Something happens to an Also-Ran.
Something happens to the feet of a man
Who always comes in second in a foot-race.
He becomes a national unloved child,
A balding orphan, an aging adolescent
Who never got the biggest piece of candy.
Unloved children, of all ages, insinuate themselves
Into spotlights and rotogravures.
They stand on their hands and wiggle their feet.
Split pulpits with their pounding! And their tonsils
Turn to organ pipes. Show me a shouter,
And I’ll show you an also-ran. A might-have-been,
An almost-was.

On 2010-10-22 12:24, Chrystal wrote:
While I agree that this family is further fueled by attention and the media. Yet, one obviously can't allow them to harrass soldiers families at funerals. Regardless of anyones views on the military these are someones sons, daughters, husbands, fathers, etc..

I think the the Patriot Guards Riders are doing the right thing. They are now 100,000 strong.

On 2010-10-22 13:54, gdw wrote:
What about "god IS gay."

gdw wrote:
There was a recent showing of this near where I love,

On 2010-10-22 11:18, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Self-funded through settlements from lawsuits. The WBC is pretty much just Phelps and his immediate and extended family, and they have no real interest in expanding their congregation.

Most of them have gone to law school. My understanding is they sue at the drop of a hat for pretty much any perceived transgression, and it's the primary source of income for their church and family.

On 2010-10-22 15:43, landmark wrote:

Quote:

gdw wrote:
There was a recent showing of this near where I love,

Ah, but do you live near where you love?

On 2010-10-22 17:27, hou_dini wrote:
OK, I'm gonna take a hit for this----Phelps and his ilk have the right to express their opinion(s). That's guaranteed in the Constitution. Legal? Yes. Moral? Many think not. For the record, I find Phelps and his actions to be abhorrent. But I defend his right to say what he says. As for the Patriot Guard, this group bothers me in that they seek to prevent certain groups from the exercise of free speech. Take away anyone's right to free speech and you take away mine.
That's why earlier I stated that the best way to deal with Phelps is to igniore him and his actions. Do not give him a forum, audience, publicity, or platform to spread his brand of hate. Once there is no attention, press, interest, etc. these and their ilk tend to slowly evaporate. It workred in Skokie IL with the KKK, it can work against Phelps also. By the way, I am a combat veteran and everyone can come party at my funeral. I won't be physically there to care.

On 2010-10-22 18:36, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-10-22 17:27, hou_dini wrote:
OK, I'm gonna take a hit for this----Phelps and his ilk have the right to express their opinion(s). That's guaranteed in the Constitution. Legal? Yes. Moral? Many think not. For the record, I find Phelps and his actions to be abhorrent. But I defend his right to say what he says. As for the Patriot Guard, this group bothers me in that they seek to prevent certain groups from the exercise of free speech. Take away anyone's right to free speech and you take away mine.
That's why earlier I stated that the best way to deal with Phelps is to igniore him and his actions. Do not give him a forum, audience, publicity, or platform to spread his brand of hate. Once there is no attention, press, interest, etc. these and their ilk tend to slowly evaporate. It workred in Skokie IL with the KKK, it can work against Phelps also. By the way, I am a combat veteran and everyone can come party at my funeral. I won't be physically there to care.

The question isn't whether they have a right to express their opinion; it's where and when they have the right to express it. Does your support extend to letting them come into your house whenever they want to hold forth on their views?

On 2010-10-22 17:27, hou_dini wrote:
OK, I'm gonna take a hit for this----Phelps and his ilk have the right to express their opinion(s). That's guaranteed in the Constitution. Legal? Yes. Moral? Many think not. For the record, I find Phelps and his actions to be abhorrent. But I defend his right to say what he says. As for the Patriot Guard, this group bothers me in that they seek to prevent certain groups from the exercise of free speech. Take away anyone's right to free speech and you take away mine.
That's why earlier I stated that the best way to deal with Phelps is to igniore him and his actions. Do not give him a forum, audience, publicity, or platform to spread his brand of hate. Once there is no attention, press, interest, etc. these and their ilk tend to slowly evaporate. It workred in Skokie IL with the KKK, it can work against Phelps also. By the way, I am a combat veteran and everyone can come party at my funeral. I won't be physically there to care.

On 2010-10-22 19:18, Micheal Leath wrote:
Yes they have the right to say whatever they want. They are however complete morons. I'm an atheist, but if I believed in hell, then that is where I would hope they burned for eternity.

The Patriot Guards are not infringing on their free speech because the Patriot Guards are not a part of the government. It would only be a free speech violation if it was the government stopping them. Though even if the government tried to stop them, then I'm not sure it should be a violation of free speech. Freedom of speech does have it's limitations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_......f_speech

On 2010-10-22 21:48, gdw wrote:
Mill himself did try to extend this to speech, essentially pertaining to "inciting" others. This is, however, fallacious.

"He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

If this is to be considered true, and a person is considered to have absolute sovereignty over him(her)self, then how can another be blamed for his actions? This is exactly what they attempt to do by arguing that a limit can be placed on free speech based upon incitement. It is to blame the speaker for the actions of the mob.