Spirituality
31 Oct 07
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydThen you're ignoring all the reports about Westboro calling the police in advance of their protests. They wouldn't bother to do that if the police weren't protecting them.
i think not 😛
Give a source that states that police allowed vigilante-style beatdowns of the Westboro clans.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitWrong. The protesters usually announced their protests in advance (that's pretty typical; it helps the turnout). Informing the local police might be necessary under applicable local laws. As usual, you are jumping to erroneous conclusions based on few facts.
Then you're ignoring all the reports about Westboro calling the police in advance of their protests. They wouldn't bother to do that if the police weren't protecting them.
Give a source that states that police allowed vigilante-style beatdowns of the Westboro clans.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderTalk about going out of your way to disagree with someone.
Wrong. The protesters usually announced their protests in advance (that's pretty typical; it helps the turnout). Informing the local police might be necessary under applicable local laws. As usual, you are jumping to erroneous conclusions based on few facts.
You aren't even disputing that they call the police in advance.
After reading of attempts [both successful and unsuccessful] to assault WBC members, I have no doubt that they make sure that police are there, even if they will not admit that protection is part of the motivation.
As usual, you are jumping to erroneous conclusions based on few facts.
If a conclusion is based on facts, how can it be erroneous? Explain.
10 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI didn't dispute it or concede it.
Talk about going out of your way to disagree with someone.
You aren't even disputing that they call the police in advance.
After reading of attempts [both successful and unsuccessful] to assault WBC members, I have no doubt that they make sure that police are there, even if they will not admit that protection is part of the motivation.
[b]As usu ...[text shortened]... based on few facts.
If a conclusion is based on facts, how can it be erroneous? Explain.[/b]
If you can't understand an entire sentence that's your problem. It's easy to jump to an erroneous conclusion on a few facts when you ignore other, pertinent facts. You probably were never involved in a protest in the US, but I have been. If it's of any size and/or might block traffic, it's normal to get a permit from the local authorities.
11 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat part of "part of the motivation" did you not understand? [Speaking of people who can't understand sentences!]
I didn't dispute it or concede it.
If you can't understand an entire sentence that's your problem. It's easy to jump to an erroneous conclusion on a few facts when you ignore other, pertinent facts. You probably were never involved in a protest in the US, but I have been. If it's of any size and/or might block traffic, it's normal to get a permit from the local authorities.
Edit: Here's Westboro accepting police protection:
http://animation.speakfree.net/video/20050521_seaford-de.wmv
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhere does that video show that the protestors called the police in advance with the motivation to protect them? It looks like the police forced them to leave in that video and then did a pretty poor job of "protecting" them; if someone chucked a rock through your windshield you'd probably expect them to get arrested, wouldn't you? Doesn't appear that that happened in the link you gave.
What part of "[b]part of the motivation" did you not understand? [Speaking of people who can't understand sentences!]
Edit: Here's Westboro accepting police protection:
http://animation.speakfree.net/video/20050521_seaford-de.wmv[/b]
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThe video [obviously] doesn't show them calling the police. It does, however, show the real threat of violence they face. Again, from their perspective, they would have been far worse off if they had no van to flee to, and no window to stop the rocks. Only a supremely brave or stupid individual would not have have protection in mind when they called police in advance of the next protest.
Where does that video show that the protestors called the police in advance with the motivation to protect them? It looks like the police forced them to leave in that video and then did a pretty poor job of "protecting" them; if someone chucked a rock through your windshield you'd probably expect them to get arrested, wouldn't you? Doesn't appear that that happened in the link you gave.
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitYour mind reading skills are impressive.
The video [obviously] doesn't show them calling the police. It does, however, show the real threat of violence they face. Again, from their perspective, they would have been far worse off if they had no van to flee to, and no window to stop the rocks. Only a supremely brave or stupid individual would not have have protection in mind when they called police in advance of the next protest.
12 Nov 07
I don't see what any of this has to do with the suit against Westboro. If they were being
attacked and needed police protection, it sounds to me like Westboro should be suing, not the
other way around.
It's a given that protests of a controversial nature have historically requested and received police
protection. It's a given that their protests are controversial. It's a given that entering graveyards
is legal. It's a given that keeping 300 yards (or whatever) from burial rite is deemed legally sufficient
for not disturbing the service. It's given that they stayed far enough away.
What's the debate? The debate is this: The people burying their dead family member/friend
want to be free from their offensive speech and so they sued. And because sympathetic people
who forgot the Constitution and voted with their opinions, they won the suit. They successfully
suppressed the free speech of another member of the community.
Irrespective of the content of that speech, every good American should be offended by such a
decision. The content of the speech is irrelevant; it's not 'fire' in a crowded building where
someone may be in physical danger as a result of the speech. It's that the family's feelings were
hurt (and with good reason). However, the Constitution doesn't protect your feelings.
Nemesio
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderHilarious! Now someone needs a Secret Decoder Ring for current day events, too! According to the idiocy of your worldview, only what happens within the framework of a 45 second recording on YouTube is real. "Where did all those people disappear to?"
Where does that video show that the protestors called the police in advance with the motivation to protect them? It looks like the police forced them to leave in that video and then did a pretty poor job of "protecting" them; if someone chucked a rock through your windshield you'd probably expect them to get arrested, wouldn't you? Doesn't appear that that happened in the link you gave.
13 Nov 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis post is incredibly stupid even for you. The point is that the link given offered no support for SG's claims. Do you dispute that or are you merely trolling?
Hilarious! Now someone needs a Secret Decoder Ring for current day events, too! According to the idiocy of your worldview, only what happens within the framework of a 45 second recording on YouTube is real. "Where did all those people disappear to?"