The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[Nathan Poe]

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

No rationalization, Mach; You screwed up, plain and simple.

There was no funeral being protested, hence, your "example" didn't fit.

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

 

[Nathan Poe]

LOL! that was GREAT! You managed to simultaneously pretend to answer the question, (but didn't), then when someone says "Hey...that has nothing to do with the question!" You then claim a victory because, although you "proved" your point, the person you were arguing with then "rationalized" to say you were wrong! Bravo!
tulc(that was fun! do you do shadow puppets also?

Ordinarily, such a combination of willful blindness, intellectual dishonesty, and Orwellian doublethink would be amusing, but only when it's done with some degree of talent.

As it is, it's almost sad to see Mach running on empty. I'd toss in the towel out of sheer frustration, but at this point, I'm only in it for the lurkers anyway.

 

[MachZer0]

I was asked to provide evidence of

One single illegal or violent act committed at a funeral protest

I provided it. As a matter of fact, the link provided 3 incidents. And just as I suspected, the evidence was disregarded.

 

[MachZer0]

No rationalization, Mach; You screwed up, plain and simple.

There was no funeral being protested, hence, your "example" didn't fit.

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

The example obviously didn't fit and none ever will. That is the definition of rationalization. Regardless of the circumstances, an excuse will be found as to why they don't fit the situation. I think that is quite obvious at this point.

 

[MachZer0]

Here's another example that will be brushed aside

 

[MachZer0]

And yet another. Of course, these won't be good enough

 

[JustOneWay]

Aren't those examples one in the same?

 

[MachZer0]

Aren't those examples one in the same?

Yes they are.

 

[tulc]

Aren't those examples one in the same?

Well, yes they are. So the question was "violence at any funeral" not violence at a Phelps funeral protest specifically?
tulc(wondering how MachZero would answer my question?)

 

[MachZer0]

Well, yes they are. So the question was "violence at any funeral" not violence at a Phelps funeral protest specifically?

Yes, that was the question

 

[nvxplorer]

Less than half way to go! You get 'em, Mach.

(You don't stand a chance of matching Lily's record, though.)

 

[MachZer0]

Less than half way to go! You get 'em, Mach.

(You don't stand a chance of matching Lily's record, though.)

I don't know who Lily is, nor am I aware of his record.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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

That is directly in contradiction to the posted dictionary definition of what an 'activist' is. Whether or not somebody is an activist has nothing to do with whether or not they rule based on the constitution. Or did you want to ignore the dictionary because it doesn't support you?

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

And you've shown nothing to indicate that anyone is applying the law selectively.

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

Yes, it is. See above.

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

No, the effect of the bubble zones is to prevent groups with a proven record of violence at protests from getting close enough to again be violent. It is, of course, sad for those in the groups who weren't being violent - but they can blame those who were.

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

There is no double standard - except in your imagination. You just want to ignore the difference - that one group has a history of violence in the protests in regard to which they are restricted, and the other doesn't. But that difference doesn't suit your case, so you ignore it.

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.

Completely unsupported by fact, reality, or anything you've posted in this thread.

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

This is just dishonest. What you posted is in no way what is being talked about, and you know it. People protesting against abortion clinics had a bubble zone imposed because some of them were being violent against people using the clinics in the course of their protests. For there to be a double standard here, the ACLU would have to NOT want bubble zones imposed on Phelps and his crew DESPITE them being violent against people at funerals in the course of their protesting those funerals. You haven't and can't show that this is the case.

 

[MachZer0]

That is directly in contradiction to the posted dictionary definition of what an 'activist' is. Whether or not somebody is an activist has nothing to do with whether or not they rule based on the constitution. Or did you want to ignore the dictionary because it doesn't support you?

I posted the dictionary definition and I have used the term appropriately, although it may not fit the liberal OC definition

This is just dishonest. What you posted is in no way what is being talked about, and you know it. People protesting against abortion clinics had a bubble zone imposed because some of them were being violent against people using the clinics in the course of their protests. For there to be a double standard here, the ACLU would have to NOT want bubble zones imposed on Phelps and his crew DESPITE them being violent against people at funerals in the course of their protesting those funerals. You haven't and can't show that this is the case.

So here we see the double standard once again. Some abortion protesters became violent and the response is to deny the rights of all abortion protesters, even the peaceful ones.

I've clearly shown that there has been evidence of violence at funeral protests, but the same rule does not apply. Phelps cannot be limited by a bubble zone because he himself has not been violent at a funeral protest. Would that the laws were interpreted equally to all people regardless of their message

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, that was the question

And after one false start, you finally provided an incident on point. Congratulations!

Now, can we look at the circumstances surrounding this incident and find an appropriate course of action?

 

[ACougar]

Judges are paid to render decisions based on thier understanding of the law and how it applies to a particular situation. If the law is not clear thier decision will likely have an impact on how the law is interpreted. Is this being an activist or is this the judge simply doing the job?

It sems to me, that Judges who are labled "activist" tend to base thier rulings on the Constitution, while Conservative Judges rule based on the Bible. I pray for more activist Judges.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I posted the dictionary definition and I have used the term appropriately, although it may not fit the liberal OC definition

No, you have not. The dictionary definition clearly shows that a person acting regarding a controversial issue is an activist, regardless of which side they act on. A judge ruling either for or against abortion rights would be an activist - but you would only call the judge ruling FOR them an activist. Because you don't use the term correctly - you use it to mean merely 'judges i disagree with'.

So here we see the double standard once again. Some abortion protesters became violent and the response is to deny the rights of all abortion protesters, even the peaceful ones.

I've clearly shown that there has been evidence of violence at funeral protests, but the same rule does not apply. Phelps cannot be limited by a bubble zone because he himself has not been violent at a funeral protest. Would that the laws were interpreted equally to all people regardless of their message

There is no double standard at all. Violence has occurred at some protests at funerals for completely unrelated reasons to those Phelps and his group are protesting. THAT is why no bubble zone should be imposed on him.

What you are citing is as if, prior to the violence at abortion clinics by anti-abortionists, there had been violent protests for unrelated reasons at other medical clinics. By your 'logic', imposing a bubble zone on anti-abortionists because of violence not by them, but by others at similar sites in unrelated protests, would have been reasonable. It's not, and that's why the ACLU is against buble zones for Phelps and his crew.

 

[MachZer0]

And after one false start, you finally provided an incident on point. Congratulations!

Now, can we look at the circumstances surrounding this incident and find an appropriate course of action?

Based on your argument, wouldn't a bubble zone be the appropriate response?

 

[MachZer0]

Judges are paid to render decisions based on thier understanding of the law and how it applies to a particular situation. If the law is not clear thier decision will likely have an impact on how the law is interpreted. Is this being an activist or is this the judge simply doing the job?

It sems to me, that Judges who are labled "activist" tend to base thier rulings on the Constitution, while Conservative Judges rule based on the Bible. I pray for more activist Judges.

Do you have a specific example of a judge making a ruling based on the Bible rather than the law?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Based on your argument, wouldn't a bubble zone be the appropriate response?

A tricky matter, and one which, in this case, has little to do with the First Amendment.

The fact that the funeral in this case was of someone wrongly shot by the police certainly doesn't make for a simple decision -- On the one hand, it's easy to predict that people would appear to protest the circumstances of the death, but on the other, probably the last thing anyone wantedto see at this particular funeral were the NYPD.

Catch-22, wouldn't you agree?

In fact, it should be noted that in the Dorismond funeral, the violence was targeted towards the police in attendance. It would appear that the "bubble zone" here caused violence rather than prevented it.