Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court put out a decision? In record time after hearing oral arguments? Funny it hasn't been published, publicized or talked about on the board. We all must not have your ESP. Do you do seances too?

Act like a dumbass troll, get treated like a dumbass troll. /shrug

Well....dumb-ass....aren't we talking about it now? Isn't the fact that wasn't being talked about the reason I started this thread?

Jesus Christ.....you just proved my point.

Who's the fucken troll??? REALLY!!!

I'm going to say this slowly and using small, easy words just for you...THERE IS NO DECISION.

Read up and learn something before you go off spouting crap, boy. You might learn to keep your foot out of your mouth yet. I doubt it, but there's always hope. Now go bugger off and play in the sandbox with the other ignorant bomb throwing hacks, this one is way outta your league.

I didn't want to get personal but you just made it so.

You've called me a troll...all the while being one.

You've insulted my intelligence which is typical lefty response. Assuming someone is ignorant.

Try reading my motherfucken posts in their entirety instead of acting like a total asswad.

 

[mudwhistle]

The fuckwit is spouting off without knowing even the difference between hearing oral arguments and releasing an opinion, GTH. That alone tells you exactly what this thread is worth.

Goldcatt....I had no idea you were such a pathetic asshole.

My mistake.

Live and learn, MW. I simply don't suffer fools gladly when it's something so fundamental as what you're putting out there. People other than us read these threads, you know. And you're putting wrong info out there about a serious topic in order to make a cheap shot. You deserved it.

Now do you want those links or not?

I'm not gonna listen to dick from a shitwad like you. I don't need to be lectured to.

God...I can't believe I actually considered you a friend.

 

[goldcatt]

Well....dumb-ass....aren't we talking about it now? Isn't the fact that wasn't being talked about the reason I started this thread?

Jesus Christ.....you just proved my point.

Who's the fucken troll??? REALLY!!!

I'm going to say this slowly and using small, easy words just for you...THERE IS NO DECISION.

Read up and learn something before you go off spouting crap, boy. You might learn to keep your foot out of your mouth yet. I doubt it, but there's always hope. Now go bugger off and play in the sandbox with the other ignorant bomb throwing hacks, this one is way outta your league.

I didn't want to get personal but you just made it so.

You've called me a troll...all the while being one.

You've insulted my intelligence which is typical lefty response. Assuming someone is ignorant.

Try reading my motherfucken posts in their entirety instead of acting like a total asswad.

I did read them. You're factually incorrect on many, many levels - in addition to being passive aggressive, intellectually dishonest and obviously ignorant of your subject matter.

Do you want the primary sources to learn why you're wrong or don't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why would we be outraged over something we all knew was going to happen?

The fuckwit is spouting off without knowing even the difference between hearing oral arguments and releasing an opinion, GTH. That alone tells you exactly what this thread is worth.

Yeah. I just realized that. For the record, I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the WBC, and when that happens, I will not go into fits of outrage.

It's a pretty clear first amendment issue. That being said, if this gets into the issue of a tort, then maybe it is not so clear cut.

Goldcatt.......I rest my case. Read what geuxtohell posted.

As far as the lack of outrage by assholes like you Goldcatt...I rest my case on that as well because that is clearly self-evident.

Legal-wise it is a pretty clear first amendment issue....but that doesn't make it acceptable. That and the issue above were my original points.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm going to say this slowly and using small, easy words just for you...THERE IS NO DECISION.

Read up and learn something before you go off spouting crap, boy. You might learn to keep your foot out of your mouth yet. I doubt it, but there's always hope. Now go bugger off and play in the sandbox with the other ignorant bomb throwing hacks, this one is way outta your league.

I didn't want to get personal but you just made it so.

You've called me a troll...all the while being one.

You've insulted my intelligence which is typical lefty response. Assuming someone is ignorant.

Try reading my motherfucken posts in their entirety instead of acting like a total asswad.

I did read them. You're factually incorrect on many, many levels - in addition to being passive aggressive, intellectually dishonest and obviously ignorant of your subject matter.

Do you want the primary sources to learn why you're wrong or don't you?

Horseshit. Knock off the hyperbole and get a grip on yourself.

I don't want dick from you.

 

[goldcatt]

The fuckwit is spouting off without knowing even the difference between hearing oral arguments and releasing an opinion, GTH. That alone tells you exactly what this thread is worth.

Yeah. I just realized that. For the record, I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the WBC, and when that happens, I will not go into fits of outrage.

It's a pretty clear first amendment issue. That being said, if this gets into the issue of a tort, then maybe it is not so clear cut.

Goldcatt.......I rest my case. Read what geuxtohell posted.

As far as the lack of outrage by assholes like you Goldcatt...I rest my case on that as well because that is clearly self-evident.

Legal-wise it is a pretty clear first amendment issue....but that doesn't make it acceptable. That and the issue above were my original points.

And this is where there is disagreement. Because a lot of people don't want a precedent set that will have far-reaching effects beyond the WBC in order to allow one family, especially under these facts, to get revenge. I understand the emotion involved and wanting the WBC to pay, but there are bigger issues at this level.

See? Wasn't that easy? "I disagree". Not "All Liberals support the WBC".

 

[Sheldon]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

What the fuck is this shit?

They're outlying extremists. I don't even consider them Christian. If their god hates fags, loves IEDs and dead soldiers, then that doesn't sound like the same god that normal people pray to.

And I have no doubt that if anyone on this monolithic hive-minded malicious left made a statement that the WBC is what real Christianity is supposed to be, then there'd be a horde of people piling into the thread. The WBC is a joke, and everybody on all sides recognizes that.

You're one retarded monkey, you know.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah. I just realized that. For the record, I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the WBC, and when that happens, I will not go into fits of outrage.

It's a pretty clear first amendment issue. That being said, if this gets into the issue of a tort, then maybe it is not so clear cut.

Goldcatt.......I rest my case. Read what geuxtohell posted.

As far as the lack of outrage by assholes like you Goldcatt...I rest my case on that as well because that is clearly self-evident.

Legal-wise it is a pretty clear first amendment issue....but that doesn't make it acceptable. That and the issue above were my original points.

And this is where there is disagreement. Because a lot of people don't want a precedent set that will have far-reaching effects beyond the WBC in order to allow one family, especially under these facts, to get revenge. I understand the emotion involved and wanting the WBC to pay, but there are bigger issues at this level.

See? Wasn't that easy? "I disagree". Not "All Liberals support the WBC".

Thank you. If I could I'd give you a pos rep for that. I already gave you one and have to spread it around first. Consider the one I gave you yesterday for your snide remark applied to this post instead.

I felt that this court case has bigger implications then just the pain and suffering of one family yet their lawyer tried to prove his case on those grounds. It's much more complex then this one family.

I never said that liberals agree with the WBC in particular. I implied they ignore them because some of them don't feel moved to castigate them. Could it be because they do their dirty-work for them so the left can keep it's hands clean on a nasty subject? My suspicions may have been less then universal but I think it's still a possibility. The left tends to take up the cause for groups that are hostile to them because they feel they have common goals. This alone makes the left foolhardy at best. Ideology tends to overrule common-sense in some cases.

 

[mudwhistle]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

What the fuck is this shit?

They're outlying extremists. I don't even consider them Christian. If their god hates fags, loves IEDs and dead soldiers, then that doesn't sound like the same god that normal people pray to.

And I have no doubt that if anyone on this monolithic hive-minded malicious left made a statement that the WBC is what real Christianity is supposed to be, then there'd be a horde of people piling into the thread. The WBC is a joke, and everybody on all sides recognizes that.

You're one retarded monkey, you know.

Duly noted.

And motherfucker...you're really late in the game for this so go fuck yourself.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt.......I rest my case. Read what geuxtohell posted.

As far as the lack of outrage by assholes like you Goldcatt...I rest my case on that as well because that is clearly self-evident.

Legal-wise it is a pretty clear first amendment issue....but that doesn't make it acceptable. That and the issue above were my original points.

And this is where there is disagreement. Because a lot of people don't want a precedent set that will have far-reaching effects beyond the WBC in order to allow one family, especially under these facts, to get revenge. I understand the emotion involved and wanting the WBC to pay, but there are bigger issues at this level.

See? Wasn't that easy? "I disagree". Not "All Liberals support the WBC".

Thank you. If I could I'd give you a pos rep for that. I already gave you one and have to spread it around first. Consider the one I gave you yesterday for your snide remark applied to this post instead.

I felt that this court case has bigger implications then just the pain and suffering of one family yet their lawyer tried to prove his case on those grounds. It's much more complex then this one family.

I never said that liberals agree with the WBC in particular. I implied they ignore them because some of them don't feel moved to castigate them. Could it be because they do their dirty-work for them so the left can keep it's hands clean on a nasty subject? My suspicions may have been less then universal but I think it's still a possibility. The left tends to take up the cause for groups that are hostile to them because they feel they have common goals. This alone makes the left foolhardy at best. Ideology tends to overrule common-sense in some cases.

Actually, you must not have read or have forgoten a lot of posts from liberals on here going back months castigating the WBC's message and actions. With the exception of one whacked-out POS who shall remain nameless, I can't think of one person left, right or other who agrees with the WBC or supports their behavior or agenda on anything they do.

You're right that it's much more complex than this one family. It's a difficult thing with SCOTUS cases, because they're deciding only on the facts and procedural situation in front of them - in this case those are both complicated - yet their decisions are applied as precedent in the future without regard to the parties involved. I've said many times, if this case were about the actual events at the funeral, if the WBC had disrupted the proceedings and gotten in the family's face, I'd have a totally different POV on the outcome. But that's not the case that was brought.

The case is actually primarily about content on the WBC's website, and whether there should be multi-million dollar liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress for them posting pictures and video of the protest at this specific funeral on their own site with hyperbolic and derogatory statements using information made public by the family - mostly from the soldier's obituary - and the father deliberately googling for it and watching it knowing what he was going to see.

Under those facts and with some other factors thrown in, plus the core of the Snyders' argument that doesn't fit the facts and is incredibly broad, I simply can't support them in their case. That doesn't mean I don't think WBC is scum, or that there shouldn't be measures put into place to keep them away from funerals, but that THIS case isn't the way to go about it.

If you have a minute take a look at the lower court decision actually being appealed - including the facts and the improprieties in the jury instructions. You may find it interesting, and enlightening as to the stance of many on the left and right regarding the Snyders' specific claim:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

And the Writ of Cert laying out the basic position of the Snyders:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/09-751_pet.pdf

Sorry, both are pdf - but straight from the source. The briefs for both parties are also available on the same site as the second link, as are the amici. Good stuff, if you have time to read it.

 

[del]

so i take it you have done nothing but bitch on a messageboard?

so you can feel so superior......

No but you do.

I mean really......WTF are you doing right now?

BTW...are you actually defending Westboro.

It sure seems like it.

that's because you're not too bright.

 

[mudwhistle]

And this is where there is disagreement. Because a lot of people don't want a precedent set that will have far-reaching effects beyond the WBC in order to allow one family, especially under these facts, to get revenge. I understand the emotion involved and wanting the WBC to pay, but there are bigger issues at this level.

See? Wasn't that easy? "I disagree". Not "All Liberals support the WBC".

Thank you. If I could I'd give you a pos rep for that. I already gave you one and have to spread it around first. Consider the one I gave you yesterday for your snide remark applied to this post instead.

I felt that this court case has bigger implications then just the pain and suffering of one family yet their lawyer tried to prove his case on those grounds. It's much more complex then this one family.

I never said that liberals agree with the WBC in particular. I implied they ignore them because some of them don't feel moved to castigate them. Could it be because they do their dirty-work for them so the left can keep it's hands clean on a nasty subject? My suspicions may have been less then universal but I think it's still a possibility. The left tends to take up the cause for groups that are hostile to them because they feel they have common goals. This alone makes the left foolhardy at best. Ideology tends to overrule common-sense in some cases.

Actually, you must not have read or have forgoten a lot of posts from liberals on here going back months castigating the WBC's message and actions. With the exception of one whacked-out POS who shall remain nameless, I can't think of one person left, right or other who agrees with the WBC or supports their behavior or agenda on anything they do.

You're right that it's much more complex than this one family. It's a difficult thing with SCOTUS cases, because they're deciding only on the facts and procedural situation in front of them - in this case those are both complicated - yet their decisions are applied as precedent in the future without regard to the parties involved. I've said many times, if this case were about the actual events at the funeral, if the WBC had disrupted the proceedings and gotten in the family's face, I'd have a totally different POV on the outcome. But that's not the case that was brought.

The case is actually primarily about content on the WBC's website, and whether there should be multi-million dollar liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress for them posting pictures and video of the protest at this specific funeral on their own site with hyperbolic and derogatory statements using information made public by the family - mostly from the soldier's obituary - and the father deliberately googling for it and watching it knowing what he was going to see.

Under those facts and with some other factors thrown in, plus the core of the Snyders' argument that doesn't fit the facts and is incredibly broad, I simply can't support them in their case. That doesn't mean I don't think WBC is scum, or that there shouldn't be measures put into place to keep them away from funerals, but that THIS case isn't the way to go about it.

If you have a minute take a look at the lower court decision actually being appealed - including the facts and the improprieties in the jury instructions. You may find it interesting, and enlightening as to the stance of many on the left and right regarding the Snyders' specific claim:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081026.P.pdf

And the Writ of Cert laying out the basic position of the Snyders:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/09-751_pet.pdf

Sorry, both are pdf - but straight from the source. The briefs for both parties are also available on the same site as the second link, as are the amici. Good stuff, if you have time to read it.

Thank you for finally not acting like a troll.

I know the particulars of the case. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't they win a judgment and now they've lost that judgment on appeal? Regardless of the law I still think it's wrong and needs to be changed.

My position is that people don't care enough to comment on the case. Why is merely an opinion of mine the facts of the case notwithstanding. But my original point keeps being validated by your comments and by others. Call it a cheap-shot or whatever...it still remains true. Why it's a cheap-shot or not is still a matter of debate.

 

[mudwhistle]

so i take it you have done nothing but bitch on a messageboard?

so you can feel so superior......

No but you do.

I mean really......WTF are you doing right now?

BTW...are you actually defending Westboro.

It sure seems like it.

that's because you're not too bright.

Considering the source I really don't feel that comment carries a great deal of weight.

 

[del]

But very true. One would think that there would be total outrage after the Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church but there isn't any. Just a lot of yawning and dismissals.

Nope...my OP was dead-on.

Sorry if the truth hurts you personally.

The Supreme Court put out a decision? In record time after hearing oral arguments? Funny it hasn't been published, publicized or talked about on the board. We all must not have your ESP. Do you do seances too?

Act like a dumbass troll, get treated like a dumbass troll. /shrug

Well....dumb-ass....aren't we talking about it now? Isn't the fact that it wasn't being talked about the reason I started this thread?

Jesus Christ.....you just proved my point.

Who's the fucken troll??? REALLY!!!

you can't b e this stupid, can you?

 

[del]

Yeah, I was curious about that. I didn't think a decision had been made.

Frankly, I suspect they will rule in favor of the WBC.

Actually reading the 4th Circuit decision, the briefs and the transcripts of orals, I suspect it will be a split decision and remanded for retrial. It'll be a couple months till we know for sure. They have a lot of different avenues for deciding it, and could go broad or extremely narrow depending on what they choose to do with it.

But hey.....Mud's crystal ball knows all.

All of the talking heads seem to think they've already ruled in favor of the WBC and it's just a matter of putting it in writing.

you seem to think, too, and yet....

fuckwit

 

[del]

Goldcatt....I had no idea you were such a pathetic asshole.

My mistake.

Live and learn, MW. I simply don't suffer fools gladly when it's something so fundamental as what you're putting out there. People other than us read these threads, you know. And you're putting wrong info out there about a serious topic in order to make a cheap shot. You deserved it.

Now do you want those links or not?

I'm not gonna listen to dick from a shitwad like you. I don't need to be lectured to.

God...I can't believe I actually considered you a friend.

tissue?

 

[del]

No but you do.

I mean really......WTF are you doing right now?

BTW...are you actually defending Westboro.

It sure seems like it.

that's because you're not too bright.

Considering the source I really don't feel that comment carries a great deal of weight.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Supreme Court put out a decision? In record time after hearing oral arguments? Funny it hasn't been published, publicized or talked about on the board. We all must not have your ESP. Do you do seances too?

Act like a dumbass troll, get treated like a dumbass troll. /shrug

Well....dumb-ass....aren't we talking about it now? Isn't the fact that it wasn't being talked about the reason I started this thread?

Jesus Christ.....you just proved my point.

Who's the fucken troll??? REALLY!!!

you can't b e this stupid, can you?

On the other hand, you can obviously. From one of the worse trolls on the board next to Dante and Curvelight.

Hahaha....Goldcatt and geuxtohell both unwittingly admitted I was right without saying so and you're not even smart enough to recognize it when it happened.

 

[geauxtohell]

The fuckwit is spouting off without knowing even the difference between hearing oral arguments and releasing an opinion, GTH. That alone tells you exactly what this thread is worth.

Yeah. I just realized that. For the record, I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the WBC, and when that happens, I will not go into fits of outrage.

It's a pretty clear first amendment issue. That being said, if this gets into the issue of a tort, then maybe it is not so clear cut.

Goldcatt.......I rest my case. Read what geuxtohell posted.

As far as the lack of outrage by assholes like you Goldcatt...I rest my case on that as well because that is clearly self-evident.

Legal-wise it is a pretty clear first amendment issue....but that doesn't make it acceptable. That and the issue above were my original points.

My post equates to support for the WBC?

You are rapidly spinning off into orbit.

For the record, your last sentence basically encapsulates my very thoughts on the matter.

Ironic, huh?

 

[del]

Well....dumb-ass....aren't we talking about it now? Isn't the fact that it wasn't being talked about the reason I started this thread?

Jesus Christ.....you just proved my point.

Who's the fucken troll??? REALLY!!!

you can't b e this stupid, can you?

Obviously, on the other hand, you can.

Hahaha....Goldcatt and geuxtohell both fell into a trap and you're not even smart enough to recognize it when it happened.

keep telling yourself that, trollboi.