NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,98546,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl

That's just one article, but you could find others using google. What does everyone think about this? Personally, I think it is a great thing.

Bit of an assumption behind that title, as as far as I know the bill protects non-heros as well.

I think it's bullshit.

But then, I'm not an American, so I don't have to live in the dump your government is quite successfully creating for you.

Bit of an assumption behind that title, as as far as I know the bill protects non-heros as well.

That's the bill's official title. Awfully corny, but it's an election year. Now the incumbent Congress-people can proudly and truthfully say "I supported Respect for America's Fallen Heroes".

Unfortunately, I think that's the bill's only value. It creates a law that will stand in the books when Phelps is long gone, and that will be his legacy to the rest of us Americans. That raging bastard.

I think it's bullshit.

But then, I'm not an American, so I don't have to live in the dump your government is quite successfully creating for you.
Well some of us are doing our best to stop this bs

On one hand, I agree with the spirit of the intent of the law...

But I wonder how it'll actually work in the real world (especially considering this is only for national grounds only).

I'm also wondering if it will survive the SCOTUS challenge that will be filed by that Kansas ID10T.

That's the bill's official title. Awfully corny, but it's an election year. Now the incumbent Congress-people can proudly and truthfully say "I supported Respect for America's Fallen Heroes".
Ugh. The title's so sweet, I think I'm becoming diabetic.

I support this in spirit, but I wonder what it'll do for our freedom of speech.

I've got some reservations about this; it enables those pieces of shit like Fred Phelps to claim that they are being victimized and helps galvanize the extremists against what they see as an attack on their rights. I could also see extremists being motivated to join these kinds of groups as a protest against the infringement of what they percieve as their rights.

Legally, it doesn't really seem Constitutional but I don't know. My concern is more about the martyr complex that will be inflamed amongst extremists more than legality. I think groups like the Patriot Riders are a much better way to solve this problem; it keeps those scumbags out in the open so people can see how sick they are and also protects us from unconstitutional laws if they exist.

I support this in spirit, but I wonder what it'll do for our freedom of speech.
If people can protest military funerals, then so can Phelps protest gay funerals. As long as people are aware. Double standards shouldn't exist. I am all for the freedom of speech either way...

That's an orwelllian name if I've ever heard one.

These people faught and died for our freedoms, and in their names, the government is continuing to chip away at those very freedoms.

I support this in spirit, but I wonder what it'll do for our freedom of speech.
I always suport people not being asshats and messing with grieving familys

But the "Spirit" of this bill is to restrict when and where we can say something ... that I dont suport unless it is the extreem case of very clearly causing harm (such as yelling fire in a crouded room)

I actually don't see how this could be Constitutional under your First and Fourteenth Amendments.

But there you go.

"Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act"

Hah!

I think the penalty for violating the law is a bit steep but I definitely think it's a good law. Everyone is entitled to a solemn and respectful funeral irrespective of the manner or context in which they died, and likewise their family and friends should be entitled to grieve on such an occasion without having abuse hurled at them.

I always suport people not being asshats and messing with grieving familys

But the "Spirit" of this bill is to restrict when and where we can say something ... that I dont suport unless it is the extreem case of very clearly causing harm (such as yelling fire in a crouded room)

Likewise I do not like limiting freedom of speech, but I think in this case one could argue that it could well cause considerable emotional trauma to the family and friends of the victim.

I think the penalty for violating the law is a bit steep but I definitely think it's a good law. Everyone is entitled to a solemn and respectful funeral irrespective of the manner or context in which they died, and likewise their family and friends should be entitled to grieve on such an occasion without having abuse hurled at them.
Sense when do citizens have the right to not be offended?

When is it ever right to protest at someone's funeral? What legitimate group would ever need to stoop to that level? I support flag burning and other unpopular acts on the grounds of free speech, but this goes too far. The right of family members to mourn their dead children should take precedence over the right of some fringe group to mock that person's death in the presence of their parents, children, etc. It's not right or justifiable in any sense, and there is no reason to protect it.

I actually don't see how this could be Constitutional under your First and Fourteenth Amendments.

But there you go.

It isn't...not really...It's sorta like Stormfront getting censored...

When is it ever right to protest at someone's funeral? What legitimate group would ever need to stoop to that level? I support flag burning and other unpopular acts on the grounds of free speech, but this goes too far. The right of family members to mourn their dead children should take precedence over the right of some fringe group to mock that person's death in the presence of their parents, children, etc. It's not right or justifiable in any sense, and there is no reason to protect it.
Like I asked before sense when did people have the right to not be offended by something?

It would be fair if protests were banned from all funerals. But if soldiers are getting special treatment, I disagree with the law.

It isn't...not really...It's sorta like Stormfront getting censored...
Gasp, the very pillar of Western society being censored? :eek: Why sir, what you suggest is unthinkable!

When is it ever right to protest at someone's funeral? What legitimate group would ever need to stoop to that level? I support flag burning and other unpopular acts on the grounds of free speech, but this goes too far. The right of family members to mourn their dead children should take precedence over the right of some fringe group to mock that person's death in the presence of their parents, children, etc. It's not right or justifiable in any sense, and there is no reason to protect it.

*cough* Westboro Baptist Church *cough*

That's why we got this in the first place.

In some ways though...if the cemetaries are government property, can't they just restrict who gets to go there, so that only those invited to the funeral are allowed to attend? Same thing with other funeral protesters: how do they get to be there if it's private property?

Sense when do citizens have the right to not be offended?

They do not and defending this law places me in an uncomfortable position since I find myself arguing on the basis of utility rather than on grounds of liberty as I am more comfortable with.

In some ways though...if the cemetaries are government property, can't they just restrict who gets to go there, so that only those invited to the funeral are allowed to attend? Same thing with other funeral protesters: how do they get to be there if it's private property?

Stand right outside and yell really loud?

It would be fair if protests were banned from all funerals. But if soldiers are getting special treatment, I disagree with the law.

That's an excellent point.

They do not and defending this law places me in an uncomfortable position since I find myself arguing on the basis of utility rather than on grounds of liberty as I am more comfortable with.
I understand ... I really do but in this case liberty is trumping my pragmativeness

In some ways though...if the cemetaries are government property, can't they just restrict who gets to go there, so that only those invited to the funeral are allowed to attend? Same thing with other funeral protesters: how do they get to be there if it's private property?
Agreed if they are violating private property rights they aught to be arrested

*cough* Westboro Baptist Church *cough*

That's why we got this in the first place.
That's what I mean. Apart from the troglodytes at Westboro, no other group has a legitimate reason to make a mockery of someone's funeral. So restricting that "right" doesn't really harm free speech in general.

Besides, the argument can be made that such protests have a reasonable expectation of inciting violence (AKA "fighting words"), or at least cause significant psycological and emotional damage.

It would be fair if protests were banned from all funerals. But if soldiers are getting special treatment, I disagree with the law.

Just happens to be the soldier funerals getting protested.

It would be fair if protests were banned from all funerals. But if soldiers are getting special treatment, I disagree with the law.
That is another point I disagree with the law on ... not providing equal protection under the law (even though I think it is a bunk law)

Just happens to be the soldier funerals getting protested.

But does that mean they should get their own special law? I think not.

Stand right outside and yell really loud?

Most cemetaries have fences with a lot of trees between the fence and the graves, so it's kind of hard to do.

But does that mean they should get their own special law? I think not.

Never said it did. It explains why they have it.

I dont much like the bush government, i think they are idiots. However you dont go to any funeral and tell someone there sons and daughters are going to hell. Its crass and unchristian.Bravo on the new bill protecting soldiers funerals from these kind of attacks.

Just happens to be the soldier funerals getting protested.

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.

That's what I mean. Apart from the troglodytes at Westboro, no other group has a legitimate reason to make a mockery of someone's funeral. So restricting that "right" doesn't really harm free speech in general.

Besides, the argument can be made that such protests have a reasonable expectation of inciting violence (AKA "fighting words"), or at least cause significant psycological and emotional damage.

Yup. Hey, it's probably easiest to try calling it a hate crime. A bit of a stretch, I know, but why not?

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.

Yeah, but since when has the government been concerned about "those people"? :rolleyes:

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.

This is where we take current government into consideration. Protecting military before gays? To be expected.

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.
Yeah, that was in this thread. ;)

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.
Did he not protest a few gay funerals of some that had died geting jumped and beat to death?

Somehow I have a feeling it is easier to flag wave and protect our "hero's" rather then protecting all our citizens even thoes "icky gays"

I think the law should prevent protesting at all people's funerals. I'm not particularly pro-gay, but I respect the right of a family to mourn a gay person's death, and it should be protected just like the soldiers' funerals should.

Did he not protest a few gay funerals of some that had died geting jumped and beat to death?
Oh, yeah. Here are some gems from Wikipedia:

The homophobic Fred Phelps and his supporters picketed Shepard's funeral as well as the trial of his assailants. They displayed signs typical of their protests, with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" and "God Hates Fags". Phelps later made attempts to gain city permits in Cheyenne and Casper, Wyoming to build a monument "of marble or granite 5 or 6 feet in height" on which will be a bronze plaque bearing Shepard's picture and the words: "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."
Phelps also had his "congregation" protest the deaths of Pope John Paul II, the trapped West Virginia mineworkers, Fred Rogers (AKA "Mr. Rogers") and even had them wave their sickening placards on the rubble of the World Trade Center just days after 9/11.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/WBC_-_Dead_Miners_2006.jpg/180px-WBC_-_Dead_Miners_2006.jpg

I think the law should prevent protesting at all people's funerals. I'm not particularly pro-gay, but I respect the right of a family to mourn a gay person's death, and it should be protected just like the soldiers' funerals should.
Again sense when did we aquire this right to not be offended?

In some ways though...if the cemetaries are government property, can't they just restrict who gets to go there, so that only those invited to the funeral are allowed to attend? Same thing with other funeral protesters: how do they get to be there if it's private property?
and how would they restrict access? it's a National Cemetary, people go in to play respects to their loved ones buried there.

"Sorry, this is opened only for the family for Sgt Johnson... you have to come back tomorrow." :rolleyes:

Oh, yeah. Here are some gems from Wikipedia:

Phelps also had his "congregation" protest the deaths of Pope John Paul II, the trapped Carolina mineworkers, and even had them wave their sickening placards on the rubble of the World Trade Center just days after 9/11.

What do they have against miners?

Oh, yeah. Here are some gems from Wikipedia:

Phelps also had his "congregation" protest the deaths of Pope John Paul II, the trapped Carolina mineworkers, and even had them wave their sickening placards on the rubble of the World Trade Center just days after 9/11.
Thought so ... but when looking for a good example (could not remember the name ... must be tired) it was buried under all the news and blogs about this legislation rather then what I was looking for

Thanks

Did he not protest a few gay funerals of some that had died geting jumped and beat to death?

Somehow I have a feeling it is easier to flag wave and protect our "hero's" rather then protecting all our citizens even thoes "icky gays"

That does bring up an interesting point - since when have soldiers been our "heroes?" Certainly they're citizens and, in general, wonderful people. But our heroes? Since when does the government have the right to decide that either?

Agreed if they are violating private property rights they aught to be arrested
but they are not Violating Private Property rights. this is a National Cemetary. Owned, Cared for and Maintained by the Federal Government.
If the Owners of Private Property can say who can come in and also lay down rules for conduct, the same can be for the Governemnt when dealing with Government Land.

Again sense when did we aquire this right to not be offended?

Since when did we have a right not to be punched?

Neither is an issue of rights, they're an issue of more prosaic legal problems, like not being allowed to harm people in various ways.

Again sense when did we aquire this right to not be offended?

What do you mean by that statement?

and how would they restrict access? it's a National Cemetary, people go in to play respects to their loved ones buried there.

"Sorry, this is opened only for the family for Sgt Johnson... you have to come back tomorrow." :rolleyes:

They could theoretically do that. Have visitation days and funeral days, and keep the two separate. In the end, as the government is providing a service, they should be able to provide a quality service, and I doubt most families at funerals want total strangers present, protesting or not.

and how would they restrict access? it's a National Cemetary, people go in to play respects to their loved ones buried there.

"Sorry, this is opened only for the family for Sgt Johnson... you have to come back tomorrow." :rolleyes:
I guess they could do simple checkin process ... get a pass from the guard sort of thing

He would just have to be smart enough to not give one to phelps

Again sense when did we aquire this right to not be offended?

"Since when were we denied the right to not be offended?" is the question that you're going to have to answer to make your point. Bill of Rights gives us all rights that are not explicitly held by the Federal or State governments.

They could theoretically do that. Have visitation days and funeral days, and keep the two separate. In the end, as the government is providing a service, they should be able to provide a quality service, and I doubt most families at funerals want total strangers present, protesting or not.
Most graveyards are large enough that there is no problem having a funeral go on while people visit family members

Most graveyards are large enough that there is no problem having a funeral go on while people visit family members

So divide it into sections. In today's world of corporate everything, I'm sure at least some funerals have taken measures to make sure that visitors are in parts of the cemetary away from funerals-in-progress. The government can do the same thing.

"Since when were we denied the right to not be offended?" is the question that you're going to have to answer to make your point. Bill of Rights gives us all rights that are not explicitly held by the Federal or State governments.
Sense freedom of speech is defined by the constitution one would think that would trump the unstated.

I can tell you one thing, if they protest at my grandfather's funeral I am going to be so pissed off.

I can tell you one thing, if they protest at my grandfather's funeral I am going to be so pissed off.
I would be too … That does not mean the law should restrict someone else’s freedom to save me from being pissed off.

My mood comes second to my freedoms

Sense freedom of speech is defined by the constitution one would think that would trump the unstated.

There you go. Now you've said it properly. "Since when does the right to not be offended trump the right to free speech?"

And the word you are looking for is "since" not "sense".

I would be too … That does not mean the law should restrict someone else’s freedom to save me from being pissed off.

My mood comes second to my freedoms
Out of curiosity, in a private cemetery in the US, you wouldn't be able to protest a funeral, would you?

Out of curiosity, in a private cemetery in the US, you wouldn't be able to protest a funeral, would you?
One would hope that said private property owners would be responsible enough to toss those asshats out on their ear.

It would be fair if protests were banned from all funerals. But if soldiers are getting special treatment, I disagree with the law.
because the Government can only define what is allowed/not allowed on Federal Land. Just like the State can only define what can be allowed on State Land and private citizens on their land.

unless you want the Federal Government telling you what you can do in say... your bedroom?

There you go. Now you've said it properly. "Since when does the right to not be offended trump the right to free speech?"

And the word you are looking for is "since" not "sense".
Thanks :) I am typing fast on my *nix machine and open office sometimes makes weird corrections (but better then my normal spelling)

One would hope that said private property owners would be responsible enough to toss those asshats out on their ear.
If the military is so up in arms about this, can't it just privately purchase burial cemeteries and then exercise its rights qua private property owner to kick out protestors?

Out of curiosity, in a private cemetery in the US, you wouldn't be able to protest a funeral, would you?

Yep. Problem is, this one doesn't allow them to protest outside of the cemetary either. For about 60ft in general, and 300ft for the entrance. You can't quite do that in normal private cemetaries, unless the cemetary people own that land too.

One would hope that said private property owners would be responsible enough to toss those asshats out on their ear.

And government property managers can do the same thing.

I remember someone talking about this in a previous thread: it isn't just soldier funerals getting protested. Phelps has been protesting gays' funerals for years.
and these funerals were in National Cemetaries right? guess what, they are now also protected.

oh, those Gay funerals were not in National Cemetaries? then how can you say the Government can protect those funerals if they are outside the Federal Government's jurisdiction... unless you want the Feds to overstep their boundaries and make rules of conducts for privately owned properties?

and these funerals were in National Cemetaries right? guess what, they are now also protected.

oh, those Gay funerals were not in National Cemetaries? then how can you say the Government can protect those funerals if they are outside the Federal Government's jurisdiction... unless you want the Feds to overstep their boundaries and make rules of conducts for privately owned properties?
For the most part I can understand this legislation they are banning all protest on cemetery grounds (it just happens to be a cemetery for only solders rather then a bias of the law)

Though I don’t quite agree with them not only banning it on federal property but also in the surrounding area … to me that’s pushing their limits a bit. (can a private property owner not only ban protests on their land but 500 foot surrounding their land as well?)

and these funerals were in National Cemetaries right? guess what, they are now also protected.

oh, those Gay funerals were not in National Cemetaries? then how can you say the Government can protect those funerals if they are outside the Federal Government's jurisdiction... unless you want the Feds to overstep their boundaries and make rules of conducts for privately owned properties?

If the protests are going on in non-government cemetaries, that means that the government has taken some sort of action to prevent people from simply throwing the protesters out. They're already making rules where they shouldn't.

If the military is so up in arms about this, can't it just privately purchase burial cemeteries and then exercise its rights qua private property owner to kick out protestors?
Yes but they are not just kicking them out of their property … they are banning anything in the area of said private property… can private property owners kick out and arrest protesters within 500 foot of their land?

I think the law should prevent protesting at all people's funerals. I'm not particularly pro-gay, but I respect the right of a family to mourn a gay person's death, and it should be protected just like the soldiers' funerals should.
it does. but they can only extend that protection to National Cemetaries. Not all Cemetaries are National ones.

Yes but they are not just kicking them out of their property … they are banning anything in the area of said private property… can private property owners kick out and arrest protesters within 500 foot of their land?
Yeah, I find that to be a bit excessive.

Yeah, I find that to be a bit excessive.
And sense they cover not only protests but loud noises and speeches or anything they are most defiantly restricting people’s rights on non governmental land.

They could theoretically do that. Have visitation days and funeral days, and keep the two separate. In the end, as the government is providing a service, they should be able to provide a quality service, and I doubt most families at funerals want total strangers present, protesting or not.
think about it, you protest the government telling ONLY THE Protestors to stay out, but are willing to say that all morners paying respect to another buried person can be barred from entering the cemetary??? nice double standard there.
I guess they could do simple checkin process ... get a pass from the guard sort of thing

He would just have to be smart enough to not give one to phelps
a guest list for a funeral? guess also printing out passes would also up the price for the funeral... unless you talking about thoes club stamps bouncers put on attendings hands...

So divide it into sections. In today's world of corporate everything, I'm sure at least some funerals have taken measures to make sure that visitors are in parts of the cemetary away from funerals-in-progress. The government can do the same thing.
and that's what they did.

Mourners inside, Protesters outside.

There you go. Now you've said it properly. "Since when does the right to not be offended trump the right to free speech?"

And the word you are looking for is "since" not "sense".

Sigged for truth.

Sigged for truth.
I've been sigged! :p

One would hope that said private property owners would be responsible enough to toss those asshats out on their ear.
BINGO!

and in a NATIONAL CEMETARY, the Government has the RIGHT to keep all protesters OUT.

Thanks :) I am typing fast on my *nix machine and open office sometimes makes weird corrections (but better then my normal spelling)
Oh? you were misspelling things... Never noticed... (prays no one notices all misspelled words in my posts.) :D

Oh? you were misspelling things... Never noticed... (prays no one notices all misspelled words in my posts.) :D
Yeah I am horrible. Normally when I spend my time grammar and thought comprehension is good but I just cant seem to ever get a grip on this spelling thing (and now I am old enough my brain is sort of set this way)

For the most part I can understand this legislation they are banning all protest on cemetery grounds (it just happens to be a cemetery for only solders rather then a bias of the law)if only soldiers and former soldiers can be buried in National Cemetaries, then all Gays who are/were soldiers will be afforded this protection. if you want all funerals to have the same protection, then talk to your state legislators to pass similar rulings.

Though I don’t quite agree with them not only banning it on federal property but also in the surrounding area … to me that’s pushing their limits a bit. (can a private property owner not only ban protests on their land but 500 foot surrounding their land as well?)can't restraining orders demand 1000 ft or any other distance away from person[s] being bothered? never heard of personal space reaching out to 1000 ft. so the same can be said for these restrictions.

I think it's bullshit.

But then, I'm not an American, so I don't have to live in the dump your government is quite successfully creating for you.

Yor lucky! :mad:

BINGO!

and in a NATIONAL CEMETARY, the Government has the RIGHT to keep all protesters OUT.
But in this case not only do they have the right to kick people out but they have the right to persecute anyone that they think violates these rules 500 feet (think it was feet rather then yards) beyond their property. They are going well beyond their right to deny access to their property.

if only soldiers and former soldiers can be buried in National Cemetaries, then all Gays who are/were soldiers will be afforded this protection. if you want all funerals to have the same protection, then talk to your state legislators to pass similar rulings.

can't restraining orders demand 1000 ft or any other distance away from person[s] being bothered? never heard of personal space reaching out to 1000 ft. so the same can be said for these restrictions.

Restraining orders are for the sake of protection. If there were no restraining orders, we'd pretty much be looking at either jailing the one person or allowing the other (or those around him/her) to die. Pretty big difference between that and protesting.

I support this in spirit, but I wonder what it'll do for our freedom of speech.

If protesting a funeral is the only way one can use his freedom of speech, then he is probably better off not saying anything anyway.

Next they will be pushing the "Respect for America's Fallen Liberties Act" that makes it illegal to protest the death of our Bill of Rights.

Maybe they could use the title "If You Love America, You Don't Need These Rights Anyway Act", but they blew their best title with the Patriot Act.

if only soldiers and former soldiers can be buried in National Cemetaries, then all Gays who are/were soldiers will be afforded this protection. if you want all funerals to have the same protection, then talk to your state legislators to pass similar rulings.

can't restraining orders demand 1000 ft or any other distance away from person[s] being bothered? never heard of personal space reaching out to 1000 ft. so the same can be said for these restrictions.
But those are arranged and informed extension based on the safety of the party.

In the case of the cemeteries they are extending a “Quiet zone” around all cemeteries for express safety reason

If the protests are going on in non-government cemetaries, that means that the government has taken some sort of action to prevent people from simply throwing the protesters out. They're already making rules where they shouldn't.what?!?

if the protests are going on in Non-Government cemetaries, that doesn't mean that the Governemnt had taken any steps. it just means that the funeral the protesters are protesting is happening in a Non-Government owned Cemetary.

Check this out:

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Chaplinsky, one of Jehovah's Witness, had told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

The court went on to say that while the government can regulate the mode of delivery of the ideas (time, place, and manner), it cannot regulate the ideas themselves. In more recent decisions, the court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that loudly shouting "so-and-so is rotting in Hell right now" at that same person's funeral would "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate".

Check this out:


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that loudly shouting "so-and-so is rotting in Hell right now" at that same person's funeral would "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate".
If you think so why the hell does this need a special law?

The way I see it, this is a very singular situation. It's not something that the Federal Government should have to deal with. Creating a national law over this bunch of idiots is ridiculous, even if it is/was constitutional.

Typically this sort of thing is not a problem because those very few morons who would do something of this kind are held back by social pressure from those around them. I'm guessing that this is happening because enough of said morons have somehow gotten together to form their own little subculture where it is considered ok.

The "right" (not legal...) way to deal with this is for a sizable group of community minded individuals to show up at one of these funeral protests and calmly yet forcefully pin down, tie up, gag, and drag these protesters away from the funeral to some quiet place where someone can explicitly explain to them that their behavior is unacceptable to the society in which they live, and that it will not be tolerated. Then put them on a bus bound for where they came from and let that be the end of it.

All I can say if my cousin came home in a body bag and we tried to put him in the ground with a bunch of fuggin hippies shouting and screaming that he was a baby killer...well then I can quite honestly say I would enjoy the right of carrying a weapon with me and put some holes in them :sniper:
I'm aware of the reprocutions order in America has not broke down as far as for that to get away yet. And to some who harp on America allll the damn time look to your own borders sometime because I think I can say and not be far from the truth that every single government in the world is corupt and that yes there are those that strive to make it better. America is simply in the forefront right now just as others have been all through out history, our time will pass and the hate will fade and everyone will hate somone else.

Check this out:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that loudly shouting "so-and-so is rotting in Hell right now" at that same person's funeral would "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate".

It is a statement of protest, not an insult. Also, I don't know of any fights that have broken out.

The way I see it, this is a very singular situation. It's not something that the Federal Government should have to deal with. Creating a national law over this bunch of idiots is ridiculous, even if it is/was constitutional.

Typically this sort of thing is not a problem because those very few morons who would do something of this kind are held back by social pressure from those around them. I'm guessing that this is happening because enough of said morons have somehow gotten together to form their own little subculture where it is considered ok.

The "right" (not legal...) way to deal with this is for a sizable group of community minded individuals to show up at one of these funeral protests and calmly yet forcefully pin down, tie up, gag, and drag these protesters away from the funeral to some quiet place where someone can explicitly explain to them that their behavior is unacceptable to the society in which they live, and that it will not be tolerated. Then put them on a bus bound for where they came from and let that be the end of it.

Sign me up. We can cross the continent in an APC armed with mace and bolas and disrupt the disrupters.

It is a statement of protest, not an insult. Also, I don't know of any fights that have broken out.
Thankfully the funeral goers have been massivly resonable

Actualy makes me proud that they have showed restraint with that jackass

But in this case not only do they have the right to kick people out but they have the right to persecute anyone that they think violates these rules 500 feet (think it was feet rather then yards) beyond their property. They are going well beyond their right to deny access to their property.
people and store owners can restrict someone from entering or getting near people and I've seen restraining orders or bannings (from stores) that can be 500+ feet from person/property.

An alternative, more poetically just, yet macabre solution is to find a nice grassy field, lay out some tomb stones and put up a graveyard sign before lacing the whole thing with anti-personnel mines. Then let it be know that there is to be a funeral there for a gay soldier. Then after this group of nut jobs has come and gone up in a cloud of smoke and fire, clean up the mess and forget it ever happened.

(not how I would handle it, I just think it would make an elegant solution)

Restraining orders are for the sake of protection. If there were no restraining orders, we'd pretty much be looking at either jailing the one person or allowing the other (or those around him/her) to die. Pretty big difference between that and protesting.
not really, since Funerals are emotinal events already. and not all restraining orders are for Life or Death situations. simple presence of a threat can warrant a restraining order and Phelps and co are certainly going out of their way to antagonize people.

people and store owners can restrict someone from entering or getting near people and I've seen restraining orders or bannings (from stores) that can be 500+ feet from person/property.
But restraining orders are close ended orders rather then open ended … they are targeted against specific reasonably proven threats … rather then anyone

One is a very specific target to reasonably protect a person or property. The other is a non specific open ended banning

Makes me just a bit more uncomfortable about it

An alternative, more poetically just, yet macabre solution is to find a nice grassy field, lay out some tomb stones and put up a graveyard sign before lacing the whole thing with anti-personnel mines. Then let it be know that there is to be a funeral there for a gay soldier. Then after this group of nut jobs has come and gone up in a cloud of smoke and fire, clean up the mess and forget it ever happened.

(not how I would handle it, I just think it would make an elegant solution)

Could be a problem if a group of gay people came to pay their respects.

But those are arranged and informed extension based on the safety of the party.

In the case of the cemeteries they are extending a “Quiet zone” around all cemeteries for express safety reason
to do less is a double standard.

and not all restraining or banning is because of a threat.

I know someone who had a restraining order slapped on him by a store. he was no treat to anyone. just persistantly annoying. but that was enough for the store to bann him and have it ordered that he maintains 100 feet away from store entrance and any customers entering the store.

All I can say if my cousin came home in a body bag and we tried to put him in the ground with a bunch of fuggin hippies shouting and screaming that he was a baby killer...well then I can quite honestly say I would enjoy the right of carrying a weapon with me and put some holes in them :sniper:
I'm aware of the reprocutions order in America has not broke down as far as for that to get away yet. And to some who harp on America allll the damn time look to your own borders sometime because I think I can say and not be far from the truth that every single government in the world is corupt and that yes there are those that strive to make it better. America is simply in the forefront right now just as others have been all through out history, our time will pass and the hate will fade and everyone will hate somone else.
What if it's bible thumping homophopes? Because that's whose doing this. Though 'no one' seemed to care until they started doing it at soldiers funerals. When it was homosexuals, well...

But restraining orders are close ended orders rather then open ended … they are targeted against specific reasonably proven threats … rather then anyone

One is a very specific target to reasonably protect a person or property. The other is a non specific open ended banning

Makes me just a bit more uncomfortable about it
and the Government cannot make such rulings. that will be singling out one religion/individual for the sole purpose of restricting their speech and that will be against the 1st Amendment. This way its fair and a blanket clause that will affect really no one else since I don't recall anyone else protesting funerals to the extent Phelps is.

All I can say if my cousin came home in a body bag and we tried to put him in the ground with a bunch of fuggin hippies shouting and screaming that he was a baby killer...well then I can quite honestly say I would enjoy the right of carrying a weapon with me and put some holes in them :sniper:
I'm aware of the reprocutions order in America has not broke down as far as for that to get away yet. And to some who harp on America allll the damn time look to your own borders sometime because I think I can say and not be far from the truth that every single government in the world is corupt and that yes there are those that strive to make it better. America is simply in the forefront right now just as others have been all through out history, our time will pass and the hate will fade and everyone will hate somone else.


WTF are you babbling about? "Hippies"? Do you even know who Phelps is? He's no hippie opposed to the war because of "Imperialist America", he's a homophobic asshat protesting funerals because the soldiers supposedly died "defending a nation that supports fags." What did your incoherent rant have to do with anything? Learn to read posts before you respond, lest you look like a semi-literate troll, and for God's sake, learn better spelling and grammar.

to do less is a double standard.

and not all restraining or banning is because of a threat.

I know someone who had a restraining order slapped on him by a store. he was no treat to anyone. just persistantly annoying. but that was enough for the store to bann him and have it ordered that he maintains 100 feet away from store entrance and any customers entering the store.
Personally I don’t think such restraining orders should be issued either IMHO

We had a similar guy around here but they had to wait till he became a possible threat to customers (think he threatened a dq employee)

He used to have his own site (www.stcloudsuperman.com) he dressed in a cape and a superman shirt and stood on corners all day long

I think it's bullshit.

But then, I'm not an American, so I don't have to live in the dump your government is quite successfully creating for you.


YOU PIECE OF LIBERAL TRASH... SHUT THE FUCK UP...IF YOUR NOT AN AMERICAN YOUR OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN US. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE. IF YOU SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO DONT SUPPORT HUMAN LIVES OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SHIT ON MY SHOE. IF YOU THINK THAT AMERICA IS BAD BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DYING FOR OUR COUNTRY, IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT HUMAN LIFE THEN YOU ARE LESS THAN THE SHIT ON MY SHOE.

and the Government cannot make such rulings. that will be singling out one religion/individual for the sole purpose of restricting their speech and that will be against the 1st Amendment. This way its fair and a blanket clause that will affect really no one else since I don't recall anyone else protesting funerals to the extent Phelps is.
The government does make such rulings in the case of restraining orders.

(by the way why could the government not have all superintendents get a restraining order on Phelps and his small cohort)

Originally Posted by Vittos Ordination2
It is a statement of protest, not an insult. Also, I don't know of any fights that have broken out.


protesting a dead person is not right in any case. if you lost family in a war do you want a bunch of liberal fucks telling you that your child is a baby killer and he should go to hell. it is immoral to protest somebody's assencion into heaven. funerals are a place for greiving not a place to advance political views.

this is yet another shot at taking away our rights. and no i don't beleive what these god fearing people are doing at funerals is right, any more then i believe that the klu klux klan holding a march is right. but the fact is we have to protect the rights of all americans, like them or not. or all we become is nothing more then what they stand for.

Originally Posted by Vittos Ordination2
It is a statement of protest, not an insult. Also, I don't know of any fights that have broken out.


protesting a dead person is not right in any case. if you lost family in a war do you want a bunch of liberal fucks telling you that your child is a baby killer and he should go to hell. it is immoral to protest somebody's assencion into heaven. funerals are a place for greiving not a place to advance political views.
How is phelps (the one that is protesting) "Liberal" in any way shape or form

this is yet another shot at taking away our rights. and no i don't beleive what these god fearing people are doing at funerals is right, any more then i believe that the klu klux klan holding a march is right. but the fact is we have to protect the rights of all americans, like them or not. or all we become is nothing more then what they stand for.
and guess what. there is nothing wrong with a march. infact GLAAD holds marches as well. and Marches are not even close to the subject here.

now how many other groups holds protests close to the degree and purpose that Phelps and co do?

and guess what. there is nothing wrong with a march. infact GLAAD holds marches as well. and Marches are not even close to the subject here.

now how many other groups holds protests close to the degree and purpose that Phelps and co do?
KKK managed a few ... they have toned it down latly though

The government does make such rulings in the case of restraining orders.

(by the way why could the government not have all superintendents get a restraining order on Phelps and his small cohort)
for each and every National Cemetary? for each member? something that can change from funeral to funeral?

what will happen is a member gets in (new we'll say) and starts his small protest and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES will then come around and physically pull him out? isn't that more of an action against free speech than this bill which blankets all forms of Protest. and doesn't it cost money to identify, hand out bullitins as well as restraining orders for phelps and crew for each National Cemetary?

the bill is cheaper in the long run, does not target any one group or person, and doesn't stop them from saying what they want to say.

KKK managed a few ... they have toned it down latly though
and that was smart of them. they got their word out and backed off (or toned down) to avoid rash actions on anyone's part. too bad Phelps couldn't think clearly with his nose so close to his Colon.

for each and every National Cemetary? for each member? something that can change from funeral to funeral?

what will happen is a member gets in (new we'll say) and starts his small protest and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES will then come around and physically pull him out? isn't that more of an action against free speech than this bill which blankets all forms of Protest. and doesn't it cost money to identify, hand out bullitins as well as restraining orders for phelps and crew for each National Cemetary?

the bill is cheaper in the long run, does not target any one group or person, and doesn't stop them from saying what they want to say.
It just potentialy stops everyone from saying what they want to say rather then just the people that are abusing

Egggxecelent.

YOU PIECE OF LIBERAL TRASH... SHUT THE FUCK UP...IF YOUR NOT AN AMERICAN YOUR OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN US. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE. IF YOU SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO DONT SUPPORT HUMAN LIVES OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SHIT ON MY SHOE. IF YOU THINK THAT AMERICA IS BAD BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DYING FOR OUR COUNTRY, IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT HUMAN LIFE THEN YOU ARE LESS THAN THE SHIT ON MY SHOE.

Two things.

1. Press the submit button ONCE. Not 6 times. Be patient.
2. Your statements and language towards others are unacceptable, therefore you are receiving an Official Warning.

Erastide
~Forum Moderator

I always suport people not being asshats and messing with grieving familys

But the "Spirit" of this bill is to restrict when and where we can say something ... that I dont suport unless it is the extreem case of very clearly causing harm (such as yelling fire in a crouded room)

You don't think slinging vile words to a mourning family causes harm? I think you have never buried a soldier.

You don't think slinging vile words to a mourning family causes harm? I think you have never buried a soldier.
And how is burrying a solder any different then burrying any other human?

(BTW you would be wrong ... my uncle and cousin ... but neither of them died on active duty it was before the current conflict)

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,98546,00.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl

That's just one article, but you could find others using google. What does everyone think about this? Personally, I think it is a great thing.
I support this.

If my brother dies while he's in the Middle East, I sure as hell don't want some random people protesting and saying that God hates him. I and my brother are good hearted Christians and these people who do these things are jokes.

The right to peaceably assemble was so cool.

It just potentialy stops everyone from saying what they want to say rather then just the people that are abusing
And apart from the people that are abusing, who else would have reason to protest a military funeral? Nobody. That's why this law is acceptable -- it doesn't obstruct any legitimate form of free speech, just a few wackos who thrive on hatred and bitter confrontation. Although this law would be more acceptable if it applied to *all* funerals...

PS: According to his own daughter, Fred Phelps is "addicted to hate". So, it's not like he's really trying to air a political view -- he's just trying to get his fix. The man's insane... so why should his insensitive, vile ravings be allowed to disrupt the mourning of some innocent family who has not only lost someone dear to them, but who have no relation to Phelps or his church and have done him no wrong?

The right to peaceably assemble was so cool.
*sigh*

That's like responding to the restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with "The right to free speech was so cool."

You can still peaceably assemble. The only thing this law restricts is the "right" of some cult to rain their bitterness and vitriol down on some random family which is merely trying to bury a child who was just killed in action. What right does Phelps have to intrude on that? Why is disrupting a funeral of some poor family to which he has no relation whatsoever so vital to disseminating his vile propaganda? Free speech does and should have a few limits, you know, and destroying the solemnity and honor of a random funeral solely to engender conflict and gain publicity definitely falls outside those limits.

Free speech does and should have a few limits
No it shouldn't.

I am in no way associated with Phelps, but I still would like to protest the funerals of soldiers if the mood hits me.

The right to peaceably assemble was so cool.

Since when was hurling abuse at strangers 'peaceful assembly?'

No it shouldn't.

I am in no way associated with Phelps, but I still would like to protest the funerals of soldiers if the mood hits me.
and you still can. just no on the cemetary Grounds.

Since when was hurling abuse at strangers 'peaceful assembly?'
It's what the men in the Revolutionary War did. Only "good" American war.

The soldiers today don't deserve any special protections. The only thing they fight for is their bank accounts. Mercenary scum.

It's what the men in the Revolutionary War did. Only "good" American war.

The soldiers today don't deserve any special protections. The only thing they fight for is their bank accounts. Mercenary scum.

My best friend is a veteran of this war and I cannot express my disgust for your last comment withouth flaming you ...BADLY. Your ignorant comment which you vomited upon my screen ...is not worthy of comment and not relevant to the thread.

Last I checked the right to peacefully assemble was intended to protect 'the holding of meetings for peaceable political action,' not the holding of meetings for criminal harassment of private citizens in places of worship, something which is illegal anyway in some states.

Also, we have soldiers on this forum who would appreciate not being called 'mercenary scum,' so tone the trolling right down. Now.

Also, we have soldiers on this forum who would appreciate not being called 'mercenary scum,' so tone the trolling right down. Now.
off topic: GMC, your Avatar enhances this post. :cool:

Wow, there sure are a lot of grey zones in this issue. On one hand, I think that the law is good(but the name...the NAME!), but what will it lead to in practicality? Police confrontations at funerals?

On the other hand, the law is a direct violation to Freedom of Speech, which these poor troops died supposedly protecting.

It would be better with a law that states something in the affect that "all participants at a funeral must remain civil and show proper respect for the deceased" and not this patriotic BS that only protects soldiers(they are worth exactly as much as any other person).

Last I checked the right to peacefully assemble was intended to protect 'the holding of meetings for peaceable political action,' not the holding of meetings for criminal harassment of private citizens in places of worship, something which is illegal anyway in some states.
It doesn't matter what it was "meant" for. When this country was founded there were laws "meant" to protect slavery.
Don't you want to end this war? Stripping the soldiers of their dignity is a great way to do it. It sure worked during Vietnam when there was a much higher approval rating of the president and congress.
There's no telling what it could accomplish now.
Also, we have soldiers on this forum who would appreciate not being called 'mercenary scum,' so tone the trolling right down. Now.
I'm sure there are also business men and entrepreneurs who don't enjoy being indirectly called "capitalist pigs" and whatnot. Why the special protection for soldiers?

Don't you want to end this war? Stripping the soldiers of their dignity is a great way to do it.

Right, so you believe harassing the families of soldiers will punish the soldiers themselves, who are dead, for the decisions of the government, who you're not affecting in the slightest. Harassing private citizens who had nothing to do with the war and whose 'crime' is being related to someone who was is no way to prove anything.

Ending a war is a matter of solving the issues that caused it, not hurting the people who are fighting it. If you want to make a case, take it to the politicians, not the innocents.

I'm sure there are also business men and entrepreneurs who don't enjoy being indirectly called "capitalist pigs" and whatnot. Why the special protection for soldiers?

No, it isn't. Accusing all soldiers in the world [by your wording] of being 'scum' is trolling, plain and simple. Knock it off, and knock off the irrelevant comparisons while you're at it. There is no 'special protection' being issued here, we've issued similar rulings about people calling lawyers and French people scum.

Might I extend a Big F*** You to all you soldier bashers out there.


You have the right to be a pretentious soldier basher the exact minute you go out there and defend our borders. Claiming that modern US Soldiers amount to mercenaries just flies in the face of fact. Most enlisted soldiers make barely enough to live on base; they couldn't afford to live off base. They couldn't possibly be doing it for the money because there is NO MONEY! Those soldiers do what they are told because they believe they are serving our country; that means the people of this country because some of them still actually believe our government is the best representation 275 million people can get.


Yeah our government has its problems, but what government on this planet doesn't have problems. If the US is so damn bad that you all can't stand living here, then try going some where else. At least then you might have a basis for comparison, instead of spewing prejudicial non-sense.




Freedom of discussion should have no limits. Freedom of speech can and should have limits. Or do you all really think its ok to engage in psychological torture so long as you don't physically do anything to people? Is it ok to disturb the peace with overly loud music at all hours of the night? Is it ok to go to hospitals and play overly loud music so as to interrupt the concentration of surgeons engaging in life-saving surgery?

I will be the first to say that preaching hate, disrespecting the dead, or upsetting mourners at funerals to be morally reprehensible. However, I don't think the government has any business regulating such things. Legislating morality fails, and they know that.

However, I will point out that national cemetaries are federal property, and the government can and does have the right to deny entrance to those it chooses.

Me, personally, I find the notion of those who would disrespect those who die in service of other people, service to our country not withstanding, to be disgusting. Arlington Cemetary in my mind is one of the closest things to being truly sacred ground. Treading upon that "hallowed" ground with the intent to ruin the memory of someone to be interred there and upset those who mourn there just confuses and enrages me.

The blood spilt by those soldiers there gave us the nation we have today. Maybe this nation isn't perfect but I don't see these people out there making changes for the better. The people burried there did try.

NT

Right, so you believe harassing the families of soldiers will punish the soldiers themselves, who are dead, for the decisions of the government, who you're not affecting in the slightest. Harassing private citizens who had nothing to do with the war and whose 'crime' is being related to someone who was is no way to prove anything.
Nothing to do with the war? If those soldiers hadn’t supported the war, and if those parents hadn’t raised their children to consider murder a profession, the neocons would not have been able to launch this war.
Ending a war is a matter of solving the issues that caused it, not hurting the people who are fighting it. If you want to make a case, take it to the politicians, not the innocents.

Like I said, sure worked during Vietnam. Frankly, there is not one side in this conflict that I would like to see victorious and that is the only way these issues are going to be resolved. Both Neocons and Islamo-fascists are uncompromising, but without their soldiers and the honor bestowed on them, they could do nothing.
No, it isn't. Accusing all soldiers in the world [by your wording] of being 'scum' is trolling, plain and simple. Knock it off, and knock off the irrelevant comparisons while you're at it. There is no 'special protection' being issued here, we've issued similar rulings about people calling lawyers and French people scum.
Apologies. I didn’t mean all soldiers. Just the American ones.

You have the right to be a pretentious soldier basher the exact minute you go out there and defend our borders.
Since when has a US soldier done that?
Claiming that modern US Soldiers amount to mercenaries just flies in the face of fact. Most enlisted soldiers make barely enough to live on base; they couldn't afford to live off base. They couldn't possibly be doing it for the money because there is NO MONEY!
Many soldiers so it for the college education. That's expensive.
Those soldiers do what they are told because they believe they are serving our country; that means the people of this country because some of them still actually believe our government is the best representation 275 million people can get.
Then they are deluded. Does that deserve complimenting?
Yeah our government has its problems, but what government on this planet doesn't have problems. If the US is so damn bad that you all can't stand living here, then try going some where else. At least then you might have a basis for comparison, instead of spewing prejudicial non-sense.
I do have a standard for comparison. Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. Unfortunately I do not posses the funds nor linguistic abilities to relocate.
Freedom of discussion should have no limits.
Yep.
Freedom of speech can and should have limits.
Maybe.
Or do you all really think its ok to engage in psychological torture so long as you don't physically do anything to people?
That would require detaining of some kind, so it's still physical.
Is it ok to disturb the peace with overly loud music at all hours of the night?
Yes. If they don't like it move. If they are unable to move, deal with it. Part of life.
Is it ok to go to hospitals and play overly loud music so as to interrupt the concentration of surgeons engaging in life-saving surgery?
No, because that causes direct harm.
Me, personally, I find the notion of those who would disrespect those who die in service of other people, service to our country not withstanding, to be disgusting. Arlington Cemetary in my mind is one of the closest things to being truly sacred ground. Treading upon that "hallowed" ground with the intent to ruin the memory of someone to be interred there and upset those who mourn there just confuses and enrages me.
Patriotic scat.
The blood spilt by those soldiers there gave us the nation we have today. Maybe this nation isn't perfect but I don't see these people out there making changes for the better. The people burried there did try.
The voting booths are where the battles in this country are won, not on some foreign oil field. Reason is losing.

Do you have commemorative titles in the USA like Sir, Lord?
and do you ahve to call them it all the time

Do you have commemorative titles in the USA like Sir, Lord?
and do you ahve to call them it all the time
No. In fact, royal titles are against the Constitution, as if that matters anymore.

Done it with Cuba, done it with the Soviet Union (I'm pretty sure Alaska counts as America), done it with Spain, done it with Great Britain (or did the entire War of 1812 slip your memory), done it with France. And more generally the US military has helped secure world security in the world conflicts. So yeah US soldiers protect the US. And in the final analysis if soldiers didn't protect the US, then who would? Would you? Would you protect our borders against invasion if it came down to it? I doubt.


Bullcrap. The US Army pays for about 7, yes, S-E-V-E-N, college scholarships a year. The scholarship programs in the US military is one of the least used options available to the military to date. And if you knew a single enlisted person at all you would know this.


Have you ever actually researched those countries? You do realize that in most scandinavian countries you are looking at greater than 50% income tax? You do realize that you are not going to have access the all the ammenities that you are used to in the US? Ever thought about what life would be like without twinkies or whatever other favorite processed food you have here in the US? I had a room-mate who went to school at King's College London, and he had never even heard of a Twinkie before coming here (let alone chip's ahoy, crispy creme: though he did tell me they recently got one since then, and cherios). Your lifestyle would be altered radically, let alone the political and social climate. I don't suppose you look scandinavian? One of the reasons why scandinavian countries are so unified is because they are all largely homogenous demographically. Switzerland is another interesting little country. I don't suppose you like the idea of compulsory military service? Guess what switzerland has?

Before you go ragging on the US try actually living somewhere else. It will be a real eye opener I assure you.

And on the note of funds, yes you do have enough. A one-way plane trip across the atlantic is not that expensive, and the european train system will take you where-ever you want to go. Unless of course by "lack of funds" you mean you are a 15 year old high-schooler and cannot possibly make it on your own.


No it wouldn't. Sub-sonics. Ultra-sonics. Its possible to engage in psychological torture without detaining someone. Hell, this is why we have stalking laws. Right? Your admission that even one of those would be wrong is an admission that some forms of communication should not be protected.


Not crap. It is remembering and honoring those who died to make this country what it is today. I choose to value the sacrifices those who came before me made, and to see anyone dishonor their memory burns me up inside. I don't consider myself a patriot. In fact I disagree with a lot of what this country does. But that is part of what makes this country great; you can disagree and voice your opinion. There are quite a few countries out there where this is NOT the case, and I, for one, will never take this for granted.


Are you really that naive to think that all conflict can be solved peaceably: through democratic or diplomatic process. The more I hear from you the more I think you are a 16 year old high-school student with 1 year of high-school civics and world history under his belt. The Civil War happened in this country exactly because some conflicts are too big for diplomacy and voting to handle.

And beyond this it seems painfully obvious that you take for granted the protection this country offers you. If you were born in a central american, african, or southeast-asian country you would have to live with the reality of people invading your country or your city on a regular basis. Some wars needn't ever be fought because of a little thing called "deterrence."


Idealism is rarely, if ever, a good substitute for experience. Sure an unjust war remains just that: an unjust war. Blame the current administration for that. It certainly isn't the soldiers' faults that they are over there. But this does not preclude the possible necessity of war, when a just war occurs. Do you suppose that Hitler should have gone unopposed in Europe? Most military historians believe that Great Britain would have fallen eventually had the US not intervened. Its unlikely the "german empire," which would have been setup pursuant to US isolationism, would have persisted after Hitler's eventual natural demise, but this would have still amounted to condemning Europe to another "Dark Age." I, for one, cannot come up with a good reason for not opposing Hitler.

NT

Done it with Cuba, done it with the Soviet Union (I'm pretty sure Alaska counts as America)
What? The only threat those countries ever posed to us was fabricated by our leaders.
done it with Spain,
In a war of Imperialism.
done it with Great Britain (or did the entire War of 1812 slip your memory),
So they did protect our borders. It's just been two hundred years.
done it with France.
When? France has never been oposed to the US in any way shape or form.
And more generally the US military has helped secure world security in the world conflicts.
More like precipitate world conflicts.
So yeah US soldiers protect the US. And in the final analysis if soldiers didn't protect the US, then who would? Would you? Would you protect our borders against invasion if it came down to it? I doubt.
Our borders do not need soldiers to protect them anymore. Police are enough to prevent minor incursions and our nuclear arsenal insures against virtually no risk of a full-scale invasion.
Bullcrap. The US Army pays for about 7, yes, S-E-V-E-N, college scholarships a year. The scholarship programs in the US military is one of the least used options available to the military to date. And if you knew a single enlisted person at all you would know this.
I live in Texas. I know plently of people going into the service. Many of them do it because they have no other option. That's their words, not mine.
Have you ever actually researched those countries? You do realize that in most scandinavian countries you are looking at greater than 50% income tax?
Which they very efficiantly use. We already pay fifty percent of our income in this country in total taxes (all taxes added together) and our government just pisses it away.
You do realize that you are not going to have access the all the ammenities that you are used to in the US? Ever thought about what life would be like without twinkies or whatever other favorite processed food you have here in the US? I had a room-mate who went to school at King's College London, and he had never even heard of a Twinkie before coming here (let alone chip's ahoy, crispy creme: though he did tell me they recently got one since then, and cherios). Your lifestyle would be altered radically, let alone the political and social climate.
Food isn't really that big of a deal for me.
I don't suppose you look scandinavian? One of the reasons why scandinavian countries are so unified is because they are all largely homogenous demographically.
Racist bull. You need to have a talk with Fass.
Switzerland is another interesting little country. I don't suppose you like the idea of compulsory military service? Guess what switzerland has?

They at least use their military for practical and reasnable purposes.
No it wouldn't. Sub-sonics. Ultra-sonics. Its possible to engage in psychological torture without detaining someone. Hell, this is why we have stalking laws. Right? Your admission that even one of those would be wrong is an admission that some forms of communication should not be protected.
Maybe if you're talking about a vacation. Housing, moving my shit, finding work. Time and money.
Not crap. It is remembering and honoring those who died to make this country what it is today.
The US soldier has worked against progress more than they could ever know. Their famlies should.
Are you really that naive to think that all conflict can be solved peaceably: through democratic or diplomatic process.
In the modern world, yes.
And beyond this it seems painfully obvious that you take for granted the protection this country offers you. If you were born in a central american, african, or southeast-asian country you would have to live with the reality of people invading your country or your city on a regular basis.
Good thing I wasn't born there.
Some wars needn't ever be fought because of a little thing called "deterrence."
That's why we have nuclear weapons. No need for a standing army.
Idealism is rarely, if ever, a good substitute for experience.
I'll agree with you there. That is why I embrace no ideology.
Sure an unjust war remains just that: an unjust war. Blame the current administration for that. It certainly isn't the soldiers' faults that they are over there.
They should have refused to fight.
But this does not preclude the possible necessity of war, when a just war occurs.
You mean like when the US is atacked without first provoking? Hasn't happened since 1812.
Do you suppose that Hitler should have gone unopposed in Europe?
Unopposed by Americans.
Most military historians believe that Great Britain would have fallen eventually had the US not intervened.
And? We had no obligation to them.
Its unlikely the "german empire," which would have been setup pursuant to US isolationism, would have persisted after Hitler's eventual natural demise, but this would have still amounted to condemning Europe to another "Dark Age." I, for one, cannot come up with a good reason for not opposing Hitler.
At least you have enough sense not to say that Hitler could have invaded the US. A reason for not fighting Hitler would have been to save American lives.

I'm disappointed with the US government, in that is doesn't have a snappy anacronym like the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

protesting a dead person is not right in any case. if you lost family in a war do you want a bunch of liberal fucks telling you that your child is a baby killer and he should go to hell. it is immoral to protest somebody's assencion into heaven. funerals are a place for greiving not a place to advance political views.

I never said it was right, I just said it was a protected right.

I'll agree with you there. That is why I embrace no ideology.

I think it's more likely that no ideology will have you.

I never said it was right, I just said it was a protected right.

Guess what?
It just got cancelled.
That happens when you exercise your rights in an irresponsible way.

YOU PIECE OF LIBERAL TRASH... SHUT THE FUCK UP...IF YOUR NOT AN AMERICAN YOUR OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN US. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE. IF YOU SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO DONT SUPPORT HUMAN LIVES OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN SHIT ON MY SHOE. IF YOU THINK THAT AMERICA IS BAD BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DYING FOR OUR COUNTRY, IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT HUMAN LIFE THEN YOU ARE LESS THAN THE SHIT ON MY SHOE.

Thanks, this makes me feel proud.

Thanks, this makes me feel proud.

Couldn't we report him for swearing?
He could have said 'fiddlesticks' instead...

Oh Say Can You See..

Couldn't we report him for swearing?
He could have said 'fiddlesticks' instead...

Erastide already warned him. (I think it was Erastide...)

Which is a pity.

Erastide already warned him. (I think it was Erastide...)

Which is a pity.

Maybe he just repeated the offense, the horrible maternal fiddlesticker that he is...

Maybe he just repeated the offense, the horrible maternal fiddlesticker that he is...

Yeah, but I wouldn't report him anyway. I don't care if somebody has a go at me...it doesn't bother me in the slightest. And I don't really like seeing people warned for it either...but them's the rules, I guess.

Yeah, but I wouldn't report him anyway. I don't care if somebody has a go at me...it doesn't bother me in the slightest. And I don't really like seeing people warned for it either...but them's the rules, I guess.


*nods while disagreeing in part*
I suppose I just think that there is no such thing as an excusable bad manner.
That equally applies to people who disturb funerals,
as it does to people who swear.

( off-topic: my idea for improving Big Brother revolves around penalising the contestants for every swear-word used.. )

Anything that pisses off Fred Phelps is A-Ok as far as I'm concerned.

"Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act"

So, does this mean I can't laugh when I see a US soldier trip over a banana skin?

*skims through topic*

...

*files it in the already very thick "Liberals who inexplicably support ultra-conservatives because they're anti-American or not American" folder*

Anything that honors the fallen soldiers I am for.

Anything that honors the fallen soldiers I am for.
Personally I would find fucking with the freedoms I fought for to be an insult rather then an honor

Anything that pisses off Fred Phelps is A-Ok as far as I'm concerned.
Then they should just pass a "It's ok to piss off Fred Phelps' Act.
Who's going to be against that?
Could be the most uniting Act ever passed in Congress.

Imagine: The whole of the US united in a common cause: To piss off Fred Phelps.

First thing to do would be to create a commission, run by Lunatic Goofballs (can you think of anyone better?) to look at creative ways to piss Phelps off.

This is bullshit. I thought we were supposed to have free speech in this country or did that go away when bush went into office?

If people can protest military funerals, then so can Phelps protest gay funerals. As long as people are aware. Double standards shouldn't exist. I am all for the freedom of speech either way...


I agree with freedom of speech, but at the same time I dont support being deliberately disruptive and disrespectful at funerals-any funerals,military or otherwise.

I dont see it impeding freedom of speech as much as stopping freedom of stupidity. "Protesting" at a funeral? I see it more as harrasment than excercising the freedom of speech.

Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act - Prohibits a person from carrying out a demonstration: (1) at a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or at Arlington National Cemetery, unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or director; or (2) within 500 feet of a cemetery at which a funeral or memorial service is to be held, for a period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after the funeral or service, if such demonstration includes any individual making noise or a diversion that disturbs the peace or good order of the funeral or service.

Amends the federal criminal code to provide criminal penalties for violations of such prohibitions.

Expresses the sense of Congress that each state should enact legislation to restrict demonstrations near any military funeral.
they are "suggesting" that each state set their own Laws to restrict Demonstrations near any Military funerals. thus this bill only concerns funerals held at Cemetaries covered in Point 1.

and point 1 only concerns funerals at Cemetaries "under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or at Arlington National Cemetery, unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or director." thus if You want to demonstrate at that funeral in those areas, you need to get permission first.

Point 2 states "if such demonstration includes any individual making noise or a diversion that disturbs the peace or good order of the funeral or service."
thus holding signs on the way in and shouting slogans has to be outside the bounderies. but it sounds like just holding signs and performing a "Quiet" demonstration" would be allowed nearer to the cemetary.

and that includes any and all counter protests as well.

Still don't like it, thank Fred Phelps for this.