Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I really don't think there protests should be allowed at any funeral.
Why would you ask such a question?
I think because there are many anti-war protest groups which have no limitations on making a scene even at a soldier's funeral.
Because it's in front of the Supreme Court right now….
Because there's that pesky 1st Amendment out there that would seem to have a problem with banning all manner of protests.
Ah yes, lets make it a first amendment issue when it suits the progressive anti-American communist backed ACLU. And now that we have a progressive loaded United States Supreme Court to rule in their favor, we will now declare open season on those young men and women who lay their lives on the line for this once great nation – and not just the service members but their families as well.
What has happened to honor and integrity in the United States of America?
Umm PapaDawg I think you need to look up the Westboro Baptist Church. They are a far right group (their the ones this case is about). Nice emotional appeal though.
Perhaps I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that 5 of the Justices are usually considered conservative and the most liberal one on there (Stevens) just retired, moving it further right. Obama can't load it with progressives simply because its only the progressives who have retired, he's just replaced what was already there (and most progressives would argue, quite unsatisfactorily, while I would argue that it didn't matter). Maybe you can consider Kennedy a "progressive" because of his libertarian leanings, but the other 4 are hardly just dolts sitting around doing nothing. They were the ones who overturned campaign finance for instance as a protection of free speech. If you're going to be consistent and rule on speech considerations, they'd also overturn things like FCC regulations, and protect the ability of people to protest at public events, no matter how offensive it is.
And I'm really confused why the ACLU still gets slammed as some sort of communist insurgent group, TODAY, still, when there aren't communists to back it up anymore. It's hardly the worst cause in the world to defend the Constitution through force of legal arguments that it needs to be vilified as a ridiculous plot to take over the country. The sad part is that you would strip away a precious liberty, the desire and ability to protest military policies and actions, simply because it annoys and inconveniences a few people or was conducted by the most annoying group possible (Fred Phelps is hardly an icon of the progressive universe, he's actually more your problem as someone to get to shut the hell up on your side of things than mine).
Case is technically about the right to protest versus the "right" not to be offended to a point of emotional distress. Really it sounds like the lawsuit was kind of bs to begin with and deserves to be thrown out for one. And two, it's unfortunately fairly common for people who are somewhat scummy to be the ones who end up as unsympathetic characters in the defence of everyone else's rights.
Larry Flynt for example.
You mean like when blatant perjury was used to push through Roe v. Wade? Democracy is dead. Long live the Lawyer state!
"progressive anti-American communist backed ACLU" Really Papadawg? This is an organization that protects and defends the Constitution for EVERY American. You may not like some of these people, but, they are Americans, and they do have the same rights as you and I. The Constitution has to work for everyone, or what exactly is the point of having it, and fighting to defend it?
And your "progressive loaded United States Supreme Court." SunTzuSays summed that up quite well..!!
No. That's not actually to what I was referring. There's a big gap between people being unworthy defendants whose rights are being abused and the perception of an abuse or miscarriage of justice on some procedural issue….
Okay, so you do not think that the ACLU is not wholly funded by the American Communist Workers organization? LOOK IT UP!
SunTzuSays is wrong on all counts.
However, me and my ilk will defend his and your right to disagree.
Tell me where you found your information on this American Communist Workers Organization funding the ACLU. I'd sure like to see the facts and figures…
Yes. Look it up. What a strange concept that I should be able to fact check the things that come out of your mind and find them lacking in reality.
You might want to explain to me where I'm wrong on the court. Educate me since you're so clearly so much wiser to these "evil progressives" that you should see them everywhere. Because I see 4 conservatives, one libertarian (Thomas leans that way too sometimes, but only on a few matters), three moderates who are hardly progressive on most issues (certainly relative to the general population, perhaps relative to extreme right-wingers), and one actual liberal (Ginsburg). Note: This does not mean I'm a big fan of the "moderates". But your perception of them lacks any appropriate political context. Or at least, I have no idea what your context is that you perceive all of them, presumably even the conservative justices, as too progressive. If that's your position, I seriously doubt you have any idea who sits on the bench. Please explain how Scalia and Alito are "progressives". Or Thomas or Roberts. Or even Kennedy. And then give me some idea how 5 justices out of 9 being roughly against progressive issues makes it a packed court for them. There are arguments you can make that they are not conservative (Roberts position on eminent domain for instance is too pro-corporate, although this is hardly out of step with the Republican party, so perhaps not). But not good arguments that they are progressives.
Also, what a strange concept that the ACLU does precisely that function as well, defending people's right to disagree. As to their their actual sources of funding. A quarter is membership fees (I guess you can claim everyone who is in it is a communist if you want… but you would be wrong), and about 60% are from various individuals and groups. As a non-profit advocacy group, their finances are open to the public to scrutiny. Go look at them for yourself sometime. http://www.aclu.org/node/20481 Maybe your position is that everyone who gives money to them is a "communist", which is amusing, but not a position worth debating. Meanwhile, the idea that it is wholly funding itself through communist subversive organisations was wholly discredited way back during the McCarthy era. You might want to stop reading books sent to you by the John Birch society.
(And yes. I'm tired of you having your own set of facts and then never showing us where they come from. Link it, type it in, something. It's insulting to yourself to simply declare that I'm wrong without having to prove it).
I think its dissrespectful to protest at a funeral.
The very thought of such a thing is unbelievable and outrageous! How absolutely dissrespectful!
Anyone who would even do such a thing……!
I can’t even imagine being the parents or wife of a soldier and having him die in his country’s service and then have a bunch of idiots show up at his funeral to try and push their agenda. Disgusting!
I believe in free speech and a free America but I also believe that people should have enough of a sense of decency to stay away from someone elses funeral.