Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[goldcatt]

the ones they made when they issued the decis..

oh, wait

Comments....comments....during the trial.

Guess I'm gonna have to make you eat your words.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday agonized over the case of a family grieving the wartime loss of a Marine, a family traumatized by an obscure church's protests at his burial.

The justices appeared deeply sympathetic to Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006.

But they also appeared to find it difficult to limit in any way the First Amendment free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., to parade near military funerals with signs declaring, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



Supreme Court agonizes over dispute between fallen Marine's family and Westboro Baptist Church

Several comments have been released but for some strange reason it's difficult to find them anywhere.

A comment from Ginsberg during Q&A...in an argument to prove that Liberals have no outrage over WBC.

Here, let me help with the full transcript of the Q&A from orals. I've read it a few times. This one is courtesy of Petitioners' hometown newspaper. Wouldn't want to be accused of supplying anything with a WBC bias.

Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court annotated transcript - The York Daily Record

BTW, the Supreme Court does NOT try cases, nor do comments by individual Justices during orals constitute a statement of the Court. You did mean oral arguments, correct?

 

[geauxtohell]

Hahaha....Goldcatt and geuxtohell both unwittingly admitted I was right without saying so and you're not even smart enough to recognize it when it happened.

Ah the old "unwitting admission" canard.

Nice to see it's still as lame as ever.

By the way, all of you motherfuckers unwittingly admitted that you owe me $25.00, so I'll expect those checks anytime now......

 

[mudwhistle]

Comments....comments....during the trial.

Guess I'm gonna have to make you eat your words.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday agonized over the case of a family grieving the wartime loss of a Marine, a family traumatized by an obscure church's protests at his burial.

The justices appeared deeply sympathetic to Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006.

But they also appeared to find it difficult to limit in any way the First Amendment free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., to parade near military funerals with signs declaring, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

"This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



Supreme Court agonizes over dispute between fallen Marine's family and Westboro Baptist Church

Several comments have been released but for some strange reason it's difficult to find them anywhere.

A comment from Ginsberg during Q&A...in an argument to prove that Liberals have no outrage over WBC.

Here, let me help with the full transcript of the Q&A from orals. I've read it a few times. This one is courtesy of Petitioners' hometown newspaper. Wouldn't want to be accused of supplying anything with a WBC bias.

Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court annotated transcript - The York Daily Record

BTW, the Supreme Court does NOT try cases. You mean oral arguments, correct?

I was mainly talking about liberals here on USMB....but one statement from one liberal doesn't mean all of you need to sit on your asses.




And to whether it was a trial or just oral arguments...are you so busy grasping at straws that you need to correct everything? Is proper punctuation and spelling next?

 

[geauxtohell]

[
Boy that went way over your head.

Btw...where does it say in my post above that your comments equates to support for the WBC? It clearly stated that you pretty much assume as I have that the WBC won the case and to make things worse for you...you aren't gonna bitch about it because you don't give a shit. This is the main focus of my original post.

I am not going to bitch, because it's fucking pointless.

If you think bitching about it on the internets means a damn thing in the long run on this matter, then you are clueless.

People have been bitching about the Phelps family since the Matthew Shepard incident. It hasn't changed anything. In fact, they have just gotten worse.

So go ahead and go nuts about the matter when the case is settled. It might make you feel better, but you, your opinion, and your magic outrage-ometer mean little, if anything, to the rest of us.

Again, you choose to create a subjective entity (your assessment of the appropriate level of rage over the Phelps family) to score cheap points.

So whose the asshole in the room?

Now tell me I'm wrong.

It's amazing how with the exception of my anger over the issue you and I think pretty much the same way about it. It's like arguing for the sake of arguing in my opinion.

It's because I think it's silly to claim that not showing a sufficient degree of outrage implies that people support the Phelps family or don't support the troops or whatever.

Lame.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

This is from my original post. Where does it say an official decision was handed down?

 

[geauxtohell]

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

This is from my original post. Where does it say an official decision was handed down?

Don't try and French it up now. You know we are talking about this post:

But very true. One would think that there would be total outrage after the Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church but there isn't any. Just a lot of yawning and dismissals.

Nope...my OP was dead-on.

Sorry if the truth hurts you personally.

You obviously thought the SCOTUS had made a decision. In fact, you based you "lack of outrage" over a non-existent entity. No wonder you didn't see any "outrage".

BTW, where was the conservative outrage over the SCOTUS decision you thought had been made.

 

[mudwhistle]

[
Boy that went way over your head.

Btw...where does it say in my post above that your comments equates to support for the WBC? It clearly stated that you pretty much assume as I have that the WBC won the case and to make things worse for you...you aren't gonna bitch about it because you don't give a shit. This is the main focus of my original post.

I am not going to bitch, because it's fucking pointless.

If you think bitching about it on the internets means a damn thing in the long run on this matter, then you are clueless.

People have been bitching about the Phelps family since the Matthew Shepard incident. It hasn't changed anything. In fact, they have just gotten worse.

So go ahead and go nuts about the matter when the case is settled. It might make you feel better, but you, your opinion, and your magic outrage-ometer mean little, if anything, to the rest of us.

Again, you choose to create a subjective entity (your assessment of the appropriate level of rage over the Phelps family) to score cheap points.

So whose the asshole in the room?

Now tell me I'm wrong.

It's amazing how with the exception of my anger over the issue you and I think pretty much the same way about it. It's like arguing for the sake of arguing in my opinion.

It's because I think it's silly to claim that not showing a sufficient degree of outrage implies that people support the Phelps family or don't support the troops or whatever.

Lame.

Seems the biggest asshole is the one that started the name calling.

And once again you reiterate my common theme here that you really don't give a shit.

Just to get down to brass tacks....nothing here on this forum will make much of a difference in the swing of things....but that never stopped anyone before. Claiming otherwise is pretty lame in itself.

You guys think you're doing a number on me but you're just proving my point.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now from all indications they've won a massive victory because the Supreme Court feels that the slippery-slope argument the plaintiff has against Westboro Baptist Church doesn't override the first amendment.

This is from my original post. Where does it say an official decision was handed down?

Don't try and French it up now. You know we are talking about this post:

But very true. One would think that there would be total outrage after the Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church but there isn't any. Just a lot of yawning and dismissals.

Nope...my OP was dead-on.

Sorry if the truth hurts you personally.

You obviously thought the SCOTUS had made a decision. In fact, you based you "lack of outrage" over a non-existent entity. No wonder you didn't see any "outrage".

BTW, where was the conservative outrage over the SCOTUS decision you thought had been made.

Unfortunately I wasn't.

Dude...you admitted it was a done deal. I never claimed they had released a decision...merely that the writing is on the fucken wall.

Claim what you want.

 

[goldcatt]

Comments....comments....during the trial.

Guess I'm gonna have to make you eat your words.



Several comments have been released but for some strange reason it's difficult to find them anywhere.

A comment from Ginsberg during Q&A...in an argument to prove that Liberals have no outrage over WBC.

Here, let me help with the full transcript of the Q&A from orals. I've read it a few times. This one is courtesy of Petitioners' hometown newspaper. Wouldn't want to be accused of supplying anything with a WBC bias.

Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court annotated transcript - The York Daily Record

BTW, the Supreme Court does NOT try cases. You mean oral arguments, correct?

I was mainly talking about liberals here on USMB....but one statement from one liberal doesn't mean all of you need to sit on your asses.




And to whether it was a trial or just oral arguments...are you so busy grasping at straws that you need to correct everything? Is proper punctuation and spelling next?

Defensive much? Procedural status makes a big difference as to the effect of a comment from a judge, actually. Or in any of the proceedings taking place. Which you would understand if you went back and looked at the basics of the Court system and the appellate process.

And you obviously haven't listened to the orals in toto or read the transcripts, if you're talking about a single comment quoted in truncated form in a tabloid newspaper from one Justice, expanding that to a statement from the Court as a whole and using it as your basis for an opinion as to the outcome - and then extrapolating that into a statement on the stance of your political opponents as a whole.

Sloppy, very sloppy. And completely oversimplified.

For the right Roberts and Alito particularly had interesting questions and comments, and I'm not usually a fan of Alito's. Any interest in those? How about Sotomayor's stance? What was revealed about Kagan? How about Breyer's comments, which IMO went far beyond Ginsberg's? They all get a vote, mud.

See? You're just not quite there as far as understanding what you're talking about. I hear ya, and I understand the media reports have been frankly pitiful on this subject, but you need to brush up on what's really happening and what its import is before you come sailing in with guns blazing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Continue beating your straw man asshole.

 

[goldcatt]

Continue beating your straw man asshole.

What straw man?

The fact that you posted liberals aren't showing outrage over the decision the SCOTUS hasn't made yet?

The fact that you don't know the difference between a trial or an appeal, or between the Circuit Court and the SCOTUS, or between a comment in Q&A by an individual Justice and a statement of the Court, but know all the "particulars" when it comes to this case and therefore what opinion people should have about it?

Congratulations, I was right with my first post on this thread. You've outdone yourself this time, you really have.

 

[geauxtohell]

Seems the biggest asshole is the one that started the name calling.

That certainly wasn't me. I think Cali Girl tossed out the first insult on your thread. Talk to her about it.

And once again you reiterate my common theme here that you really don't give a shit.

You are right. I don't give a shit about your assessment of whatever the appropriate level of outrage that liberals need to show when it comes to the despicable Phelps brood.

Nor do I give a shit about your lame attempts to politicize this. It reflects on you, not on others.

Just to get down to brass tacks....nothing here on this forum will make much of a difference in the swing of things....but that never stopped anyone before. Claiming otherwise is pretty lame in itself.

You guys think you're doing a number on me but you're just proving my point.

No, we are pointing and laughing at you. You are just too dense to get it.

 

[mudwhistle]

A comment from Ginsberg during Q&A...in an argument to prove that Liberals have no outrage over WBC.

Here, let me help with the full transcript of the Q&A from orals. I've read it a few times. This one is courtesy of Petitioners' hometown newspaper. Wouldn't want to be accused of supplying anything with a WBC bias.

Snyder v. Phelps Supreme Court annotated transcript - The York Daily Record

BTW, the Supreme Court does NOT try cases. You mean oral arguments, correct?

I was mainly talking about liberals here on USMB....but one statement from one liberal doesn't mean all of you need to sit on your asses.




And to whether it was a trial or just oral arguments...are you so busy grasping at straws that you need to correct everything? Is proper punctuation and spelling next?

Defensive much? Procedural status makes a big difference as to the effect of a comment from a judge, actually. Or in any of the proceedings taking place. Which you would understand if you went back and looked at the basics of the Court system and the appellate process.

And you obviously haven't listened to the orals in toto or read the transcripts, if you're talking about a single comment quoted in truncated form in a tabloid newspaper from one Justice, expanding that to a statement from the Court as a whole and using it as your basis for an opinion as to the outcome - and then extrapolating that into a statement on the stance of your political opponents as a whole.

Sloppy, very sloppy. And completely oversimplified.

For the right Roberts and Alito particularly had interesting questions and comments, and I'm not usually a fan of Alito's. Any interest in those? How about Sotomayor's stance? What was revealed about Kagan? How about Breyer's comments, which IMO went far beyond Ginsberg's? They all get a vote, mud.

See? You're just not quite there as far as understanding what you're talking about. I hear ya, and I understand the media reports have been frankly pitiful on this subject, but you need to brush up on what's really happening and what its import is before you come sailing in with guns blazing.

I've seen all of them and I know they're right on the mark from both sides of the court.

You're still trying to lecture me on issues that are only a part of the topic at hand. You and others have given me your reasons for your silence on the subject. I heard them and reserve the right to say they aren't a good excuse.

I know the left is not a collective. Everyone has their own reasons for what they do and don't do. If you say you've done enough then so be it. If you say it's a lost cause...well then that's your problem. I think instead of blasting someone with both barrels throwing insults around without regard you might try asking them to clarify their remarks first.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is from my original post. Where does it say an official decision was handed down?

Don't try and French it up now. You know we are talking about this post:

But very true. One would think that there would be total outrage after the Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church but there isn't any. Just a lot of yawning and dismissals.

Nope...my OP was dead-on.

Sorry if the truth hurts you personally.

You obviously thought the SCOTUS had made a decision. In fact, you based you "lack of outrage" over a non-existent entity. No wonder you didn't see any "outrage".

BTW, where was the conservative outrage over the SCOTUS decision you thought had been made.

Unfortunately I wasn't.

Dude...you admitted it was a done deal. I never claimed they had released a decision...merely that the writing is on the fucken wall.

Claim what you want.

Now you just look dishonest.

Are you trying to claim this:

But very true. One would think that there would be total outrage after the Supreme Court found in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church but there isn't any. Just a lot of yawning and dismissals.

Was not a statement that the SCOTUS had made a decision on the Snyder case?

 

[goldcatt]

I was mainly talking about liberals here on USMB....but one statement from one liberal doesn't mean all of you need to sit on your asses.




And to whether it was a trial or just oral arguments...are you so busy grasping at straws that you need to correct everything? Is proper punctuation and spelling next?

Defensive much? Procedural status makes a big difference as to the effect of a comment from a judge, actually. Or in any of the proceedings taking place. Which you would understand if you went back and looked at the basics of the Court system and the appellate process.

And you obviously haven't listened to the orals in toto or read the transcripts, if you're talking about a single comment quoted in truncated form in a tabloid newspaper from one Justice, expanding that to a statement from the Court as a whole and using it as your basis for an opinion as to the outcome - and then extrapolating that into a statement on the stance of your political opponents as a whole.

Sloppy, very sloppy. And completely oversimplified.

For the right Roberts and Alito particularly had interesting questions and comments, and I'm not usually a fan of Alito's. Any interest in those? How about Sotomayor's stance? What was revealed about Kagan? How about Breyer's comments, which IMO went far beyond Ginsberg's? They all get a vote, mud.

See? You're just not quite there as far as understanding what you're talking about. I hear ya, and I understand the media reports have been frankly pitiful on this subject, but you need to brush up on what's really happening and what its import is before you come sailing in with guns blazing.

I've seen all of them and I know they're right on the mark from both sides of the court.

You're still trying to lecture me on issues that are only a part of the topic at hand. You and others have given me your reasons for your silence on the subject. I heard them and reserve the right to say they aren't a good excuse.

I know the left is not a collective. Everyone has their own reasons for what they do and don't do. If you say you've done enough then so be it. If you say it's a lost cause...well then that's your problem. I think instead of blasting someone with both barrels throwing insults around without regard you might try asking them to clarify their remarks first.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about at this point, especially if you think the two "sides" of the Court were monolithic in their questioning of the attorneys or that anybody has said anything is a lost cause, whatever it is you mean by that. You're the one who admitted you have "done" nothing, but insinuated there was something wrong with people who happen to be "Liberal" and have turned out and put their money where their mouth is at WBC's actual protests. Your sole specific complaint centered around a SCOTUS decision that does not yet exist and your projection of what will be decided from a very limited understanding of any of the issues involved or even what the proceedings are. But feel free to clarify if you think it's important. If nothing else, your verbal acrobatics are interesting.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seems the biggest asshole is the one that started the name calling.

That certainly wasn't me. I think Cali Girl tossed out the first insult on your thread. Talk to her about it.

And once again you reiterate my common theme here that you really don't give a shit.

You are right. I don't give a shit about your assessment of whatever the appropriate level of outrage that liberals need to show when it comes to the despicable Phelps brood.

Nor do I give a shit about your lame attempts to politicize this. It reflects on you, not on others.

Just to get down to brass tacks....nothing here on this forum will make much of a difference in the swing of things....but that never stopped anyone before. Claiming otherwise is pretty lame in itself.

You guys think you're doing a number on me but you're just proving my point.

No, we are pointing and laughing at you. You are just too dense to get it.

I don't give a shit what CG said because it wasn't directed at me. However you and Goldcatt did start shit with me. I figure you both need to stand on your own two feet rather then pulling an Obama and trying to blame someone else.

You want to blame CG yet you still posted this:

No, we are pointing and laughing at you. You are just too dense to get it.

The more you talk the more you ruin your case.

Yes...You don't give a fuck...yet you won't honestly admit why. Your excuse is that it's all a lost cause. Well that's no excuse. Maybe that's why liberals can't be counted on to get anything done unless it's something that's gonna fuck over the rich.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't give a shit what CG said because it wasn't directed at me. However you and Goldcatt did start shit with me. I figure you both need to stand on your own two feet rather then pulling an Obama and trying to blame someone else.

Oh. I just assumed you were going to try and demonstrate some type of consistency on this thread.

So, name calling is okay, as long as it isn't directed at you? Gothca.

The more you talk the more you ruin your case.

Yes...You don't give a fuck...yet you won't honestly admit why. Your excuse is that it's all a lost cause. Well that's no excuse. Maybe that's why liberals can't be counted on to get anything done unless it's something that's gonna fuck over the rich.

Well, then, why don't you tell me why I "honestly" don't give a fuck?

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't give a shit what CG said because it wasn't directed at me. However you and Goldcatt did start shit with me. I figure you both need to stand on your own two feet rather then pulling an Obama and trying to blame someone else.

Oh. I just assumed you were going to try and demonstrate some type of consistency on this thread.

So, name calling is okay, as long as it isn't directed at you? Gothca.

The more you talk the more you ruin your case.

Yes...You don't give a fuck...yet you won't honestly admit why. Your excuse is that it's all a lost cause. Well that's no excuse. Maybe that's why liberals can't be counted on to get anything done unless it's something that's gonna fuck over the rich.

Well, then, why don't you tell me why I "honestly" don't give a fuck?

Blaming someone else for being rude at the same time you're being rude is pretty consistent. For you that is. Now you're gonna say I'm being rude.

And your reasons for not giving a shit pretty much spells out the intent of this thread. Kind of hard to give a shit if the matter isn't important to you whatever the reason is. I doubt you'll admit that WBC is doing something that in some warped way proves what you believe in. You'll ignore them because they're only proving your point. Could it be that Christians are nut-cases and racists? I think the reason you spotted it and raised a stink about it tends to indicate guilt.

 

[geauxtohell]

Blaming someone else for being rude at the same time you're being rude is pretty consistent. For you that is. Now you're gonna say I'm being rude.

Starting a trollish flame thread and acting oh-so offended when it *shockingly* turns nasty is too funny.

And your reasons for not giving a shit pretty much spells out the intent of this thread......

And that reason is....? Do you have a problem with speaking in plain English?

 

[mudwhistle]

Blaming someone else for being rude at the same time you're being rude is pretty consistent. For you that is. Now you're gonna say I'm being rude.

Starting a trollish flame thread and acting oh-so offended when it *shockingly* turns nasty is too funny.

And your reasons for not giving a shit pretty much spells out the intent of this thread......

And that reason is....? Do you have a problem with speaking in plain English?

The answer to both questions is the same. To find out what everyone thinks of the issue. I consider this a learning experience but I'm not gonna learn shit if I don't peak anyone's interest.

And like most fishermen will tell you...bait your hook for what you want to catch. You've already said you don't give a fuck several times. So I've learned more about an issue I feel is important and I've also found out that my original thoughts were true in your case.