Fred Phelps To Protest At Virginia Tech Funeral....

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Draco69
Bastard...

"WBC to Preach at Funerals of Virginia Tech Dead

WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).

Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."

*sigh*

Robtard
Smartest thing the media could do is to simply ignore the Phelps, let them vanish into obscurity.

I love how he blames anything horrific on "God's will" & "God's punishment"... You know what also happned yesterday in America, a whole lotta good, wonder why God did that?

I'd like to ask him something though since he's such a student of God and knows how God thinks and works... according to the bible, after the Great Flood, God would never strike/punish "man" again; why all this "punishment" then?

Darth Macabre
Man, I hate that disbarred sob. Although, his daughter is even more loathsome than he is.

Alliance
Originally posted by Draco69
Bastard...

"WBC to Preach at Funerals of Virginia Tech Dead

WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).

Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."

*sigh*

PErhaps we should invite the Members of the US military for some on-site training. I'm sure actions speak louder than words...and I'm sure the memebrs of the USAS and the families of VT students would like to say something.

I sure as hell do.

chithappens
Still uncertain of how protesting at a funeral does anything.

What purpose does that serve? Am I the only one lost?

sithsaber408
Originally posted by Robtard

I'd like to ask him something though since he's such a student of God and knows how God thinks and works... according to the bible, after the Great Flood, God would never strike/punish "man" again; why all this "punishment" then?

Totally off topic, and I don't support the Phelps views AT ALL, but just wanted to clarify that after the Flood God promises to "never destroy the world again through a flood."


That's a little different than not striking them or harming them.


Besides, Phelps is a wack job.

There are far more places in the Bible where it demonstrates that God loves people, wants all to come to him that would choose it, says that every good thing we get is from God, etc........

It is the sin of man and the presence of evil in the world that causes such tragedies, not God's punishment.


Carry on, then.

Schecter
yeah, only the fact ramains that the god of the old testament was a completely sadistic assh0le...ok now carry on

Martian_mind
God is histories biggest fascist.

Do as i say or burn in hell.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Schecter
yeah, only the fact ramains that the god of the old testament was a completely sadistic assh0le...ok now carry on
Thread derailed in three, two, one...

Alliance
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Besides, Phelps is a wack job.

Just a wackjob that shares your perceptions of the world.Originally posted by Martian_mind
God is histories biggest fascist.

Do as i say or burn in hell.

Thats not facism. Do you even know what facism is?

Schecter
Originally posted by FeceMan
Thread derailed in three, two, one...

i lol'd doped

Martian_mind
Fascism is using your power and influence to make people beleive what you beleive.


How does the church and god not do that?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Martian_mind
Fascism is using your power and influence to make people beleive what you beleive.


How does the church and god not do that?
If you're omnipotent and omniscient, you kind of get power and influence by default. Now, removing free will, that's another thing altogether...

However, the point was that someone is likely to jump on that statement and the thread will go downhill very quickly.

Robtard
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Totally off topic, and I don't support the Phelps views AT ALL, but just wanted to clarify that after the Flood God promises to "never destroy the world again through a flood."


That's a little different than not striking them or harming them.


Besides, Phelps is a wack job.

There are far more places in the Bible where it demonstrates that God loves people, wants all to come to him that would choose it, says that every good thing we get is from God, etc........

It is the sin of man and the presence of evil in the world that causes such tragedies, not God's punishment.


Carry on, then.

No, the topic is a whack job ******* claiming to know know God's motives so it wasn't completely off topic.

The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.

Anyhow, Phelps is just another religious P.O.S. with delusions of grandeur.

Alliance
Originally posted by Martian_mind
Fascism is using your power and influence to make people beleive what you beleive.

What the f**k?

WrathfulDwarf
The worst thing anyone reasonable would do is pay attention to Fred and get angry. Just by that...he wins.

Hey! that reminds me of internet trolls. Blah!

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by Martian_mind
Fascism is using your power and influence to make people beleive what you beleive.


How does the church and god not do that?

how does religoun do that. It is man who has has forced their views on ohter people. Just because man may have abused the prospect of religoun doesnt make God at fault for that

Strangelove
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The worst thing anyone reasonable would do is pay attention to Fred and get angry. Just by that...he wins.

Hey! that reminds me of internet trolls. Blah! agreed

Nellinator
I wonder what he'll think if something tragic happens to him.

Grinning Goku
We could use that Deus ex machina anytime now...

office jesus
Originally posted by Schecter
i lol'd doped

So did I. laughing

office jesus
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
how does religoun do that. It is man who has has forced their views on ohter people. Just because man may have abused the prospect of religoun doesnt make God at fault for that

Hey...buddy. You spelled 'religion' wrong. big grinbig grin

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Draco69
Bastard...

"WBC to Preach at Funerals of Virginia Tech Dead

WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).

Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."

*sigh*

He needs a good ass-beating. He's probably gonna claim 'No innocent person died!!' and that 'They were all ***-enablers' or some bullshit like that.

Honestly, whats their mission? They probably think that Cho Seong-what's-his-face was sent by god to kill those 32 ''sinners'.

I dont care if Fred Phelps in in his 70's, I would gladly kick his ass.

Schecter
Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I dont care if Fred Phelps in in his 70's, I would gladly kick his ass.

kick him in the hip. thats their weak spot

office jesus
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He needs a good ass-beating. He's probably gonna claim 'No innocent person died!!' and that 'They were all ***-enablers' or some bullshit like that.

Honestly, whats their mission? They probably think that Cho Seong-what's-his-face was sent by god to kill those 32 ''sinners'.

I dont care if Fred Phelps in in his 70's, I would gladly kick his ass.

And I'd be in the line with you too.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Alliance
What the f**k?
you will all turn over your pop tarts to me... *waves hand and uses force*


hey, where are all the pop tarts?

office jesus
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you will all turn over your pop tarts to me... *waves hand and uses force*


hey, where are all the pop tarts?

I haven't seen any poptarts. *Says so with crumbs all over his shirt.*

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I dont care if Fred Phelps in in his 70's, I would gladly kick his ass.

Right behind you!
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you will all turn over your pop tarts to me... *waves hand and uses force*


hey, where are all the pop tarts?

I am immune to your Jedi mind tricks...

I'm a very special clone.

FeceMan
Tsk, tsk...violence towards the intolerant. Now, that's no way to lead by example.

Alliance
Nope, but its sure as hell effective at silencing.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Draco69
Bastard...

"WBC to Preach at Funerals of Virginia Tech Dead

WBC will preach at the funerals of the Virginia Tech students killed on campus during a shooting rampage April 16, 2007. You describe this as monumental horror, but you know nothing of horror -- yet. Your bloody tyrant Bush says he is 'horrified' by it all. You know nothing of horror -- yet. Your true horror is coming. "They shall also gird themselves with sackloth, and horror shall cover them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their heads" (Eze. 7:18).

Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants."

*sigh*

People like that have no soul at all. He should be denied entry to the campus.

Strangelove
I'm going to quote The American President:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

As much as I don't like Fred Phelps or his church, I'm not going to deny his rights. If everyone ignored him he and his would become marginalized, meaningless. But we are giving them a voice by caring.

Janus X
IMO, can you really ignore him? Put yourself in the victim's position. Your son/daughter/friend died, and you want a happy funeral for them. However you can't have one, cause Phelps is protesting: Calling her/him a ***, saying their going to hell, and etc.. Now ask yourself, can you really ignore him in that position? It's likely you'll get pissed. It's easy for you to say that you won't get pissed and likely to ignore him, but its in fact harder.

grey fox
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm going to quote The American President:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

As much as I don't like Fred Phelps or his church, I'm not going to deny his rights. If everyone ignored him he and his would become marginalized, meaningless. But we are giving them a voice by caring.

Good thing is , I'm NOT an American. So f*ck his rights and let's break some brittle old man hip !!! http://images.killermovies.com/forums/customsmilies/doped.gif

Janus X
Only time I respected Moore

33-_9nOX8KM

BackFire
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He needs a good ass-beating. He's probably gonna claim 'No innocent person died!!' and that 'They were all ***-enablers' or some bullshit like that.

Honestly, whats their mission? They probably think that Cho Seong-what's-his-face was sent by god to kill those 32 ''sinners'.

I dont care if Fred Phelps in in his 70's, I would gladly kick his ass.

You could do more damage to him by calling him gay.

I heard if you do that, his head explodes..

The one in his pants, because he's clearly repressed.

Alfheim
Originally posted by BackFire
You could do more damage to him by calling him gay.

I heard if you do that, his head explodes..

The one in his pants, because he's clearly repressed. laughing out loud

jaden101
everyone should watch louis theroux's documentary on the phelps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QRyr3_nCF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2h9NnUoYjw&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKOyzlYx0E&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N41T53xE0QY&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0P9elMQgrc&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyPMTr5yMQI&mode=related&search=

ragesRemorse
Originally posted by office jesus
Hey...buddy. You spelled 'religion' wrong. big grinbig grin

my religion spells it religoun...God told me so embarrasment

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm going to quote The American President:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

As much as I don't like Fred Phelps or his church, I'm not going to deny his rights. If everyone ignored him he and his would become marginalized, meaningless. But we are giving them a voice by caring.

It can work differently though. Being a Law Student, I'm going to bring up a point that Eclipso brought up. In Canada, we have in the preamble to our constitutional Bill of Rights a section thats allows the Government to withhold our rights if they would infringe to a greater degree on the rights of another or cause a certain degree of harm to a person or society. What this means is that up here, you cannot promote or publish hate literature.

Now I know the counter argument is the "slippery slope" theory. In essence, that eventually we lose all our rights. But in reality, it hasn't been an issue for us at all. And in fact it's only done good for us.

I hope I did a better job of explaining that then Eclipso did.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
I hope I did a better job of explaining that then Eclipso did.

perhaps the topic of your sock account would dwindle and fade if you would just stop repeating this unsolicited BS erm just a suggestion, take it or leave it

Starhawk
It's not BS, it really is in our Constitution. And the reason I repeated it was, I didn't think he did a good enough job doing it himself.

Schecter
oh ffs roll eyes (sarcastic) what if we all say we believe you (lie through our teeth), will you then shut up about it?

Starhawk
If you want I'm sure you can google and read the Canadian Bill of Rights for yourself.

Schecter
i wasnt talking about the constitution....nevermind

botankus
Originally posted by Starhawk
I hope I did a better job of explaining that then Eclipso did.
Who the hell is Eclipso?

Robtard
Originally posted by botankus
Who the hell is Eclipso?

An idiot who post nothing but fact-less and pointless rants and is currently under the guise of StarHawk. He does it for the attention; best to ignore him.

botankus
It would be hard to differentiate him from a lot of users on here, but I'll try to.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Robtard
An idiot who post nothing but fact-less and pointless rants and is currently under the guise of StarHawk. He does it for the attention; best to ignore him.

Actually I am not, and my position is different then his. Do I think we should get rid of guns? Yes. Can it be practically done? No. For the reasons I posted above.

Robtard
Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually I am not, and my position is different then his. Do I think we should get rid of guns? Yes. Can it be practically done? No. For the reasons I posted above.

For the sake of KMC, I'll play along if you agree to Schecters request and just shut up about Eclipso. Deal?

Starhawk
Okay, I am more then happy not to talk about him.

Schecter
promise?

Starhawk
As long as no one else brings him up or calls me him. Sure I promise.

FeceMan
What's a whob?

Schecter
kind of...but we're not supposed to talk about it.
elephant in the kitchen, you know?

Starhawk
Actually in this case. I don't blame the gun at all. This was an extremely troubled person and the school did nothing at all when there was many red flags that he was a disturbed and possibly dangerous person. If he wanted to hurt them he would have found a way to do it.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
It can work differently though. Being a Law Student, I'm going to bring up a point that Eclipso brought up. In Canada, we have in the preamble to our constitutional Bill of Rights a section thats allows the Government to withhold our rights if they would infringe to a greater degree on the rights of another or cause a certain degree of harm to a person or society. What this means is that up here, you cannot promote or publish hate literature.

Now I know the counter argument is the "slippery slope" theory. In essence, that eventually we lose all our rights. But in reality, it hasn't been an issue for us at all. And in fact it's only done good for us.

I hope I did a better job of explaining that then Eclipso did. Umm...did you forget the fact that we're talking about America? What Canada does has absolutely no relevance to the situation.

Robtard
Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually in this case. I don't blame the gun at all. This was an extremely troubled person and the school did nothing at all when there was many red flags that he was a disturbed and possibly dangerous person. If he wanted to hurt them he would have found a way to do it.

I think you're confusing the threads AND that's been covered repeatedly.

xmarksthespot
Oh joy. The "Canadian law student" is back.

JacopeX
Originally posted by chithappens
Still uncertain of how protesting at a funeral does anything.

What purpose does that serve? Am I the only one lost? And let them keep talking alot more disturbing sentences of the ones that died?

HELL NO!

Robtard
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh joy. The "Canadian law student" is back.

You did it wrong... remember, it's "LAW STUDENT".

Starhawk
Just showing why I think he should not be allowed to do what he plans on doing.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Just showing why I think he should not be allowed to do what he plans on doing. Alright, just for juxtaposition: The KKK is planning to march in my town soon. And there was a large campaign to stop them. I certainly don't like the KKK, and I'd be perfectly happy if their organization just ceased to exist, but while they do exist, I don't think their right to assemble should be taken away, something that's guaranteed by our Constitution.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Robtard
You did it wrong... remember, it's "LAW STUDENT". laughing I forgot about that wink

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Robtard
You did it wrong... remember, it's "LAW STUDENT". I stand corrected.

Ah, the Westboro Baptist Church. Hours of entertainment.Originally posted by ThePittman
laughing I forgot about that wink Likewise. Lol-worthy.

Starhawk
And that is why I brought up Canada's Constitution. Up here the KKK couldn't do that and I am very happy for that fact. There aren't many days with an absolute right and wrong, but sometimes there is.

Strangelove
Well then your government is oppressive erm

Eis
Originally posted by Strangelove
Well then your government is oppressive erm
So is yours.

Strangelove
Not in the ways we're discussing, but I won't deny that.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
Well then your government is oppressive erm

And that can sometimes be a positive.

Eis
Originally posted by Strangelove
Not in the ways we're discussing, but I won't deny that.
"In the ways we are discussing" which are those again? The oppression of freedom of assembly? Like that sheriff that was granted the power to deny permits of protests in front of the golf club in Georgia?

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
And that can sometimes be a positive. shock you did NOT just say thatOriginally posted by Eis
"In the ways we are discussing" which are those again? The oppression of freedom of assembly? Like that sheriff that was granted the power to deny permits of protests in front of the golf club in Georgia? Well you do have to get a permit to protest, and they can be denied for various reasons, but one of them should not be "We don't like what you stand for"

Starhawk
I did say that. Unrestrained freedom can be very destructive. As I said, up here in Canada we have certain limits on our freedom and it hasn't caused us any difficulty.

Schecter
well america is a democracy and although our liberty is always under assault (liberty of government for the people, by the people), doesnt mean we're ready to give in and live your dream dictatorship. over 50% of americans support stricter laws. this is a proper approach. most americans dont want a complete ban. so we wont have one until that changes. thats fact, and that fact pleases me.

Eis
Was the American constitutional right to peaceful assembly with no governmental intervention not denied when that sheriff denied the women the right to protest against the club?

Grimm22
This guy needs to be put through a wood chipper

Feet First no expression

Strangelove
Originally posted by Eis
Was the American constitutional right to peaceful assembly with no governmental intervention not denied when that sheriff denied the women the right to protest against the club? Possibly, I'm not familiar with the circumstances

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
well america is a democracy and although our liberty is always under assault (liberty of government for the people, by the people), doesnt mean we're ready to give in and live your dream dictatorship. over 50% of americans support stricter laws. this is a proper approach. most americans dont want a complete ban. so we wont have one until that changes. thats fact, and that fact pleases me.

Actually America is a republic. But Canada is not a dictatorship, we simply realize that certain controls on freedom are necessary.

Schecter
Originally posted by Schecter
well america is a democracy

Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually America is a republic.

proof that you're not worth paying a shred of attention to.

xmarksthespot
Whatever do you mean? Are you forgetting he's a "LAW STUDENT"! ?

Fun for the whole family.

Schecter
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Whatever do you mean? Are you forgetting he's a "LAW STUDENT"! ?

Fun for the whole family.

sometimes the giant fonts just arent big enough

Starhawk
It's true America IS a republic. Thats not even debatable, Presidents have refered to it as the republic before.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
It's true America IS a republic. Thats not even debatable, Presidents have refered to it as the republic before.

no, you implied that its wrong to call america a democracy...and thus you fail. you fail at KMC, you fail at law school, you fail at life, and may god have mercy on your soul

Robtard

Schecter
thats up to god

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
no, you implied that its wrong to call america a democracy...and thus you fail. you fail at KMC, you fail at law school, you fail at life, and may god have mercy on your soul

Let me guess your into dramatic arts? Technically it is not a democracy, in that the majority opinion is not always followed. For example, most Americans want the Iraq war to end, but that is not going to happen.

And the people don't make the laws, the government does. And the laws of your country are not always dictated by the popular opinion.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
Technically it is not a democracy, in that the majority opinion is not always followed. For example, most Americans want the Iraq war to end, but that is not going to happen.

And the people don't make the laws, the government does. And the laws of your country are not always dictated by the popular opinion.

you are blowing hot air and sot supporting your claim. plus you dont even know wtf a democracy is or how it works. government is necessary to represent the people.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Schecter
proof that you're not worth paying a shred of attention to. America is a Constitutional republic with a democratic regime

I'm a Political Science student wink

Schecter
Originally posted by Strangelove
America is a Constitutional republic with a democratic regime

I'm a Political Science student wink

so america is both and not either/or like some giant transformer. thank you.

Strangelove
Correct. There is no such thing as a "Democracy" in the modern world, meaning there is no country where the people are the rulers of the country (I believe Switzerland is the closest thing we have to that). There are many countries with a democratic regime, however.

AngryManatee
Originally posted by Schecter
so america is both and not either/or like some giant transformer. thank you.

minus the Matrix of Leadership

Starhawk
Originally posted by AngryManatee
minus the Matrix of Leadership

This better not end with comparing Bush to Unicron.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Starhawk
This better not end with comparing Bush to Unicron.
That's probably just where it's going to begin.

Starhawk
Bush is Soundwave to Cheney's Megatron.

Schecter
no, i get what you're saying now starhawk. its actually america that is like unicron. when there's no fighting its in planet form(democracy), simply floating around and feeding on other worlds. yet when atacked it transforms into a giant (republic) and stomps/claws every planet in the same galaxy as the one which attacked it.

Starhawk
You stretched that metaphor pretty far. lol

Schecter
no, i think it hit home with your apparent political theory

Starhawk
Perhaps, I'm tired of debating for now. Got anymore cool analogies?

Solo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QRyr3_nCF4

**** that.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Alright, just for juxtaposition: The KKK is planning to march in my town soon. And there was a large campaign to stop them. I certainly don't like the KKK, and I'd be perfectly happy if their organization just ceased to exist, but while they do exist, I don't think their right to assemble should be taken away, something that's guaranteed by our Constitution.
That's literally the most retarded shit I've heard in a long time.

Devil King
Originally posted by Solo
That's literally the most retarded shit I've heard in a long time.

Are you sure? Are you positive you know what you're talking about when you make such a claim?

FeceMan
Why is it "retarded" to uphold Constitutional values?

grey fox
How the HELL do you pronounce the shooters name ?

(Phonetics now)

Cho soong Whey ?
Cho Swung who ?
Cho Sung hey ?

Schecter
Gun go Pow

Eis
I actually laughed at that.

grey fox
Originally posted by Eis
I actually laughed at that.
Have to admit, I did too...

Schecter
i have to admit...i was kinda trolling there embarrasment

Starhawk
Originally posted by FeceMan
Why is it "retarded" to uphold Constitutional values?

If those values do more harm then good.

Schecter
like allowing jews to live?

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
like allowing jews to live?

Where did that come from?

Schecter
:edit: naa you'll just have to remain in the dark.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Where did that come from? Just showing how ludicrous your logic is. If we are going to guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, we cannot pick and choose who we give that right to, just because we like or dislike who is utilizing that freedom.

You may think otherwise, but that is not liberty. That is not democracy. That is not America.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
Just showing how ludicrous your logic is. If we are going to guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, we cannot pick and choose who we give that right to, just because we like or dislike who is utilizing that freedom.

You may think otherwise, but that is not liberty. That is not democracy. That is not America.

Yes and look at all the trouble it has brought you. Up in Canada, we have put some simple limitations on those freedoms and managed to keep our liberty and reduce the problems they cause. Unrestrained freedom can be a bad thing.

Strangelove
So just because freedom comes with a little inconveniences, we should limit it?

"Oh, I have the ability to speak my mind without fear of government oppression! But soft! There is a group with views contrary to my own! How DARE they!"

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes and look at all the trouble it has brought you. Up in Canada, we have put some simple limitations on those freedoms and managed to keep our liberty and reduce the problems they cause. Unrestrained freedom can be a bad thing.

well, move to china. there its completely safe. no drugs because if your caught with any you get a 5 minute trial and a rifle bullet through your brain. safest country in the world.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Schecter
well, move to china. there its completely safe. no drugs because if your caught with any you get a 5 minute trial and a rifle bullet through your brain. safest country in the world. Good ol' China, where our motto is, "You'll come for the booming economy, but stay for the Communist stranglehold on social life!" thumbsup

Starhawk
You take everything to extremes. Canada is a perfect example of how it can be done without creating a tyranny. We don't allow hate speech, we have stricter limits on the ability to own firearms. We have rules about demonstrations and protests. And we have not become a tyranny. It's doesn't have to be one or the other.

Strangelove
If you allow the government to limit your freedoms, then they'll start chipping away....





and then BOOM! Big Brother's watching you

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
You take everything to extremes.

so does politics and life....reality in fact.
dictatorships, oppressive regimes, genocide ets occur partially because of voices like yours which say "oh thats so ridiculous, it will never happen, simply because i said so." our country was structured upon this caution. and people like you, who read no history yet know EVERYTHING, ignore it.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
If you allow the government to limit your freedoms, then they'll start chipping away....

Well we have had those for quite awhile now and our freedoms are fine. And actually the vast majority of Canadians like that provision in the Bill of Rights.

And look at your Government. Wire Tapping, Torture, unlimited detainment without charges based on suspicion.

Our rights seem far more intact then yours.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
Well we have had those for quite awhile now and our freedoms are fine. And actually the vast majority of Canadians like that provision in the Bill of Rights.

And look at your Government. Wire Tapping, Torture, unlimited detainment without charges based on suspicion.

Our rights seem far more intact then yours.

amazing how you can type that and still not pretend to see the point of the importance of constitutional freedom as its written, untampered. unaltered.

do you consciously lie to yourself to win threads? i ask this because if not you'd realise that you just justified our opinions to a tee. perhaps you didnt realise that and were too focused on delivering your trite and counterproductive "my country is better than yours" statement.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
amazing how you can type that and still not pretend to see the point of the importance of constitutional freedom as its written, untampered. unaltered.

do you consciously lie to yourself to win threads? i ask this because if not you'd realise that you just justified our opinions to a tee. perhaps you didnt realise that and were too focused on delivering your trite and counterproductive "my country is better than yours" statement.

We do have freedom in Canada with the understanding that there has to be some limitations in order to protect society. As I said we have managed to do it without the Government getting out of control. And if a person feels that a limitation is unfair they can go to the supreme court if need be. We just recognize that things like hate speech can only harm society.

And what I said is true. American's under Bush have lost allot more of their freedom.

Strangelove
And in 1.5 or so years, the next president will restore those freedoms. That's what we call changing government. wink

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
We do have freedom in Canada with the understanding that there has to be some limitations in order to protect society. As I said we have managed to do it without the Government getting out of control. And if a person feels that a limitation is unfair they can go to the supreme court if need be. We just recognize that things like hate speech can only harm society.

And what I said is true. American's under Bush have lost allot more of their freedom.

thats great. you didnt read a damn word i said did you? i also suspect you know nothing about the u.s. constitution or you would know that it too has limitations and may be altered/overridden via the democratic process, as was the case in the stripping of our rights.

your argument has not ONE solid point. you just keep mixing/altering/recombining seperate points and issues into a giant and organically changing mess. its exhausting to follow.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
thats great. you didnt read a damn word i said did you? i also suspect you know nothing about the u.s. constitution or you would know that it too has limitations and may be altered/overridden via the democratic process, as was the case in the stripping of our rights.

your argument has not ONE solid point. you just keep mixing/altering/recombining seperate points and issues into a giant and organically changing mess. its exhausting to follow.

Yes my argument does have a point. That freedoms can be limited without creating a tyranny. Canada being a prime example of this.

Strangelove
Ah, but I have a better idea. How about we just ignore people we don't like, or who say things we don't like. That way we can all have our constitutional freedoms.

Problem solved.

Starhawk
Because sometimes those freedoms can cause harm to society. Such as hate speech which might incite violence. My point is Canada's limitations on freedoms have done nothing but good.

Schecter
and this proves what? that canada is better? wtf is your point? WHAT?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Starhawk
Because sometimes those freedoms can cause harm to society. Such as hate speech which might incite violence. My point is Canada's limitations on freedoms have done nothing but good.

Just wait. laughing out loud

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Because sometimes those freedoms can cause harm to society. Such as hate speech which might incite violence. My point is Canada's limitations on freedoms have done nothing but good. And our not limiting of freedoms hasn't caused all that much bad. Your point?

Schecter
so i guess his point is as follows:

omg freedom has 2 b limited unless your american becuz they dont know how 2 limit freedom right so bush is teh emporer. but in canadadada we got it right cuz we just know which freedoms to take what which not...without any explanation of reason why.....its in our d.n.a. LOLZ

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
and this proves what? that canada is better? wtf is your point? WHAT?

I believe I have stated my point more then once now. And just because one country allows it to cause tyranny does not mean every country will. We have had this provision for quite a long time now and not even a hint of trouble with it.

Strangelove
ROFLZLOLLERCAKES

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
I believe I have stated my point more then once now. And just because one country allows it to cause tyranny does not mean every country will. We have had this provision for quite a long time now and not even a hint of trouble with it. Okay, so limiting some freedoms does not cause tyranny. You know what else doesn't cause tyranny? Not limiting freedoms at all. So there we go. Neither America nor Canada is tyrannical. So glad we cleared that up.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
And our not limiting of freedoms hasn't caused all that much bad. Your point?

Yes it has, look at the history of hate motivated crime America has. Your almost non-existent gun control laws. cause obvious problems. You allow your protests to get out of hand by not limiting them.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
Okay, so limiting some freedoms does not cause tyranny. You know what else doesn't cause tyranny? Not limiting freedoms at all. So there we go. Neither America nor Canada is tyrannical. So glad we cleared that up.

Not limiting them can lead to trouble as described above.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes it has, look at the history of hate motivated crime America has. Your almost non-existent gun control laws. cause obvious problems. You allow your protests to get out of hand by not limiting them. Originally posted by Starhawk
Not limiting them can lead to trouble as described above. You obviously don't understand.

The First Amendment guarantees the following:

Freedom of speech: unless you're knowingly lying, inciting to riot, etc.
Freedom to assemble: peaceably

and other such clauses

You see? We do have limitations to our freedoms. But limiting our ability to express opinions that some or even most people may have a problem with is completely and totally authoritarian and idiotic. Bottom line.

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
You obviously don't understand.

The First Amendment guarantees the following:

Freedom of speech: unless you're knowingly lying, inciting to riot, etc.
Freedom to assemble: peaceably

and other such clauses

You see? We do have limitations to our freedoms. But limiting our ability to express opinions that some or even most people may have a problem with is completely and totally authoritarian and idiotic. Bottom line.

In Canada we don't limit it because we don't like it. We limit it if it will infringe on someone else's freedoms or cause a certian degree of harm to society.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
In Canada we don't limit it because we don't like it. We limit it if it will infringe on someone else's freedoms or cause a certian degree of harm to society. And how does expressing a controversial opinion infringe on someone else's freedoms? And how does expressing a controversial opinion cause harm to society?

Schecter
:edit: nevermind

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
And how does expressing a controversial opinion infringe on someone else's freedoms? And how does expressing a controversial opinion cause harm to society?

Hate speech can incite violence towards a particular group. If a protest is allowed to get out of hand people can be injured. If we blindly allowed people to have guns for any reason other then hunting, we would most likely have more gun violence. It's even in our laws, you have the right to commit certain crimes in order to prevent greater crimes from happening.

Example:

You can steal a car if it is the only way to get a person medical care to save a life.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Hate speech can incite violence towards a particular group. If a protest is allowed to get out of hand people can be injured. If we blindly allowed people to have guns for any reason other then hunting, we would most likely have more gun violence. It's even in our laws, you have the right to commit certain crimes in order to prevent greater crimes from happening.

Example:

You can steal a car if it is the only way to get a person medical care to save a life. Why do you keep bringing up guns? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The subject at hand is the Westboro Baptist Church pretesting at funerals. Are they bringing guns? Are people shooting at them? As far as I know, no. So STFU about the guns. We're talking about first Amendment rights.

And like I said but you apparently ignored, we do have safeguards in place for hate speech. Speech that encourages people to commit crimes is not protected by the Constitution. Speech that incites violence or riots is not protected. And protests do get out of hand sometimes, and that's why we have police.

Are you listening to a word I've said?

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
Why do you keep bringing up guns? This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The subject at hand is the Westboro Baptist Church pretesting at funerals. Are they bringing guns? Are people shooting at them? As far as I know, no. So STFU about the guns. We're talking about first Amendment rights.

And like I said but you apparently ignored, we do have safeguards in place for hate speech. Speech that encourages people to commit crimes is not protected by the Constitution. Speech that incites violence or riots is not protected. And protests do get out of hand sometimes, and that's why we have police.

Are you listening to a word I've said?

Guns are an amendment issue and I was using it as an example of why a freedom needs to be limited that you asked me to show. So if you admit that America itself limits freedoms, why do you have a problem with the way we do it?

And if the protests are more regulated, then it helps prevent riots and causes less work for the police.

Schecter
Originally posted by Starhawk
Guns are an amendment issue and I was using it as an example of why a freedom needs to be limited that you asked me to show. So if you admit that America itself limits freedoms, why do you have a problem with the way we do it?

And if the protests are more regulated, then it helps prevent riots and causes less work for the police.


so its impossible to get you to focus on a single point?

Starhawk
Originally posted by Schecter
so its impossible to get you to focus on a single point?

I don't think your getting the point, despite my explaining it multiple times.

BackFire
One day someone is going to murder Phelps and his followers....

It will be a good day.

And then people will protest their funerals.....

And it will be a good day.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Guns are an amendment issue and I was using it as an example of why a freedom needs to be limited that you asked me to show. So if you admit that America itself limits freedoms, why do you have a problem with the way we do it?

And if the protests are more regulated, then it helps prevent riots and causes less work for the police. We limit freedoms within the laws that Congress passes. Censoring opinions is authoritarian, idiotic, and in no way complying with the laws of Congress. That answer your question?

Um, isn't protecting citizens and keeping the peace the job of the police? Isn't that why they get paid? Why give them less work? And protests getting out of hand is not as widespread as you seem to think it is.

Schecter
:edit:

Starhawk
Originally posted by Strangelove
We limit freedoms within the laws that Congress pass. Censoring opinions is authoritarian, idiotic, and in no way complying with the laws of Congress. That answer your question?

Um, isn't protecting citizens and keeping the peace the job of the police? Isn't that why they get paid? Why give them less work? And protests getting out of hand is not as widespread as you seem to think it is.

Well instead of limiting it in each separate law, we just made the clause in the bill of rights. More efficient that way. And some opinion's such as hate speech have to be limited.

And yes it is the police force's job, but if we enact laws to prevent protests from getting out of hand it frees up the police to handle other matters. Their resources are not unlimited you know.

BackFire
Originally posted by Schecter
:edit:

:edit:

Strangelove
Originally posted by Starhawk
Well instead of limiting it in each separate law, we just made the clause in the bill of rights. More efficient that way. And some opinion's such as hate speech have to be limited.

And yes it is the police force's job, but if we enact laws to prevent protests from getting out of hand it frees up the police to handle other matters. Their resources are not unlimited you know. Or how's about what I said before?Originally posted by Strangelove
Ah, but I have a better idea. How about we just ignore people we don't like, or who say things we don't like. That way we can all have our constitutional freedoms.

Problem solved. I reiterate: Problem solved wink

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>