Incredible Court Ruling....

[Bullaholic]

How can a court make such a pitiful ruling as this? Sad day for our judicial system:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/30/westboro.baptist.snyder/index.html?hpt=T1

We live in a country in which you cannot yell "fire" in a theatre, but you can carry a sign at a dead soldier's funeral saying "Thank God for dead soldiers".

[kaorder1999]

this article is just weird.....

[Reds fan]

Very sad indeed!

[NateDawg39]

Yes I read about this last night. It really got my head boiling.

I love freedom of speech but there has to be a law against this crap.

[BEAST]

Ill tell you this, if that was my sons funeral and someone had a sign that said thank God for maimed soldiers, they wouldt have lawyer expenses, they would have a bill at the funeral parlor. That is absolutely classless and for the courts to back them makes me physically ill.




BEAST

[slingshot]

Originally posted by BEAST
Ill tell you this, if that was my sons funeral and someone had a sign that said thank God for maimed soldiers, they wouldt have lawyer expenses, they would have a bill at the funeral parlor. That is absolutely classless and for the courts to back them makes me physically ill.




BEAST For once... I am in complete agreement with the BEAST.

[kaorder1999]

i agree....someone would have been deathly beaten after doing so mething like that. Id have gone Law Abiding Citizen on em!

[playnhurt]

The BEAST has spoken! and I agree with him.

[NateDawg39]

They will get what they deserve. If we stoop to their level and actually attack them it would only bring more of them out I think. Plus, they use small children to protest as well. If you look at film they always have the children in front of them as a shield basically!

[Tx Challenge]

I also read this last night. I agree with Beast. One of the classiest things I have heard of. Let the family bury a loved one in peace.

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by BEAST
Ill tell you this, if that was my sons funeral and someone had a sign that said thank God for maimed soldiers, they wouldt have lawyer expenses, they would have a bill at the funeral parlor. That is absolutely classless and for the courts to back them makes me physically ill.




BEAST

Preach on brother BEAST, preach on! AMEN

[Farmersfan]

So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............

[Looking4number8]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............

Dang right the constitution gives us the rights to bear arms.. and I would use one of them on the dumb@#$ that had that sign at my kids funeral!!

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............

I never said it was unconstitutional. I only said they would be pushing up daisies.




BEAST

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............


One more thing, Im not totally sure that the framers of the constitution really meant for the right to protest to cover picketing a soldiers funeral. My God, this country has/is gone to hell in a handbasket. The very liberty that allows these idiots to do the protesting is what the soldiers die to defend.




BEAST

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............

This has nothing to do with constitutional rights. This is about what is morally right and wrong. What this church does is very wrong. If judges are going to rule in this manner then it is time for people to handle these types of things the old-fashioned way. Kick their ass!!!!:mad:

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
So constitutional rights don't apply unless YOU GUYS agree with them????? Com'on ya'll! I know this is a very unclassy thing for people to do I would want to kill someone for doing it but the facts are that some people feel this way and the constitution gives them the right to protest. That IS the same constitution that gives us the right to bear arms that so many of you quote regularly on this forum..............

This sentiment may play well in the halls of law school, Farmer, but outside of there, I doubt that even the staunchest Constitutional fundamentalists and/or ACLU advocates are proud of this ruling.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
This sentiment may play well in the halls of law school, Farmer, but outside of there, I doubt that even the staunchest Constitutional fundamentalists and/or ACLU advocates are proud of this ruling.

I dont think it is a matter of being proud and following the law. People complain about legislating from the bench, but when a judge interprets the law rather than do that he is a pariah and should be ashamed of the ruling. Come on people...cant have it both ways. I dont agree with it either, but legally no law was broken.

[Old Tiger]

lawfully and constitutionally nothing that person did was wrong.


morally is another story.

[Ranger Mom]

Karma is a BITCH!!!!!!

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Karma is a BITCH!!!!!! :eek:

[Bullaholic]

I think we are all well acquainted with the problems associated with the types of behavior exhibited in this case, so what is the solution?

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
I think we are all well acquainted with the problems associated with the types of behavior exhibited in this case, so what is the solution?

In all honesty, I think it's time for the silent majority to quit putting up with this kind of stuff. When the father confronted these idiots, more people shouldve piled on and beat these people all to hell.




BEAST

[Tx Challenge]

Check this group out.

http://www.patriotguard.org/

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BEAST
In all honesty, I think it's time for the silent majority to quit putting up with this kind of stuff. When the father confronted these idiots, more people shouldve piled on and beat these people all to hell.




BEAST

Thankfully, the constitution was not written to promote the majority, but to protect the minority. That is important, because sooner or later you will be on the minority side of the fence.

[Trashman]

Have no fear, it will be over turned.;)

[sinton66]

This is a fine example of WHY Judges should be elected as they are in Texas. When they overstep their bounds, vote them out in the next election. The people have NO power and no resort for appointed Judges. It takes an act of Congress to get rid of them.

This will definitely be in the lap of the Supreme Court. You have RIGHT to Privacy vs. 1st Ammendment Rights. This judge ruled one supercedes the other, ie. right to Privacy is not as important as Free Speech. . A right should only be a right when it doesn't interfere with other peoples' rights, IMO.

[TheDOCTORdre]

I was here

[AP Panther Fan]

I would give away every asset that I own and quit my job before I would give them one red cent. period.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
I was here
As was I. :cool:
No rules have been broken though.:nerd:

[TheDOCTORdre]

so can we just throw around BITCH?

[Pick6]

Originally posted by Tx Challenge
Check this group out.

http://www.patriotguard.org/

Been a member of that group for around 4-5 years.

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
so can we just throw around BITCH? :thinking:

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
so can we just throw around BITCH?
Who you callin' BITCH?:mad:








:devil:

[Emerson1]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
so can we just throw around BITCH?
Quit bitching

[Tx Challenge]

Originally posted by Pick6
Been a member of that group for around 4-5 years.

Much respect from me!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Technically, the judge was correct in his ruling. We are protected and allowed to obedient protests, but what about inciting a riot?

[sinton66]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Technically, the judge was correct in his ruling. We are protected and allowed to obedient protests, but what about inciting a riot?

Really? Where in the law does it say that Free Speech outweighs Right to Privacy?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by sinton66
Really? Where in the law does it say that Free Speech outweighs Right to Privacy?

They were on public grounds. They can do whatever they please, they weren't impeding upon anyone's right to privacy.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
They were on public grounds. They can do whatever they please, they weren't impeding upon anyone's right to privacy.

I guess that is open to interpretation.

[Tx Challenge]

Morals and rights are two different things. I understand both. I think it boils down to compassion. IMO let the family lay their kids down in peace. A funeral is NOT the time or place.

[bobcat4life]

Im here in case this is closed.


and even if you are anti-war, show some damn respect! Im just a kid and know that this is just morally wrong. If I was the father, I would be whoopin' some ass. (Im no stranger to fighting either, I gots a record/ on current probation)


this is why people say our country in going to hell in a handbasket

[BullsFan]

I get that free speech is protected and all that, but there are rules and guidelines for everything. People have the right to bear arms, but there are guidelines as to when and how you can use them. And we as a country ought to be able to pass a rule or a guideline saying that it's inappropriate to pull that kind of hurtful stunt while grieving families are at a funeral.

Nothing is going to change, though, until we stand up and say it.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I get that free speech is protected and all that, but there are rules and guidelines for everything. People have the right to bear arms, but there are guidelines as to when and how you can use them. And we as a country ought to be able to pass a rule or a guideline saying that it's inappropriate to pull that kind of hurtful stunt while grieving families are at a funeral.

Nothing is going to change, though, until we stand up and say it.

Not in the eyes of the constitution. If you are outdoors burying a loved one it is a public forum. I know there are several emotions surrounding this and I personally think it is wrong, but the law protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully. Whether or not you agree with it, legally the law was applied. If it was a private cemetary then yes, it is a privacy matter, but when it is a public cemetary it is a public matter. Sorry all, but you are dead wrong on this one. The constition does not differentiate between what you think is a guideline for burying a loved one and the law of the land. It doesnt matter how the judge received his office. So many republicans cry about how legislating from the bench is wrong until it is something they want to be legislated.... Not taking stabs, but I have been involved with several conversation regarding the exact opposite of what was expected....


Cant have it both ways...otherwise it is subjective and a matter of opinion and not the law. It sucks, but legally, protected.

[bandera7]

Passions are easily flared in a situation like this. I think BBDE offered the only chance that the young man's father had here. Sure, that right is protected under the constitution, because the constitution is not interpreted today to include morality, despite the greatest wishes of many.

In this instance, if people had freaked out and gotten violent, then the father has a legitimate case, because they incited a riot with their actions. That kind of interpretation is why many people dislike lawyers, because many would say two wrongs do not make a right; however, in this instance, the only way for the father to truly win this case is for people to riot, and then he has the "inciting a riot" on his side. Since they did not, constitutionally, they are in the right. The father is correct, most of America will side with him on this one; however, the concept of America will not.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
so can we just throw around BITCH?

:doh: :doh: :dispntd: :dispntd: :wave:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by bobcat4life
(Im no stranger to fighting either, I gots a record/ on current probation)


:doh: :doh: :fnypost: :fnypost: :spitlol: :spitlol:

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Not in the eyes of the constitution. If you are outdoors burying a loved one it is a public forum. I know there are several emotions surrounding this and I personally think it is wrong, but the law protects freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully. Whether or not you agree with it, legally the law was applied. If it was a private cemetary then yes, it is a privacy matter, but when it is a public cemetary it is a public matter. Sorry all, but you are dead wrong on this one. The constition does not differentiate between what you think is a guideline for burying a loved one and the law of the land. It doesnt matter how the judge received his office. So many republicans cry about how legislating from the bench is wrong until it is something they want to be legislated.... Not taking stabs, but I have been involved with several conversation regarding the exact opposite of what was expected....


Cant have it both ways...otherwise it is subjective and a matter of opinion and not the law. It sucks, but legally, protected.

The constitution also says that we have the right to bear arms--but the guidelines say there's a waiting period, that if you're a convicted felon you can't have one, that you can't take one into a school or a bar, that you can't carry a concealed handgun unless you get trained and certified, etc etc. I'm saying if we can set those kind of guidelines, how is it different to say you can't be within, oh, 2000 yards of an active funeral or burial when you protest?

[WOS87]

Fred Phelps and his "church" have been pulling these stunts for well on 25 years. They picketed Matthew Shepherd's funeral in Wyoming as well as hundreds of others. This is nothing new. It's completely despicable IMO, yet interesting that so many people are becoming suddenly outraged. Why weren't you outraged 25 years ago??

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by sinton66
I guess that is open to interpretation.

I guess so, since abortion was considered the due process law. Glad you're finally opening your eyes and coming around Tony, I'm proud of you! :clap:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BullsFan
The constitution also says that we have the right to bear arms--but the guidelines say there's a waiting period, that if you're a convicted felon you can't have one, that you can't take one into a school or a bar, that you can't carry a concealed handgun unless you get trained and certified, etc etc. I'm saying if we can set those kind of guidelines, how is it different to say you can't be within, oh, 2000 yards of an active funeral or burial when you protest?

The reason is, there has been no Supreme Court ruling to fall back on, and thus no precedent for this matter. If you start putting restrictions on freedom of speech, where is it going to stop, and what is going to stop it? I mentioned abortion earlier, but it is in no way putting restrictions on the Due Process Clause; if anything, it is broadening it and making it more applicable to causes that might not be considered. Do I think that protesting at a funeral or abortion are morally right? No, absolutely not, but I think that there are rights that shouldn't be taken away from an individual and should be upheld fully and completely as granted by our Constitution. The whole premise of the Right to Bear Arms was to use as defense, both in the home and against a tyrannical government, not to furnish guns to everybody regardless of their criminal background or mental stability. Responsibility does matter in this regard, which is a life or death situation; the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Read it clearly....regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...those are the key words in this Amendment. This should be considered carefully and fully before continuing on about restrictions between the Right to Privacy and the Right to Bear Arms.

[bobcat4life]

Originally posted by Keith7
:doh: :doh: :fnypost: :fnypost: :spitlol: :spitlol: yep, Im on probation until May 26 keith.

[Footballhudini]

aside from the bitch-bombs being thrown around, this has to be the most civil political discussion on any thsf thread in history.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Tx Challenge
Check this group out.

http://www.patriotguard.org/

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd185/garciap77/LDF20Patch20X-20lrg.jpg

:2thumbsup

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
Who you callin' BITCH?:mad:








:devil:

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
They were on public grounds. They can do whatever they please, they weren't impeding upon anyone's right to privacy.

BULL!

[Farmersfan]

One thing that most of you aren't acknowledging is that this latest ruling that is ruffling so many feathers is basically overruling a previous judgement against the protesters given to the father that was in the millions. Everyone ackonwledges that a huge problem with our current system is the frivelous lawsuits and ridiculous awards granted for stupid stuff. This original judgment was exactly that.
I personally feel someone should meet these protestors in an alley somewhere and teach them the meaning of life but essentially they did nothing wrong in this case. Morality is subjective and cannot be regulated or ruled on in a legal court. Immoral for one might be religion to another!!!!!

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The reason is, there has been no Supreme Court ruling to fall back on, and thus no precedent for this matter. If you start putting restrictions on freedom of speech, where is it going to stop, and what is going to stop it? I mentioned abortion earlier, but it is in no way putting restrictions on the Due Process Clause; if anything, it is broadening it and making it more applicable to causes that might not be considered. Do I think that protesting at a funeral or abortion are morally right? No, absolutely not, but I think that there are rights that shouldn't be taken away from an individual and should be upheld fully and completely as granted by our Constitution. The whole premise of the Right to Bear Arms was to use as defense, both in the home and against a tyrannical government, not to furnish guns to everybody regardless of their criminal background or mental stability. Responsibility does matter in this regard, which is a life or death situation; the Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Read it clearly....regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...those are the key words in this Amendment. This should be considered carefully and fully before continuing on about restrictions between the Right to Privacy and the Right to Bear Arms.

And the original intent of the First Amendment was to give people and especially the press freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of the government, something that wasn't allowed under King George. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, they interpret laws. They didn't make the laws about gun control, Congress did. All the Supreme Court does is rule on whether or not those laws are constitutional should a case be brought before them. There's nothing prohibiting Congress from setting laws about protests at funerals. Establishing a set distance between a protest and a funeral in progress does not impede anyone's free speech. They can say and do what they want. I hardly think the framers of the Constitution would ever have been able to conceive the horror of someone pulling these kinds of stunts. And yes, Fred Phelps and his ilk are just as bad, if not worse, than any of the rest of them. I don't even know if he does it to protest or just to get some camera time. I don't care who you are or what you believe, no one should be allowed to interfere with a funeral.

And as to this belief that you never know where it's going to stop or you're signing away all your future freedoms if we pass this one thing is nothing but speculation. There's been nothing in this country's history to suggest that giving up one personal freedom is some kind of slippery slope to a communist state. One does not necessarily lead to the other. These things are tried on a case-by-case basis, and having one law on the books never means another is automatically going to follow. I personally think Americans are more dedicated to personal freedom now than ever before, and I think we have more freedom now than ever before as a nation. This is why celebrities have no privacy, why internet harassment and cyberbullying have become the terrible problem they are today, why someone can find your name, your address, your income, and even your credit score with a click of the button. We've gone to one extreme with freedom of speech. Now maybe we need to start thinking about the right to privacy.

[Bullaholic]

Putting on my judge's robes here....:D

1. Several are correct that the freedom of speech rights of these protesters should not be violated according to the First Amendment.

2. There is the question about the commission of the act of disturbing the peace. There is little question that this threshold was breached, and the offending parties should be held accountable on both sides. Due to the level of the threats and counter-threats between the parties, there is a real potential for violent acts to be commited in similar circumstances in the future.
There is a need for laws to be enacted which will require that protesters remain a set number of feet away from funerals, weddings, and other private events. Public events should not be subject to this stipulation.

3. Severe breaches of these new laws resulting in violence should be handled as hate crimes. Minor, non-violent breaches should still be declared as disturbing the peace.

[bandera7]

You are right about Congress making laws and the court interpreting them. And as it stands today, the law is freedom of speech, right to protest, all that jazz. according to the laws in place today, they are not wrong in what they do.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by garciap77
:eek: :eek: :eek:
:D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BullsFan
And the original intent of the First Amendment was to give people and especially the press freedom of speech when it comes to criticism of the government, something that wasn't allowed under King George.

Exactly, and they were protesting against our troops. At a funeral. Which is exactly what you just said is lawful and permissible, you just don't want to it to apply to this circumstance because you don't agree.

I disagree, I think the framers of the Constitution took all of these things into consideration when they made it a flexible document. These are rights that the government has never taken away, nor should they, under any circumstance. Once you set the precedent, it's all downhill from there so to speak. Don't think it will happen? Well, I certainly don't want to test it out after the Patriot Act was passed. Scare tactics or emotionally-driven motivation is no excuse to change the Bill of Rights so that your ideals are maintained. You're basically saying you want to keep your Freedom of Speech, but you want to take away that of someone else. That's why the Bill of Rights are there in the first place, so people who are idealistic like you can't trample on the rights of people who do things that you find unreasonable or lacking in morals. That's what being an American is all about; as long as you do it within the letter of the law of the Constitution, you can be who you want to be, whether it is gay, straight, transgendered, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, whatever. Everyone is going to see the world differently, have different values and morals, and different interpretations of what is right and wrong. You scoff at the protesters and their beliefs, but they scoff at yours too. And just because you don't agree doesn't make them any less deserving of rights than you or anyone else on this forum.

The other stuff about privacy? Well, that's not within the scope of Freedom of Speech, but if you don't want a bad credit score or people to know about past crimes you have committed, then don't put yourself in the situation to have skeletons in your closet and you will have nothing to fear. Celebrities put themselves in the spotlight, and for the millions of dollars that they are paid, they should do it gladly. I've personally never been harassed over the Internet or "cyberbullied" and have no clue what that is. You can always just not use the Internet if you're that worried about it.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Putting on my judge's robes here....:D

1. Several are correct that the freedom of speech rights of these protesters should not be violated according to the First Amendment.

2. There is the question about the commission of the act of disturbing the peace. There is little question that this threshold was breached, and the offending parties should be held accountable on both sides. Due to the level of the threats and counter-threats between the parties, there is a real potential for violent acts to be commited in similar circumstances in the future.
There is a need for laws to be enacted which will require that protesters remain a set number of feet away from funerals, weddings, and other private events. Public events should not be subject to this stipulation.

3. Severe breaches of these new laws resulting in violence should be handled as hate crimes. Minor, non-violent breaches should still be declared as disturbing the peace.

I thought I was the only one who gathered that it was a frivolous lawsuit and that's why it was overturned.

I too was disappointed that the attorney for the father didn't push how dangerous what they were doing was, however. And if the attorney did, they didn't push it far enough. You can't yell "rape" or "bomb" or "fire" because it could endanger the public.

[ronwx5x]

And one should not hold a funeral for a deceased son if you think there might be protesters BBDE? While I agree that what they did was not illegal, just poor taste and certainly unchristian, your analogy lacks credibility. The funeral did not go looking for the protesters, the protesters were looking for the press by going to the funeral.

I doubt there is even civil relief available for what these people did and the justice system seems to agree, at least for now. That doesn't make such a spectacle acceptable. We can't have it both ways, just as you are attempting to say, but civility seems to have been tossed out in the interest of civil rights. A loss in my estimation, and just plain sad to see.

So since we can't "take justice into our own hands" as many posters have offered, what do we do? If the media stops reporting such travesties, they will stop of their volition. But then we can't force the media to not report, can we? I'm not in favor of mob rule, but maybe a perimeter guard of veterans could cause it to stop. No violence, just the support of others. Ghandi was on to something!!!

[jason]

bill o'reilly is writing a personal check to cover the legal fees of the family

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by jason
bill o'reilly is writing a personal check to cover the legal fees of the family

He's still a douchebag, but that's a nice thing of him to do.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And one should not hold a funeral for a deceased son if you think there might be protesters BBDE? While I agree that what they did was not illegal, just poor taste and certainly unchristian, your analogy lacks credibility. The funeral did not go looking for the protesters, the protesters were looking for the press by going to the funeral.

I doubt there is even civil relief available for what these people did and the justice system seems to agree, at least for now. That doesn't make such a spectacle acceptable. We can't have it both ways, just as you are attempting to say, but civility seems to have been tossed out in the interest of civil rights. A loss in my estimation, and just plain sad to see.

So since we can't "take justice into our own hands" as many posters have offered, what do we do? If the media stops reporting such travesties, they will stop of their volition. But then we can't force the media to not report, can we? I'm not in favor of mob rule, but maybe a perimeter guard of veterans could cause it to stop. No violence, just the support of others. Ghandi was on to something!!!

Civility is something that is up to judgment and interpretation to an individual. My point was exactly that, what you see as civil and what they see as civil are two different things entirely. I'm not saying what they did was right by any means, and if I were the father of the fallen troop and there were people saying they were thankful for his death, it would not have been handled peacefully. The worst thing that could have happened was it ending peacefully, because if a riot ensued, then this would not have happened again. Freedom of Speech would not have to be protected in this situation, because what they did was cause civil unrest and a riot, which is not protected by Freedom of Speech because it endangered others. But this is the way that it turned out, and this is nothing but a matter of Freedom of Speech being upheld.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Exactly, and they were protesting against our troops. At a funeral. Which is exactly what you just said is lawful and permissible, you just don't want to it to apply to this circumstance because you don't agree.

I disagree, I think the framers of the Constitution took all of these things into consideration when they made it a flexible document. These are rights that the government has never taken away, nor should they, under any circumstance. Once you set the precedent, it's all downhill from there so to speak. Don't think it will happen? Well, I certainly don't want to test it out after the Patriot Act was passed. Scare tactics or emotionally-driven motivation is no excuse to change the Bill of Rights so that your ideals are maintained. You're basically saying you want to keep your Freedom of Speech, but you want to take away that of someone else. That's why the Bill of Rights are there in the first place, so people who are idealistic like you can't trample on the rights of people who do things that you find unreasonable or lacking in morals. That's what being an American is all about; as long as you do it within the letter of the law of the Constitution, you can be who you want to be, whether it is gay, straight, transgendered, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, whatever. Everyone is going to see the world differently, have different values and morals, and different interpretations of what is right and wrong. You scoff at the protesters and their beliefs, but they scoff at yours too. And just because you don't agree doesn't make them any less deserving of rights than you or anyone else on this forum.

The other stuff about privacy? Well, that's not within the scope of Freedom of Speech, but if you don't want a bad credit score or people to know about past crimes you have committed, then don't put yourself in the situation to have skeletons in your closet and you will have nothing to fear. Celebrities put themselves in the spotlight, and for the millions of dollars that they are paid, they should do it gladly. I've personally never been harassed over the Internet or "cyberbullied" and have no clue what that is. You can always just not use the Internet if you're that worried about it.

Idealistic? Me? Where on earth did you get that idea? I'm as cynical as the next guy, maybe moreso. I'm just cynical about different things, like the fear-mongering used to keep people from trying to stand up for what's right. Which is exactly what happens when you start trying to say that stopping this kind of thing is going to lead to loss of freedom for everyone.

You do realize that the Bill of Rights is not a standalone document, right? You're ignoring my previous point about the Second Amendment. Even though it guarantees the right to bear arms, it's been modified and there are guidelines and limits. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about convicted felons not being allowed to have guns, but our law does now. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about doing background checks before buying a gun, but our laws do now. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about where and when you can carry a gun, but our laws do now. By the same token, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about where and when you can protest, but there is no reason that our laws can't now.

You are right about one thing. I don't agree that it's right that they should protest at a funeral, and I'm not afraid to say so. What I'd like to see happen, which is the way our government works, is that Congress set some kind of guideline as to how close you can protest to a funeral in progress. And anyone who has a problem with it can sue and take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

And you may not have been harrassed on the internet or cyberbullied but that doesn't it mean it's not a growing problem in our country. Have you ever looked into the number of teens and children who kill themselves over it? It's on my mind right now because of the Phoebe Prince story, which has been all over the media. I have no skeletons in my closet, but that doesn't mean people have the right to know personal details about my life. Have you ever heard of stalkers? Criminals? Identity theft? It must be nice to live in a world where apparently these things don't happen. Unfortunately I live in this world, where they do.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
And as to this belief that you never know where it's going to stop or you're signing away all your future freedoms if we pass this one thing is nothing but speculation. There's been nothing in this country's history to suggest that giving up one personal freedom is some kind of slippery slope to a communist state.





"The first federal statutes imposing the legal obligation to pay a federal income tax were adopted by Congress in 1861 and 1862 to pay for the Civil War. The 1862 law levied a 3% tax on incomes above $800, rising to 5% for incomes above $10,000. Rates were raised in 1864. This income tax was repealed in 1872, but a new income tax statute was enacted as part of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act in 1894.[1]

The United States Constitution specified Congress could impose a direct tax only if it was apportioned among the states according to each state's census population.[2] In its 1895 decision the Supreme Court held in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a tax on income from property (a tax on interest, dividends or rent) was a direct tax under the Constitution, and so had to be apportioned.

The apportionment requirement made income taxes on property practically impossible, and Congress did not want to limit the income tax solely to a tax on wages. Therefore, in 1909 Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1913 when it was ratified by the required number of states. The Amendment modified the requirement for apportionment of direct taxes by exempting all income taxes—whether considered direct or indirect—from the apportionment requirement.

Congress re-adopted the income tax that same year, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945.

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000 to help with the war effort. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988."

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
"Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988."

So in other words income tax went up and then came down and then down some more and then WAY down some more. Interesting.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Idealistic? Me? Where on earth did you get that idea? I'm as cynical as the next guy, maybe moreso. I'm just cynical about different things, like the fear-mongering used to keep people from trying to stand up for what's right. Which is exactly what happens when you start trying to say that stopping this kind of thing is going to lead to loss of freedom for everyone.

You do realize that the Bill of Rights is not a standalone document, right? You're ignoring my previous point about the Second Amendment. Even though it guarantees the right to bear arms, it's been modified and there are guidelines and limits. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about convicted felons not being allowed to have guns, but our law does now. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about doing background checks before buying a gun, but our laws do now. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about where and when you can carry a gun, but our laws do now. By the same token, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about where and when you can protest, but there is no reason that our laws can't now.

You are right about one thing. I don't agree that it's right that they should protest at a funeral, and I'm not afraid to say so. What I'd like to see happen, which is the way our government works, is that Congress set some kind of guideline as to how close you can protest to a funeral in progress. And anyone who has a problem with it can sue and take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

And you may not have been harrassed on the internet or cyberbullied but that doesn't it mean it's not a growing problem in our country. Have you ever looked into the number of teens and children who kill themselves over it? It's on my mind right now because of the Phoebe Prince story, which has been all over the media. I have no skeletons in my closet, but that doesn't mean people have the right to know personal details about my life. Have you ever heard of stalkers? Criminals? Identity theft? It must be nice to live in a world where apparently these things don't happen. Unfortunately I live in this world, where they do.

Your views on this subject are idealistic, I wasn't trying to make an assessment about you always, sorry if it seemed that way. (I'm cynical myself, if you haven't noticed.)

Sorry I missed your point about the Second Amendment, I wasn't intentionally trying to ignore it. My point was that the letter of the law in regards to it deals with necessary protection of a free state, not just so you can have them lying around and everybody can have access to them. If history serves me correctly, our government hasn't threatened us with tyranny, nor has it taken away our rights, aside from the Patriot Act. That was the whole point of the Amendment, not just so anybody and everybody could have as many guns as they wanted.

I have no clue who Phoebe Price is, but it's up to the parents of each child to monitor their access to the Internet. I've never had my identity stolen, but then again I don't place personal information online, either. I've never been stalked, either. Funny how that works out if you don't put yourself in the position to have those things happen to you, they won't. Except for maybe the stalking part, but I always keep an open eye out and watch what is going on around me, too.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
So in other words income tax went up and then came down and then down some more and then WAY down some more. Interesting.




The original Bill Of Rights only had 10 amendments. Congress passed 17 more over the next 200+ years. Almost every single one of those opened a slippery slope opportunity. Almost every single law in existence in this country was set by a previous precedent. A small idea will blossom into full blown legislation if it suits the needs of government. Once you open that door it is almost impossible to slam shut again.
But I do agree with you that a law is needed to prevent THIS kind action from protestors. But be warned, a law like that would also open the door for numerous other laws to protect Abortion clinics, Churches or even Government itself........

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The original Bill Of Rights only had 10 amendments. Congress passed 17 more over the next 200+ years. Almost every single one of those opened a slippery slope opportunity. Almost every single law in existence in this country was set by a previous precedent. A small idea will blossom into full blown legislation if it suits the needs of government. Once you open that door it is almost impossible to slam shut again.
But I do agree with you that a law is needed to prevent THIS kind action from protestors. But be warned, a law like that would also open the door for numerous other laws to protect Abortion clinics, Churches or even Government itself........ I agree...as much as I might wish harm on these horrible people, passing a law bent on stopping them could in fact pave way to protect government or other entities the majority have the right to speak out against in protest. Eventually, their leader will pass on and hopefully most of the young ones in his congregation will see error in their ways.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
I agree...as much as I might wish harm on these horrible people, passing a law bent on stopping them could in fact pave way to protect government or other entities the majority have the right to speak out against in protest. Eventually, their leader will pass on and hopefully most of the young ones in his congregation will see error in their ways.



I think a distance requirement for a funeral based on respect for the grieving family could work. But then again someone will always ask for the same "Respect" for another venue. It's not illogical to think a young girl going through an abortion isn't also grieving or a mother and father doesn't grieve the loss of their daughter at a wedding. Should all these also be granted the distance requirement? The list is pretty big of places and events that could ask for this same protection. I greive terribly every time the Dallas Cowboys let me down in the playoffs so that venue also should be protected..........(And don't even ask how much I hurt when Mr. Jims is out of dipping sauce). :D :D

[Reds fan]

[i] If history serves me correctly, our government hasn't threatened us with tyranny, nor has it taken away our rights, aside from the Patriot Act.

[/B]

Your history is not serving you correctly, our right not to purchase a product or service has just been taken away.

[SintonPirateFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Your history is not serving you correctly, our right not to purchase a product or service has just been taken away.


:iagree: :iagree:

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Your views on this subject are idealistic, I wasn't trying to make an assessment about you always, sorry if it seemed that way. (I'm cynical myself, if you haven't noticed.)

Sorry I missed your point about the Second Amendment, I wasn't intentionally trying to ignore it. My point was that the letter of the law in regards to it deals with necessary protection of a free state, not just so you can have them lying around and everybody can have access to them. If history serves me correctly, our government hasn't threatened us with tyranny, nor has it taken away our rights, aside from the Patriot Act. That was the whole point of the Amendment, not just so anybody and everybody could have as many guns as they wanted.

I have no clue who Phoebe Price is, but it's up to the parents of each child to monitor their access to the Internet. I've never had my identity stolen, but then again I don't place personal information online, either. I've never been stalked, either. Funny how that works out if you don't put yourself in the position to have those things happen to you, they won't. Except for maybe the stalking part, but I always keep an open eye out and watch what is going on around me, too.

Gotcha. I was almost amused at that, because I am about as cynical as you can get, especially when it comes to politics. And even more ESPECIALLY when it comes to politicians. You may see my views as idealistic, but I see them as realistic. I think we go too far in this country sometimes in the name of all the bad things that can happen in this country, when realistically it's mostly all smoke and mirrors. The country isn't going to change that drastically overnight. But YMMV and clearly does.

No, the government has not taken away any rights when it comes to guns--but they have set boundaries, guidelines, and laws about how and where they can be used and carried, and also about who is allowed to carry them. The Second Amendment was not intended for everyone to carry any kind of gun they want. But by that same token, the First Amendment was intended for freedom to criticize the government, not the freedom to say anything you want about anybody at any time or place. It's not unrealistic or extraordinary to set similar boundaries, guidelines, and laws about how and where protests take place. And if your counter argument is about slippery slopes, let's agree to disagree here too, okay? You'll just say my views are idealistic and I'll say your views are fear-mongering...istic?

You don't place your personal identity online? Have you checked your name at Zabasearch or spokeo.com? I did, and that's where I discovered that everything from my age, income, birthdate, and address were available to anyone with a computer. For a few bucks more, they can get even more detailed information, including my credit score. I had no say in putting my information there, I did not and do not ever put my personal personal information anywhere, and I have no way of getting my information off from that site. My only consolation was that some of the information was incorrect. And yes, it is a parents' job to monitor their children at all times, but are you blaming the parents of a child like Phoebe Prince because 9 kids picked her out and harassed her until she killed herself? I guess the kids who cyberbullied her had their free speech, but that's no solace to her family or to the families of all the other kids this has happened to. Admittedly this issue may strike home with me a little because I work with children, and it really breaks my heart. And what your saying feels a little bit like a "blame the victim" mindset. I'm sure you don't feel that way, because to you this is not so personal. And heck, maybe it's too personal to me and impossible for me to step back. Either way, I think I've said all I can think to say on the subject, so I'm content to agree to disagree. Probably. ;)

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think a distance requirement for a funeral based on respect for the grieving family could work. But then again someone will always ask for the same "Respect" for another venue. It's not illogical to think a young girl going through an abortion isn't also grieving or a mother and father doesn't grieve the loss of their daughter at a wedding. Should all these also be granted the distance requirement? The list is pretty big of places and events that could ask for this same protection. I greive terribly every time the Dallas Cowboys let me down in the playoffs so that venue also should be protected..........(And don't even ask how much I hurt when Mr. Jims is out of dipping sauce). :D :D

To be honest, I don't have a problem with a distance requirement for abortion clinics either. I don't think anyone should have to physically fight their way through a picket line to get where they want or need to go. And is there a really problem with protests at weddings? I know there's that whole "If anyone here has just cause...." business, but do many people jump on that? ;)

And dude, if you ever want to picket after a Cowboys playoff loss (or any loss, really) I will join you with signs in hand. BOTH hands!

[BEAST]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Your history is not serving you correctly, our right not to purchase a product or service has just been taken away.

:clap: :clap: And unless the people vote these idiots out, this wont be the last one they take.




BEAST

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Gotcha. I was almost amused at that, because I am about as cynical as you can get, especially when it comes to politics. And even more ESPECIALLY when it comes to politicians. You may see my views as idealistic, but I see them as realistic. I think we go too far in this country sometimes in the name of all the bad things that can happen in this country, when realistically it's mostly all smoke and mirrors. The country isn't going to change that drastically overnight. But YMMV and clearly does.

No, the government has not taken away any rights when it comes to guns--but they have set boundaries, guidelines, and laws about how and where they can be used and carried, and also about who is allowed to carry them. The Second Amendment was not intended for everyone to carry any kind of gun they want. But by that same token, the First Amendment was intended for freedom to criticize the government, not the freedom to say anything you want about anybody at any time or place. It's not unrealistic or extraordinary to set similar boundaries, guidelines, and laws about how and where protests take place. And if your counter argument is about slippery slopes, let's agree to disagree here too, okay? You'll just say my views are idealistic and I'll say your views are fear-mongering...istic?

You don't place your personal identity online? Have you checked your name at Zabasearch or spokeo.com? I did, and that's where I discovered that everything from my age, income, birthdate, and address were available to anyone with a computer. For a few bucks more, they can get even more detailed information, including my credit score. I had no say in putting my information there, I did not and do not ever put my personal personal information anywhere, and I have no way of getting my information off from that site. My only consolation was that some of the information was incorrect. And yes, it is a parents' job to monitor their children at all times, but are you blaming the parents of a child like Phoebe Prince because 9 kids picked her out and harassed her until she killed herself? I guess the kids who cyberbullied her had their free speech, but that's no solace to her family or to the families of all the other kids this has happened to. Admittedly this issue may strike home with me a little because I work with children, and it really breaks my heart. And what your saying feels a little bit like a "blame the victim" mindset. I'm sure you don't feel that way, because to you this is not so personal. And heck, maybe it's too personal to me and impossible for me to step back. Either way, I think I've said all I can think to say on the subject, so I'm content to agree to disagree. Probably. ;)

I'm on my phone right now because I'm home for the weekend, so I will keep this brief; I think there is a huge difference between personal safety in regards to firearms and restrictions on Freedom of Speech. The restrictions are there and put in place to protect, much like you can't yell "bomb" on an airplane or "fire" in a building. It's all about safety, and we are on opposite sides of the fence. I don't think it's morally correct to do what the protesters did, but they didn't hurt anyone physically.

I have searched for myself on Spokeo, and I didn't come up. I am a member of social networking sites, but do my best to conceal all but the obvious information. And it's a shame when a child is bullied to the point of suicide, but I blame society for that more than anything. Everything has to be politically correct and sugarcoated so kids can feel good about themselves. If you would like to talk more, feel free to PM me. I think all that can be said on this thread has already happened.

[NateDawg39]

Don't tell anyone, but I agree with BBDE :eek:

[LE Dad]

You can't legislate against poor taste, and you certainly can't legislate from the bench. I hate that some people have no respect for other people and I can only hope and pray this comes back to haunt them later in life. I know if I was a member of the soliders family that bail money would be required. It seems that the city should have a permit process in place for protest that would restrict disruptive activities. Just my .02.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
The original Bill Of Rights only had 10 amendments. Congress passed 17 more over the next 200+ years. Almost every single one of those opened a slippery slope opportunity. Almost every single law in existence in this country was set by a previous precedent. A small idea will blossom into full blown legislation if it suits the needs of government. Once you open that door it is almost impossible to slam shut again.
But I do agree with you that a law is needed to prevent THIS kind action from protestors. But be warned, a law like that would also open the door for numerous other laws to protect Abortion clinics, Churches or even Government itself........ :thinking: I agree with you yet again....:D



That would be equal to banning someones right to own a certain breed of dog.:D

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by LE Dad
You can't legislate against poor taste, and you certainly can't legislate from the bench. I hate that some people have no respect for other people and I can only hope and pray this comes back to haunt them later in life. I know if I was a member of the soliders family that bail money would be required. It seems that the city should have a permit process in place for protest that would restrict disruptive activities. Just my .02. That is also something to think about.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
Don't tell anyone, but I agree with BBDE :eek:

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent084.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent084.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent084.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent084.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent084.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[bowleghorses]

It would be their last protest if they pulled that crap with my family. period...

[TexMike]

And the problem with that response is that you would be destroying your life and that of anyone who cares about you because of what would happen to you.

The nation's founders probably never envisioned how low their countrymen would sink in their exercise of the right to free speech. Seems as we lose more and more of our moral compass we see more and more uncivilized behavior. Much as I hate to see government intrude on our lives, there are some folks who need it because they are unable to control themselves.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by TexMike
And the problem with that response is that you would be destroying your life and that of anyone who cares about you because of what would happen to you.

The nation's founders probably never envisioned how low their countrymen would sink in their exercise of the right to free speech. Seems as we lose more and more of our moral compass we see more and more uncivilized behavior. Much as I hate to see government intrude on our lives, there are some folks who need it because they are unable to control themselves.

So should we ban guns as well? They lead to uncivilized behavior...

[TexMike]

Who said anything about banning anything? I am saying there should be restrictions, just as there are restrictions on gun ownership.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by TexMike
Who said anything about banning anything? I am saying there should be restrictions, just as there are restrictions on gun ownership.

slippery slippery slope and it all starts with good intentions like this...

[TexMike]

There are already limitations in place. Nobody has an absolute right to say whatever they want, whenevr they want, wherever they want. And the majority of Americans like it just fine that way.

[NateDawg39]

The concept of government is puzzling. 1% controls 99%. It does not matter if you are republican, democrat, tea party affiliated or anti government. They know they have a hold on our lives and can give and take anything with the right speech, the right followers and the properly timed decision making process. I love our nation but it seems we have allowed to many self righteous commentators to control our right to living life. It isn't just here, but world wide government needs a new make over. Unfortunately, that won't happen when they control our military, our basic system of livelihood and our system of freedom or lack of freedom

I do not believe in one world government but rather I believe all people should come together and force democracy's across the board to stand up for human rights world wide and take out anyone who is in power in communist run areas or warlord run regions. Thats my dream, it is a wild dream but it is what I would want.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by TexMike
There are already limitations in place. Nobody has an absolute right to say whatever they want, whenevr they want, wherever they want. And the majority of Americans like it just fine that way.

The constitution was NOT written to promote the majority, but to protect the minority.

[TexMike]

It was NOT written to give a minority the right to disrupt someone's funeral.

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by TexMike
It was NOT written to give a minority the right to disrupt someone's funeral. No it was written to allow Americans the rights to do those things even if it is unpopular.

This is tough, under one hand, I would want a court to ban anyone from protesting a funeral of any person. But then again, how do we keep the government from continuously adding regulations to our laws?

[TexMike]

You make sure you elect folks with common sense and who will not to overstep their bounds when making laws and regulations. The American people did not do such a great job of that in 2008

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by TexMike
You make sure you elect folks with common sense and who will not to overstep their bounds when making laws and regulations. The American people did not do such a great job of that in 2008 I think it is a lose, lose situation no matter how you look at it. Every time we elect someone into office, a group of people will always be angry, tired, fed up and down right nasty about it.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by TexMike
You make sure you elect folks with common sense and who will not to overstep their bounds when making laws and regulations. The American people did not do such a great job of that in 2008

This is in no way relevant to the topic, but since you put that out there, let's bring up the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeus Corpus under Bush. If placing limits on personal rights and freedoms isn't overstepping bounds, I don't know what is. And also Obama has yet to overstep his bounds yet, at least not in my eyes, which is a matter of debate; but then again, I use common sense to form my political ideologies and my assertions.

[TexMike]

Do you even klnow what the legislation actually did or are you just repeating what some talking head told you?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by TexMike
Do you even klnow what the legislation actually did or are you just repeating what some talking head told you?

I'm very aware of what it did and did not do. The better question is, are you?

[TexMike]

You bet I am. I work with it on a daily basis. Who actually lost their "right" to habeas copus under the Patriot Act?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Obama has yet to overstep his bounds yet, at least not in my eyes, which is a matter of debate; but then again, I use common sense to form my political ideologies and my assertions.

So you believe that taking away the right of citizens to NOT purchase a product or service is not overstepping bounds? How so?

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
This is in no way relevant to the topic, but since you put that out there, let's bring up the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeus Corpus under Bush. If placing limits on personal rights and freedoms isn't overstepping bounds, I don't know what is. And also Obama has yet to overstep his bounds yet, at least not in my eyes, which is a matter of debate; but then again, I use common sense to form my political ideologies and my assertions. funny how some folks have a view that the government is oversteping bounds in some areas but in others think its ok:thinking: Its ok to suspend personal freedom laws in some ways but then when it comes to someone having to spend money they dont want to or pay taxes they dont want to or a product being outlawed, they think thier personal freedoms have been wronged.. :thinking:

[Aesculus gilmus]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
I think it is a lose, lose situation no matter how you look at it. Every time we elect someone into office, a group of people will always be angry, tired, fed up and down right nasty about it.

Exactly right. If any of you have nearly suddenly died in some way, you'll probably have had one of the same thoughts I had during the incident. One of my thoughts was "Why did I EVER spend ANY time on politics?" What a futile pursuit. It is truly the devil's playground.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Under the Patriot Act, anyone suspected of terrorist affiliations can be arrested and detained without solid evidence to prove their affiliations.

The writ of habeas corpus forbids illegal imprisonment without significant evidence of wrongdoing.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
So you believe that taking away the right of citizens to NOT purchase a product or service is not overstepping bounds? How so?

You know, I figured people would come up with a new argument by now. You haven't been watching Fox News, have you?

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
This is in no way relevant to the topic, but since you put that out there, let's bring up the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeus Corpus under Bush. If placing limits on personal rights and freedoms isn't overstepping bounds, I don't know what is. And also Obama has yet to overstep his bounds yet, at least not in my eyes, which is a matter of debate; but then again, I use common sense to form my political ideologies and my assertions. True, Bush did overstep his boundary a few times. Obama is creeping towards it but then again, every president in one way or another were viewed as stepping to far.

In 100 years, Bush may be seen as the greatest president since Garfield ;)

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
So you believe that taking away the right of citizens to NOT purchase a product or service is not overstepping bounds? How so?

We're forced to buy car insurance by law, and homeowner's insurance by the mortgage company.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
True, Bush did overstep his boundary a few times. Obama is creeping towards it but then again, every president in one way or another were viewed as stepping to far.

In 100 years, Bush may be seen as the greatest president since Garfield ;)

Bush was a terrible President.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You know, I figured people would come up with a new argument by now. You haven't been watching Fox News, have you?

I'll pose the question to you again....as you were the one who stated that "If history serves me correctly, our government hasn't threatened us with tyranny, nor has it taken away our rights, aside from the Patriot Act."

So you believe that taking away the right of citizens to NOT purchase a product or service is not overstepping bounds? How so? Please explain....

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
We're forced to buy car insurance by law, and homeowner's insurance by the mortgage company.

Wrong, we have the freedom NOT to buy cars or homes. Also, should you choose to buy a home and pay cash you are not required by law to have insurance.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Bullsfan, your PM box is full. You need to clear it out.

Reds fan...

The only reason that it is set up so that we have to buy health insurance from these companies is so that the HMOs won't crumble and lose all of their service completely. As Bullsfan mentioned earlier, we are required by law to purchase car insurance, but you're not complaining about that. And don't try to say that they're two different things, because they really aren't.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Wrong, we have the freedom NOT to buy cars or homes. Also, should you choose to buy a home and pay cash you are not required by law to have insurance.


If you don't go to the hospital then you don't have to buy any health insurance either.

[BEAST]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If you don't go to the hospital then you don't have to buy any health insurance either.

No, but you will get fined if you dont buy it.




BEAST

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BEAST
No, but you will get fined if you dont buy it.




BEAST

Exactly! Tens of thousands new jobs created at the IRS to enforce compliance.

[Black_Magic]

How much does a trip to the ER cost?? Thats where folks who are sick and have no insurance go even if they just have a cold or stomach bug... Compare that to the cost of a regular doctors visit... Its not hard to see how this will save lives and money.. Also People argue that folks still get health care even if they dont have insurance.. WRONG.. If you have cancer and you go to the ER, they wont give you KEMO.. Your simptoms are treated as best they can and they send you home. If you had coverage you get treatment and have a chance to live.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BEAST
No, but you will get fined if you dont buy it.




BEAST

If you Google Obamacare, all you get are links to rightist websites, so it's no surprise that people really have no clue what the legislation is truly all about.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If you Google Obamacare, all you get are links to rightist websites, so it's no surprise that people really have no clue what the legislation is truly all about.

So tell us, how does one avoid the fine "tax" for non compliance?

[BullsFan]

Personally I think it's shameful that the most powerful country on the planet has passively let so many of her most vulnerable go without healthcare this long. Everyone should have a right to decent healthcare when they're sick. The alternative is people being sick and dying without access to doctors and medicine that might save them. I don't get how this is acceptable.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Personally I think it's shameful that the most powerful country on the planet has passively let so many of her most vulnerable go without healthcare this long. Everyone should have a right to decent healthcare when they're sick. The alternative is people being sick and dying without access to doctors and medicine that might save them. I don't get how this is acceptable.
Because here ideology trumps humanity. And when you ask why social injustice occurs, you're called a socialist or communist. see Beck's diatribe (Despite the accuser not knowing what either truly stand for lol) .

[NateDawg39]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Bush was a terrible President. I think all Presidents were and will always be terrible. They are in the business of lying and dealing the best deals to get what they want.

[garciap77]

Originally posted by NateDawg39
I think all Presidents were and will always be terrible. They are in the business of lying and dealing the best deals to get what they want.

:iagree:

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Personally I think it's shameful that the most powerful country on the planet has passively let so many of her most vulnerable go without healthcare this long. Everyone should have a right to decent healthcare when they're sick. The alternative is people being sick and dying without access to doctors and medicine that might save them. I don't get how this is acceptable. Sure it is! But as long as the rich and powerfull have health care it is going to be ok. Ask our selves this. If we have the best healthcare in the world as it is now, then why dont americans live as long as other major industrialized countries in the world that do cover all of there people?? Dont give me the cost argument because I have a friend who is going over seas to Australia to school for a year or two and the Australian Government is FORCING them to buy into the insurance plan they have at $420 a year full coverage :eek: ... Sounds way cheaper than my insurance

[BwdLion73]

I just stood in a post office for 25 minutes to buy a book of 3 cent stamps to match the old stamps I still have that have gone up twice. The post offfice had 5 windows closed with one clerk moving at a snails pace. As I stood in line I envisioned Goverment health care.:cool:

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BwdLion73
I just stood in a post office for 25 minutes to buy a book of 3 cent stamps to match the old stamps I still have that have gone up twice. The post offfice had 5 windows closed with one clerk moving at a snails pace. As I stood in line I envisioned Goverment health care.:cool: Exactly!!

Get the IRS involved with fines... etc. It will be a mess. :(

[garciap77]

Originally posted by BwdLion73
I just stood in a post office for 25 minutes to buy a book of 3 cent stamps to match the old stamps I still have that have gone up twice. The post offfice had 5 windows closed with one clerk moving at a snails pace. As I stood in line I envisioned Goverment health care.:cool:

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/wheelchair.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/wheelchair.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/wheelchair.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Bullsfan, your PM box is full. You need to clear it out.

Reds fan...

The only reason that it is set up so that we have to buy health insurance from these companies is so that the HMOs won't crumble and lose all of their service completely. As Bullsfan mentioned earlier, we are required by law to purchase car insurance, but you're not complaining about that. And don't try to say that they're two different things, because they really aren't.




In order for these two to be compariable the Government would have to force us to purchase FULL COVERAGE insurance rather than simple liability. They would also have to change the law to require ALL people to purchase it regardless of if they chose to drive or not. There is a huge difference in the two!

And Obamacare is nothing more than a multi Billion Dollar welfare program that will do nothing but enhance the left's view of entitlement! (even if it works). Follow the example in Australia where a similar program has evolved to the point that 30% of the population finances very, very bad healthcare for the other 70%. I'm all for a program that helps take care of the poor but we make a very big mistake when we make it too easy or make it a entitlement. Once people begin to EXPECT it we can never move in another direction.
We should be trying to force people to be more self sufficient rather than just changing laws so it's easier for us to just GIVE it to them... Of course I guess Pride and Personal responsibility are antiquated ideas.

[BullsFan]

Health care SHOULD be an entitlement. Make people work for luxuries; force them to earn more to buy sports cars or fancy jewelry. But no one should have to go without basic health care because they don't make enough money, and certainly children shouldn't have to go sick because their parents can't afford to take them to the doctor.

And don't let's assume that all people who are poor lack any sense of pride or responsibility. Sure there are people who abuse the system and use it to avoid doing any real work. But there are also people who refuse any kind of help at all no matter how badly they need it. And are lifelong welfare moms really any worse than CEOs of multi-billion dollar corporations who take millions of $$$ in bonuses that came from government stimulus money while their companies flounder in debt and their stockholders lose everything?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If you Google Obamacare, all you get are links to rightist websites, so it's no surprise that people really have no clue what the legislation is truly all about.

BBDE, try Google search for: H.R. 4872 - Reconciliation Act of 2010 , that's the name of the bill....

Or for the complete text version, all 2,310 pages, go to :

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Then please come on back and explain to us, how does one avoid the fine "tax" for non compliance?

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Reds fan
BBDE, try Google search for: H.R. 4872 - Reconciliation Act of 2010 , that's the name of the bill....

Or for the complete text version, all 2,310 pages, go to :

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_reported.pdf

Then please come on back and explain to us, how does one avoid the fine "tax" for non compliance? ...and that is just a start... Once this is totally passed there will be tons more added. It could even be rewriiten to include public option or any number of things and only need a simple majority to become law.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BwdLion73
I just stood in a post office for 25 minutes to buy a book of 3 cent stamps to match the old stamps I still have that have gone up twice. The post offfice had 5 windows closed with one clerk moving at a snails pace. As I stood in line I envisioned Goverment health care.:cool: IF this was govt run rather than financed you would have a point. Seeing as this isn't single payer or even Public Option. That example is really a lemon. This plan at its basic was championed by the right in the 90s and implemented by a Republican (Romney), who now is humorously trying to distance himself from his own creation.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
IF this was govt run rather than financed you would have a point. Seeing as this isn't single payer or even Public Option. That example is really a lemon. This plan at its basic was championed by the right in the 90s and implemented by a Republican (Romney), who now is humorously trying to distance himself from his own creation.

Yes he is because the Mass. healthcare plan is unaffordable for the state and almost bankrupt. An example of what is to come for the entire country. Ask Martha Coakley about that.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Black_Magic
Sure it is! But as long as the rich and powerfull have health care it is going to be ok. Ask our selves this. If we have the best healthcare in the world as it is now, then why dont americans live as long as other major industrialized countries in the world that do cover all of there people?? Dont give me the cost argument because I have a friend who is going over seas to Australia to school for a year or two and the Australian Government is FORCING them to buy into the insurance plan they have at $420 a year full coverage :eek: ... Sounds way cheaper than my insurance



Ask yourself what kind of Healthcare you would expect for 420.00 a year. And I would bet the kind you actually would get in Australia will be much worst than that.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
IF this was govt run rather than financed you would have a point. Seeing as this isn't single payer or even Public Option. That example is really a lemon. This plan at its basic was championed by the right in the 90s and implemented by a Republican (Romney), who now is humorously trying to distance himself from his own creation. "at its basic"... That would be when it was a few hundred page bill vs a 2,000+ page outline. This is not even close to the final # of pages the actual bill will contain and every additional page will be additional $$ in taxation.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Yes he is because the Mass. healthcare plan is unaffordable for the state and almost bankrupt. Yet he's married to it. No matter how much he wishes he wasn't.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Ask yourself what kind of Healthcare you would expect for 420.00 a year. And I would bet the kind you actually would get in Australia will be much worst than that. cherry picking the worst and using that as an example is hardly fair and really disingenuous. Even then, the only system those nations wouldn't trade theirs for is ours. Do some come here, absolutely. Those who can afford it.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
"at its basic"... That would be when it was a few hundred page bill vs a 2,000+ page outline. This is not even close to the final # of pages the actual bill will contain and every additional page will be additional $$ in taxation. The bill proposed in the 90s may not have been as large, but after 10 years the problem does manifest itself into a larger one. Even now, the law says insurance companies can't deny based on pre-conditions, the insurance industry is still trying to find loopholes. Ethics is sorely lacking in the business world today. In a developed civilized nation, health care should be a right, the status quo is sociopathic and dispassionate of human plight.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
detained....



.... imprisonment :thinking:
BIG difference in detaining someone and imprisioning them. People are detained at DWI checkpoints , at airport checkpoints, and various other places to make our country safer.

I am unaware of any U.S. citizen that has been imprisioned under the Patriot Act that would not be imprisioned under other statutes.:thinking:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
:thinking:
BIG difference in detaining someone and imprisioning them. People are detained at DWI checkpoints , at airport checkpoints, and various other places to make our country safer.

I am unaware of any U.S. citizen that has been imprisioned under the Patriot Act that would not be imprisioned under other statutes.:thinking: If you are against govt intrusion, you wouldn't be seeking to defend it. Rather, you'd adjoin the two. Perhaps govt intervention on your terms is more acceptable than his?

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Yet he's married to it. No matter how much he wishes he wasn't.

True, he is, he knows it has turned into a mess, but this time the national mess is not on his hands.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
True, he is, he knows it has turned into a mess, but this time the national mess is not on his hands. IT isn't the idea of covering more people that make this plan unsustainable, it's trying to cover more people with a broken system that does. There are no price controls or incentives. I like that it covers more, but it doesn't remedy the problem of cost. It simply justifies it by putting more people on the rolls.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Even now, the law says insurance companies can't deny based on pre-conditions, the insurance industry is still trying to find loopholes. Ethics is sorely lacking in the business world today. You are correct. America no longer produce anything other than corrupt businesses. Finance and Insurance giants make their money off of loopholes. America needs to do a self check and get back into manufacturing products, paying a fair days wage, for a fair days work.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by LE Dad
You are correct. America no longer produce anything other than corrupt businesses. Finance and Insurance giants make their money off of loopholes. America needs to do a self check and get back into manufacturing products, paying a fair days wage, for a fair days work.

AND go back to nothing but debit cards or cash for anything but a home or a car.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
IT isn't the idea of covering more people that make this plan unsustainable, it's trying to cover more people with a broken system that does. There are no price controls or incentives. I like that it covers more, but it doesn't remedy the problem of cost. It simply justifies it by putting more people on the rolls. Too many lobbiest involved for something silly like price controls.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
You are correct. America no longer produce anything other than corrupt businesses. Finance and Insurance giants make their money off of loopholes. America needs to do a self check and get back into manufacturing products, paying a fair days wage, for a fair days work. In a globalized world it's hard to compete with pennies on the dollar for labor. Even our technological jobs are being outsourced now. India has ravaged that sector. Philippines isn't far behind.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
AND go back to nothing but debit cards or cash for anything but a home or a car. Amen!!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Too many lobbiest involved for something silly like price controls. Precisely, everyone needs a cut of the pie and in doing so, you can't lower the cost, in fact, you can only increase. There is a reason the saavy businesses met with the President immediately after his election to discuss what they would put on the table. The Public Option was never a reality. It's my opinion he scratched that long before the arduous year of debate.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
AND go back to nothing but debit cards or cash for anything but a home or a car. That's when America thrived. You saved to spend. Now the quick buck and immediate gratification makes that sound alien to most. Think about it. In WWII, the people were asked to conserve, ration, invest in govt bonds. After 9/11 we were asked to spend, spend spend. We're living in a world of perpetual war and the homefront gives no indication of it. It's so dystopian and "1984" that it's disturbing.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
In a globalized world it's hard to compete with pennies on the dollar for labor. Even our technological jobs are being outsourced now. India has ravaged that sector. Philippines isn't far behind. That is correct. The minimum wage increase was the worst thing that Washington could have passed, it was done simply for votes. Anyone knows that increased wages are passed along to the consumer through price increases. So even if you make a dollar more you are paying $2 more for your purchases.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
IT isn't the idea of covering more people that make this plan unsustainable, it's trying to cover more people with a broken system that does. There are no price controls or incentives. I like that it covers more, but it doesn't remedy the problem of cost. It simply justifies it by putting more people on the rolls.

There is a minor point you might be overlooking, using the Mass. system as an example, you like more people covered but Mass had to CUT 30,000 legal immigrants from state provided healthcare.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by LE Dad
That is correct. The minimum wage increase was the worst thing that Washington could have passed, it was done simply for votes. Anyone knows that increased wages are passed along to the consumer through price increases. So even if you make a dollar more you are paying $2 more for your purchases. Well, if not for floors, at one point do wages just become black mail from large industries? The only way to increase the standard of living globally is for workers to unite globally. Though, that never succeeds as the local govts greased with nice incentives make those social activists disappear.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by LE Dad
That is correct. The minimum wage increase was the worst thing that Washington could have passed, it was done simply for votes. Anyone knows that increased wages are passed along to the consumer through price increases. So even if you make a dollar more you are paying $2 more for your purchases.

Precisely why healthcare reform was passed without any bipartisan participation and at all costs, more votes from the dependent class=more power.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
There is a minor point you might be overlooking, using the Mass. system as an example, you like more people covered but Mass had to CUT 30,000 legal immigrants from state provided healthcare. I'm not overlooking it, in fact, I'm not defending it one bit. It was the best someone could hope for from a f'd up legislation. This is corporatism at it's finest. The stocks in those industries is a good indicator of how they feel.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Precisely why healthcare reform was passed without any bipartisan participation and at all costs, more votes from the dependent class=more power. oh please, the dependent class pails in comparison to elite welfare and subsidy. The same people who benefit from our tax codes yet send manufacturing jobs overseas. The globalized community provides for different centers of banking, production, resource extract and manufacturing. You would literally have to sell your people to Transnational Corporations (as developed countries do) to have jobs return to the U.S.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
oh please, the dependent class pails in comparison to elite welfare and subsidy. The same people who benefit from our tax codes yet send manufacturing jobs overseas. The globalized community provides for different centers of banking, production, resource extract and manufacturing. You would literally have to sell your people to Transnational Corporations (as developed countries do) to have jobs return to the U.S.

I never said it to be true, I said that was why it was passed. I can't help that that is what is believed by those who passed the legislation.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Reds fan
I never said it to be true, I said that was why it was passed. I can't help that that is what is believed by those who passed the legislation. The Democrats today are becoming a 2nd party to corporate interests. At least many of them who seek political survival are. We have the strange identity of having two dependent classes. The upper and lower. Federal contracts, subsidy and pork spending is wrought with it. Look at Gingrich, he railed against social welfare, yet his district benefited from the most pork investitures and subsidy during his reign. Americans despite what they believe have very little choice in elections. In the end most represent themselves before their constituents.

Buy local and enjoy time with your loved ones! :) Keep it simple! :D Been fun guys. Booger Out.