Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

From the right: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/31/ou ... ters-fees/

From the left: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/01/e ... arine.dad/

Please, Supreme Court, please make this right. This is a fucking travesty.

Seems like I heard Bill O'Reilly has stepped up and offered to pay the legal bill for the family...

No way, hes a hate monger AND a conservative............never happen.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:No way, hes a hate monger AND a conservative............never happen.

It's about time that he does something besides running his big YAP.

Dont bite the hand that feeds you mangejeff.

Without guys like me and Oreilly how do you think you would get your foodstamps and cable tv in the government housing you live in?

On the surface, this is a travesty. However, it wasn't Westboro who brought the original lawsuit, but the father. So, he should pay the legal bills if the verdict is overturned as it was he who brought a lawsuit on shaky legal grounds. It sucks & I support him in his effort if he chooses to hire Hell's Angel's to attack the protestors at a future funeral. Legally, it's the correct ruling...morally & ethically, it sucks....

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Dont bite the hand that feeds you mangejeff.

Without guys like me and Oreilly how do you think you would get your foodstamps and cable tv in the government housing you live in?

Yeah......that's me!

I used to live in the South........that's where most of the food stamp recipients live!

Well there has to be some disconnect because you dont get how it works.

blueballs wrote:Seems like I heard Bill O'Reilly has stepped up and offered to pay the legal bill for the family...

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Well there has to be some disconnect because you dont get how it works.

How what works?

This is a very diffcult one because the emotional response is to sympathize with the family of the slain marine. But it's difficult because, in general, I believe that if you sue somebody and lose you ought to have to pay what that other party had to expend in legal fees. As an aside, I also believe that if government prosecutes you and you are acquitted government ought to have to pay your legal fees. As a general matter, to me, when you "attack" somebody in the legal system and force them to spend a bunch of money defending themselves you ought to have to pay their expenses if you lose.

Also, I do not think there should be any legal encumberment to people expressing their opinions in public even if the expression of those opinions is extremely offensive to someone else. If these people were on public property expressing their opinion he should not have been able to sue them to begin with.

I know that that's not a popular set of views but I think there are larger issues at stake here than this poor guy's situation. To me the best outcome would be if people like O'Reily step in and take care of this guy financially so he and his family don't personally suffer but he loses his case.

JohnStOnge wrote:This is a very diffcult one because the emotional response is to sympathize with the family of the slain marine. But it's difficult because, in general, I believe that if you sue somebody and lose you ought to have to pay what that other party had to expend in legal fees. As an aside, I also believe that if government prosecutes you and you are acquitted government ought to have to pay your legal fees. As a general matter, to me, when you "attack" somebody in the legal system and force them to spend a bunch of money defending themselves you ought to have to pay their expenses if you lose.

Also, I do not think there should be any legal encumberment to people expressing their opinions in public even if the expression of those opinions is extremely offensive to someone else. If these people were on public property expressing their opinion he should not have been able to sue them to begin with.

I know that that's not a popular set of views but I think there are larger issues at stake here than this poor guy's situation. To me the best outcome would be if people like O'Reily step in and take care of this guy financially so he and his family don't personally suffer but he loses his case.

There is absolutely nothing difficult about allowing a family to grieve, unmolested, at a child's funeral. Your public property argument is absurd. Would you have the family bury their son in the privacy of their own backyard?

Privacy to grieve at a son's funeral does not harm the 1st Amendment. There is no slippery slope here.

The best outcome would be for Phelps and his entire adult flock to commit mass suicide.

There is absolutely nothing difficult about allowing a family to grieve, unmolested, at a child's funeral. Your public property argument is absurd. Would you have the family bury their son in the privacy of their own backyard?

Privacy to grieve at a son's funeral does not harm the 1st Amendment. There is no slippery slope here.

First of all, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not really. A "right to privacy" is a fabrication of the Supreme Court. I wouldn't mind if we talked about amending the Constitution to actually include one. But it's not really in there right now.

Aside from that, it IS a slippery slope. Even if we say there is a right to privacy, how can you say you have a right to privacy in a public place? If we as a society establish a legal precedent in which we say that somebody can be sued because they say something in a public place that is hurtful to someone else I think that most certainly IS a slippery slope. In fact it's not really that'. It's a straight drop off a cliff.

A few years ago a local young man was killed in Iraq. Word came that the Westboro Baptists were going to show up at his funeral. My family and me as well as many other members of the community went down to line the streets and show support for the family. The Patriot Guard Riders came to show support as well. I wanted to be part of a community effort to show that they had our support.

But I never would have supported an effort to put some kind of "legal" encumberment on the right of the Westboro Baptists or anybody else to stand on a public street or in a public park to express their opinions regardless of how offensive their opinions are or how hurtful they might be to the family of the deceased. You should not have a right to sue somebody because they say something you don't want to hear.

JohnStOnge wrote:

There is absolutely nothing difficult about allowing a family to grieve, unmolested, at a child's funeral. Your public property argument is absurd. Would you have the family bury their son in the privacy of their own backyard?

Privacy to grieve at a son's funeral does not harm the 1st Amendment. There is no slippery slope here.

First of all, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not really. A "right to privacy" is a fabrication of the Supreme Court. I wouldn't mind if we talked about amending the Constitution to actually include one. But it's not really in there right now.

Aside from that, it IS a slippery slope. Even if we say there is a right to privacy, how can you say you have a right to privacy in a public place? If we as a society establish a legal precedent in which we say that somebody can be sued because they say something in a public place that is hurtful to someone else I think that most certainly IS a slippery slope. In fact it's not really that'. It's a straight drop off a cliff.

The 4th Amendment is probably the closest thing to the right of privacy the Constitution offers.

I think the bottom line here is that a person has the right to free speech whether it be public or private (unless it compromises national security), whereas the right to privacy is a little bit more "hazy" in whether you have that right in the public domain

The 4th Amendment is probably the closest thing to the right of privacy the Constitution offers.

I think the bottom line here is that a person has the right to free speech whether it be public or private (unless it compromises national security), whereas the right to privacy is a little bit more "hazy" in whether you have that right in the public domain

I think the best argument for a right to Privacy is that it falls under the umbrella of the 9th Amendment statement, " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." You could make an argument for almost anything being a right using that language. But the rights to free speech and assembly, as you say, are specifically enumerated. I don't see how anybody can, when leaving emotion and the revulsion precipated by what these people do aside, make the argument that someone demonstrating on public property infringes on your right to privacy. I don't see how anybody can say you have a right to privacy that entails controlling what other people do in a public place.

If they step on the Funeral Home grounds they're stepping on private property and can be told to leave. If they step on Church grounds same thing. But as long as they're on public property I can't see how anybody can possibly argue they can't make offensive philosophical statements and hold offensive signs.

If only "Christians" like JSO were REALLY Christians!

My hope is that murderous criminals put their skills to good use for a change and take care of Fred "I'm not the scary preacher from Poltergeist 2" Phelps & Family. It would be an honorable thing for them to do.

mainejeff wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Dont bite the hand that feeds you mangejeff.

Without guys like me and Oreilly how do you think you would get your foodstamps and cable tv in the government housing you live in?

Yeah......that's me!

I used to live in the South........that's where most of the food stamp recipients live!

You're so full of shit. Do some research.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/dat ... tanssp.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the Administration of Children and Families, the top reciepents of Welfare are:(as of Januray 2010)

The Top 25
California
New York
Ohio
Tennessee
Washington
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Texas
Florida
Indiana
Missouri
Arizona
Virginia
New Jersey
Oregon
Kentucky
Maryland
Iowa
North Carolina
Illinois
New Mexico
Minnesota
Alabama
South Carolina
Wisconsin

8 of the 25 (32%) are Southern States. The total number of Recipients for Southern states in the top 25 is 702, 298...total for all 8. Once again...you're full of shit and should really stop shitting on the South. Fuckin ass...

Ibanez wrote:Fuckin ass...

FU2.

Ibanez wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Yeah......that's me!

I used to live in the South........that's where most of the food stamp recipients live!

You're so full of ****. Do some research.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/dat ... tanssp.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the Administration of Children and Families, the top reciepents of Welfare are:(as of Januray 2010)

The Top 25
California
New York
Ohio
Tennessee
Washington
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Texas
Florida
Indiana
Missouri
Arizona
Virginia
New Jersey
Oregon
Kentucky
Maryland
Iowa
North Carolina
Illinois
New Mexico
Minnesota
Alabama
South Carolina
Wisconsin

8 of the 25 (32%) are Southern States. The total number of Recipients for Southern states in the top 25 is 702, 298...total for all 8. Once again...you're full of **** and should really stop shitting on the South. Fuckin ass...

Too bad you didn't dig deeper. Were you to compare # of welfare recipients to the state's population, you would have found that Maine has 36, 026 welfare recipients, but only 1,318,301 people which means 1 in 37 people are on welfare in Maine. That ratio puts them 2nd, behind California. Were you to include state population, you would have found that of the ten highest recipients per capita, only one state, Tennessee, is a southern state.

Here is the Top 10:
California: 1 in 27
Maine: 1 in 37
Tennessee: 1 in 39
New Mexico: 1 in 41
Washington: 1 in 43
DC: 1 in 47
New York: 1 in 51
Massachusetts: 1 in 51
Ohio: 1 in 51
Oregon: 1 in 51

GSUhooligan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
You're so full of ****. Do some research.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/dat ... tanssp.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the Administration of Children and Families, the top reciepents of Welfare are:(as of Januray 2010)

The Top 25
California
New York
Ohio
Tennessee
Washington
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Texas
Florida
Indiana
Missouri
Arizona
Virginia
New Jersey
Oregon
Kentucky
Maryland
Iowa
North Carolina
Illinois
New Mexico
Minnesota
Alabama
South Carolina
Wisconsin

8 of the 25 (32%) are Southern States. The total number of Recipients for Southern states in the top 25 is 702, 298...total for all 8. Once again...you're full of **** and should really stop shitting on the South. Fuckin ass...

Too bad you didn't dig deeper. Were you to compare # of welfare recipients to the state's population, you would have found that Maine has 36, 026 welfare recipients, but only 1,318,301 people which means 1 in 37 people are on welfare in Maine. That ratio puts them 2nd, behind California. Were you to include state population, you would have found that of the ten highest recipients per capita, only one state, Tennessee, is a southern state.

Here is the Top 10:
California: 1 in 27
Maine: 1 in 37
Tennessee: 1 in 39
New Mexico: 1 in 41
Washington: 1 in 43
DC: 1 in 47
New York: 1 in 51
Massachusetts: 1 in 51
Ohio: 1 in 51
Oregon: 1 in 51

Sweet. MJ, aren't you from Maine, used to live in Tennessee and now live in California?

Ibanez wrote:

GSUhooligan wrote:
Too bad you didn't dig deeper. Were you to compare # of welfare recipients to the state's population, you would have found that Maine has 36, 026 welfare recipients, but only 1,318,301 people which means 1 in 37 people are on welfare in Maine. That ratio puts them 2nd, behind California. Were you to include state population, you would have found that of the ten highest recipients per capita, only one state, Tennessee, is a southern state.

Here is the Top 10:
California: 1 in 27
Maine: 1 in 37
Tennessee: 1 in 39
New Mexico: 1 in 41
Washington: 1 in 43
DC: 1 in 47
New York: 1 in 51
Massachusetts: 1 in 51
Ohio: 1 in 51
Oregon: 1 in 51

Sweet. MJ, aren't you from Maine, used to live in Tennessee and now live in California?

ouch!