More insanity from Westboro

[srellim234]

So now they plan to protest at the 9 year old victim's funeral in Tuscon. Can't they find something Christian and productive to do with their time and money?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4257.story

Kudos to the Arizona state government and the people of Tuscon for reacting to the Westboro threat so quickly.

[IBCoupe]

Did they think she was gay?

[Eikon]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4257.story

Kudos to the Arizona state government and the people of Tuscon for reacting to the Westboro threat so quickly.

ABSOLUTELY!!! Well done AZ state house and senate!!!! I read the Senate passed it in 3 minutes with a unanimous vote. That's how government should work!

[AZhitman]

I have mixed feelings on the passage of this law. More later.

[stebo0728]

You dont need that law, do you have a group of Hells Angels in that area? Thats all you need ....

[AZhitman]

Slight correction: We have a TON of bikers in AZ.

And yes, they were ALL in Tucson for the funeral, fully prepared to blockade any protesters and shield the mourners from their presence.

I'm pretty proud of our state, despite the rest of the country's myopic and ignorant perceptions of it.

[heliochrome85]

Slight correction: We have a TON of bikers in AZ.

And yes, they were ALL in Tucson for the funeral, fully prepared to blockade any protesters and shield the mourners from their presence.

I'm pretty proud of our state, despite the rest of the country's myopic and ignorant perceptions of it.

yep. ignorant is the word id use.

[stebo0728]

Slight correction: We have a TON of bikers in AZ.

And yes, they were ALL in Tucson for the funeral, fully prepared to blockade any protesters and shield the mourners from their presence.

I'm pretty proud of our state, despite the rest of the country's myopic and ignorant perceptions of it.

I dont have a problem in the world with how AZ handled it, but an important thing to note is, it was handled BY THE PEOPLE, without looking helplessly to government to save the day....Thats EPIC

[heliochrome85]

how exactly would you suppose the government handle it? any intervention on a government level would be a violation of their freedom to protest, and wouldnt that get conservative panties in a bind. or is the constitution a sacred document that can be violated only sometimes?

[AZhitman]

Interesting that you'd characterize it as ONLY being displeasing to conservatives.

It should get AMERICANS upset, as it runs counter to our liberties (as much as I hate those pieces of s*** and would have NO problem inflicting great bodily harm on them)... it's still a violation of their Constitutional rights.

I don't support the law.

[IBCoupe]

He didn't say it would only be displeasing to conservatives. He just suggested that it would be displeasing to conservatives. Interesting that you'd read into it a meaning that isn't literally there, you activist poster.

[szh]

you activist poster.

How does that old phrase go again? "Pot calling the kettle black"?

Z

[AZhitman]

He didn't say it would only be displeasing to conservatives. He just suggested that it would be displeasing to conservatives. Interesting that you'd read into it a meaning that isn't literally there, you activist poster.

He characterized it as ONLY being displeasing to conservatives. I don't see any other group mentioned there, and the use of a demeaning euphemism for "being upset" simply reinforces the disdainful tone.

Interesting that you'd think you can engage me in any type of linguistic tête-à-tête and emerge the victor.

Activist, indeed. Have fun reconciling your perceptions of me with my clear opposition to this law.

[jbracy7]

some peaple truely belive they're s*** dont stink,why a lil girls funeral what has she or any of her family done to be protested.its this type of stuff that makes america suck, i kno its there right, BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD! i hope that theres a special place in hell for these peaple

[IBCoupe]

He characterized it as ONLY being displeasing to conservatives. I don't see any other group mentioned there, and the use of a demeaning euphemism for "being upset" simply reinforces the disdainful tone.

You're continuing to infer language that was not present. He said, "and wouldnt that get conservative panties in a bind." Yes, the "panties in a bind" is disdain, for sure. But he didn't say that it would only be Conservative panties that would be in a bind. He suggested that there would be Conservative panties in a bind, but nothing about the language he used or the surrounding context made that statement exclusive of other groups.

Interesting that you'd think you can engage me in any type of linguistic tête-à-tête and emerge the victor.

Interesting that you'd continue to infer meaning where there was none. I have never expressed such a thought.

Though it certainly doesn't feel like you're going to win that one, either.

Activist, indeed. Have fun reconciling your perceptions of me with my clear opposition to this law.

The "activist" thing was a non-sequitur about "activist judges" who read into the Constitution things that aren't literally there, as some would have the definition of the phrase.

[AZhitman]

I caught the "activist" reference. My point was that I stand in opposition to those very judges who are attempting to wring something out of the Constitution that simply ain't there.

Could our founding fathers have imagined an America where WBC-type activities could occur? Absolutely. Atrocities were no less prevalent then than now. In fact, those atrocities were what drove them on.

[IBCoupe]

And my point was that you're wringing out of Tariq's comment an unjustified objection. Go stand in opposition to yourself.

[heliochrome85]

Did they think she was gay?

[AZhitman]

And my point was that you're wringing out of Tariq's comment an unjustified objection. Go stand in opposition to yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseveration

[IBCoupe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologic ... ationships

[AZhitman]