The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[nvxplorer]

I don't support activist judges of any kind.

Sure you do. I call it rationalization.

Some day, most will recognize that

If this thread is any indication, that day is a long, long way away.

You're not as adorable as Lily of the Valley, but perhaps we should start a thread, "This is where you can argue with MachZero."

 

[Nathan Poe]

I clearly see the logic. It's called rationalization

What you call "rationalization," the rest of us call "enforcing the law."

I don't support activist judges of any kind. That is a ploy that is common on the left

Of course you support activist judges -- your kind. But they're not "activist," so long as they think the MachZero way.

I think the conspiracy is quite clear, except to those who "can't see the forest for the trees"
Some day, most will recognize that

And what a bleak day for America that will be.

 

[MachZer0]

ANY judge who rules on (for example) abortion, no matter which way they rule, is activist - because they would be taking 'direct vigorous action in suport or opposition to one side of a controversial issue'. So if - hypothetically - the SCOTUS one day rules against abortion (overturning itself), will you be calling the judges that do so 'activist'? Of course not. You only use 'activist' to mean judges you DON'T agree with.

Judges who rule based on the Constitution, as it is written, are just doing their job. They are not activists. It's as simple as that. Those are the judges I support

 

[MachZer0]

Sure you do. I call it rationalization.

It is not rationalization to ask judges to do what they are paid to do

If this thread is any indication, that day is a long, long way away.

Maybe not. It may only be one Supreme Court appointment away

 

[MachZer0]

What you call "rationalization," the rest of us call "enforcing the law."

Enforcing the law is one thing. Finding a way, or an excuse, to apply that law selectively to groups with whom you either agree or disagree is rationalization

Of course you support activist judges -- your kind. But they're not "activist," so long as they think the MachZero way.

No, I've clearly stated that I support judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written. That is not activism

And what a bleak day for America that will be.

A bleak day for many on the Left, indeed, but a new dawn for American principles

 

[Nathan Poe]

Enforcing the law is one thing. Finding a way, or an excuse, to apply that law selectively to groups with whom you either agree or disagree is rationalization

Even you would have to agree that a stricter law has to be applied to a group with a history of assassination and arson.

No, I've clearly stated that I support judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written. That is not activism

Then you don't support Roberts then? How puzzling.

A bleak day for many on the Left, indeed, but a new dawn for American principles

 

[MachZer0]

Even you would have to agree that a stricter law has to be applied to a group with a history of assassination and arson.

There are existing laws that deal with assassination and arson. The effect of the bubble zones is essentially to suppress the rights of the law abiding protesters. The reference to assassination and arson is the proverbial appeal to emotion to substantiate the rationalization

Then you don't support Roberts then? How puzzling.

The jury is still out on Roberts,but I haven't seen any evidence of activism yet.

 

[tulc]

The effect of the bubble zones is essentially to suppress the rights of the law abiding protesters. The reference to assassination and arson is the proverbial appeal to emotion to substantiate the rationalization

So bubble zones are bad, right?
tulc(trying to understand)

 

[MachZer0]

So bubble zones are bad, right?
tulc(trying to understand)

It's not so much the bubble zones as it is the double standard. that's the point

 

[tulc]

It's not so much the bubble zones as it is the double standard. that's the point

...wait who's double standard? the ACLU came out against bubble zones for Phelps and prolife protesters.
tulc(where's the double standard?)

 

[MachZer0]

...wait who's double standard? the ACLU came out against bubble zones for Phelps and prolife protesters.
tulc(where's the double standard?)

There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard

This has been explained to you before, Mach... for your benefit, it shall be explained again... more slowly.

How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Injured. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

 

[MachZer0]

This has been explained to you before, Mach... for your benefit, it shall be explained again... more slowly.

How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Injured. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

MOving the goalposts. Before it was a question of whether there was any violence or illegal activity. Now, suddenly, it's a question of injuries. At any rate, that is the rationalization of which I spoke earlier. Rationalization allows for disparate treatment based on philosophy, not the law.

 

[Nathan Poe]

MOving the goalposts. Before it was a question of whether there was any violence or illegal activity. Now, suddenly, it's a question of injuries.

If you prefer, we can talk only about the legal injuries, since apparantly, hurting someone at a protest isn't against the law in your America.

But I'll rephrase the question, again, for your benefit.

How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

Beyond this, I really don't know what else it'll take to get a straight answer out of you. Clearly, you have none.

At any rate, that is the rationalization of which I spoke earlier. Rationalization allows for disparate treatment based on philosophy, not the law.

Kind of like what you're doing here with your "Evil ACLU" blather?

 

[MachZer0]

If you prefer, we can talk only about the legal injuries, since apparantly, hurting someone at a protest isn't against the law in your America.

As I said, you moved the goalposts from "illegal activities" to "injuries". But that is how rationalization works

But I'll rephrase the question, again, for your benefit.

How. Many. People. Have. Ever. Been. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

I don't have an exact number just as I suspect you don't have an exact number tfor the arrests at abortion clinic protests

Beyond this, I really don't know what else it'll take to get a straight answer out of you. Clearly, you have none.

My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I said, you moved the goalposts from "illegal activities" to "injuries". But that is how rationalization works

Still no answer, hmmm? How does that work?

I don't have an exact number just as I suspect you don't have an exact number tfor the arrests at abortion clinic protests

Actually, you do have an exact number, just not the number you'd like: Zero.

But for your benefit, I'll ask an even simpler question:

When. Was. The. Last. Time. Anyone. Got. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

Really, Mach, if I could simplify this even further, via puppet show and/or illustration in purple crayon, I would, but alas, CF doesn't have those features installed.

My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.

Apparantly, the left wing mindset relies too heavily on facts.

"Facts? PFFT! You can use those to prove anything!" -- Homer Simpson.

 

[nvxplorer]

My answers are clear, they are just not palatable to a left wing mindset.

Your answers are crystal clear, but they're not rejected because of palatability. Actually, it appears you can't stomach the fact that the ACLU isn't trying to overthrow the US government, and this is the reason for your repetitive erroneous statements.

 

[tulc]

There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard

So you're against bubble zones for the prolifers and Phelps?
tulc(sipping some great coffee Mrs.tulc made!)

 

[nvxplorer]

There is a clear support here in this thread for the bubble zones at abortion clinics, and clear support for Phelps to be able to protest the funerals. That double standard

So, now it's "support here in this thread" rather than the ACLU? What was that you just wrote? Oh yeah...here it is: MOving the goalposts

 

[MachZer0]

Still no answer, hmmm? How does that work?

I wasn't responding to a question with that post so no answer should have been expected

Actually, you do have an exact number, just not the number you'd like: Zero.

Actually there have been arrests and injuries, possibly even deaths at funerals. I don't have exact numbers any more than you have for abortion clinics.

But for your benefit, I'll ask an even simpler question:

When. Was. The. Last. Time. Anyone. Got. Arrested. At. A. Funeral. Protest?

It's been years, but the arrests, injuries, etc are the rationalization part of the argument. One person gets arrested, that justifies denying the rights of peaceful protesters. If it was proved that Phelps (speaking hypothetically) had been arrested at a funeral, a different set of criteria would come forth to justify allowing him to protest.

Apparantly, the left wing mindset relies too heavily on facts.

Skewed facts, yes

"Facts? PFFT! You can use those to prove anything!" -- Homer Simpson.

I'm not sure why this discussion has lowered into the realm of crayons and cartoons other than the rationalization argument seems to be failing