I'm willing to do that if it means protecting families.Ticia wrote:
The best way to eliminate religious fanatics is to ignore them. If a specific amendment passes then the WBC has a real reason to be boastful.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I favor security over freedom in this particular case.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure. It's a one shot deal with no permanent repercussions on the country.Turquoise wrote:
Would you rather risk violence? I'd rather put something in place to avert the conflict altogether.JohnG@lt wrote:
Idiots have their right to free speech. Most of the funerals don't even know they are being protested so whatever. I'm surprised there hasn't been any violence because you know the local sheriffs would look the other way if these people were assaulted by a bunch of angry vets. I suppose they video tape everything in order to protect themselves.
I wonder if I could count how many times I've heard a woman say she hates other women... doubtful.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, because women are notoriously bad about not standing up for each other. Men are generally more unified for their rights, but women unfortunately tend to have a lot of infighting.eleven bravo wrote:
more than the ERA when more than have the population is female?Turquoise wrote:
True but there's a significantly higher chance of this one passing than any other I can think of.
That might sound sexist, but it seems to match most of history.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I would argue we've put up too much with fanatics.EVieira wrote:
That sums it up. Freedom does have this downside, people have a right to be douchbags if they want to. The governemnt should not ever legislate where you can or can't protest. If a douchbag did you wrong, the law that protects you are civil lawsuits.Macbeth wrote:
You can't really legislate away douchbags. I read the time article and the state laws do a fine enough job already.
If there is one thing I admire in American culture is how everyone fights for their freedoms. In Brazil, we put up with alot more than we should when it comes to freedom of speech. Don't ever loose that.
Meh, as long as they aren't violent, who cares.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue we've put up too much with fanatics.EVieira wrote:
That sums it up. Freedom does have this downside, people have a right to be douchbags if they want to. The governemnt should not ever legislate where you can or can't protest. If a douchbag did you wrong, the law that protects you are civil lawsuits.Macbeth wrote:
You can't really legislate away douchbags. I read the time article and the state laws do a fine enough job already.
If there is one thing I admire in American culture is how everyone fights for their freedoms. In Brazil, we put up with alot more than we should when it comes to freedom of speech. Don't ever loose that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I would say they can cause violence, which is the primary problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
Meh, as long as they aren't violent, who cares.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue we've put up too much with fanatics.EVieira wrote:
That sums it up. Freedom does have this downside, people have a right to be douchbags if they want to. The governemnt should not ever legislate where you can or can't protest. If a douchbag did you wrong, the law that protects you are civil lawsuits.
If there is one thing I admire in American culture is how everyone fights for their freedoms. In Brazil, we put up with alot more than we should when it comes to freedom of speech. Don't ever loose that.
yeah lets create a constitutional amendment to shut up a 60 member church
Tu Stultus Es
...or any other fanatics at funerals.eleven bravo wrote:
yeah lets create a constitutional amendment to shut up a 60 member church
eleven bravo wrote:
yeah lets create a constitutional amendment to shut up a 60 member inbred church
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-06 08:56:25)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I'm an extremist against extremists.
It's a paradox, but I get tired of having to deal with extremists of all persuasions.
It's a paradox, but I get tired of having to deal with extremists of all persuasions.
Turquoise wrote:
...or any other fanatics at funerals.eleven bravo wrote:
yeah lets create a constitutional amendment to shut up a 60 member church
Macbeth wrote:
Would this hypothetical ban only limit it for soldiers or would it ban all funeral protest? I mean: if the leader of the American Nazi party died and they wanted a massive funeral party in the middle of Atlanta or some equally rundown black area, would protesting the Nazi's funeral party be unconstitutional?
To answer your question, Mac, I support blocking protests at a Nazi funeral too.
My only issue is no need to create a precedent here.Turquoise wrote:
I'm willing to do that if it means protecting families.Ticia wrote:
The best way to eliminate religious fanatics is to ignore them. If a specific amendment passes then the WBC has a real reason to be boastful.
Of course i think this kind of protests are preposterous but at the same time death can be such a taboo.
Why do even the biggest assholes deserve respect when they die?
I guess this is where I'm a social conservative. I think funerals are a somber occasion that should be protected from harassment.
It is a taboo, but I think it's a reasonable one.
It is a taboo, but I think it's a reasonable one.
im going to the rally to restore sanity
Tu Stultus Es
I'm sure the armed forces have some decent snipers in them. Pick them off from 1000 yards.JohnG@lt wrote:
Idiots have their right to free speech. Most of the funerals don't even know they are being protested so whatever. I'm surprised there hasn't been any violence because you know the local sheriffs would look the other way if these people were assaulted by a bunch of angry vets. I suppose they video tape everything in order to protect themselves.
i think youre kinda too into yourself here turqTurquoise wrote:
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I'm an extremist against extremists.
It's a paradox, but I get tired of having to deal with extremists of all persuasions.
Tu Stultus Es
I was hoping this post would actually get someone else to speak out. It's not about me. Surely, there are other moderates that feel this way.eleven bravo wrote:
i think youre kinda too into yourself here turqTurquoise wrote:
Maybe I'm alone on this, but I'm an extremist against extremists.
It's a paradox, but I get tired of having to deal with extremists of all persuasions.
Aren't you sick of extremists too?
the kind of extremists Ive ran into in my life make the kind of extremists you are talking about seem like buddhist monk librarians
Tu Stultus Es
Well, yeah... the WBC aren't jihadists. I realize that.eleven bravo wrote:
the kind of extremists Ive ran into in my life make the kind of extremists you are talking about seem like buddhist monk librarians
But what I'm talking about is limiting protests. We're not talking war here.
One thing I've never understood about American culture is the resistance to change the Constitution. I understand the principles behind this reluctance, but personally, I've never been a constitutionalist.
I prefer systems where change is easier and where structure is more fluid.
I wish I could ban the tea party protests, I consider those guys idiots/fanatics but a lot of people dont.
Tu Stultus Es
Well yeah, but they aren't harassing people at funerals. There are just some lines you don't cross, IMHO.eleven bravo wrote:
I wish I could ban the tea party protests, I consider those guys idiots/fanatics but a lot of people dont.
did you know the supreme court said its hate speech to burn a cross UNLESS the place where you are burning the cross is away from the public
Tu Stultus Es
Well there you go. Following that logic, you should only be able to hold funeral protests away from the public.eleven bravo wrote:
did you know the supreme court said its hate speech to burn a cross UNLESS the place where you are burning the cross is away from the public
They're both hate speech.
Tu Stultus Es