The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

I've never once heard of the Phelps people initiating violence.

Given that, by most accounts, they are funded off lawsuits they file when they are able to provoke others into violence, that would be very surprising.

Anyway, if you can point me to documentation of any of the Phelps crew being violent, I'd be fascinated to see it.

(Phelps beating his kids doesn't count. It's not part of his protests.)

Every person I've talked to who has been to a clinic protest pre-bubble saw physical violence against clinic staff or patrons. I've never heard a single report other than yours of violence by the Phelps crew, and given how much everyone loves to hate him, I'd guess it'd be a major topic of discussion.

You can read about Phelps, who is an international criminal, here.

 

[seebs]

You can read about Phelps, who is an international criminal, here.

I know a fair amount about him.

And you know what? I don't see any evidence of him having done anything comparable to what I've seen from abortion protesters. I see no evidence that he hits people (well, other than his wife and daughters, and we have plenty of wife-beaters at CF), no evidence that he physically impedes them, and so on.

He's gotten tagged for battery in altercations with cops. I see nothing about him hitting anyone else.

And CF is full of people who say that, if someone's apparently threatening you, it's morally okay to hit them.

So.

No basis for a buffer zone. He is not physically attacking people, and as such, is in a very different boat from the abortion clinic protesters, who have consistently physically attacked people over a period of years.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You can read about Phelps, who is an international criminal, here.

So, he's never been convicted of assault, not during a protest or any other time. Thank you for confirming what we've said.

 

[MachZer0]

So, he's never been convicted of assault, not during a protest or any other time. Thank you for confirming what we've said.

Don't know which link you read, but from the link I offered:

Phelps was first arrested in 1951 and found guilty of misdemeanor battery after attacking a Pasadena police officer. He has since been arrested for assault, battery, threats, trespassing, disorderly conduct, contempt of court, and several other charges; each time, he (along with Westboro and its other members) has filed suit against the city, the police, and the arresting officers. Though he has been able to avoid prison time, he has been convicted more than once

 

[Nathan Poe]

Don't know which link you read, but from the link I offered:

Convicted of what? Tresspassing? Disorderly Conduct?

 

[MachZer0]

It's amazing to see Phelps apologists, like the ACLU, coming out of the woodwork

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's amazing to see Phelps apologists, like the ACLU, coming out of the woodwork

Perhaps you should look again -- I haven't seen anyone claim to actually agree with Phelps' garbage.

 

[SummerMadness]

To suggest that the "left" supports Phelps is a downright misrepresentation and pretty much a lie.

Let's call a spade a spade, it's lying and deceitful to make the statement that "the left supports Fred Phelps." But we all know standards aren't a requirement for slandering a group of people you disagree with according to some people.

 

[MachZer0]

Perhaps you should look again -- I haven't seen anyone claim to actually agree with Phelps' garbage.

Maybe a better understanding of the word "apologist" is in order

 

[nvxplorer]

Maybe a better understanding of the word "apologist" is in order

A better understanding of the ACLU is definitely in order. The ACLU is an apologist (though you are greatly misusing the word) for the Bill of Rights, not Phelps. But of course, you already know that.

 

[MachZer0]

A better understanding of the ACLU is definitely in order. The ACLU is an apologist (though you are greatly misusing the word) for the Bill of Rights, not Phelps. But of course, you already know that.

The ACLU is an apologist of their interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Hopefully, the Roberts Court will correct the errors of previous courts which have given the ACLU leeway in that regard. If W gets one more appointment, there will be no doubt that the Constitution will be restored.

 

[nvxplorer]

The ACLU is an apologist of their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. Your anger is misplaced.

Do you have a point to make?

 

[MachZer0]

The ACLU doesn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. Your anger is misplaced.

Do you have a point to make?

Everybody has the power to interpret the Constitution, but not everybody has the power to enforce it. that's why the Roberts Court will likely make the ACLU's interpretation inconsequential, in due time.

 

[nvxplorer]

Everybody has the power to interpret the Constitution, but not everybody has the power to enforce it. that's why the Roberts Court will likely make the ACLU's interpretation inconsequential, in due time.

You do realize that this statement makes absolutely no sense?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Everybody has the power to interpret the Constitution, but not everybody has the power to enforce it. that's why the Roberts Court will likely make the ACLU's interpretation inconsequential, in due time.

Frankly if it were my kins funeral, I would prefer the put my foot up his you know what restriction of free speech. As a businesss enterprise, why couldn't cemetary officials just forbid their entrance?

 

[marblehead]

If W gets one more appointment, there will be no doubt that the Constitution will be restored.

Bizarro world.

 

[k]

Bizarro world.

Latino Wonderwoman

 

[MachZer0]

You do realize that this statement makes absolutely no sense?

Of course it does, but the idea of one more Supreme Court appt by Bush strikes fear in the hearts of our liberal friends

 

[MachZer0]

Frankly if it were my kins funeral, I would prefer the put my foot up his you know what restriction of free speech. As a businesss enterprise, why couldn't cemetary officials just forbid their entrance?

I beleive the controversy concerns public cemeteries

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course it does, but the idea of one more Supreme Court appt by Bush strikes fear in the hearts of our liberal friends

I'm liberal, and I'm not afraid of the Supreme Court.

As long as we have Congress, even Bush can't screw up too badly insofar as SCOTUS is concerned.