Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[geauxtohell]

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.

Yes. You are the master debater that claimed the SCOTUS had made a decision on this matter when they had not.

You are clearly running circles around everyone.

 

[goldcatt]

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 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.

They won judgment for $2.9 million at the District Court (trial) level on the facts as laid out in the Circuit Court decision. They lost two of their causes of action but won on the remaining three - the largest being IIED. That was reduced to $2.1 million due to MD state statutory tort limits prior to appeal. The 4th Circuit reversed the judgment, yes. Their reasoning is laid out in their opinion. That reversal is what the SCOTUS is deliberating as we speak.

I submit it's not that people don't care, but that the facts and procedural status on this are confusing for most people. It's technical, and let's face it - not too many people are either legally trained or enough of a Court afficionado (or weenie, if you prefer ) to dig into the documents and the arguments and really understand what's going on here. The media doesn't have the time or expertise to explain it all in all its nuance and complexity, nor would it be profitable for them to do so. So they oversimplify to the point of being almost or actually incorrect.

You were under the opinion it was already decided at the SCOTUS level from the info out there in the media, after all. Yet you consider yourself well-informed as to the particulars. I don't give them a free pass, but on these sorts of issues you really need to go to the source to get the full story. They're not going to give it to anyone, they simply aren't equipped to do so. I think if more people felt comfortable that they understood it there would be a lot more folks engaging in the argument.

 

[Sheldon]

I think the WBC is more horrible than the KKK because it calls itself a Christian church, and their actions are NOT, in any way shape or form, Christ like.

and when I originally thought that they interupted the funeral and burial of Mr Snyder's son, I was all for doing something, within the realms of the constitution, to shut them the heck up. Like, making them position themselves where they could not be heard or seen by the Snyders, so not to interrupt this solemn and private and personal moment of putting their son to rest.

Only when I found out that the snyders did NOT HEAR OR SEE the WBC at their son's funeral, due to their distance and due to laws that were already in place....and that the only reason the Snyders even knew about the WBC protesting their son's funeral, was due to the snyders seeing the coverage of the wbc on television that evening.....did i begin to have a problem with it....*

and since this IS THE SITUATION, will any of the rulings regarding this case, actually be a ruling that results in RESTRICTING the PRESS and breaking the constitution, in the manner of "the freedom of the Press"??

Yep. That's how it went for me too.

At first, I was under the impression that Snyder had seen the WBC at the funeral, and had driven past them on the way to the burial. But apparently not. The WBC knows the laws to the letter--I think they're almost all lawyers anyway--and they followed the speech restrictions to a T, it seems.

I think the Court will rule in favor of the WBC. As must as I despise that group of haters and what they represent, I support a liberal view on free speech. It's a principle when you stick with it through the hard times.

 

[goldcatt]

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

No, you were wrong. You got called on it. Move on and have a reasonable discussion or don't and dig yourself a hole. Call that....friendly advice.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

I know, and I know you know, and you probably know that I know you know, that that's a completely rhetorical question.

 

[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.

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?

Boy that went way over your head.

Btw...where does it say in my post above that your comments equates to support for the WBC? It clearly stated that you pretty much assume as I have that the WBC won the case and to make things worse for you...you aren't gonna ***** about it because you don't give a shit. This is the main focus of my original post.

Now tell me I'm wrong.

It's amazing how with the exception of my anger over the issue you and I think pretty much the same way about it. It's like arguing for the sake of arguing in my opinion.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 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.

They won judgment for $2.9 million at the District Court (trial) level on the facts as laid out in the Circuit Court decision. They lost two of their causes of action but won on the remaining three - the largest being IIED. That was reduced to $2.1 million due to MD state statutory tort limits prior to appeal. The 4th Circuit reversed the judgment, yes. Their reasoning is laid out in their opinion. That reversal is what the SCOTUS is deliberating as we speak.

I submit it's not that people don't care, but that the facts and procedural status on this are confusing for most people. It's technical, and let's face it - not too many people are either legally trained or enough of a Court afficionado (or weenie, if you prefer ) to dig into the documents and the arguments and really understand what's going on here. The media doesn't have the time or expertise to explain it all in all its nuance and complexity, nor would it be profitable for them to do so. So they oversimplify to the point of being almost or actually incorrect.

You were under the opinion it was already decided at the SCOTUS level from the info out there in the media, after all. I don't give them a free pass, but on these sorts of issues you really need to go to the source to get the full story. They're not going to give it to anyone, they simply aren't equipped to do so. I think if more people felt comfortable that they understood it there would be a lot more folks engaging in the argument.

You assume I thought that. That's the problem with some folks. They assume too much.

I figured it's a done deal from listening to the testimony and the issues under consideration as well as statements from the court. They pretty much said exactly what I feel....that they don't have any remedy for this case in it's present form, however they did say that something needs to be done about groups like the WBC out of pure decency. In what way is that not clear?

 

[del]

^



the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

really

 

[Liability]

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. - John 3:36​

So wrath = hate?

Would you send anybody you loved to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity?

That's why the Christian God is so forgiving. Not like Allah the ever-unmerciful and unjust. That bastard.

No wonder Allah uses shitheads like the pedophile prophet Mohammymud to spread his word.

 

[Dick Tuck]

so i take it you have done nothing but ***** 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.

It's funny how many right wingers defended Westboro when their only hate message was "God Hates Fags." Now that they're also attacking the funerals of dead military, the right is now upset with the message of hate.

 

[goldcatt]

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 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.

They won judgment for $2.9 million at the District Court (trial) level on the facts as laid out in the Circuit Court decision. They lost two of their causes of action but won on the remaining three - the largest being IIED. That was reduced to $2.1 million due to MD state statutory tort limits prior to appeal. The 4th Circuit reversed the judgment, yes. Their reasoning is laid out in their opinion. That reversal is what the SCOTUS is deliberating as we speak.

I submit it's not that people don't care, but that the facts and procedural status on this are confusing for most people. It's technical, and let's face it - not too many people are either legally trained or enough of a Court afficionado (or weenie, if you prefer ) to dig into the documents and the arguments and really understand what's going on here. The media doesn't have the time or expertise to explain it all in all its nuance and complexity, nor would it be profitable for them to do so. So they oversimplify to the point of being almost or actually incorrect.

You were under the opinion it was already decided at the SCOTUS level from the info out there in the media, after all. I don't give them a free pass, but on these sorts of issues you really need to go to the source to get the full story. They're not going to give it to anyone, they simply aren't equipped to do so. I think if more people felt comfortable that they understood it there would be a lot more folks engaging in the argument.

You assume I thought that. That's the problem with some folks. They assume too much.

I figured it's a done deal from listening to the testimony and the issues under consideration as well as statements from the court. They pretty much said exactly what I feel....that they don't have any remedy for this case in it's present form, however they did say that something needs to be done about groups like the WBC out of pure decency. In what way is that not clear?

What statements from the Court?

 

[del]

They won judgment for $2.9 million at the District Court (trial) level on the facts as laid out in the Circuit Court decision. They lost two of their causes of action but won on the remaining three - the largest being IIED. That was reduced to $2.1 million due to MD state statutory tort limits prior to appeal. The 4th Circuit reversed the judgment, yes. Their reasoning is laid out in their opinion. That reversal is what the SCOTUS is deliberating as we speak.

I submit it's not that people don't care, but that the facts and procedural status on this are confusing for most people. It's technical, and let's face it - not too many people are either legally trained or enough of a Court afficionado (or weenie, if you prefer ) to dig into the documents and the arguments and really understand what's going on here. The media doesn't have the time or expertise to explain it all in all its nuance and complexity, nor would it be profitable for them to do so. So they oversimplify to the point of being almost or actually incorrect.

You were under the opinion it was already decided at the SCOTUS level from the info out there in the media, after all. I don't give them a free pass, but on these sorts of issues you really need to go to the source to get the full story. They're not going to give it to anyone, they simply aren't equipped to do so. I think if more people felt comfortable that they understood it there would be a lot more folks engaging in the argument.

You assume I thought that. That's the problem with some folks. They assume too much.

I figured it's a done deal from listening to the testimony and the issues under consideration as well as statements from the court. They pretty much said exactly what I feel....that they don't have any remedy for this case in it's present form, however they did say that something needs to be done about groups like the WBC out of pure decency. In what way is that not clear?

What statements from the Court?

the ones they made when they issued the decis..

oh, wait

 

[Liability]

Incorrect.

There are many places in the Bible where God says he Hates.

Cite to the precise passage in the NEW Testament where God says that He hates ANY people.

Originally, you said the Christian God doesn't hate.

So are you implying the the God of the Old Testament is a different from the God in the New Testament???

Same God. Just more evolved and decent and caring and loving. The Old Testament God is much more like the evil Allah.

 

[goldcatt]

You assume I thought that. That's the problem with some folks. They assume too much.

I figured it's a done deal from listening to the testimony and the issues under consideration as well as statements from the court. They pretty much said exactly what I feel....that they don't have any remedy for this case in it's present form, however they did say that something needs to be done about groups like the WBC out of pure decency. In what way is that not clear?

What statements from the Court?

the ones they made when they issued the decis..

oh, wait

 

[mudwhistle]

^



the first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

really

Dude...you're one of those Chilean miners waiting to get dug out of a hole....so you have no room to talk.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Cite to the precise passage in the NEW Testament where God says that He hates ANY people.

Originally, you said the Christian God doesn't hate.

So are you implying the the God of the Old Testament is a different from the God in the New Testament???

Same God. Just more evolved and decent and caring and loving. The Old Testament God is much more like the evil Allah.

The New Testament God isn't the Old Testament God? Interesting theology.

 

[Liability]

Originally, you said the Christian God doesn't hate.

So are you implying the the God of the Old Testament is a different from the God in the New Testament???

Same God. Just more evolved and decent and caring and loving. The Old Testament God is much more like the evil Allah.

The New Testament God isn't the Old Testament God? Interesting theology.

The words "Same God" apparently confused Dick Less too much.

Interesting moron, that one.

 

[Liability]

Theologically speaking, is it reasonable to believe that the God who urged "an eye for an eye" is unchanged from the same God who urged "turn the other cheek?"

It's either different Gods or a change of heart and mind by the One God.

 

[mudwhistle]

What statements from the Court?

the ones they made when they issued the decis..

oh, wait

Comments....comments....during the trial.

Guess I'm gonna have to make you eat your words.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday agonized over the case of a family grieving the wartime loss of a Marine, a family traumatized by an obscure church's protests at his burial.

The justices appeared deeply sympathetic to Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006.

But they also appeared to find it difficult to limit in any way the First Amendment free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., to parade near military funerals with signs declaring, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



Supreme Court agonizes over dispute between fallen Marine's family and Westboro Baptist Church

Several comments have been released but for some strange reason it's difficult to find them anywhere.

 

[mudwhistle]

For the record...I never said they had rendered a decision.

Go ahead and try to claim that I did...but you'd be lying.