The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

Oh? There is a record of clouds being convicted of assault and battery?

What exactly was the nature of the assault? More spitting?

Then Phelps is as threatening as a light rain.

 

[TheBear]

I don't see it that way. To me, it looks like the ACLU is defending free speech. That does not translate to supporting the position of Mr Phelps, just his right to express his position.....two completely different things.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't see it that way. To me, it looks like the ACLU is defending free speech. That does not translate to supporting the position of Mr Phelps, just his right to express his position.....two completely different things.

Yes, but that's only the truth -- and in this case, the truth isn't useful for smearing "The Left" or the ACLU, so what good is it?

 

[TheBear]

Yes, but that's only the truth -- and in this case, the truth isn't useful for smearing "The Left" or the ACLU, so what good is it?

Sorry to mess up the plan. ( I didn't get the memo before posting, and missed the last few meetings. )

 

[MachZer0]

What exactly was the nature of the assault? More spitting?

Then Phelps is as threatening as a light rain.

Sure, if one chooses to ignore the information posted regarding Phelp's criminal record

 

[MachZer0]

Nope.

You: 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.

The power to interpret the Constitution is given to the Court. You can read anything you want into it, but you have no power of interpretation.

Of course I do, but as I said, my interpretatin may not be enforced whiole that of the Supreme Court will

Enforcement is a power given to the the Executive branch, not the Court.

I never said the Court enforces the law, but you are free to misinterpret anything I say, just as the ACLU is free to misinterpret the Constitution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sure, if one chooses to ignore the information posted regarding Phelp's criminal record

We're not ignoring it, we're reading it.

Fact: Phelps was convicted for assault -- the nature of which is not clear.

Fact: One of Phelps' grandchildren was also convicted for assault -- for spitting on somebody.

Fact: If you sneak up behind someone and tickle them with a feather duster, you have committed "assault" by the legal definition.

Question: Since we're all so gung-ho about Phelps' criminal record as justification, would a bubble zone apply to someone not of the Phelps family who decided, for whatever reason, to protest a funeral?

 

[MachZer0]

We're not ignoring it, we're reading it.

Fact: Phelps was convicted for assault -- the nature of which is not clear.

If I recall, the sentence was for 5 years. So do you think he got 5 years for tickling someone?

Question: Since we're all so gung-ho about Phelps' criminal record as justification, would a bubble zone apply to someone not of the Phelps family who decided, for whatever reason, to protest a funeral?

You tell me. Do bubble zones at abortion clinics apply to people who have never "wrestled pregnant women to the ground" or committed any other acts of violence?

 

[notto]

You tell me. Do bubble zones at abortion clinics apply to people who have never "wrestled pregnant women to the ground" or committed any other acts of violence?

Some do, some don't. As has been mentioned before, the ACLU supports ones that don't and are based on peoples prior actions (and not their speech).

Very different than the Missouri Law so to call the Missouri Law a 'bubble zone' that the ACLU should support or to suggest that they are hypocritical if they do not would be to misrerpesent their position which is fairly consistent. They do not support zones of banned speech like this Missouri law for abortion protesters either and have gone to court for abortion protesters to make sure that these type of content based restrictions are not placed on protesters.

 

[MachZer0]

Some do, some don't. As has been mentioned before, the ACLU supports ones that don't and are based on peoples prior actions (and not their speech).

Can you provide examples of both, including the ACLU's official opinions regarding them

 

[notto]

Can you provide examples of both, including the ACLU's official opinions regarding them

Links to them where provided earlier in the thread and you were encouraged to review them so you would understand the ACLU's actual position and not a misrepresentation of them. Did you miss those references? Look back in the thread, they have been provided and you pulled quotes from them yourself. You should read them in their entirety. The positions on both are there for you to read.

I even went to the trouble of pulling relevant information out of them and posted it here.

You keep repeating misrepresentations that have already been shown to be incorrect. That make your argument look week. You should read up on the actual position of the ACLU if you want to discuss it.

You are the one suggesting that the ACLU's position is inconsistent. You should be able to provide examples of both and tell us what the official ACLU position is on them. Can you? Your argument depends on you being familiar with the position of the ACLU. Are you?

 

[MachZer0]

Links to them where provided earlier in the thread and you were encouraged to review them so you would understand the ACLU's actual position and not a misrepresentation of them. Did you miss those references? Look back in the thread, they have been provided and you pulled quotes from them yourself. You should read them in their entirety. The positions on both are there for you to read.

I even went to the trouble of pulling relevant information out of them and posted it here.

You keep repeating misrepresentations that have already been shown to be incorrect. That make your argument look week. You should read up on the actual position of the ACLU if you want to discuss it.

You are the one suggesting that the ACLU's position is inconsistent. You should be able to provide examples of both and tell us what the official ACLU position is on them. Can you? Your argument depends on you being familiar with the position of the ACLU. Are you?

I don't recall a link where the ACLU supported bubble zones directed at certain individuals

 

[notto]

I don't recall a link where the ACLU supported bubble zones directed at certain individuals

You quoted from it, later on drew our attention to the point that you quoted from it, and have the link to it in one of your own posts. It was recommended that you go back and read the entire brief but it appears that you didn't.

 

[MachZer0]

You quoted from it, later on drew our attention to the point that you quoted from it, and have the link to it in one of your own posts. It was recommended that you go back and read the entire brief but it appears that you didn't.

So you're insinuating that I offered a link to a situation where a bubble zone was created at an abortion clinic, but only applied to certain individuals? Can you substatiante that?

 

[notto]

So you're insinuating that I offered a link to a situation where a bubble zone was created at an abortion clinic, but only applied to certain individuals? Can you substatiante that?

If you review the thread, you will see that you discussed a link that was provided, quoted part of it in your response and then later drew attention to that quoting.

That link provided the ACLU position on bubble zones and abortion clinics and referenced their support, opposition, and opinion on relevent cases. You were encouraged to read it in its entirety because it clearly addresses the ACLU position for each case, demonstrates how the type of zones the ACLU supports are much different then the Missouri law, shows that the ACLU is quite consistent in both their position related to free speech at abortion clinics and free speech for Phelps. They are using the exact same argument they have used in the past to SUPPORT the speech of abortion opponents and only support bubble zones that are created to prevent violence, not limit speech.

You seem to be in a circle or repeating false accusations or insinuations about what the ACLU supports and what they do not even when their position has been presented to you and referenced quite clearly. Your desire to try to show hypocricy or inconsistency in their approach appears to overwhelm your desire to actually discuss their real position.

I'll leave it up to you to go back and find their actual position. The references are in this very thread.

On that, I'll again step out of the conversation as it is just a repeat of 100 posts ago.

I would hope that in the future, you could reference and cite the ACLU's actual position on topics instead of made up ones. It would make the discussion much less confusing and more productive. We could then avoid having to clarify their position and instead actually discuss it.

 

[MachZer0]

If you review the thread, you will see that you discussed a link that was provided, quoted part of it in your response and then later drew attention to that quoting.

That link provided the ACLU position on bubble zones and abortion clinics and referenced their support, opposition, and opinion on relevent cases. You were encouraged to read it in its entirety because it clearly addresses the ACLU position for each case, demonstrates how the type of zones the ACLU supports are much different then the Missouri law, shows that the ACLU is quite consistent in both their position related to free speech at abortion clinics and free speech for Phelps. They are using the exact same argument they have used in the past to SUPPORT the speech of abortion opponents and only support bubble zones that are created to prevent violence, not limit speech.

You seem to be in a circle or repeating false accusations or insinuations about what the ACLU supports and what they do not even when their position has been presented to you and referenced quite clearly. Your desire to try to show hypocricy or inconsistency in their approach appears to overwhelm your desire to actually discuss their real position.

I'll leave it up to you to go back and find their actual position. The references are in this very thread.

On that, I'll again step out of the conversation as it is just a repeat of 100 posts ago.

I would hope that in the future, you could reference and cite the ACLU's actual position on topics instead of made up ones. It would make the discussion much less confusing and more productive. We could then avoid having to clarify their position and instead actually discuss it.

Your claim was that the ACLU supported bubble zones which only applied to certain people. Evidence for that has not been presented. Nuff said regarding the double standard from the ACLU

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I recall, the sentence was for 5 years. So do you think he got 5 years for tickling someone?

How many years did he serve?

You tell me. Do bubble zones at abortion clinics apply to people who have never "wrestled pregnant women to the ground" or committed any other acts of violence?

Have you met a protestor who wasn't part of an organization known for such actions?

Since when did funerals deserve more protection than say, public appearances by a celebrity?

 

[MachZer0]

How many years did he serve?

Time served is irrelevant. Do you think he was sentenced to 5 years for spitting?

Have you met a protestor who wasn't part of an organization known for such actions?

Sure

Since when did funerals deserve more protection than say, public appearances by a celebrity?

We aren't discussing celebrities, but rather a double standard as it relates to abortion clinics and funerals.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Time served is irrelevant. Do you think he was sentenced to 5 years for spitting?

I once read a story of a guy who was sentenced to 300+ years (that's not a typo; over 300 years) for taking naked pictures of his girlfriend -- she was underage, the judge ruled each photo as a separate offense, and applied consecutive sentences.

Answer my questions, and I'll answer yours. What did Phelps do, and how much time did he serve for it?

Sure

We aren't discussing celebrities, but rather a double standard as it relates to abortion clinics and funerals.

Indeed there is a "double standard," as we have two different situations--

On the one hand, we have a group of people who, while well-meaning, are top-to-bottom infiltrated with zealots who will take any action, legal or otherwise, to prevent women from recieving legal medical treatment.

On the other hand, you have an annoying old man, his Bible, and his extended family.

And Phelps needs to be contained more than the pro-lifers?

 

[MachZer0]

I once read a story of a guy who was sentenced to 300+ years (that's not a typo; over 300 years) for taking naked pictures of his girlfriend -- she was underage, the judge ruled each photo as a separate offense, and applied consecutive sentences.

Answer my questions, and I'll answer yours. What did Phelps do, and how much time did he serve for it?

So, do you find spitting on people an approprite means of protest?

Indeed there is a "double standard," as we have two different situations--

On the one hand, we have a group of people who, while well-meaning, are top-to-bottom infiltrated with zealots who will take any action, legal or otherwise, to prevent women from recieving legal medical treatment.

On the other hand, you have an annoying old man, his Bible, and his extended family.

And Phelps needs to be contained more than the pro-lifers?

Phelps and his group have also demonstrated that they will take actions which are illegal, yet, many on the left have come to his defense.