Bill O'Reilly is such an awful man...

[California Girl]

Hitler was kind to animals.

Next.

I see Ravi's debating skills are up to her usual standard.

 

[Ravi]

This thread was meant to be a debate? I couldn't tell, you actually provided a link.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Refute the facts instead of whining about the source. The source is Brooks' book and an article written by George Will a few years ago, I'm sure I can find you a link, but I'm not going to. And the reason is most of you liberal idiots never oblige when asked to do the same.

How you define charity? More proof of your idiocy.

I'm not whining about the source. Charity can be defined in several different ways. Brooks included giving to religious groups and churches as charity. Many people wouldn't. Such a clear difference makes a huge difference in the final numbers.

Even someone as batshit insane as you can see that.

Charity is charity, giving is giving, whether the recipients are religious groups or non-religious groups doesn't matter. The fact remains that conservatives are far more charitable than liberals.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't know about you, but I find it to be very easy to fudge the numbers I want when it comes to such a topic like the book was about. It's all about how you define charity.

So where's your link for those numbers anyway?

Refute the facts instead of whining about the source. The source is Brooks' book and an article written by George Will a few years ago, I'm sure I can find you a link, but I'm not going to. And the reason is most of you liberal idiots never oblige when asked to do the same.

How you define charity? More proof of your idiocy.

Dude, this ain't about some little argument, it's about our copyright policy.

You need to link that up. It isn't difficult.

This is the last time I'm going to ask you.

Sue me!

 

[California Girl]

This thread was meant to be a debate? I couldn't tell, you actually provided a link.

Yea, a link to the site supporting the Synder family. I'm sorry, was that unacceptable as a source? You would prefer I get my facts from, perhaps, HuffPo?

So much stupidity in one thread. It's impressive.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hitler was kind to animals.

Next.

If I wanted to be snippy I would ask you for a link as proof of this...but what's the point.

I don't go for this constant moral-relativism and outrageous comparisons.

I don't think by any stretch that Bill O'Reilly falls in the same class as Adolph Hitler but maybe in your mind he does. It really is revealing about your mindset.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I see that, yet again, partisan sniping and stupidity takes precedence over a genuine issue. Thanks all.

Goes to show the intellectual level of many - on both sides - that I can see only one actual genuine comment about the case.

That you guys would rather snipe at each other (and Bf who would rather snipe at me) than actually give a shit about what is happening to the Snyder family sickens me. Just sayin'.

I donated 5 thousand dollars to the Snyder family after watching The Factor last night. My only regret is that I didn't hear about their plight sooner. I pledge to stay abreast of their situation and help as often as I can. It's the least I can do for a soldier that gave his all for my country.

 

[maineman]

at the real heart of this issue is the basic notion of free speech. Free speech cannot be free only when we can comfortably tolerate what someone says. It must be free right up to the edge of shouting fire in a crowded theater. If it does not actually cause physical harm to someone, we allow it. As much as those "religious" assholes make my blood boil, our society gives them the right to speak whatever they want to. Banning THEIR particularly hateful brand of speech, while comforting to do so, only pushes us down a slippery slope, where the majority gets to decide what the minority has the "freedom" to say. Like it or not, those soldiers whose funerals are disrupted by these assholes fought and died to protect their right to do just that.

i think that the emotional harm done to the relatives and loved ones at these funerals is just as great, if not greater than, the harm, physical or otherwise, that would be done by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, so it's over the edge by that litmus test.

if they want to voice their hateful opinions, they're free to do so, but although you can say whatever you want, you can't say it wherever you want.

one way or the other, they'll answer for it. it can't come too soon.

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. actions are actions. speech is speech... and it ought to be free regardless of how repugnant the majority of us feel it is.

 

[del]

at the real heart of this issue is the basic notion of free speech. Free speech cannot be free only when we can comfortably tolerate what someone says. It must be free right up to the edge of shouting fire in a crowded theater. If it does not actually cause physical harm to someone, we allow it. As much as those "religious" assholes make my blood boil, our society gives them the right to speak whatever they want to. Banning THEIR particularly hateful brand of speech, while comforting to do so, only pushes us down a slippery slope, where the majority gets to decide what the minority has the "freedom" to say. Like it or not, those soldiers whose funerals are disrupted by these assholes fought and died to protect their right to do just that.

i think that the emotional harm done to the relatives and loved ones at these funerals is just as great, if not greater than, the harm, physical or otherwise, that would be done by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, so it's over the edge by that litmus test.

if they want to voice their hateful opinions, they're free to do so, but although you can say whatever you want, you can't say it wherever you want.

one way or the other, they'll answer for it. it can't come too soon.

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. actions are actions. speech is speech... and it ought to be free regardless of how repugnant the majority of us feel it is.

so yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay if no one is physically injured?

i'm sorry, that dog don't hunt.

 

[Vanquish]

Wow. So let's get this straight...when you want free speech it's okay...but when someone else wants free speech there ought to be a law limiting it?

Uhm. Sorry.

This may be a matter of character, but the law should stay out of this. There are already laws about harassment, assault, and intimidation. There's no need for a banning protests at funerals.

I agree it's gross...but no law needed.

 

[California Girl]

Wow. So let's get this straight...when you want free speech it's okay...but when someone else wants free speech there ought to be a law limiting it?

Uhm. Sorry.

This may be a matter of character, but the law should stay out of this. There are already laws about harassment, assault, and intimidation. There's no need for a banning protests at funerals.

I agree it's gross...but no law needed.

So, let's get this straight.... you read my post, which said absolutely nothing about limiting free speech and completely ignore the actual point. Why am I not surprised by your inability to stop reading words that ARE NOT IN MY POSTS, you fucking moron?

My point..... that clearly is beyond the comprehension of the terminally moronic.... is this (and I'll capitalize it so you get it)....


THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE RIGHT OF OTHER PEOPLE TO PEACEFULLY LIVE THEIR LIVES.

We have other freedoms to protect. It is not JUST about free speech.

IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU, IDIOT?

 

[Vanquish]

Hey....happy I got you all hot and bothered, but calm down.

No need for the word "fuck" or "idiot".

By the way...you DID bring up free speech -

I believe in freedom of speech and the right to protest, but I believe the right to privacy of our war dead outweighs the right of others to protest AT THEIR FUNERALS.

See that. So what you're saying is you think that the right to privacy outweighs free speech. And that...wait for it....wait for it....is a limit on free speech.

The law limits the way people live their lives all the time. It limits what they can say all the time. Different types of speech get different levels of constitutional scrutiny....and for good reason.

You might try being more consistent with your posts. But you're so cute when you get angry

Sorry I interrupted you reading your special "writers' information sources with all the amazing information" on them. Guess you want your tin-foil hat award back?

 

[Angelhair]

If there is any justice left in this country of ours, this man will not have to pay ONE penny!!!!! Liberals will rot in hell!

 

[Maple]

On his show last night, which I rarely watch, he has said he will pick up the legal bill for the family of Matthew Snyder whose family have just lost a legal battle against that scumbag church who picket the funerals of our military.

That's $16,000 but it ain't over - because there's possibly another $90,000. Give if you can. Thanks.

But, you can help by contacting your local and state reps to support a law banning protestors from funerals. I believe in freedom of speech and the right to protest, but I believe the right to privacy of our war dead outweighs the right of others to protest AT THEIR FUNERALS. If you agree with me, please help the family to stop this nonsense now. The website below can help you find your local and state reps.


Here is my prayer for the members of the Westboro Church "May God have mercy on you because I won't. I hope you all burn in Hell."

Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder

Those people are KOOKS, and it's flat DISGRACEFUL to do that at a funeral for one of our hero's who lost his life defending this country and those KOOKS too.

 

[maineman]

i think that the emotional harm done to the relatives and loved ones at these funerals is just as great, if not greater than, the harm, physical or otherwise, that would be done by falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, so it's over the edge by that litmus test.

if they want to voice their hateful opinions, they're free to do so, but although you can say whatever you want, you can't say it wherever you want.

one way or the other, they'll answer for it. it can't come too soon.

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. actions are actions. speech is speech... and it ought to be free regardless of how repugnant the majority of us feel it is.

so yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay if no one is physically injured?

i'm sorry, that dog don't hunt.

where do you get that? yelling fire in a crowded theater presents the clear danger that someone WILL be hurt, which is why "speech" of that nature is not protected. Carrying a sign at a funeral... chanting tasteless rants at a funderal does not cause anyone any physical harm. As repugnant as it is, it is protected under our constitution, imo...and to attempt to legislate in such a way as to make THAT repugnant speech illegal starts us down the slippery slope where the majority can declare that any speech that THEY find repugnant is no longer protected...that would be unfortunate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How 'bout a link, cosmonaut?

Cosmonaut? What are you twelve?

Read a fucking book like "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University.

Nope, it just flowed out like that.

What I care about are the 4+ million hits that come googling one of your "facts."

You jacked that word-for-word. In other words you plagiarized it.

Now how's about that link?

Actually, a point of order, one is NOT required to provide a link per say, they are required to credit the work to rightful owner. THAT can include the name of a book and its author. Or some other off line source.

 

[California Girl]

sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. actions are actions. speech is speech... and it ought to be free regardless of how repugnant the majority of us feel it is.

so yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay if no one is physically injured?

i'm sorry, that dog don't hunt.

where do you get that? yelling fire in a crowded theater presents the clear danger that someone WILL be hurt, which is why "speech" of that nature is not protected. Carrying a sign at a funeral... chanting tasteless rants at a funderal does not cause anyone any physical harm. As repugnant as it is, it is protected under our constitution, imo...and to attempt to legislate in such a way as to make THAT repugnant speech illegal starts us down the slippery slope where the majority can declare that any speech that THEY find repugnant is no longer protected...that would be unfortunate.

But..... what about the rights of others to peacefully go about their lives - including burying their dead. Why does the right of others to scream abuse at them, outweigh the right of those going about their business.

Free speech is not a free pass. What is so difficult about that?

 

[Vanquish]

See here's the problem with freedom... and feel free to quote me... someone takes it too far.

CaliGirl you keep saying people should just be able to freely go about their lives. That's ridiculous. It may sound all after-school-special, warm and fuzzy...but people don't get to go freely about their lives.

The wise founders set up a framework (interpreted by wise jurists) where there were protections. Protections that impose limits. You dont just get to do whatever the heck you want just because you want to.

As I already stated...and you seemed to have glossed over, there are already laws regarding harassment, assault, stalking, intimidation and other methods of interrupting people's lives.

Let's spin your little platitude the other way...the people who want to protest should be able to "peacefully go about their lives" and protest.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh and by the way...you're pretty strange to complain pages back about sniping and then insult the hell out of me. Not that I care. You're cute when you get angry.

 

[maineman]

so yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay if no one is physically injured?

i'm sorry, that dog don't hunt.

where do you get that? yelling fire in a crowded theater presents the clear danger that someone WILL be hurt, which is why "speech" of that nature is not protected. Carrying a sign at a funeral... chanting tasteless rants at a funderal does not cause anyone any physical harm. As repugnant as it is, it is protected under our constitution, imo...and to attempt to legislate in such a way as to make THAT repugnant speech illegal starts us down the slippery slope where the majority can declare that any speech that THEY find repugnant is no longer protected...that would be unfortunate.

But..... what about the rights of others to peacefully go about their lives - including burying their dead. Why does the right of others to scream abuse at them, outweigh the right of those going about their business.

Free speech is not a free pass. What is so difficult about that?

if someone wanted to bury their dead on private property, then they could certainly expect to be able to do so without having the public there exercising their free speech rights and disrupting their ceremony. When people conduct their business out in the public, it brings into play all the activities that the pubic is allowed to do there... free speech being one of them.