO fined the $1 each and shook their hands.

Honestly, I'm of mixed opinion on it. I don't like the idea of restrictions on freedom of speech but I also can see it in a "intended to instigate" light.

Personally, I'ld like to see a group pound the crap out of them and a judge fine the"attackers" $1.

I had something like that happen to a guy in the military. A guy was beating his wife. Some of his buddies found out, stuffed him in a foot locker and defenestrated him. The CO fined the $1 each and shook their hands.
Yeah Idealy of course I would like to see the absence of restrictions while still making it easy for people to do what I view as the right thing

I just place a stronger epmphasis on the freedom part

Yeah Idealy of course I would like to see the absence of restrictions while still making it easy for people to do what I view as the right thing

I just place a stronger epmphasis on the freedom part

I'm seeing his "freedoms" as coming into contact w/ my nose, if you get the reference.

I'm seeing his "freedoms" as coming into contact w/ my nose, if you get the reference.
Personaly if I were a judge I would comend you most deffinatly, but I would be bound to follow the letter of the law which I think is (fairly) right ... assult laws

I just wish there was a better solution sometimes

They are sweeping generalizations that tend to be true. If you've never been in the military, you just can't reach the level of appreciation for our freedom that you would get if you was in the military.
Right... I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe a word of your unsubstantiated arguement.

The only group in America, that has a comparable level of appreciation are the immigrants who become US citizens because they've come from countries where they don't have the freedoms we enjoy. Our military tends to get deployed to those same places and sees the shit those governments do to their people.
The British, Australians and Canadians are (generalizing) the only two nations on earth who give their people comparable freedoms.
That's three nations, and I have no idea what you're getting at. What freedoms are the Swedish denied by their government, in your opinion? Or the Dutch, for that matter?

Right... I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe a word of your unsubstantiated arguement. That's three nations, and I have no idea what you're getting at. What freedoms are the Swedish denied by their government, in your opinion? Or the Dutch, for that matter?

Unsubstantiated is all he has.

And following with your last line: "Or the Brazilians, for that matter?"

actually the military have been granted speical laws in the pass, think of the GI bill (part of Johnson's New Deal) for example that gave a chance for military personal to go to college. They passed that because military people were being discrimated against and not allowed to return to their jobs, plus the horror of war left many world war 1 vets homeless

The GI bill of Rights wasn't in direct violation of the First Ammendment. The difference is that this law is.

So i wouldn't mind a law for military personal is passed. Only wackos protest soldiers funerals. Most protesters aim their anger at the US government. Soldiers deserve speical laws because they put their life online for the nation and go to war with no questions ask

I believe that the the old quote is "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Soldiers do not deserve rights that crush the rights of others. To say so is direct hypocrisy. These people fight to protect our rights. Doesn't it sorta seem like taking the rights they fight for might be in direct conflict with their mission?

Also not all freedom of speech is allowed. Speech that is racist, fight words, sexual remarks, and insults are not free speeh according to pass rulings of SCOUS

While I believe that the SCOTUS has been very wrong in its rulings about "Public Propriety", you are still wrong in this case. The SCOTUS has always held that political speech is protected.

(And, you know, the First Ammendment does say "Congress shall make no law, etc." Not "Some laws")

I don't know if this new law pass and is questioned...it would be interested to see how the Supreme court rules

Like I said earlier, the SCOTUS most valiant in the protection of political speech. Of course, with two neo-facists added to the court, they'll probably uproot precident entirely, but I can always hope.

The GI bill of Rights wasn't in direct violation of the First Ammendment. The difference is that this law is.



I believe that the the old quote is "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Soldiers do not deserve rights that crush the rights of others. To say so is direct hypocrisy. These people fight to protect our rights. Doesn't it sorta seem like taking the rights they fight for might be in direct conflict with their mission?



While I believe that the SCOTUS has been very wrong in its rulings about "Public Propriety", you are still wrong in this case. The SCOTUS has always held that political speech is protected.

(And, you know, the First Ammendment does say "Congress shall make no law, etc." Not "Some laws")



Like I said earlier, the SCOTUS most valiant in the protection of political speech. Of course, with two neo-facists added to the court, they'll probably uproot precident entirely, but I can always hope.

You know, the thing I find most funny about Whittier's reaction is that, as far as he's concerned, you're against America if you stand for the principles it was based on.

The GI bill of Rights wasn't in direct violation of the First Ammendment. The difference is that this law is.



I believe that the the old quote is "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Soldiers do not deserve rights that crush the rights of others. To say so is direct hypocrisy. These people fight to protect our rights. Doesn't it sorta seem like taking the rights they fight for might be in direct conflict with their mission?



While I believe that the SCOTUS has been very wrong in its rulings about "Public Propriety", you are still wrong in this case. The SCOTUS has always held that political speech is protected.

(And, you know, the First Ammendment does say "Congress shall make no law, etc." Not "Some laws")



Like I said earlier, the SCOTUS most valiant in the protection of political speech. Of course, with two neo-facists added to the court, they'll probably uproot precident entirely, but I can always hope.


So of course the McCain-Feingold act (before the "neo-fascists" were added BTW) DOESN'T restrict freedom of speech? SCOTUS didn't uphold it?

Are you trying to argue that the BOR is "absolute"?

Howabout the "rights" of the families? Should Phelps and his cronies be allowed to harass them?

So of course the McCain-Feingold act (before the "neo-fascists" were added BTW) DOESN'T restrict freedom of speech? SCOTUS didn't uphold it?

Are you trying to argue that the BOR is "absolute"?

Howabout the "rights" of the families? Should Phelps and his cronies be allowed to harass them?

Should Phelps and his cronies be allowed to harass EVERYONE BUT the Military?

Should Phelps and his cronies be allowed to harass EVERYONE BUT the Military?

Nope, I never said that, did I. I said that it would be preferable for a more generalized law, but since he is specifically targeting the military at this point, it would do for now.

Nope, I never said that, did I. I said that it would be preferable for a more generalized law, but since he is specifically targeting the military at this point, it would do for now.

Funny how no law was proposed when it was about Matthew Shepherd's funeral. And when he actually sent LETTERS to the parents of some other person claiming they were in Hell. And when he protested Mr. Rogers. And the victims of the Sago Mine disaster. Seems to me that, yes, for the proponents of the law, Phelps CAN harass anyone BUT the Military.
Tokoro de, it would NOT do at all to create a law restricting free speech when it's about a certain group, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about a group that's part of the government.

Funny how no law was proposed when it was about Matthew Shepherd's funeral. And when he actually sent LETTERS to the parents of some other person claiming they were in Hell. And when he protested Mr. Rogers. And the victims of the Sago Mine disaster. Seems to me that, yes, for the proponents of the law, Phelps CAN harass anyone BUT the Military.
Tokoro de, it would NOT do at all to create a law restricting free speech when it's about a certain group, ESPECIALLY when we're talking about a group that's part of the government.

Are you trying to imply that I support Phelp's actions ?

How many military funerals has he been to in comparison to the others?

Since you keep trying to say that I support the law ONLY for the military, let's say it one more time:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."

Say it with me:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."

Are you trying to imply that I support Phelp's actions ?

How many military funerals has he been to in comparison to the others?

Since you keep trying to say that I support the law ONLY for the military, let's say it one more time:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."

Say it with me:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."
The only problem with it is that probably it won't be a start, but an end.

Are you trying to imply that I support Phelp's actions ?

How many military funerals has he been to in comparison to the others?

Since you keep trying to say that I support the law ONLY for the military, let's say it one more time:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."

Say it with me:

"I would like it to be more general but, since he is primarily focusing on military, it's a start."

I don't imply you support his actions, and, if it seemed so to you, my apologies.

The problem is, it's not a start. The average American has the attention span of a retarded fish on drugs. The law will remain unequal simply because the panderers that came up with it pander to the same people that would LIKE to see gays being harassed, post and ante mortem. The law won't be extended to anyone BUT the military, if it stays as is.

Special laws for the military, and the erosion of freedom of speech. Oh, the irony. Especially since none of you rightist types were bitching when Phelps was picketing the funerals of homosexuals.


But people who murder others are much more important than those that promote acceptance.

I don't imply you support his actions, and, if it seemed so to you, my apologies.

The problem is, it's not a start. The average American has the attention span of a retarded fish on drugs. The law will remain unequal simply because the panderers that came up with it pander to the same people that would LIKE to see gays being harassed, post and ante mortem. The law won't be extended to anyone BUT the military, if it stays as is.

Lots of assumptions in that.

There was quite a bit of support for the Sheppard family after the funeral. Had Phelps done it again, ( or continues) it would have been brought up.

One can hope that this would curtail his efforts. If he moves on to other things, that will be dealt w/ then.

But people who murder others are much more important than those that promote acceptance.

So you're saying that Sheppard's killers are more important? Or are you just trying to make (pathetic) comments on the military especially since Fass was completely wrong on this count?

Lots of assumptions in that.

There was quite a bit of support for the Sheppard family after the funeral. Had Phelps done it again, ( or continues) it would have been brought up.

One can hope that this would curtail his efforts. If he moves on to other things, that will be dealt w/ then.

Phelps HAS ACTUALLY picketed many OTHER gay funerals, or funerals of other figures. It wasn't brought up, nor dealt with. There is support to the military families in their communities as well, so it's not a support issue. So, in what are the military different?

Phelps HAS ACTUALLY picketed many OTHER gay funerals, or funerals of other figures. It wasn't brought up, nor dealt with. There is support to the military families in their communities as well, so it's not a support issue. So, in what are the military different?

Actually it was dealt w/ by groups helping out the families. There should have been legislation against it. Just because there wasn't then doesn't mean there shouldn't be now.

And just for a dose of reality, the military IS different. Whether you agree w/ them or not, the soldiers died in service to their country. Quite a few people feel that is deserving of some special treatment.

There, now I've given you an opening for all the "putting the military on a pedastal" meme's again. Have fun.

Actually it was dealt w/ by groups helping out the families. There should have been legislation against it. Just because there wasn't then doesn't mean there shouldn't be now.

And just for a dose of reality, the military IS different. Whether you agree w/ them or not, the soldiers died in service to their country. Quite a few people feel that is deserving of some special treatment.

There, now I've given you an opening for all the "putting the military on a pedastal" meme's again. Have fun.

I won't use that one with you because I actually respect you. And yes, that fully means I don't respect Whittier.

I will, however, point out that non-military policemen also put their lives on the line and die in service to their country, making it so that, if that is the criteria by which this issue is judged, they ALSO fall in contradiction. Even assuming that criteria is actually a decent way to measure one's value.

I won't use that one with you because I actually respect you. And yes, that fully means I don't respect Whittier.

I will, however, point out that non-military policemen also put their lives on the line and die in service to their country, making it so that, if that is the criteria by which this issue is judged, they ALSO fall in contradiction. Even assuming that criteria is actually a decent way to measure one's value.
Yes they do. The only thing i might say for the counter (which i don't really believe) is that no one would really have a motive to protest a police officers death. War is a much more controversial thing than law enforcement.

I won't use that one with you because I actually respect you. And yes, that fully means I don't respect Whittier.

I will, however, point out that non-military policemen also put their lives on the line and die in service to their country, making it so that, if that is the criteria by which this issue is judged, they ALSO fall in contradiction. Even assuming that criteria is actually a decent way to measure one's value.

Sure they do, as do firemen.

Were Phelps to have protested their funerals after 9/11, I would have supported similar legislation.

I'm of the opinion that ones that serves the public deserve some special recognition. I would put Sheppard into that category as an indirect example due to his personal crusade for tolerance. The positive attention he received was well earned.

Yes they do. The only thing i might say for the counter (which i don't really believe) is that no one would really have a motive to protest a police officers death. War is a much more controversial thing than law enforcement.

They're WBC, they protest Mr. Rogers. It's not such a leap of faith to assume that they'd gladly protest the funeral of an officer that died, say, defending Elton John from a mugger. Then again, you yourself said you don't really believe the counter, so... :)

Sure they do, as do firemen.

Were Phelps to have protested their funerals after 9/11, I would have supported similar legislation.

I'm of the opinion that ones that serves the public deserve some special recognition. I would put Sheppard into that category as an indirect example due to his personal crusade for tolerance. The positive attention he received was well earned.

Ah, yes, but, then you'd have the state turning into a value judge, and that won't quite work, because it's hard to call who made or not contributions. The law, as is, would leave Coretta Scott King unprotected and protect Lynddie England, had she not been found out, so, we do know that, as it is, it won't work, and neither does "value-basing", simply because a crusade for tolerance is the kind of thing that offends, say, Dubya. Result, "everyone" is the way to go.

They're WBC, they protest Mr. Rogers. It's not such a leap of faith to assume that they'd gladly protest the funeral of an officer that died, say, defending Elton John from a mugger. Then again, you yourself said you don't really believe the counter, so... :)

Yeah thanks, just couldn't think of the scenario but there ya go.

Ah, yes, but, then you'd have the state turning into a value judge, and that won't quite work, because it's hard to call who made or not contributions. The law, as is, would leave Coretta Scott King unprotected and protect Lynddie England, had she not been found out, so, we do know that, as it is, it won't work, and neither does "value-basing", simply because a crusade for tolerance is the kind of thing that offends, say, Dubya. Result, "everyone" is the way to go.

As an absolute, no. I agree w/ you. However, I also disagree w/ condemning entire groups for the actions of a few fruitbats.

I would like to see it generalized, but I will continue to feel that this is an adequate initial step.

Ah, yes, but, then you'd have the state turning into a value judge, and that won't quite work, because it's hard to call who made or not contributions. The law, as is, would leave Coretta Scott King unprotected and protect Lynddie England, had she not been found out, so, we do know that, as it is, it won't work, and neither does "value-basing", simply because a crusade for tolerance is the kind of thing that offends, say, Dubya. Result, "everyone" is the way to go.

I agree that everyone is the way to go, but i would be less optomistic about the means of which that could be acheived. A bill could be passed right now if it carried the emotion of a funeral for someone who died in combat. Then down the road, you could bring about another bill which brought up your points and could be passed because of them.

USA all the way! i signed. In fact after College I'm joining up. Great Uncle was in the 506th (Band of Brothers) and My Grandpa was a sailor on the Missouri and cousin is a green Beret.

You would think the chaps and chapesses would have least some dignity and commonsense so not to picket a funeral miltary or not, a solution ot it have them look aftera some War Cementary for a year where when they are working they cvan see the white head stones somnig bearing the legend of Only known to God or Unknown Soldier on them , I dont think they would protest after that nad make them watch the Veterans that march past t the Cenotaph or the whole of Remberance sunday.

I agree that everyone is the way to go, but i would be less optomistic about the means of which that could be acheived. A bill could be passed right now if it carried the emotion of a funeral for someone who died in combat. Then down the road, you could bring about another bill which brought up your points and could be passed because of them.

The discussion here is where "down the road" exists in this case...

The discussion here is where "down the road" exists in this case...

I would think that as the anti-war movement heats up (which i believe to be, unfourtunately, inevitably) the pro-military feeling would also cool down and lead to the greater acceptance of equality between civilians and military personnel.

So of course the McCain-Feingold act (before the "neo-fascists" were added BTW) DOESN'T restrict freedom of speech? SCOTUS didn't uphold it?

Are you trying to argue that the BOR is "absolute"?

Howabout the "rights" of the families? Should Phelps and his cronies be allowed to harass them?

McCain-Feingold is a restriction of free speech with it's pre-election gag rule. The Supes were entirely wrong in upholding it. I am saying that the BoR is most certainly absolute in it's wording. Statements like "No law... abridging" are pretty absolute.

If we go around claiming that our constitutional rights are only "guidelines" they lose all of their guarantee of protection. That is not only despicable in it's undermining of freedom, but just asking to create an Orwellian state.

The familites have no right to not be offended. This is a nation where my right to free speech is more important than the delicacy of your ears. Phelps and his cronies have as much of a right to raise their small-minded, evil ideas that everyone else does, and if we start taking them away because they offend people and restricting their right to protest, how long is it until we have areas where free speech is not allowed (oh wait... we DO!), and other abuses of protest law? The right of the people to assemble for redress of greivances (even stupid ones, like Phelps and family), is part of what makes this nation great.

McCain-Feingold is a restriction of free speech with it's pre-election gag rule. The Supes were entirely wrong in upholding it. I am saying that the BoR is most certainly absolute in it's wording. Statements like "No law... abridging" are pretty absolute.

If we go around claiming that our constitutional rights are only "guidelines" they lose all of their guarantee of protection. That is not only despicable in it's undermining of freedom, but just asking to create an Orwellian state.

The familites have no right to not be offended. This is a nation where my right to free speech is more important than the delicacy of your ears. Phelps and his cronies have as much of a right to raise their small-minded, evil ideas that everyone else does, and if we start taking them away because they offend people and restricting their right to protest, how long is it until we have areas where free speech is not allowed (oh wait... we DO!), and other abuses of protest law? The right of the people to assemble for redress of greivances (even stupid ones, like Phelps and family), is part of what makes this nation great.


No, the BOR is NOT absolute. Phelps' actions are borderline instigating and harrassment. There are no free speech protections for that. Similar to a neo-nazi making a speech in front of a synagague or a KKK member in front of a NAACP building.

Folks, I gotta go now... See ya all.

"GOD HATES FAGS" -- though elliptical -- is a profound theological statement, which the world needs to hear more than it needs oxygen, water and bread.

ROFL.
Do I need to say anything? Really?
"Profound theological statement"? LOL
None the less. The page where they justify the use of the word fag is broken. That's kinda funny to me. Did it ever work? Could they ever justify it?

Now you know how *I* feel! :D
Everybody and his monkey knows how you feel.

I got this from a fellow soldier on MySpace. Things like this, even if they only happen once in every 50 funerals, happen one time to often and very spiteful and hateful or our men and women in the military. I don't know what this guy's party is, but party doesn't matter here. What matters is that these families have earned and deserve the right to say their good byes with peace and dignity without people calling them names, throwing rocks, and shouting insults and derogatory comments at them. We can't let anti-america and anti Bush protestors attack our national heroe's families while they are saying their final goodbye to their loved ones. Any one who thinks it right for Bush haters and other protestors to this kind of thing is dispicable.

Rogers Proposes the Respect for Fallen Heroes Act

While attending the funeral of a Michigan soldier who died of combat wounds suffered in Iraq, protestors attempted to disrupt the funeral by shouting vile and harassing slogans at the family and other mourners. Military families mourning the loss of a loved one killed in the defense of our nation deserve the right to say their final goodbyes in peace. America honors and respects our soldiers, and none more than those who die defending freedom and our nation.
Next week, I will be introducing federal legislation to protect grieving military families by banning protestors from military funerals. This legislation, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, will prohibit demonstrating one hour before and one hour after the service for a fallen solider and keep the protesters 500 feet from the grieving family. No family burying a son or daughter, a husband or wife, a brother or sister, should be faced with the insults, verbal attacks, and intimidation that these protestors were screaming or displaying on signs. This common sense legislation will help to protect military families in their most difficult hour and is narrowly tailored to fit within the time and place restrictions consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Giving citizens an opportunity to participate in the process and support the legislation, I launched an on-line petition. The petition will allow citizens to express honor and respect for our American soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation, as well as support for the people they love and leave behind. The petition and comments from citizens will be presented to the House Veterans Affairs Committee at an April 6 hearing in Washington.

Petitions can be signed at www.mikerogers.house.gov/fallenheroes.aspx I encourage you to forward this site to your friends and family and ask them to help protect military families.While I hate Bush, I am in support of this RFHA. Though, it ain't just liberals. You should see the Godhatesfags.com website. They are disgusting bastards who protest at funerals of servicemen because the US supports gays.

No, the BOR is NOT absolute. Phelps' actions are borderline instigating and harrassment. There are no free speech protections for that. Similar to a neo-nazi making a speech in front of a synagague or a KKK member in front of a NAACP building.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty absolute to me\

Do you want to show me where in the Bill of Rights it says "You have the right to not be offended by the things people say or do."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty absolute to me\

Do you want to show me where in the Bill of Rights it says "You have the right to not be offended by the things people say or do."

While you may feel it is absolute, it is a fact that it is not and certain types of speech are not considered "free".

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm

Specifically:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d. 430 (1969)
The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action."

and:

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)
In July 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court added child pornography as another category of speech excluded from First Amendment protection. The other categories excluded are obscenity, defamation, incitement, and "fighting words." The ruling came in the case when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a conviction against Ferber for showing a movie depicting two young boys masturbating. The film itself was not seen as obscene for adults, but the Court made the distinction between what was obscene if children were the participants compared with if adults were the leading actors.

While you may feel it is absolute, it is a fact that it is not and certain types of speech are not considered "free".

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm

Specifically:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d. 430 (1969)
The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action."

and:

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)
In July 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court added child pornography as another category of speech excluded from First Amendment protection. The other categories excluded are obscenity, defamation, incitement, and "fighting words." The ruling came in the case when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a conviction against Ferber for showing a movie depicting two young boys masturbating. The film itself was not seen as obscene for adults, but the Court made the distinction between what was obscene if children were the participants compared with if adults were the leading actors.

I thought I put enough emphasis on the phrase "no laws" Do I need to go back and make them size seven?

In both cases the crime is not the speech, but the action connected to it. In one case the problem is a conspiracy to harm (a crime) and in the other sexual abuse of children (another crime). In both cases, the speech itself is only confirmation of the crime.

I'll be the first to say that the SCOTUS is highly fallible (a judge on the SCOTUS is just another useless politician. That's how we got the clowns currently on the bench), and that any law against "fighting words" or "Bad words" or expressing political opinions is unconstitutional, and any court saying otherwise has no fucking clue of which it speaks. Just remember, when the document that preserves democracy and human rites in the US means nothing, what protects your rights? You don't want freedom to be made defunct (I probably shouldn't assume, as we get the occasional one who does).

www.godhatesfags.com , www.godhatesamerica.com and so on and so on. Do not pretend you do not know who he is, and his rightist, Christian nutjob group are the ones doing the picketing you're all bitching about now. He picketed the funerals of gay people for years and years and you were all silent, "freedom of speech!!!" and "freedom of religion!!!" and nothing was ever done about it.

And now he pickets the funerals of soldiers because he claims they died because the US "harbours" homosexuals. And all of a sudden, what he's doing is not so much "freedom of speech and religion." Because soldiers are apparently more important than other people. The hypocrisy sickens me.

I hate Fred Phelps, unlike Satan, who loves and wants to be gay with him. That's one of my lifelong dreams, beating him up, along with ****ing all the girls who've been on the cover of Maxim.

I hate Fred Phelps, unlike Satan, who loves and wants to be gay with him. That's one of my lifelong dreams, beating him up, along with ****ing all the girls who've been on the cover of Maxim.

But wouldn't your hands be occupied if you tried to beat him up while ****ing the girls?

I thought I put enough emphasis on the phrase "no laws" Do I need to go back and make them size seven?

In both cases the crime is not the speech, but the action connected to it. In one case the problem is a conspiracy to harm (a crime) and in the other sexual abuse of children (another crime). In both cases, the speech itself is only confirmation of the crime.

I'll be the first to say that the SCOTUS is highly fallible (a judge on the SCOTUS is just another useless politician. That's how we got the clowns currently on the bench), and that any law against "fighting words" or "Bad words" or expressing political opinions is unconstitutional, and any court saying otherwise has no fucking clue of which it speaks. Just remember, when the document that preserves democracy and human rites in the US means nothing, what protects your rights? You don't want freedom to be made defunct (I probably shouldn't assume, as we get the occasional one who does).


You can put it into as big of a font as you want. It still doesn't make it a fact that there ARE laws against certain types of speech and even if you go into original intent, I doubt you could find a claim by the FF's that they intended it to be absolute.

I'm gonna butt in here. Phelps makes Christians like myself look bad. He seems to believe that Military Christians (like myself... proud member of the US Army) should all go to hell. God doesn't hate homosexuals, or anyone for that matter. True Christians do not accept the ideas of homosexuality, but do not hate those that are. I even have friends that are... Point being, Phelps needs to be stoned, in my personal opinion, for defiling the funerals of my battle buddies.

PFC Jonathan A Stripes
D co 1-161 CAB (Armor)
US Army

You can put it into as big of a font as you want. It still doesn't make it a fact that there ARE laws against certain types of speech and even if you go into original intent, I doubt you could find a claim by the FF's that they intended it to be absolute.

Let's talk about semantics. The word "NO" (that's the opposite of yes) implies absolute exclusion. Had the founding fathers meant to say some laws could be passed, they would have included wording to fit them. There can be no question that the "No Laws" is completely exclusive.

I realize that some on the right wing like to think of the constitution as only mattering when it gives them the right to own guns and prevents the interference in Intra-state commerce, but it is a document which is not meant to be treated as guidelines, but as law.

There may have been some conservative justices legislating their beliefs from the bench, but that does not change the obvious wording of the Bill of Rights.

Let's talk about semantics. The word "NO" (that's the opposite of yes) implies absolute exclusion. Had the founding fathers meant to say some laws could be passed, they would have included wording to fit them. There can be no question that the "No Laws" is completely exclusive.

I realize that some on the right wing like to think of the constitution as only mattering when it gives them the right to own guns and prevents the interference in Intra-state commerce, but it is a document which is not meant to be treated as guidelines, but as law.

There may have been some conservative justices legislating their beliefs from the bench, but that does not change the obvious wording of the Bill of Rights.

Now that you've just brought up the whole "right wing conservative conspiracy" BS, you've just killed your arguement.

Try looking at the dozens of justices over the decades, both "leftist" and "rightist" that have held the BOR is not absolute.

There are recognized limitations to all of them. You're in a dream-world if you think there aren't.

Now that you've just brought up the whole "right wing conservative conspiracy" BS, you've just killed your arguement.

Try looking at the dozens of justices over the decades, both "leftist" and "rightist" that have held the BOR is not absolute.

There are recognized limitations to all of them. You're in a dream-world if you think there aren't.

Or, perhaps, I can read. I realize that the concept that legal wording is specific for a reason may be a challenging one, but I assure you that it is correct. Had the founding fathers meant for freedom of speech to be limmited to prevent people from being offended, I'm sure they would have implied that in the document they crafted.

I never said there was a right wing conspiracy (coincidentaly, did you know its normally bad form to put words in other people's mouths?), I said that conservatves often choose to misrepresent the Bill of Rights, and that conservative (by which I mean socialy conservative) judges have modified the law to fit their views.

No one is "living in a dream world" (Normally, ad hominem is bad form too, you know). We have different opinions (its not my fault that mine is right! :P) and different readings of the law. I suspect you will find that none of the cases in which the supreme court choose to restrict freedom of speech had a unanimous vote. One of the nice things about our system is that the Bill of Rights gives us both the right to an opinion. That does, sometimes, mean that assholes like Fred Phellps get their say too, but that's a price you have to pay for freedom.

I find it sad that someone would assume that these "protesters" were left wingnuts. I find Phelps even more sad.
Who is Phelps?
BOISE, Idaho -- A Kansas preacher and gay rights foe whose congregation is protesting military funerals around the country said he's coming to Idaho today to picket the memorial for an Idaho National Guard soldier killed in Iraq.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps' church six years ago.

"We're coming," Phelps said Monday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Westboro Baptist either has protested or is planning protests of other public funerals of soldiers from Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado. A protest is planned for July 11 at Dover Air Force Base, the military base where war dead are transported before being sent on to their home states.
Phelps gained national notoriety in 1998 when he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming.

Since then, Phelps said his church has been the target of hateful words and actions, including a bomb attack six years ago.

Phelps' church has picketed the funerals of AIDS victims for more than a decade.

French, 19, was a Caldwell High School graduate and varsity cheerleader. She was killed June 5 in the northern city of Kirkuk. French served as an ammunition specialist with the 116th Brigade Combat Team's 145th Support Battalion.

Phelps said the fact that French led an all-American life gives him all the more reason to picket her final public tribute.

"An all-American girl from a society of all-American heretics," he said.

"Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.

Caldwell Police Chief Bob Sobba said he cannot bar Phelps from going to the public funeral, which is scheduled for 1 p.m. Wednesday at the Albertson College of Idaho in that city.

"While we respect Mr. Phelps' right to protest, we would hope that he would respect the family and friends of this young person by not disrupting the memorial," Sobba said.

Idaho Air National Guard Lt. Tony Vincelli, acting as spokesman for French's family, said there were no plans to change the funeral arrangements.

The Rev. Brian Fischer, pastor of Boise's Community Church of the Valley, and himself a past target of protest by the Westboro Baptist Church, decried Phelps' plan.

"What Phelps is doing is a reprehensible thing, to take a funeral and turn it into a photo op for his hate cause," Fischer said. "We hope everyone will ignore Phelps' group."

In 2003, Phelps demanded that he be allowed to erect an anti-gay monument in a Boise public park. To avoid a lawsuit from his group, city officials voted in 2004 that a Ten Commandments monument be moved out of the park to a private setting.

BEDFORD - A controversial Kansas church plans to bring its protests to Bedford.

The Westboro Baptist Church announced Tuesday it will picket the Dive Christian Church at 10 a.m. Nov. 6.

The protest is against Sen. Brent Steele, whom the Kansas church has labeled a “lawless, God-hating demagogue.” Steele, meanwhile, is asking residents to “turn their backs” on the protesters should they come to Bedford.

The church is reacting to Steele's plans for new legislation. He wants to make it a felony to commit disorderly conduct at military funerals.

His action is in response to a protest the Westboro church staged in Martinsville Aug. 27 during funeral services for Army Staff Sgt. Jermey Doyle.

Church members held up signs reading “USA=Fag Nation” and “God blew up the troops” outside Doyle's funeral. Westboro church members argue the war in Iraq and the deaths of American troops are God's punishment for a nation that is too accepting of gays.

Steele called the protest “emotional battery.”

The church reacted quickly. It posted a news release on its Web site announcing the protest at Dive, where Steele is a member, and at First Baptist Church, St. John's Episcopal Church and St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church “for creating an evil zeitgeist wherein such a vile, pro-gay person could be elected as a state senator.”

Steele, a conservative Republican, urged Bedford residents not to react to church members should they follow through with the protest plans.

“Just turn your backs on these people and take the high roads,” he said.



“They worship a different God than I worship, I can tell you that.”

Steele - who has drawn criticism from some homosexuals for voting against gay-marriage rights - said he received a copy of the announcement by fax at his Bedford law office Tuesday afternoon.

“God Hates Fags & Fag-Enablers,” the release says in part. “Ero, God hates Steele, Dive, Indiana, America and the Military.”

The Westboro church is run by the Rev. Fred Phelps, who has gained national notoriety for his strong anti-gay views. Among the many anti-gay pronouncements on the church's Web site is an assertion that Hurricane Katrina is another of God's punishments for the United States.

Various press reports estimate that the church has as few as 150 members.

The Topeka Capital-Journal has extensive reports about Phelps and the church.

Phelps grew up in Mississippi, where he graduated high school with honors and earned the rank of Eagle Scout. He became an attorney and received several civil rights awards for representing minorities.

Now disbarred from the practice of law, Phelps and his followers travel the nation with their picket signs.
Blah blah blah. The fact is the Mr. Phelps is a false teacher teaching false doctrine. If I was in the states, I would take him on face to face since no one else has the guts too.
And you know I would do it.

Yet you don't seem to care enough to give homosexuals said rights.
No, I don't care for violent communist revolutions as you trying to say the US needs. For all your talk of democracy, you sound more like a communist.

homosexuals will get their rights. But it won't happen overnight. Even they know this. Its not something that can be changed by force. Nor will America accept it being changed by force or overnight. It has to be gradual.
Your experiences in Brazil do not compare with the experiences of an American in America.

The Military has been nothing but glorified by those in power. Blacks, gays and others, on the other hand...
The american military is held in high esteem not just by the government by the American people themselves.

I don't imply you support his actions, and, if it seemed so to you, my apologies.

The problem is, it's not a start. The average American has the attention span of a retarded fish on drugs. The law will remain unequal simply because the panderers that came up with it pander to the same people that would LIKE to see gays being harassed, post and ante mortem. The law won't be extended to anyone BUT the military, if it stays as is.
that's a blatant false analogy. You don't like the decisions of the American people so you resort insulting them.
America will never become communist. Thank God for that.

But people who murder others are much more important than those that promote acceptance.
dude for you to say that shows that you know nothing about the military. What we do is not murder.

I won't use that one with you because I actually respect you. And yes, that fully means I don't respect Whittier.

I will, however, point out that non-military policemen also put their lives on the line and die in service to their country, making it so that, if that is the criteria by which this issue is judged, they ALSO fall in contradiction. Even assuming that criteria is actually a decent way to measure one's value.
Like I give a rat's ass what some communist anti american revolutionary thinks of me.

Civilian cops don't die for their nation, they die for their communities. That is what they're paid for.


The military simply puts more on the line than police do. They have much more to lose. That is why they get special programs to help them. But you are so anti american and anti military that you will never ever be able to get it.

You would think the chaps and chapesses would have least some dignity and commonsense so not to picket a funeral miltary or not, a solution ot it have them look aftera some War Cementary for a year where when they are working they cvan see the white head stones somnig bearing the legend of Only known to God or Unknown Soldier on them , I dont think they would protest after that nad make them watch the Veterans that march past t the Cenotaph or the whole of Remberance sunday.
their reaction will most likely be to thank God for killing those people

[QUOTE=Heikoku]
The Military has been nothing but glorified by those in power. Blacks, gays and others, on the other hand...

Last I checked whites were a virtual minority in the military (Ive been active duty Army for 7 years), not that it would matter being that the military doesnt discriminate. Before you say gays arent allowed in the military you are false, they are not allowed to show their sexual preference just as I am not supposed to make advances on women in uniform (Im maried so thats out of the question anyways.) You obviously have been fed a lot of bad information, or a bad translation of it. Guess what I think of people from Brazil? The soccer team sucks!:p

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Seems pretty absolute to me\

Do you want to show me where in the Bill of Rights it says "You have the right to not be offended by the things people say or do."
the right of peaceful assembly is not absolute. Where is it illegal?
1. On private property without the owners permission.
2. Anyplace where you blocking traffic or the right of any person to pass through, hence you cannot protest in driveways, intersections or in front the doors to a business or clinic.
3. Military bases.

the right of peaceful assembly is not absolute. Where is it illegal?
1. On private property without the owners permission.
2. Anyplace where you blocking traffic or the right of any person to pass through, hence you cannot protest in driveways, intersections or in front the doors to a business or clinic.
3. Military bases.

1. True, but that's because the owner's right to dictate what you do on their property has nothing to do with government.
2. Not true. You need a permit to do it (this is to prevent injury etc), but it is fully legal.
3. True, although likely wrong. If it intereferes with the military procedure, it violates the premise of not breaking the law while protesting, but the only good reasons to prevent bases from being protested at is to protect civilians from being harmed by military tech, to prevent classified info from leaking, and to prevent the disruption of important duties. Likely all of these could be prevented against by using a permit system.

LMAO!
Oh that's golden! So many mistakes and misunderstandings in such few words. :D :eek:

A pity they're all yours, isn't it?

How any sane person can look at these links (one of them to his own site) and say that he's a Liberal? Next you're going to tell me Pat Robertson is a liberal!

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Phelp's Group's Site (Westboro Baptist Church)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?sid=185

I’m hoping that if I post these links 10-12 more times people will begin to get an idea of what this “protest” group is really about and not confuse them with people who are legitimately protesting the war or Bush.

Hitler and Stalin were leftists in the political sense too. They killed plenty of gays and even said the exact same stuff Phelps is. See, you leftists need to figure something out: A little objectivity about your own views and a little less slogan chanting wouldn't hurt in the slightest.

"scythes"? :confused:

The old Soviet flags in many cases depicted a crossed hammer and scythe on them. Most people don't realize this, but the sickle is actually the long, crescent shaped blade on a pole. The scythe is the shorter hook shaped one.

Paraguay? What, about 200 years ago? Very well, my apologies to them. And what are you talking about in Venezuela? The US has MANY more RECENT examples of such behavior. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam to name a few. And you are bragging because you can find TWO examples (one of them likely fictional) of Brazil's wrongdoing?

By the way, militaristic people, you STILL failed to address my points. By refusing to address my points, you're admitting you're wrong.

My point is, by your own statements, Brazil is a militaristic imperialistic power bent on world domination. I picked a couple of random instances in your history, which from appearances, you don't even really know about, do you? Could I perhaps bring up your country's part in the world weapons market, several military juntas, accusations of election fraud and the like, all things that have been brought up just in my lifetime?

If your through repeating mantras to yourself, think about this: What historically happens in countries where the military is routinely abused and attacked? Being a Brazilian, you should in theory at least now about one such instance if yo paid attention in your public education system.

The old Soviet flags in many cases depicted a crossed hammer and scythe on them. Most people don't realize this, but the sickle is actually the long, crescent shaped blade on a pole. The scythe is the shorter hook shaped one.
Nitpicking, but...

Not according to wikipedia, the dictionary, nor any other sources I've seen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/SickleAndGrassHook.jpg

And I thought you were meaning to call him a socialist, not a communist.

Or, perhaps, I can read. I realize that the concept that legal wording is specific for a reason may be a challenging one, but I assure you that it is correct. Had the founding fathers meant for freedom of speech to be limmited to prevent people from being offended, I'm sure they would have implied that in the document they crafted.

I never said there was a right wing conspiracy (coincidentaly, did you know its normally bad form to put words in other people's mouths?), I said that conservatves often choose to misrepresent the Bill of Rights, and that conservative (by which I mean socialy conservative) judges have modified the law to fit their views.

No one is "living in a dream world" (Normally, ad hominem is bad form too, you know). We have different opinions (its not my fault that mine is right! :P) and different readings of the law. I suspect you will find that none of the cases in which the supreme court choose to restrict freedom of speech had a unanimous vote. One of the nice things about our system is that the Bill of Rights gives us both the right to an opinion. That does, sometimes, mean that assholes like Fred Phellps get their say too, but that's a price you have to pay for freedom.


You made the assumtion that it was all "right wingers" and "conservatives" that made the various rulings. You , however, showed NO evidence to support that. This isn't DU. You actually have some proof of that here.

You might also want to learn that quite a few documents are included when looking at constitutional interpretation. The only one that you have used doesn't define what is free speech. I have shown you what the SCOTUS has judged over the course of the countries history including the well defined precedent that the BOR is NOT absolute and never has been.

What Phelps is doing can be argued as incitement, which does NOT fall under free speech.

1. True, but that's because the owner's right to dictate what you do on their property has nothing to do with government.
2. Not true. You need a permit to do it (this is to prevent injury etc), but it is fully legal.
3. True, although likely wrong. If it intereferes with the military procedure, it violates the premise of not breaking the law while protesting, but the only good reasons to prevent bases from being protested at is to protect civilians from being harmed by military tech, to prevent classified info from leaking, and to prevent the disruption of important duties. Likely all of these could be prevented against by using a permit system.
2. Believe me. This is true. It does not matter if you have a permit. You cannot block intersections, drive ways, or entrances to businesses or clinics. In short you can't block people's right of way. If you do you can cited or arrested.

Aaron and Norse:

1- The Brazil doesn't mistreat its military and HAS been the victim of coups.

2- Norse, you're crazy. No, really. You actually think I'm a socialist because I defend equality under the law. You're a nut. You actually call me anti-American because I want to defend YOUR constiturion. You're a moron, and I'll stop talking to you simply because I'm MUCH better than you at about anything. Where the fuck did I make any "socialist" remarks, you freak? You're insane, you belong in a cushioned room. And go flame someone else, troll, because you're on my Ignore list now.

Hitler and Stalin were leftists in the political sense too. They killed plenty of gays and even said the exact same stuff Phelps is. See, you leftists need to figure something out: A little objectivity about your own views and a little less slogan chanting wouldn't hurt in the slightest.

Hitler was a rightist. For crying out loud, you'll claim Bush is a leftist too?

[QUOTE=Heikoku]
The Military has been nothing but glorified by those in power. Blacks, gays and others, on the other hand...

Last I checked whites were a virtual minority in the military (Ive been active duty Army for 7 years), not that it would matter being that the military doesnt discriminate. Before you say gays arent allowed in the military you are false, they are not allowed to show their sexual preference just as I am not supposed to make advances on women in uniform (Im maried so thats out of the question anyways.) You obviously have been fed a lot of bad information, or a bad translation of it. Guess what I think of people from Brazil? The soccer team sucks!:p

I didn't mean the blacks/gays/etc IN the military. And I, being a Brazilian, am able to spell "married" and "that's". And I don't give a flying fuck about soccer.

Aaron and Norse:

1- The Brazil doesn't mistreat its military and HAS been the victim of coups.

2- Norse, you're crazy. No, really. You actually think I'm a socialist because I defend equality under the law. You're a nut. You actually call me anti-American because I want to defend YOUR constiturion. You're a moron, and I'll stop talking to you simply because I'm MUCH better than you at about anything. Where the fuck did I make any "socialist" remarks, you freak? You're insane, you belong in a cushioned room. And go flame someone else, troll, because you're on my Ignore list now.
You are not defending my constitution. You are defending your political world view. Don't use my constitution as an an excuse to defend socialism.

Nitpicking, but...

Not according to wikipedia, the dictionary, nor any other sources I've seen.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/SickleAndGrassHook.jpg

And I thought you were meaning to call him a socialist, not a communist.

You know, if you want to support an argument, one of the worst things to do is to link to a website that attempts to give proper grammatical useage rules for Engrish and 1337.

The second worst thing is to claim that socialism and communism are entirely unrelated.

Hitler was a rightist. For crying out loud, you'll claim Bush is a leftist too?

Hitler created one of the largest social welfare structures the world has ever known. He also created some of the strictest eugenics laws the world has ever known, was a widely acknowledged proponent of abortion and furthering governmental involvement in the day to day life of the average citizen. He placed entire industries under government control, and made Germany's environmental laws a lot stricter. In the western world, these are all historically leftist positions.

So rather then coming at me with the same tired rhethoric, how about you do what I asked earlier, and give your position a little thought? I mean, let's just be honest. If this was say, the funeral of black man who wasn't a soldier this crap was happening at, you'd be demanding a law to stop it in supposed righteous fury.

You are not defending my constitution. You are defending your political world view. Don't use my constitution as an an excuse to defend socialism.

How am I defending socialism again, moron?





That's what I thought.

Hitler created one of the largest social welfare structures the world has ever known. He also created some of the strictest eugenics laws the world has ever known, was a widely acknowledged proponent of abortion and furthering governmental involvement in the day to day life of the average citizen. He placed entire industries under government control, and made Germany's environmental laws a lot stricter. In the western world, these are all historically leftist positions.

So rather then coming at me with the same tired rhethoric, how about you do what I asked earlier, and give your position a little thought? I mean, let's just be honest. If this was say, the funeral of black man who wasn't a soldier this crap was happening at, you'd be demanding a law to stop it in supposed righteous fury.

No, I wouldn't, unless that law ALSO protected everyone else. Any more baseless accusations, waste of carbon and water?

You are not defending my constitution. You are defending your political world view. Don't use my constitution as an an excuse to defend socialism.

He's doing a piss poor job of it, one might add.

He's doing a piss poor job of it, one might add.

That might be because I'm defending equality under the law, not socialism. But, by all means, keep thinking you're actually making good points, as opposed to tossing your shit around like the monkeys you are.

No, I wouldn't, unless that law ALSO protected everyone else. Any more baseless accusations, waste of carbon and water?

So why are you opposing a law which would give someone else those same rights? Laws that do give others this right are already on the books in many US states. There is however, no existing federal law on the matter that I know of. All you'd be doing here is giving soldiers a federally recognized right everyone else has, and yet you are in a panic over it, and it's not even happening in your country?

Tell me, how does this even affect you? Why fight something that wouldn't, unless your just responding to your conditioning?

So why are you opposing a law which would give someone else those same rights? Laws that do give others this right are already on the books in many US states. There is however, no existing federal law on the matter that I know of. All you'd be doing here is giving soldiers a federally recognized right everyone else has, and yet you are in a panic over it, and it's not even happening in your country?

Tell me, how does this even affect you? Why fight something that wouldn't, unless your just responding to your conditioning?

Because "many US states" are not ALL US states. Because what happens in the US has repercussions everywhere else, such as that amoeba you call a president being "elected".

That might be because I'm defending equality under the law, not socialism. But, by all means, keep thinking you're actually making good points, as opposed to tossing your shit around like the monkeys you are.

No, your defending being a whiny foriegner who wants to make for what's essentially a form of segregation in the US. If you can show me how giving soldiers a right most non soldiers in many US states already have somehow violates your rights as a citizen of Brazil, you can keep talking.

Otherwise, do yourself a favor, just actually think about something you've said for once.

Because "many US states" are not ALL US states. Because what happens in the US has repercussions everywhere else, such as that amoeba you call a president being "elected".

Have you run out of rhethoric yet? Because the way your carrying on, if that ammendment limiting presidents to two terms ever gets overturned, I may just vote for Bush for once simply to irritate you.

Have you run out of rhethoric yet? Because the way your carrying on, if that ammendment limiting presidents to two terms ever gets overturned, I may just vote for Bush for once simply to irritate you.
Glad to know people are using their voting right responsibly :rolleyes:

No, your defending being a whiny foriegner who wants to make for what's essentially a form of segregation in the US. If you can show me how giving soldiers a right most non soldiers in many US states already have somehow violates your rights as a citizen of Brazil, you can keep talking.

Otherwise, do yourself a favor, just actually think about something you've said for once.

I'm not defending the segregation of soldiers, YOU are defending the segregation of EVERYONE ELSE, or, at the very least, of everyone that doesn't live in the states which have these laws. And I don't care for your nationalistic rethoric either, I will say what I damn well please about what issues I deign reasonable to speak. I have that right under the constitutions of both Brazil and the US.

Have you run out of rhethoric yet? Because the way your carrying on, if that ammendment limiting presidents to two terms ever gets overturned, I may just vote for Bush for once simply to irritate you.

You could try answering my points once.

Glad to know people are using their voting right responsibly :rolleyes:

We're talking about people that claim I'm a communist because I stand for their constitution (while they don't) and that believe Fred Phelps and Adolph Hitler are from the Left. Don't expect much.

We're talking about people that claim I'm a communist because I stand for their constitution (while they don't) and that believe Fred Phelps and Adolph Hitler are from the Left. Don't expect much.
Well to be fair if I remember the 2D rather then 1D representation hitler was more "up" then right but yea

Glad to know people are using their voting right responsibly :rolleyes:

If you really feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try actually voting for once. Or are those ads you guys put on TV now claiming the sole reason Bush won was voter apathy and a massive conspiracy lying too?

Well to be fair if I remember the 2D rather then 1D representation hitler was more "up" then right but yea

Point remains... :p

You could try answering my points once.

And you could really answering mine, like explaining why you beleive segregation of soldiers into a secondary citizenship is ok, and somehow your "rights" as a Brazilian national under the US constitution which incidentally, don't even exist are being violated by anything else happening.

You know, if you want to support an argument, one of the worst things to do is to link to a website that attempts to give proper grammatical useage rules for Engrish and 1337.
You were rightfully corrected for talking bs. Now quit it with the attack and admit you arent perfect.

If you really feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try actually voting for once. Or are those ads you guys put on TV now claiming the sole reason Bush won was voter apathy and a massive conspiracy lying too?

Mmm, not voting, picking a candidate out of spite... *Thinks* Yeah, I'd go with not voting, really, because picking a candidate out of spite is just too stu... hey, wait, how do you know he didn't vote? Psychic Hotline now?

And you could really answering mine, like explaining why you beleive segregation of soldiers into a secondary citizenship is ok, and somehow your "rights" as a Brazilian national under the US constitution which incidentally, don't even exist are being violated by anything else happening.

Funny, with the "concern" the US shows for other nations I would think you'd be the last one to use the "you're not from here, you can't say anything" line. Especially considering Dubya's (latest) rationale for war is "giving rights to the Iraqi people"...

You were rightfully corrected for talking bs. Now quit it with the attack and admit you arent perfect.

I think he should admit he isn't smart, but "not perfect" is a step too... :p

2. Believe me. This is true. It does not matter if you have a permit. You cannot block intersections, drive ways, or entrances to businesses or clinics. In short you can't block people's right of way. If you do you can cited or arrested.

Which is, of course, why major marches often do just that?

Q. Do I need a permit before I engage in free speech activity?

A. Not usually. However, certain types of events require permits. Generally, these events are: 1) a march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk and other events that require blocking traffic or street closures; 2) a large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or 3) a rally at certain designated parks or plazas, such as federal property managed by the General Services Administration.

http://www.democrats.com/right-to-protest

(Yes, the source isn't one I'd site for anything other than straight out facts, but in this case its as reliable as any other.)

You know, if you want to support an argument, one of the worst things to do is to link to a website that attempts to give proper grammatical useage rules for Engrish and 1337.
So you don't trust Wikipedia or dictionary.com. Oh well, all I can say is at least I try to back up my arguements - you've only been barking.


The second worst thing is to claim that socialism and communism are entirely unrelated.
I did? When? Where? Here?
And I thought you were meaning to call him a socialist, not a communist.
Read it again. I didn't say anything about "entirely unrelated".
All I implied is that there is a difference between the two, and that the hammer and sickle (as a sign of the worker and the pesant) is the widely known symbol of communism, while the red flag is the more traditional symbol for socialism.

How am I defending socialism again, moron?





That's what I thought.
Funny, I thought you was ignoring me. Yet you react to my post. Let me enlighten you.
Ignore means you don't respond to the other person's post. I think it also means you don't read their posts.
If you have a hard time with this, jolt has a cool ignore feature that you can click on and it will blank out the posts of the person you want to ignore. But only for you. Everyone will still be able to see what that person has posted. But you won't have to worry about what he said cause you have him on ignore so you can't see and you can't respond to it.

Thanks for playing.

I'm not defending the segregation of soldiers, YOU are defending the segregation of EVERYONE ELSE, or, at the very least, of everyone that doesn't live in the states which have these laws. And I don't care for your nationalistic rethoric either, I will say what I damn well please about what issues I deign reasonable to speak. I have that right under the constitutions of both Brazil and the US.
According to SCOTUS, because you are a foreigner and not a US citizen, you have no rights under the US Constitution. See the case for Prop 187

If you really feel so strongly about it, maybe you should try actually voting for once. Or are those ads you guys put on TV now claiming the sole reason Bush won was voter apathy and a massive conspiracy lying too?
Hold up hold up. I disagree with him too. But I must ask, how do you know he never voted?

Which is, of course, why major marches often do just that?



http://www.democrats.com/right-to-protest

(Yes, the source isn't one I'd site for anything other than straight out facts, but in this case its as reliable as any other.)
There is a difference between wacky protestors and a parade.
If you are protesting in front of Ralphs, and I want to go buy something there, you can't legally block my right of way. IE you can't block the drive way nor can you block the entrance. Nor can you block an intersection. The rules that cities have for permits stipulates this. They won't allow permits or traffic to be shut down just for minority of 34 people who want to shut down everything just to protest that they didn't get special previleges.

According to SCOTUS, because you are a foreigner and not a US citizen, you have no rights under the US Constitution. See the case for Prop 187
Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?
You never heard of Prop 187?

You never heard of Prop 187?
Nope, and a quick google / wiki-search didn't make anything clearer.

Nope, and a quick google / wiki-search didn't make anything clearer.
It was a law against immigranst that was passed in 1994 and nixed by Davis in 1999.

Proposition 187:

Text here:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/prop187text.html

It was passed by a large margin. Immigration activists sued claiming it violated the constitution. A federal judge issued an injunction to stop it from being enforced.

In 1996, California's attorney general argued that 187 did not conflict with federal law, particularly the US Constitution. The judge ruled against him and it was appealed to the 9th circuit in 1997 where it just sat for awhile. In 1998, Lungren was defeated by Gray Davis in the gubernatorial election.
Davis requested mediation in the 9th circuit. The court agreed. Davis represented 187 and banned the author of the law and the law's other proponents from arguing for it.
His goal was to prevent it from reaching the Supreme Court which would have upheld it.
A bit out of date but: http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

http://www.ssbb.com/article1.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/

http://www.calvoter.org/archive/94general/props/187.html

http://www.americanpatrol.com/RECALLDAVIS/KIEV_Xscript991210.html

Supreme Court rulings on immigrant rights. I might have been confused about the 187 ruling.

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/175191-1.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/30/MN270981.DTL

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0771556.html

In just about every case, except the Texas one, they have ruled against immigrants having rights.

*snip*
Hmm... Seems the confusing point was that prop 187 never made it to the SCOTUS, and doesn't add anything to the debate. That's cleared up then. :)

I'll have a look at your other links a little later.

Have you run out of rhethoric yet? Because the way your carrying on, if that ammendment limiting presidents to two terms ever gets overturned, I may just vote for Bush for once simply to irritate you.

With the inevitable change of power in the senate this year and the upcoming 08' POTUS candidates Id rather vote Bush a 3rd term anyways. We are in short supply of good candidates. RINOs really screwed the pooch this time.

Funny, I thought you was ignoring me. Yet you react to my post. Let me enlighten you.
Ignore means you don't respond to the other person's post. I think it also means you don't read their posts.
If you have a hard time with this, jolt has a cool ignore feature that you can click on and it will blank out the posts of the person you want to ignore. But only for you. Everyone will still be able to see what that person has posted. But you won't have to worry about what he said cause you have him on ignore so you can't see and you can't respond to it.

Thanks for playing.

Actually that message went to Norse, but since you already proved you have a (lot of) puppet(s) here, by all means, let me enlighten you. I decided not to, simple as that, because it's funnier to beat the crap out of you in arguing. As for "how is that socialism", you still DID NOT ANSWER ME, because you have NO POINT.

According to SCOTUS, because you are a foreigner and not a US citizen, you have no rights under the US Constitution. See the case for Prop 187

I'm still in Brazil, where we STILL have freedom of expression. I'm typing from Brazil, as well, so, what's your point again?




Oh, right, none, so you decided to nitpick as a way to try and hold the little/inexistant ground you have left in this argument. Forget it, I'm winning and I'll win, because you have no point whatsoever but to hurl insults, nitpick, make accusations and use puppets.

Whittier's dictionary:

Insult: See Nitpicking.
Military: Gods on Earth.
Nitpicking: A good and accepted argumentative tactic.
Puppeting: See Nitpicking.
Socialism: Whatever I happen to disagree with, in any field of knowledge. (E.g.: "You believe turtlenecks are in because you're a socialist!")
Terrorism: See Socialism.

I'm still in Brazil, where we STILL have freedom of expression. I'm typing from Brazil, as well, so, what's your point again?




Oh, right, none, so you decided to nitpick as a way to try and hold the little/inexistant ground you have left in this argument. Forget it, I'm winning and I'll win, because you have no point whatsoever but to hurl insults, nitpick, make accusations and use puppets.
Dude, you made the assertion that your rights were protected that by the US Constitution. I proved that they weren't. Whether you are protected by the Brazilian constitution was not at issue. You claimed protection of the US Constitution, I showed it didn't apply to you.

If I wasn't having such a hard time with the forum and my connection, I wouldn't have to use puppets to post. :) But I understand the mods or the admin or whoever it is, is already working on that problem.

Dude, you made the assertion that your rights were protected that by the US Constitution. I proved that they weren't. Whether you are protected by the Brazilian constitution was not at issue. You claimed protection of the US Constitution, I showed it didn't apply to you.

If I wasn't having such a hard time with the forum and my connection, I wouldn't have to use puppets to post. :) But I understand the mods or the admin or whoever it is, is already working on that problem.

Okay, so we'll add "threadjacking" to your repertoire. Very well. Brazilian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protect me regardless, the point (which you missed) being that I can speak my mind in this forum about whatever subject I wish. Now, shall we move on to the current issue, in which your ass is being handed to you?

Okay, so we'll add "threadjacking" to your repertoire. Very well. Brazilian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protect me regardless, the point (which you missed) being that I can speak my mind in this forum about whatever subject I wish. Now, shall we move on to the current issue, in which your ass is being handed to you?
That's rich. Threadjacking my own thread. You make me laugh. Ha ha.

You might want to go and look up the rules cause there are something that you can't talk about on here. Like you can't promote murder, or rape, or pedophilia and stuff like that.

You are the one engaged in thread jacking. I started this thread to ask for support for military families. You came in, bashed the US military and tried to turn it into a socialist bash America thread.

That's rich. Threadjacking my own thread. You make me laugh. Ha ha.

You might want to go and look up the rules cause there are something that you can't talk about on here. Like you can't promote murder, or rape, or pedophilia and stuff like that.

You are the one engaged in thread jacking. I started this thread to ask for support for military families. You came in, bashed the US military and tried to turn it into a socialist bash America thread.

Again with the "socialism"? We've been through this, you offered, nor will offer, no evidence. And yes, one can threadjack his own thread if he realizes he's losing in it (as you are).

You're a piece of work.

Again with the "socialism"? We've been through this, you offered, nor will offer, no evidence. And yes, one can threadjack his own thread if he realizes he's losing in it (as you are).

You're a piece of work.



"Socialism" is a word that he sticks (inappropriately) into his writing in order to appear knowledgeable and/or intelligent. His vocabulary is also quite limited; he can only repeat sentences that he hears from Pat Robertson/Republican conventions.

"Socialism" is a word that he sticks (inappropriately) into his writing in order to appear knowledgeable and/or intelligent. His vocabulary is also quite limited; he can only repeat sentences that he hears from Pat Robertson/Republican conventions.

You know, Brazil is famous for a bird that does that kind of thing... We call it "papagaio". In the US you call it "parrot". :p

Just to let everyone know, I'm VERY Leftist, and I support this bill.

Maybe one day someone will burn Phelps damn cult church down.

I hope Phelps protests in Texas! I love concealed carry laws!

I hope Phelps protests in Texas! I love concealed carry laws!
Just cause it is legal to carry does not mean its legal to use

Just cause it is legal to carry does not mean its legal to use
I'm joking. C'mon, as horrible as Phelps is, I'm not advocating murder...

Just to let everyone know, I'm VERY Leftist, and I support this bill.

Maybe one day someone will burn Phelps damn cult church down.

I'd support the bill if it applied to everyone, including gays, the SAGO mine victims, blacks, and, basically, everyone BESIDES the Military whose funerals Phelps protested and that had no bills introduced in their names.

Again with the "socialism"? We've been through this, you offered, nor will offer, no evidence. And yes, one can threadjack his own thread if he realizes he's losing in it (as you are).

You're a piece of work.
No you are the one doing the thread jacking. This thread is for support of American military families. YOU came here to push your "the American military is all evil" agenda. If you want to espouse your view that the US military is evil, start your own damn thread. Don't push that gutter crap here. You are being very disrespectful of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. All you've done here is bash the American military and the US itself. Since you can't get the point I'll just have to come right out and be blunt and rude about it: SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT!!!

No you are the one doing the thread jacking. This thread is for support of American military families. YOU came here to push your "the American military is all evil" agenda. If you want to espouse your view that the US military is evil, start your own damn thread. Don't push that gutter crap here. You are being very disrespectful of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. All you've done here is bash the American military and the US itself. Since you can't get the point I'll just have to come right out and be blunt and rude about it: SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT!!!

One question: Why?

Why respect a person who knows what they've signed up for, are being paid and know very well that they may die or get seriously wounded? They're not fighting for freedom or to protect your country, and they know what they signed up for. Thus, why should they be respected anymore than a fireman, or a doctor? Unless this bill encompasses every group and individual in your country, it's just divisive and idiotic.

One question: Why?

Why respect a person who knows what they've signed up for, are being paid and know very well that they may die or get seriously wounded? They're not fighting for freedom or to protect your country, and they know what they signed up for. Thus, why should they be respected anymore than a fireman, or a doctor? Unless this bill encompasses every group and individual in your country, it's just divisive and idiotic.
We are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for OUR country. They put a hell of lot more on the line the line than you or the fireman or the damn doctor setting cozy in their offices and fire stations. The military deserves way more respect than the average citizen because they earned it. You don't get as much respect because you did not earn it. The military are people who make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation that they love.
The bill is not divisive to any one since it has bipartisan support and is going to fly through Congress and be signed into law. The only people opposing it are the America haters and those who get their sick sexual kicks out of bashing the US military and their bereaved families.
You just run your country your way, and let us run ours our way. Unless you've been in the US military or have worked with them, or are related to someone who is, you have no room to bash and troll.
The job the military does, is, and has always been, much more valuable than the jobs people do in the civilian sector. Without the military there is no United States. Without the US military, all Europeans would aryans and speaking german and reading Hitlers reader for children. Europe would be embroiled in a war right now, that would have spread out of the Balkans had the US military not gone in and saved the day cause Europeans can't fight for themselves. Same with Saudi Arabia. If not for the American military, Kuwait and Saudi would territories of Iraq and Saddam would still be going around gassing and torturing people. Haiti would be in the middle of civil war right now. The piracy off the coast of east Africa would be ten times worse than it is now that the US military has started anti pirate patrols in those waters.
And who the fucks been helping the latin americans keep their freedom from being taken away by the evil socialist revolutionaries? The armed forces of the United States of America. That is why the socialists in Brazil, Venezuela and Columbia always bash America and the military. Because they know that as long as the US military is strong and ever ready, they will never be able to strip the people of their countries of their fundamental freedoms.

It's not just American's freedom they are defending, we are defending yours too. Even if you don't give damn about it and think all American soldiers are worthless baby killers. Unlike certain other nations on modern day earth, we have never engaged in genocide or used WMD's. And don't pretend you don't know which nations I am referring to: Serbia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Bosnia, Iran, Turkey, Turkmenistan, etc.

Being in the US military is not just another job. People don't join up just for the college money cause its simply not worth it. You have to truly love and believe in your country to sign up and put your life on the line for like 5 years or ten years. Even the bonuses they offer aren't worth it. If you don't give a damn about your country, don't sign up. We don't need you. Cause people like you are always the ones that fuck up and get people killed. If you sign up, do so for the right reasons.
I'll have to look it up, but there was an article where the DOD found that the vast majority of the American youth are NOT fit for military service cause they are fat and overweight and never exercise, not to mention that some of them have mental issues.

Not everyone can be in the military. No the military is not just a job like any other.

I open the floor to any one else in the military or who has been that can expand on the point I am trying to make. Or anyone that has a brother or sister, or son or other close relative that is in the US military.

Blablabla..
They're still just people like any other. just because they took up arms and joined the military, doesn't mean they should be put on a pedestal for it. This law is discriminatory and should be apply to all your citizens and not just those in the military. All people deserve to have a peaceful funeral.

You have to truly love and believe in your country to sign up and put your life on the line for like 5 years or ten years.

Plus you really, really have to want to shoot brown people.

They're still just people like any other. just because they took up arms and joined the military, doesn't mean they should be put on a pedestal for it. This law is discriminatory and should be apply to all your citizens and not just those in the military. All people deserve to have a peaceful funeral.
This law does not put them on a pedestal. The military are the only people whose funerals the government can't directly protect. That is how our form of government operates. The feds have no power trespass on state juridiction.

Plus you really, really have to want to shoot brown people.
Was Hitler brown? Were the serbs brown?

We are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for OUR country.

Or Iraq ... whatever ... though last I checked, I didn't live in Iraq ... maybe something changed ... *shrug*.

If you're in the military, you're not fighting for anything but the voices in Bush's head because Jesus told him to attack Iraq. I suggest you quit now. You're not doing anything for me or my countrymen.

Unlike certain other nations on modern day earth, we have never engaged in genocide or used WMD's. And don't pretend you don't know which nations I am referring to: Serbia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Bosnia, Iran, Turkey, Turkmenistan, etc.
So... Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

So... Hiroshima? Nagasaki?


No no ... it's ok ... White Christians are allowed to use WMD ... it's in the Bible.

So... Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
I suppose you think the world would have been much better off under Japanese domination?

Unlike certain other nations on modern day earth, we have never engaged in genocide or used WMD's. And don't pretend you don't know which nations I am referring to: Serbia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Bosnia, Iran, Turkey, Turkmenistan, etc.

So I guess you are saying the native American population is on a prolonged vacation then?

I suppose you think the world would have been much better off under Japanese domination?
Lol
If the nukes hadn't been used, Japan would dominate the world right now?

You're getting funnier every post.
:p :p :p :p

So you don't trust Wikipedia or dictionary.com. Oh well, all I can say is at least I try to back up my arguements - you've only been barking.


I did? When? Where? Here?

Read it again. I didn't say anything about "entirely unrelated".
All I implied is that there is a difference between the two, and that the hammer and sickle (as a sign of the worker and the pesant) is the widely known symbol of communism, while the red flag is the more traditional symbol for socialism.

Newsflash for you: A sickle is still a sickle, and a scythe is still a scythe. Live with it. It doesn't matter how many places you find where you can edit stuff or find someone as misinformed as you. It doesn't change the fact that if you walk into a museum, or even one of the handful of stores that still sells either in this age of machine tools everything, the label's going to say the exact thing I told you.

What's next, you going to insist a shovel is a spoon now?

Glad to know people are using their voting right responsibly :rolleyes:

Well, I could've voted for Kerry, and really made a mess of things. Or some of the greenies who ran, for that matter, or the Nazi, instead, I voted for a libertarian, but as far as party people go, Bush isn't doing to bad. He's pissed the media to heck, and that's usually a good sign, trust me.

You were rightfully corrected for talking bs. Now quit it with the attack and admit you arent perfect.

Compared to this group, I don't even need to be close.

Bush isn't doing to bad.

Mmmmm ... delicious delusions .... pass the salt, please.

Well, I could've voted for Kerry, and really made a mess of things. Or some of the greenies who ran, for that matter, or the Nazi, instead, I voted for a libertarian, but as far as party people go, Bush isn't doing to bad. He's pissed the media to heck, and that's usually a good sign, trust me.
Personally I still don't find voting a certain way just to piss off another poster to be a responsible use of ones rights.

You may have the right to do it, but that does not make it right nor responsible

Nor do I find that “pissing the media off” is necessarily any sort of indicator on performance good or bad. If you have some evidence to the contrary please post

Compared to this group, I don't even need to be close.
Too bad you have not achieved the “not even close” status yet... keep working on it

Hold up hold up. I disagree with him too. But I must ask, how do you know he never voted?

I meant that at least 80% sarcastically, sorry. I've found over the years, that when the libs don't get their way, they inevitably claim voter apathy was the reason, or that the election or whatnot was "stolen." It goes a long way from the idiots who occasionally toss out votes, register dead people still, ect out here to vote Dem.

Now, it'll make more sense if you just pretend for a moment, most of the lib excuses are 100% correct, yet keep in mind they do this stuff. Doesn't it look kind of bad when the people monkeying with the votes oftentimes to begin with still don't win?

Well, I could've voted for Kerry, and really made a mess of things. Or some of the greenies who ran, for that matter, or the Nazi, instead, I voted for a libertarian, but as far as party people go, Bush isn't doing to bad. He's pissed the media to heck, and that's usually a good sign, trust me.Trust you? Someone that would actually consider voting for a Nazi?

snip
Doesn't it look kind of bad when the people monkeying with the votes oftentimes to begin with still don't win?
But bush did win

That's rich. Threadjacking my own thread. You make me laugh. Ha ha.

I wonder how exactly one goes about thread jacking their own thread. I have this picture of a guy going and getting into a time machine, setting it for the exact time he posted first, detaining his self back then to change the subject, then going forward in time once again to watch the fallout.

Trust you? Someone that would actually consider voting for a Nazi?

I leave that to you Socialists. :)

I leave that to you Socialists. :)
Why would socialists vote nazi?

But bush did win

Yeah, and he wasn't the one registering illegals and corpses out near me. This should make you think. How many corpses voted for the Dems this year?

Yeah, and he wasn't the one registering illegals and corpses out near me. This should make you think. How many corpses voted for the Dems this year?
Not sure probably less then the fucked with electronic voting machines gained for bush

I meant that at least 80% sarcastically, sorry. I've found over the years, that when the libs don't get their way, they inevitably claim voter apathy was the reason, or that the election or whatnot was "stolen." It goes a long way from the idiots who occasionally toss out votes, register dead people still, ect out here to vote Dem.

Now, it'll make more sense if you just pretend for a moment, most of the lib excuses are 100% correct, yet keep in mind they do this stuff. Doesn't it look kind of bad when the people monkeying with the votes oftentimes to begin with still don't win?
My bad. I didn't see the sarcasm, just trying to prevent him from using the remark to start of flame war. Something he's been good at in the past.

I fully agree with on the libs always trying to rig our elections and then throwing temper tantrums every time things don't go their way.

Yeah, and he wasn't the one registering illegals and corpses out near me. This should make you think. How many corpses voted for the Dems this year?
tens of thousands. That is why you had so many votes that had to be removed and discounted. Same with the votes they tried to get from the illegal immigrants and convicted violent felons and pedophiles. None of whome are legally allowed to vote in the US.

*sigh*

I suppose you think the world would have been much better off under Japanese domination?
No, I'm actually saying that during the great Penguin conspiracy of 1812 an army of alien invaders was beaten during a battle where all involved were dressed up like Elvis and hit each other with pillows. :rolleyes:

Or I might just be pointing out the fact that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons during war, and that this means that the US actually have used WMD before?

You may choose between the two.

Newsflash for you: A sickle is still a sickle, and a scythe is still a scythe. Live with it. It doesn't matter how many places you find where you can edit stuff or find someone as misinformed as you. It doesn't change the fact that if you walk into a museum, or even one of the handful of stores that still sells either in this age of machine tools everything, the label's going to say the exact thing I told you.

What's next, you going to insist a shovel is a spoon now?
You know that old saying, "If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and the dictionary describes it as a duck, and the encyclopedia says it's a duck, and only one guy on the internet says it isn't a duck, well then it probably is a duck."

A sickle is still a sickle (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Sickle)
1. An implement having a semicircular blade attached to a short handle, used for cutting grain or tall grass.
2. The cutting mechanism of a reaper or mower.

Sickle

n : an edge tool for cutting grass or crops; has a curved blade and a short handle

while a scythe is still a scythe (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scythe)scythe
An implement consisting of a long, curved single-edged blade with a long bent handle, used for mowing or reaping.

scythe

n : an edge tool for cutting grass; has a long handle that must be held with both hands and a curved blade that moves parallel to the ground v : cut with a scythe; "scythe grass or grain" you're right about that.

I can't help it if your local stores are selling spoons as shovels just to make a quick buck, can I? :p

Why would socialists vote nazi?

Well, let's see, you segregate minorities through extensive social programs, beleive in the practice of killing anyone considered the slightest bit inconvenient, tax the heck out of the little guy then promise him a better life because of it, set up a much larger federal government that regulates everything it can get it's hands on, violently prosecute trade unions that don't agree with you, and even go so far as to attack constantly the people closest to you in ideology.

Sound familiar? It should.

Not sure probably less then the fucked with electronic voting machines gained for bush

The electronic voting machines you guys still won't shut up about making mandatory nationwide, you mean? Lets you kill off the 3rd parties destroying your legitimate powerbase (people who actually, legitamtely vote lib, for whatever reason) right there.

Well, let's see, you segregate minorities through extensive social programs, beleive in the practice of killing anyone considered the slightest bit inconvenient, tax the heck out of the little guy then promise him a better life because of it, set up a much larger federal government that regulates everything it can get it's hands on, violently prosecute trade unions that don't agree with you, and even go so far as to attack constantly the people closest to you in ideology.

Sound familiar? It should.
No doesn't ring a bell. Must be great living in a fairytail.

tens of thousands. That is why you had so many votes that had to be removed and discounted. Same with the votes they tried to get from the illegal immigrants and convicted violent felons and pedophiles. None of whome are legally allowed to vote in the US.

Try millions. Even as late as 1998, Chicago was counting more people voting Dem then lived in the city in 20 years. They've wised up some and cut down on the number of corpse voters, but it still happens.

Try millions. Even as late as 1998, Chicago was counting more people voting Dem then lived in the city in 20 years. They've wised up some and cut down on the number of corpse voters, but it still happens.
Got proof?

No doesn't ring a bell. Must be great living in a fairytail.

It's the Democratic party's agenda. The National Socialist's party agenda, too, BTW. Why am I bringing this up? It's a fact, liberalism shares a lot of traits with Nazis, and you guys would sooner put both barrels of a shotgun to your face and pull the triggers then admit it.

Tell me, who created Euthanesia, legalized abortion in west Europe for the first time again?

Got proof?

Yeah, the fact that 34 million people voted in California last year, despite them supposedly only having 25 million, a good share of which were later found to be illegals or dead.

Of course, I'd also think Al Capone voting would be a dead giveaway too, if you'll pardon the pun.

Too bad you have not achieved the “not even close” status yet... keep working on it

And a dang good thing, too. If I meet anyone in here's criteria of perfect, I'll definately be having issues.

Yeah, the fact that 34 million people voted in California last year, despite them supposedly only having 25 million, a good share of which were later found to be illegals or dead.

Of course, I'd also think Al Capone voting would be a dead giveaway too, if you'll pardon the pun.
No I meant proof, not a continuation of your retarded rant.

It's a fact, liberalism shares a lot of traits with Nazis

and, incidentally, it doesn't share a lot of other traits with the Nazi agenda, such as dictatorship governments and methodical exterminations.

We are fighting for freedom. We are fighting for OUR country. They put a hell of lot more on the line the line than you or the fireman or the damn doctor setting cozy in their offices and fire stations. The military deserves way more respect than the average citizen because they earned it. You don't get as much respect because you did not earn it. The military are people who make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation that they love.
The bill is not divisive to any one since it has bipartisan support and is going to fly through Congress and be signed into law. The only people opposing it are the America haters and those who get their sick sexual kicks out of bashing the US military and their bereaved families.
You just run your country your way, and let us run ours our way. Unless you've been in the US military or have worked with them, or are related to someone who is, you have no room to bash and troll.
The job the military does, is, and has always been, much more valuable than the jobs people do in the civilian sector. Without the military there is no United States. Without the US military, all Europeans would aryans and speaking german and reading Hitlers reader for children. Europe would be embroiled in a war right now, that would have spread out of the Balkans had the US military not gone in and saved the day cause Europeans can't fight for themselves. Same with Saudi Arabia. If not for the American military, Kuwait and Saudi would territories of Iraq and Saddam would still be going around gassing and torturing people. Haiti would be in the middle of civil war right now. The piracy off the coast of east Africa would be ten times worse than it is now that the US military has started anti pirate patrols in those waters.
And who the fucks been helping the latin americans keep their freedom from being taken away by the evil socialist revolutionaries? The armed forces of the United States of America. That is why the socialists in Brazil, Venezuela and Columbia always bash America and the military. Because they know that as long as the US military is strong and ever ready, they will never be able to strip the people of their countries of their fundamental freedoms.

It's not just American's freedom they are defending, we are defending yours too. Even if you don't give damn about it and think all American soldiers are worthless baby killers. Unlike certain other nations on modern day earth, we have never engaged in genocide or used WMD's. And don't pretend you don't know which nations I am referring to: Serbia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, Cuba, Bosnia, Iran, Turkey, Turkmenistan, etc.

You know...I'd debate this ill-conceived rant, but there's just too much hate, propaganda and blind faith in this post. However, I will respond to a few key points:

1. US has engaged in styles of genocide - the Native Americans, the oppression in much of Latin America - invasion of Cuba and the Phillipines are a good case for oppression and massacres

2. You have used WMDs. Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They may have been justified contemporarily, but you have used WMDs before.

3. Why exactly are socialist revolutionaries evil? Because they don't like to be pro-US puppets, and can actualy criticise the US?

4. The bill is divisive, since it only covers soldiers. Soldiers are no better than doctors, firemen and other such emergency services personnel. All risk their lives for a salary. Why no bill covering Doctors, or Firemen?

5. I don't hate America. I rather like your country for its rich history and social structure; I'm also not a socialist, but basically a centrist. Thus I don't fit your ill-concieved notion of someone who opposes your bill.

6. The military is not more valuable than civilian jobs. Soldiers cannot heal sick people, put out fires, arrest criminals or clean your gutters. They serve a role, no less or more important than any other. They know what they're joining up to do; if they don't, they damn well should.

Perhaps when you run for Congress again, you should use "Service Guarantees Citizenship" and "War Is Peace" as your running slogans. They seem more than suited to your idealistic, naive and hate-filled crusade.

No you are the one doing the thread jacking. This thread is for support of American military families. YOU came here to push your "the American military is all evil" agenda. If you want to espouse your view that the US military is evil, start your own damn thread. Don't push that gutter crap here. You are being very disrespectful of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. All you've done here is bash the American military and the US itself. Since you can't get the point I'll just have to come right out and be blunt and rude about it: SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT!!!

I will show respect to whomever I damn well please, you arrogant moron.

PROVE I bashed the US, PROVE I bashed the military, PROVE I'm a socialist and PROVE I'm the one threadjacking when you were the one hurling insults. Is it that big an insult to say they're not better than anyone else? Talk about conceited. I will not show you any respect. What are you going to do about it?

Well, let's see, you segregate minorities through extensive social programs, beleive in the practice of killing anyone considered the slightest bit inconvenient, tax the heck out of the little guy then promise him a better life because of it, set up a much larger federal government that regulates everything it can get it's hands on, violently prosecute trade unions that don't agree with you, and even go so far as to attack constantly the people closest to you in ideology.

Sound familiar? It should.

Yes. Because it's the REPUBLICAN AGENDA.

Moron.

And who the fucks been helping the latin americans keep their freedom from being taken away by the evil socialist revolutionaries? The armed forces of the United States of America. That is why the socialists in Brazil, Venezuela and Columbia always bash America and the military. Because they know that as long as the US military is strong and ever ready, they will never be able to strip the people of their countries of their fundamental freedoms.

You could study something about the politics of both Brazil and Venezuela before making your idiotic assumptions. Venezuela is run by Chavez, who is left-wing, and who you'll never be able to take down. Brazil only suffered a coup once, by the military itself, and is currently a very safe democracy. But, by all means, keep claiming I hate the US because I want to see the same law for everyone. And, since you couldn't care less for doctors, let's see how you go at waging war without them to patch your ungrateful bodies up in the battlefield.

Yeah, the fact that 34 million people voted in California last year

Not according to the California Secretary of State's office ...

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2005_special/sov_pref_pgiv_v_ror.pdf

From the November 2005 special election:

Eligible voters: 22,487,768
Actually voted: 15,891,482

Got any more neocon lies for us?

From the November 2005 special election:
Eligible voters: 22,487,768
Actually voted: 15,891,482
Got any more neocon lies for us?

not original ones, no. i'm trying to think of something you haven't already heard. :(

Being in the US military is not just another job. People don't join up just for the college money cause its simply not worth it. You have to truly love and believe in your country to sign up and put your life on the line for like 5 years or ten years. Even the bonuses they offer aren't worth it. If you don't give a damn about your country, don't sign up. We don't need you. Cause people like you are always the ones that fuck up and get people killed. If you sign up, do so for the right reasons.
I'll have to look it up, but there was an article where the DOD found that the vast majority of the American youth are NOT fit for military service cause they are fat and overweight and never exercise, not to mention that some of them have mental issues.

Not everyone can be in the military. No the military is not just a job like any other.

I open the floor to any one else in the military or who has been that can expand on the point I am trying to make. Or anyone that has a brother or sister, or son or other close relative that is in the US military.


That's for damn sure. I've been thinking of signing up for Iraq, though not with the military. Blackwater's paying $750 a day in most spots. Sounds like good figures to me.

I think America's a fantastic country and all, but I haven't quite got the national love for the high danger and low pay.

BTW, if anybody would like to start throwing allegations of private security contractors = Nazi mercenary deathsquads, this would be a good time.

and, incidentally, it doesn't share a lot of other traits with the Nazi agenda, such as dictatorship governments and methodical exterminations.

So let me get this straight, creating a government with no discernable seperation of powers, where the Federal government can routinely arrest or even kill random citizens on it's own say so, and already has advocated the summary killing of the unborn and handicapped is in no way similiar to Nazi Germany how?

Yes. Because it's the REPUBLICAN AGENDA.

Moron.

You mean because the Democrats first legalized segregation, overthrew it being overthrown twice, and now create the largest welfare system in the world and target it specifically at minorities?

When the Nazis were doing this, you called it the precursor to genocide.

So let me get this straight, creating a government with no discernable seperation of powers, where the Federal government can routinely arrest or even kill random citizens on it's own say so, and already has advocated the summary killing of the unborn and handicapped is in no way similiar to Nazi Germany how?
What drugs are you on?

Not according to the California Secretary of State's office ...

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2005_special/sov_pref_pgiv_v_ror.pdf

From the November 2005 special election:

Eligible voters: 22,487,768
Actually voted: 15,891,482

Got any more neocon lies for us?

Look, you can link to a statistics website that had over a year to figure out which votes were legit or not, good for you or even if they wish make a random guess based off of the average of people reported heading to individual polling stations.

Why don't you see if you can get ahold of the actual election day reported figures and see if they match? Or are you just going to take everything your government tells you word for word like a good little socialist?

What drugs are you on?

History and reality, you want me to hook you up? You'll have to do some reading.

Protesting at a funeral is not something I condone, but making more laws just for military personnel is not going to help much. It just gives the impression the military are more different to everyone else.

Look, you can link to a statistics website that had over a year to figure out which votes were legit or not, good for you or even if they wish make a random guess based off of the average of people reported heading to individual polling stations.

Why don't you see if you can get ahold of the actual election day reported figures and see if they match? Or are you just going to take everything your government tells you word for word like a good little socialist?

Got those figures for us then? You've been spouting off about them long enough, so lets seem them.

You also seem to have something against socialists, as you're throwing the word around as an insult enough times. Are you yet another puppet of Whittier--? There's nothing wrong with a welfare state, and despite your wild assertations, there are very few comparisons to be made between present-day America and Nazi Germany. I've yet to see Congress burn down and be blamed on Islamic terrorists and Bush take power; 9/11 may be an example, but it hasn't exactly turrned out well for Bush, if you're going to use that as an example.

Why don't you see if you can get ahold of the actual election day reported figures and see if they match? Or are you just going to take everything your government tells you word for word like a good little socialist?

Hey, I gave you the official election results from the California Secretary of State ... if you have numbers to refute it from a legitamite source, then post it.

Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass. We don't want to smell your farts.

God I hate posters like you. Go somewhere else to play.

Protesting at a funeral is not something I condone, but making more laws just for military personnel is not going to help much. It just gives the impression the military are more different to everyone else.
And they're somehow not? Not even law enforcement personnel deliberately go in harms way and face opponents armed almost as well as they are.

And they're somehow not? Not even law enforcement personnel deliberately go in harms way and face opponents armed almost as well as they are.
So what? They happen to have a dangerous job. That doesn't make them any more special than the rest of the country. At least not in the sense that they should get more rights than the average Joe.

And they're somehow not? Not even law enforcement personnel deliberately go in harms way and face opponents armed almost as well as they are.

No, they're not. They are paid to do a job they want to do, a job that has far more risks than most, but its the job they chose to do. About the only time I'd go for such a law is if these sldiers were fighting to protect my country or another country genuinely threatened - and the men and women in Iraq are not doing that.

Ok, so, so far:

Whittier & Troupe: "Waaaah, if you don't brown-nose the Military you must be anti-US commies, and we can post anything we want without the slightest iota of evidence because we are/were/brown-nose the Military!"

Everyone else: :rolleyes:

Whittier & Troupe: "Waaaah, if you don't brown-nose the Military you must be anti-US commies, and we can post anything we want without the slightest iota of evidence because we are/were/bworn-nose the Military!"

Everyone else: :rolleyes:

Very good assessment. There will be an extra dessert for you tonight. :)

Very good assessment. There will be an extra dessert for you tonight. :)

YAY, extra dessert! Can I pick the ice cream flavor? I want vanilla!

YAY, extra dessert! Can I pick the ice cream flavor? I want vanilla!
Sorry mate. I just ate the last of the vanilla ice-cream. There is still some chocolate or strawberry left though.

And they're somehow not? Not even law enforcement personnel deliberately go in harms way and face opponents armed almost as well as they are.

You're right: In Brazil the police faces opponents armed MUCH BETTER than they are. Yet you don't see anyone wanting to make non-policemen second-class citizens here.

Sorry mate. I just ate the last of the vanilla ice-cream. There is still some chocolate or strawberry left though.

Meh. *Steals Keruvalia's cash and buys himself some vanilla ice cream.*

Because the funerals with crazy nuts protesting at them are usually the military funerals.

Did you miss the earlier post about the Phelps crowd at the funerals of homosexuals?

Oddly, much of the military funeral protesting is also the Phelps crowd and has nothing to do with an anti-war message, they claim that when American's die in the occupation it's God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

Did you miss the earlier post about the Phelps crowd at the funerals of homosexuals?

Oddly, much of the military funeral protesting is also the Phelps crowd and has nothing to do with an anti-war message, they claim that when American's die in the occupation it's God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

Another nice detail: No laws were proposed when it were the gays, and I'm damn sure Whittier would be crying equality if it were. I'd STILL be against it unless it covered ALL. That's the difference between superior and inferior. Superior is coherent.

The electronic voting machines you guys still won't shut up about making mandatory nationwide, you mean? Lets you kill off the 3rd parties destroying your legitimate powerbase (people who actually, legitamtely vote lib, for whatever reason) right there.
Did you see the news articles on how the Venezuelans are trying to use vote machines to influence the US elections?