The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

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.

I don't know if "overthrow" is a proper description, but the ACLU clearly is attempting to restructure the government through misinterpretation of the Constitution in order to mold an America unlike that established by our founding fathers.

 

[MachZer0]

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

I'm not nearly as concerned about bubble zones themselves as I am about the blatant double standard

 

[MachZer0]

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

Do you deny that my post was true?

 

[tulc]

I'm not nearly as concerned about bubble zones themselves as I am about the blatant double standard

Ok. But what do YOU think about them?
tulc(just curious)

 

[MachZer0]

Ok. But what do YOU think about them?
tulc(just curious)

The thread isn't about me or my personal opinion on protests

 

[tulc]

The thread isn't about me or my personal opinion on protests

It's not? I thought at first it was about the ACLU coming out in favor of Fred Phelps because they were AGAINST bubblezones then it seemed to be about the ACLU being hypocrites because (you said) they were FOR bubblezones at abortion clinics (which we have seen isn't true) that led me to wonder: where does mach zero stand on those issues? I don't see how that is off topic?
tulc(just a curious guy)

 

[MachZer0]

It's not? I thought at first it was about the ACLU coming out in favor of Fred Phelps because they were AGAINST bubblezones then it seemed to be about the ACLU being hypocrites because (you said) they were FOR bubblezones at abortion clinics (which we have seen isn't true) that led me to wonder: where does mach zero stand on those issues? I don't see how that is off topic?
tulc(just a curious guy)

If you can't see where it's off topic, I can't help you. And by the way, it wasn't established that the ACLU is indeed opposed to the abortion clinic bubble zones

 

[tulc]

If you can't see where it's off topic, I can't help you.

Can't? Really, it seemed on topic to me.
tulc(difficult perhaps but on topic none the less)

 

[tulc]

And by the way, it wasn't established that the ACLU is indeed opposed to the abortion clinic bubble zones

Really? Those links I posted seemed to say otherwise. So we're back to where do you stand?
tulc(seems pretty straight forward to me)

 

[Nathan Poe]

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

Answers are rarely expected from you at this point.

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.

You have nothing, and you're hoping we don't notice.

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

You still have nothing, and are throwing out hypotheticals to try to hide it.

Skewed facts, yes

Still nothing, but you've moved on to baseless assertions.

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

Indeed. Your rationalization argument failed due to lack of evidence, and now you've moved on to willful blindness. Not even crayons or puppet shows could get you to admit the facts at this point.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you deny that my post was true?

I'll deny that most of what you've said in the last 50 pages has been true.

 

[MachZer0]

Answers are rarely expected from you at this point.

Generally, when one asks a question, one expects an answer. In this case, no question was asked yet there seems to have been an expectation of an answer. Frankly, that doesn't make sense, but neither does the rationalization in my view.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Generally, when one asks a question, one expects an answer. In this case, no question was asked yet there seems to have been an expectation of an answer. Frankly, that doesn't make sense, but neither does the rationalization in my view.

Well then, let's start over with the question. Put on your thinking caps, boys and girls...


Would you be able to provide a link to a source documenting a funeral protest which resulted in violent or illegal action?

If you had several of these, we might begin to make a case in favor of Bubble Zones -- I'd even support them if this were an actual problem that needed solving.

But for the moment, let's start with one specific incident. Do you have knowledge on one such specific incident?

 

[MachZer0]

Well then, let's start over with the question. Put on your thinking caps, boys and girls...


Would you be able to provide a link to a source documenting a funeral protest which resulted in violent or illegal action?

If you had several of these, we might begin to make a case in favor of Bubble Zones -- I'd even support them if this were an actual problem that needed solving.

But for the moment, let's start with one specific incident. Do you have knowledge on one such specific incident?

We discussed that question before and you change and it was determined that even with requested documentation, the need for a bubble zone would be rationalized away. So how many acts of violence would you require before you would accept the need for a bubble zone at funerals and are you then going to require that said acts had to be committed by Phelps himself?

 

[Nathan Poe]

We discussed that question before and you change and it was determined that even with requested documentation, the need for a bubble zone would be rationalized away.

You didn't answer the first question, and you're not answering this one. Do you have anything to contribute?

I, for one, despise Phelps, his message, and his means of protesting it, and would gladly support a bubble zone if there were sufficient legal grounds to do so, as there is in the case of Abortion clinic bubble zones. My personal feelings are that if any man (first amendment or not) deserved a muzzle, it would be Phelps.

But, my opinion plus $4.50 gets a latte at Starbucks. Is there legal grounds to get this man out of people's faces?

Or is your position so bankrupt that you can't even convince someone who wants to be convinced?

So how many acts of violence would you require before you would accept the need for a bubble zone at funerals and are you then going to require that said acts had to be committed by Phelps himself?

Phelps is irrelevent. I asked for one incident. Let's start with one, and proceed from that point.

One single illegal or violent act committed at a funeral protest. Just one, Mach, let's start there.

Although I suspect that you've already done a websearch and came up empty -- hence your ducking and dodging here.

 

[MachZer0]

You didn't answer the first question, and you're not answering this one. Do you have anything to contribute?

I, for one, despise Phelps, his message, and his means of protesting it, and would gladly support a bubble zone if there were sufficient legal grounds to do so, as there is in the case of Abortion clinic bubble zones. My personal feelings are that if any man (first amendment or not) deserved a muzzle, it would be Phelps.

But, my opinion plus $4.50 gets a latte at Starbucks. Is there legal grounds to get this man out of people's faces?

Or is your position so bankrupt that you can't even convince someone who wants to be convinced?




Phelps is irrelevent. I asked for one incident. Let's start with one, and proceed from that point.

One single illegal or violent act committed at a funeral protest. Just one, Mach, let's start there.

Although I suspect that you've already done a websearch and came up empty -- hence your ducking and dodging here.

Here's one. I'll await the rationalization

 

[Nathan Poe]

Here's one. I'll await the rationalization

The Selma March, 1965. "Bloody Sunday." A peaceful march organized by the Rev. Marting Luther King from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery met with violence -- at the hands of Alabama State Troopers.

Wouldn't a funeral protest require a funeral to protest?

Mach, this is truly pathetic. You weren't even close.

I asked you for one example, and you couldn't deliver the goods.

 

[MachZer0]

The Selma March, 1965. "Bloody Sunday." A peaceful march organized by the Rev. Marting Luther King from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery met with violence -- at the hands of Alabama State Troopers.

Wouldn't a funeral protest require a funeral to protest?

Mach, this is truly pathetic. You weren't even close.

I asked you for one example, and you couldn't deliver the goods.

Therein lies the rationalization. The march was a protest, and violence ensued, but it doesn't meet the criteria required because it would require rethinking the bubble zones. That is why I hesitated to link the violence before. It was stated that there has never been an incidence of violence at a funeral protest, and have unquestionably proved that wrong, and the rationalization followed

 

[JustOneWay]

Do you suppose that John the Baptist would have lived a longer life had he adhered to a bubble zone when near Harod?
Do you suppose Phelps believes he is like John the Baptist?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you suppose that John the Baptist would have lived a longer life had he adhered to a bubble zone when near Harod?
Do you suppose Phelps believes he is like John the Baptist?

I wouldn't be surprised. Phelps apparantly has a host of psychological problems, so delusions of grandeur wouldn't be such a stretch.