Ed Schultz Indifferent to Westboro Baptist Protests - Until Elizabeth Edwards's Funeral Targeted
Now they've really gone and done it as far as Ed Schultz is concerned.
Speaking with Schultz on his radio show Thursday, Schultz's producer James Holm described plans by members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., notorious for their protests outside funerals of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, to stage a similar protest during the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards.
The discussion between Schultz and Holm was preceded by Schultz gushing about Rev. Al Sharpton meeting with FCC officials in a thinly veiled attempt to censor Limbaugh for racial insensitivity. First, Schultz played a clip of Sharpton's remarks, not citing where they were stated, while Schultz brays his approval (link here for audio) --
SHARPTON: We are, as I have informed you, going to Washington next week to meet with FCC. We're also going to unveil a petition that we're going to challenge members of Congress and the Senate to sign onto and release on National Action Network's website who signs on, who doesn't or who ducks. Because it's very important for federal officials to take a position, not necessarily just on Limbaugh, but on whether or not they agree that anything whether you're doing it explicitly or implicitly against people based on race or gender should be allowed on federally regulated airwaves. I think we have to press those that have made Senate votes condemning people in the past and have demagogued on this. Now it comes down to an area that government can be called upon and we want them on the record.
SCHULTZ: All right! Reverend Al Sharpton, he will not back down, I love it! Let me tell you something, folks. This could be the biggest pain in the ass the Drugster's (Schultz's insipid nickname for Limbaugh) ever had. You're going to have members of Congress who are going to have a petition put in front of them on what can be said on regulated airwaves. I mean, are terrestrial radio stations just like the Internet? Hell no! Are they just like satellite radio? No! And you just can't get a radio station. You have to operate in the public's interest. Is it in the public's interest to allow this hate talk, this racist talk that Limbaugh and some of these other righty talkers do? It's a discussion that we have to have in 2011. And I admire Reverend Al Sharpton for having the guts to do this.
It's something that I think has been talked about for a long time, but the way that he is going at it is going to make this country think about what you listen to in the car and what you're subjected to. Should black people, should minorities in this country be subjected to racist talk over radio stations that are regulated by the federal government?! I think that's a helluva point! And no one has ever gone down this road the way Sharpton is. The FCC doesn't want to get into content, I get all that. But wait a minute. This goes beyond freedom of speech. And that's the conversation that has to be had.
OK, just like this is offensive to minorities to have some of the stuff that Limbaugh's pulled over the years, what about this group that is now going after Elizabeth Edwards's funeral? This is unbelievable. Holmy, come on in here. This group that has gone around to funerals of service men and women who have been killed in battle, killed overseas, and they've shown up at funerals. They know no boundaries. What's the latest?
HOLM: The Westboro Baptist Church, like you said, the ones that go around the country and put up the signs that says (sic) 'God hates fags' at soldiers' funerals. They've been in the news lately. Now they've really upped the ante. Usually we don't talk about this, but this can't go un-, unchallenged. They're going to protest the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards.
Westboro Baptist protests at soldiers' funerals -- shrug. Westboro Baptist protest at Elizabeth Edwards's funeral -- have they no decency?!
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The only thing I have against
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:14am.
The only thing I have against Elizabeth Edwards is that she was married to that phony-ass ambulance -chasing child-channeling ultra-lightweight vain wimpy tilley faggot John Edwards..............you'd think that he would have made a terrible president...........but look who we've got anyway!!!
"...the ones that go around
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:17am.
"...the ones that go around the country and put up the signs that says (sic) 'God hates fags' at soldiers' funerals."Even when he finally mentions Westboro's bilious signs at soldiers funerals, I notice that Schultz picks the sign that attacks homosexuals to mention. He doesn't mention the ones that refer directly to the soldiers deaths like "Thank God for IEDs". Is he perhaps more offended by attacks against gays?
Well, Chris...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:54am.
I also notice that Schultz failed to mention a wide variety of events and individuals which are targeted by the despicable Reverend Phelps but specifically referenced the latter's repugnant activities at soldiers' funerals. That's hardly "shrugging them off" as characterized by Jack in his article.
But, as far as Sharpton and his FCC anti-Limbaugh proposal: Pure garbage
Jer
Well, he did shrug them off
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:17am.
Well, apparently, he did shrug them off - as in not mentioning them at all - until now - and they've been going on for quite a while.
Sharpton and Shultz.
Submitted by Jefferson on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:27am.
If Al Sharpton succeeds in his plan to have the airwaves censored of ANYONE or ANYTHING that hints at any form of discrimination, he will end up doing the same thing to radio stations across the country, that the Internet is doing to newspapers.
If people can't speak freely, give out honest information on over-the-air radio stations, more and more of the most popular radio personalities will simply move to satellite radio networks, like Sirrius and over-the-air stations will serve only the limited purpose of playing music and even that may not be enough with all the IPods and MP3 players that are now out. Most people stream their music, they don't listen to it on the radio. If popular radio personalities all start moving to satellite radio, their listeners will follow and, when they do listen to music on the radio, it won't be an over-the-air station they listen to.
As for Shultz's reaction, maybe protesting at Elizabeth Edward's funeral will be the straw that breaks the back of the Westboro Baptist church. Maybe enough people will finally have had enough of their BS.
And who censors Ed....?
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:32am.
The outright white hot hostility he shows to people like Rush and Sarah Palin is not hate speech....?
We could say that about his whole network. He and his colleagues absolutely seeth with rage and anger directed at whoever the conservative du jour is. The real reason that he and pimp daddy Al Sharpton want to go after Rush is because he is effective and has an audience and influence that they can only dream about.
I suspect there was vacant
Submitted by Captain Repus on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:57am.
I suspect there was vacant seating on the long bus at Mr. Ed's elementary school. I also suspect the 4th grade was the longest 3 years of his life.
How can this moron not be a total embarassment to Microsoft, NBC, GE, journalism and all plant and animal life with an IQ higher than can be counted on ones fingers.
Fred the Democrat
Submitted by davehm on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:14am.
From Wiki,
"Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15 percent of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31 percent of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
According to the article he was also a fund raiser for Algore.
Looks like Shultz is in "good" company.
Did you keep reading? His
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:15am.
Did you keep reading? His fund raising for Gore--over twenty years ago--was a result of what was then perceived as Gore's unsympathetic views toward the homosexual lifestyle.
I doubt the homophobic Reverend Phelps finds a very comfortable home within the contemporary Democratic party.
Jer
Maybe not.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:06am.
I kind of think that deep down inside, the Rev's Phelps, Sharpton (probably "graduated" from the same divinity school), and Special Ed are all Nazis. They only want to allow what they consider to be proper "free speech."
Special Ed asked, "Should black people, should minorities in this country be subjected to racist talk over radio stations that are regulated by the federal government?!"
No, you lard ass! They should do what I do when I run across some hate monger like YOU on the radio. Change the station. You probably consider blacks too ignorant to be able to make their own choice.
In Special Ed's world, we would all be required to listen to his idiotic rantings, just as Germans, Russians, Cubans, etc have been required to listen to their Dear Leaders in the past, and in some cases the present.
Jer, when the hell do you sleep? You post at 0 dark thirty and at the crack of dawn! You must live on cafe con leche, bubba.
He Ran
Submitted by davehm on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:42am.
He ran in the democrat primary for governor in 1998...that was 12 years ago.
It bothers me that people are
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:57am.
It bothers me that people are allowed to abuse the 1st Amendment. A liberal at the ACLU might tell you that what Phelps is doing is protected under the 1st Amendment. If that is true and we are supposed to believe what Phelps is doing can't be stopped then why don't we read the 2nd Amendment "Right To Bear Arms" the same way? If I want to go buy a missile launcher, is a missile not an "arm" that I am entitled under the Constitution?? Ofcourse not. That would be preposterous.
Well, the 1st Amendment should not include crap like Phelps' protesting at funerals. THAT is preposterous. There is no way in hell the Founding Fathers meant for the 1st Amendment to be abused like this.
Wow... who died and made you...
Submitted by beauxdog on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:46am.
... A Supreme Court majority? mostlymoderate? How about totally, arrogantly, and absolutely liberal.
The speech offered by Phelps and company is EXACTLY the speech the founding fathers sought to protect. When you give people (government) the ability to decide what speech is acceptable... you lose the right to free speech and your freedom.
Now give me a break, tailgunner, I know that what Phelps and company are doing is morally wrong... its just not constitutionally wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't other ways to stop them.
And lets talk about the 2nd Amendment... and what is and is not preposterous. In the day of the founding fathers, they knew about muskets, explosives, cannon, etc. They had no way of envisioning the advent of machines guns, RPGs, missles, daisy cutters or nuclear weapons. They didn't say the congress couldn't restrict arms of war vs arms of hunting and recreation.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was NOT to protect our right to hunt... it was to protect against an obtrusive federal government. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary"... do you think a well regulated Militia would benefit from a missle launcher? From a machine gun? From an RPG? If we are going to depose a tyrannical federal government... we would need these arms and more.
How is that preposterous?
As far as I know, we have not begun to debate this issue... amongst ourselves or with the liberals.
On the other hand... I have to agree with you. Individuals possesing machine guns, missles, RPG, daisy cutters or nuclear weapons would make for a very unstable and unsafe world. But would it be unconstitutional? That is a debate that I have not yet heard and I don't believe, that you have the right to decide by yourself.
Then allow me to draw a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:50pm.
Then allow me to draw a direct parallel illustrating a clear double-standard.
If Phelps and Co. of Crackpots are allowed to protest as loudly and closely as they want (which I am assuming is your point) then repeal the current SCOTUS-upheld limitations on protests by anti-abortion groups at abortion clinics.
Can't have it both ways.
[NOTE: Yes, I realize there are expressed limitations on free speech -- the "yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater as an example.]
See below regarding the
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:10pm.
See below regarding the flawed theater/fire example.
Yes, Beuke, see "fire" link below
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:50pm.
Here it is
Open season on whites
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:40am.
Well Sharpton has many of the FCC panel in his pocket. People who think 'Chimpy McHitler' is an acceptable negative description of President Bush while thinking 'Dumbo The Elephant' as a negative description of Obama is extreme racism. There are adults in power who think that no white man should ever, EVER, be allowed to criticize a black. This could get ugly.
It burns me that the idiots
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:23am.
It burns me that the idiots from Westboro get so much press. There only about 6 of them at a time. The Patriot Guard Riders far outnumber them. They stand between the fools and the family. How many of you have every heard of the counterprotest of the PGR? I don't image they were invited to Liz's funeral. According to what i saw on the local news here there were a lot of SEIU members. To me that was worst than the few from Westboro.
Good luck to Sharpton. He may just wind up being removed from the airwaves himself. When Limbaugh goes, so goes the lying Travis Smilley.
Laws or not, this is a case
Submitted by ThatDude on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:51am.
Laws or not, this is a case of common decency. Your first amendment rights end where they come in conflict with my own. The courts awarding free speech to aggressors over their victims has twisted the concept of such a right.
Even were this funeral for Sharpton or another person who I believe supports such incivility, I would still be against this display. Allow family and friends to mourn the loss of a loved one in peace. Since when was this so much to ask for?
On another note, I encountered these Westboro creeps when they were "demonstrating" at a soldier's funeral in my area. They are rabid dogs who need to be taken to the wood shed.
That's not accurate. First
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 9:57am.
That's not accurate. First Amendment rights do not end when they come in conflict with your own. That there would be conflict is why the First Amendment guarantee exists. The courts didn't award free speech to aggressors over victims; we already all have Free Speech - it's an inalienable right.
And so is my inalienable
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:45am.
And so is my inalienable right to beat the crap out of them.
Indeed Dan
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:54am.
And of course, the mourners Rights of assembly, association, and privacy ? Incestmo doesn't care about that . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
On the contrary, I most
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:05am.
On the contrary, I most certainly do; however, government is not infringing upon their right to assemble, their right of association, nor their privacy.
Spoken like a good anarchist.
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:07am.
Spoken like a good anarchist.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Really? Well, if that makes
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:15am.
Really? Well, if that makes me an anarchist, then I suppose the Founders were anarchists as well. You are aware that our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protect us from government infringement, aren't you? You are aware that government exists to protect our liberties and rights, aren't you? One of those rights is our right to free speech.
No, that makes you someone
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:16am.
No, that makes you someone who supports individuals who violate the rights of others.
Have fun storming the castle.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
So you aren't aware. Our
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:19am.
So you aren't aware. Our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protect us from government infringement, not from each other. Protesting a funeral in public space does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Perhaps if you can state what rights of others were violated, then we may be able to isolate the source of your confusion.
Actually, if you knew
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:25am.
Actually, if you knew anything, you would be aware that the USA was founded on the principle that men create governments to secure rights we already possess.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Not quite. OUR government
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:54pm.
Not quite. OUR government exists to secure rights we already possess, which I've already stated. That whole "inalienable" thing, you know.
You didn't say what rights you believed were violated. Perhaps you missed that part. If not, then I don't think you are interested in discussion.
~The solution is simple
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:34am.
The WBC members can speak their minds, and the mourners can beat the crap out of them. The Founders did not anticipate an emasculated society where people could verbally assault others with impunity.
"The Founders did not
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:04pm.
"The Founders did not anticipate an emasculated society where people could verbally assault others with impunity."
One minor nitpick concerning your comment: if you read published materials from the times of the founding fathers (both before and after the Dec. of Independence and Constitution) you'll see example after example of both verbal and written assaults against others. Granted they were more eloquent back in the day as opposed to current times but there were plenty of verbal and written assaults on others (the founding fathers taking part in some) so they did anticipate verbal and written assaults.
I agree with you on the impunity part but just wanted to clarify a bit to not give the impression that the founding fathers were not familiar nor anticipated verbal and written assaults upon others (I seem to remember reading that Ben Franklin was particular adept in the fields of creative verbal and written assaults).
~?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:59pm.
I didn't say they didn't anticipate verbal assaults, I said they didn't anticipate an emasculated society that punishes people who push back against verbal assault.
For instance, in their day if a man called your wife a whore and you knocked his teeth out, he had it coming. Nowadays you'd be arrested for assault and he'd get off scot-free. They didn't anticipate people being forced to take personal insult in the name of "free speech".
This is a very, very odd
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:17pm.
This is a very, very odd response. It was certainly not ok "in their day" for someone to knock someone else's teeth out. I think you have a very confused view of our rights and what the Founders envisioned.
~Odd response?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:58pm.
Hahahahahahahahahaha! If you want to see an "odd response", see my tag.
I'm sorry that you're so culturally illiterate that you are incapable of understanding my point.
Pay attention, Bru. You might learn something.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:05pm.
/s
~Oh yes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:09pm.
I'm eagerly awaiting a schooling on the Constitutionality of incest.
After replying to
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:45am.
Incestmo, I"ll need a bath, but here goes. How about the rights of the mourners at a funeral to peaceably assemble, dips**t? It most certainly does infringe on the families' and friends' right to do that.
Now, why don't you go find some dad boffing his daughter to defend? Oh, SNAP, you've already done that!!!
It would be nice to see you
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:13pm.
It would be nice to see you attempt to have a discussion without namecalling. Our right to peacefully assemble is a Constitionally-guaranteed right. That is, it is protected from government infringement, not from infringement by your fellow citizen. To my knowledge, government has not infringed upon the rights of funeral mourners to peacefully assemble. If there has been some law passed that doesn't allow funeral mourners to assemble, I'm unaware of it. This is a common misconception about the Bill of Rights: it is enshrined to protect our rights from government, not from each other.
"Our right to peacefully
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:07pm.
"Our right to peacefully assemble is a Constitionally-guaranteed right."
With limitations as specified in various SCOTUS rulings (I direct your attention again to the limitations place on anti-abortion protestors).
Also the question arises: do the Westboro Cult's protests fit the legal/constitutional definition of "peacefully"?
I think you've missed or
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:15pm.
I think you've missed or passed over something here. The gentleman above was saying that Phelps & Co. were infringing upon the funeral mourners' right to peacefully assemble. I was correcting his misconception regarding the Constitution in that our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights protect us from government infringement, not from each other.
To your question, I would answer yes.
My followup question is on
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:02pm.
My followup questions are:
1) On what basis do you answer in the affirmative? Please include what you believe to be the legal/constitutional definition of "peacefully" for clarification.
2) How do you explain the clear inconsistency of what is considered peaceful assemblage (Phelps' clan protests allowed vs. anti-abortion protest limitations)?
Satch
Submitted by BuffNBone on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 2:02pm.
The perspective of many here is that the mourners should have peace at their assembly and that it not be disturbed. Phelps and Co. wish to use the occassions to raise a ruckus, promoting their cause(s). Just because, by law, they can do something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Unable to gather a crown on their own, they hijack the grief (and the respect it should be afforded) for their own purposes. Maybe if the protesters actions are considered disturbing the peace -- they could face charges in this life. If that doesn't happen, I trust they will in the next.
Have a peaceful day.
Of course, that would be what
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:47pm.
Of course, that would be what decent human beings do. These aren't decent human beings; however, they still have First Amendment-protected rights. "Disturbing the peace" is a bit of a common myth. It's usually used by police as justification for detainment or arrest, even when no such statute exists.
For your follow-up questions:
1) In that no one's right to life or property is being violated. No cars are being overturned, no punches are being thrown.
2) You'll have to tell me what these anti-abortion protest limitations are or how it wasn't considered peaceful assemblage. I don't know what you're referring to.
Satch
Submitted by BuffNBone on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 5:13pm.
I don't recall asking you any follow-up questions. Possibly you were thinking about the post above mine?
I think the pro-life people have mandated distance requirements from the clinics and my understanding is they often times stand mute. Seems like the opposite of what the Phelps crowd does.
Have an interesting day.
Oh, I apologize. I did think
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:02pm.
Oh, I apologize. I did think the other post was yours.
"Even when no
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:11pm.
such statute exists"? Really, given the history of the Phelps Cult, a police officer would knowingly arrest them, knowing he had no authority to do so?
There are local and state statutes defining "disturbance", and there are laws prohibiting creating a disturbance and allowing a disturbance. Your knowledge of criminal law is abysmal, as is your moral code.
As for your response in #2 above, you are also abysmally ignorant of what SCOTUS has said about protests at abortion mills.
Well, I don't know if a
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:23pm.
Well, I don't know if a policeman would arrest them using the phony charge of "disturbing the peace," but I do know that police do illegally detain and arrest people under "disturbing the peace," even when no statute exists. Happens quite a bit in open carry situations in Pennsylvania. If you think police don't abuse their authority, then you're naive. Often they are under the incorrect belief that their opinion takes precedence over law, even when their opinion is in conflict with the law.
As for #2, you are correct; you caught me! Right after I said I have no knowledge of what he was referring to, here you are to tell me I don't know what he was referring to. Thank you for that service. Yes, I am ignorant of what SCOTUS has said about protests at abortion mills. I have aboslutely no clue what the case was or what they've ruled. Fill me in.
Fill you in?
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:49pm.
I don't think so, Skippy. Google is your friend, as are Bing and a few other search engines. Go utilize them, you're allegedly an adult, do your own due diligence.
You "know" that police do illegally detain and arrest people for "disturbing the peace"? So, I assume you've testified in court numerous times for plaintiffs in civil cases, or defendants, in criminal cases.
And, pray tell us, Incestmo, how many police officers you've interviewed, and surveyed to arrive at your conclusion that police officers believe "that their opinion takes precedence over law".
And, please fill us in on how many police officers you know, personally, that you can make the blanket statement that they abuse their authority.
Yep, you don't know jack
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:01pm.
You are obviously ignorant of the law and are swallowing what you heard and not what you "know". When a peace officer says "disturbing the peace" he has a wide selection of penal codes that can cover that figure of speech. In Califoria, there are many codes under PC 647 called "disorderly conduct" which cover things from prostitution to drunk in public to loitering. There is also PC 415 which covers fighting in public, loud and unreasonable noise and also restricts the absolute right of free speech by making in a crime to challenge someone to a fight or use offensive words that are "inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction".
I am surprised you didn't know this since you know what a cops beliefs are concerning their superiority over the law. You should use that amazing gift for something other than trolling the internet.
So you agree with me. You say
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 5:24pm.
So you agree with me. You say in California that there is no "disturbing the peace" statute, but that there is "disorderly conduct". Great. Challenging someone to a fight and "offensive words" are pretty vague, and may be unconstitutionally vague, but I know you're just describing a statute versus providing it, so I can't really comment on it. It's possible that the statute is unconstitutional. There are many laws on the books that are unconstitutional; however, it usually takes an arrest to go after those laws.
Nobody agrees with Satchmo
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:30am.
I agree that you are totally ignorant of the law. This is another of your "a 24 year old is not a child" arguments. I explained what is meant by "disturbing the peace". I'm sorry you can't understand anything unless the terms are spelled out for you. As I said, "disturbing the peace is a figure of speech" dumbass. There very well may be disturbing the peace laws in other states, I just explained to you that it means other things.
I did provide the statute idiot. I'm sorry you are too lazy to look it up. I even quoted directly from the 2006 version of the California Penal Code. It seems you follow the idea that if YOU don't like a law then it MUST be unconstitutional. This is California, there have been many arrests for the laws I cited and I have no doubt they have been challenged, yet they still stand. A judge you are not and we are all thankful for that.
Satchmo
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:53am.
Why do I get this feeling that Satchmo basically walks around picking and choosing what laws he will or will not follow based on what he says is right and wrong?
I would love to see a cop encounter that joker for...virtually any reason. Jaywalking, even.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yep Unsane
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:16am.
That or he's that douchebag dressed in all black yelling "Fascists" at the riot police while they stop other idiots from firebombing the local Starbucks. Most likely at a demonstration for "Non-violence".
The Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:10pm.
The whiny Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo: "Disturbing the peace" is a bit of a common myth.
Disturbing the Peace is a very real crime. Looks like the Butt Hurt Stupid Satchmo Troll LIES again. YOU LIE SATCHMO TROLL.
The following is an example of a state statute dealing with disturbing the peace:
"Elements of Disturbing the Peace: It shall be unlawful for any person to:
Make, continue, maintain or cause to be made or continued any excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise or any noise in such manner as to annoy, offend, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in the area.
Use, operate or permit the use or operation of any electronic device, radio receiving set, television, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity inhabiting the area.
Congregate because of, participate in or be in any party or gathering of people from which sound emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in any residential area. No person shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein such party or gathering is taking place except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating said disturbance. A police officer may order all persons present in any group or gathering from the dwelling unit to immediately disperse in lieu of being charged under this Section."
Don't hold your breath, waiting for an intelligent
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 8:10pm.
reply, Vet. Whenever Satchmo the Perv gets pinned down, he just ignores what he finds inconvenient. Or, at least tries to. Then he tries to start out in another direction, pointing over in another corner, shouting, "look, over there". His arguments are naive at best, mostly just non-sensical most of the times. He knows nothing of laws or law enforcement, other than his liberal talking points. You know, cops bad, protesters good.
UpNorth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 9:49pm.
You described the tenor of Satchmo/Incestmo posts exactly.
sentry_99 quoted California Penal Code Sections 647 and 415 verbatim, and Sasquatchmo pooh-poohed what was stated (describing instead of providing - like that would make a difference) as though he-she-it was a world-renowned CA barrister specializing in criminal defense, rather than a proven putz.
SatchelMouth also seems to have a chip on the shoulder in regard to law enforcement.
What a surprise.
MD
~The government does not exist to protect our rights
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:20am.
The Constitution/Bill of Rights exists to protect us from the government.
I take it you've never read
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:27am.
I take it you've never read the Declaration of Independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Government exists to protect our rights is the cornerstone of this nation, and an indisputable fact.
~They are speaking ideally
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:36am.
Governments throughout human history have oppressed the people. Ours was designed in such a fashion as to prevent that, if the Constitution were actually adhered to.
But they are also speaking
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:17pm.
But they are also speaking practically, giving the founding reason and purpose for what would become our Constitution and government.
~The whole thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:43pm.
is designed to keep the federal government from becoming too centralized and powerful so that it does not abuse the citizenry, as has happened in every other country on the face of the earth. We do not derive our rights from the government, and it was designed to protect us primarily from itself, and foreign invaders.
Of course. I think we're
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:57pm.
Of course. I think we're saying the same thing. Government exists to protect our liberties, and the Constitution was designed to protect us from government.
~Not quite the same thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:03pm.
Government is the severest threat to our liberties. It exists to provide law and order for society, in accordance with our wishes and consent.
sachmo
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:44am.
Apparently you haven't read it yourself. You missed "from the consent of the governed".
We are being governed without our consent and against our will.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Am I correct in assuming
Submitted by BuffNBone on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:05pm.
Am I correct in assuming that in the bold text you've highlighted the operative word is secure? If so, I'd like to know what you think the word means.
To me it implies protecting things that are already in place (or are a given). In this case the framers and signers were under the belief that the rights came from God--or at least that's what they've stated. If the role of government was/is to include the acquisition of the rights, then a word like procure would have been used.
Have a nice day.
That's exactly what it means.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:20pm.
That's exactly what it means. I'm pretty sure I've already said more than once that our rights are inalienable and that government exists to protect these rights.
An abiding faith in government
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:41am.
Your deep faith in government is boundless.
Government must be FORCED to do the right thing. Why else does the First Amendment, for just ONE example, begin with the words "Congress shall not..."?
Answer: because the government, then and now, is full of wannabe tyrants. They have to be FORCED at all times to not infringe on people's rights.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A reminder: free speech under
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:56pm.
A reminder: free speech under the 1st amendment is not unlimited and unconditional.
"Congress shall make no
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:58pm.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,..."
We'll all remember that if
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:01pm.
We'll all remember that if you go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Ah, I love when people bring
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:06pm.
Ah, I love when people bring up this example. First of all, is it not morally imperative that one shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is, in fact, a fire? Of course it is. Secondly, if there is no fire, it is not against the law to shout "fire!" What is against the law is causing a panic or a disturbance with intent to harm.
What is against the law is
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:09pm.
What is against the law is causing a panic or a disturbance with intent to harm.Really? What do you think your pals at Westboro Cult are doing? And naturally you think they are not inciting to riot, not engaging in hate speach (a favorite of you Libs), and not "causing a disturbance with intent to harm".
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Well, I guess I was correct
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:22pm.
Well, I guess I was correct when I said that you weren't interested in discussion. Have a good day.
beat down
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:42am.
Translation: Incestmo just got his ass kicked.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
BREAKING: "Incestmo perishes in fake theatre fire stampede"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:28pm.
After being fatally trampled, Incestmo's last words were "Someone lawfully screamed FIRE and I saw no cause to panic."
Services will be held at the Westboro Baptist Church.
ROFL!
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:31pm.
ROFL!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
SoL, I'm sure
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:21pm.
you've noticed that whenever Incestmo gets pinned down, he falls back on the lib line, that no one is interested in debate, discussion, etc.? Whenever he has nothing to back up his claims, or it seems that he's lost the debate, it's the old fall-back.
And, this reply was a gem.
Hey, Incestmo,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 6:23pm.
go read your post, #43. I thought there was no such thing as disturbing the peace, creating a disturbance, according to the Contstitution by Incestmo.
Satchmo, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:19pm.
Fred Phelps and his family of inbreds has crossed the line with their support for our enemies in a time of war.
In the America I once lived in, that was referred to at the very least as Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy in a Time of War, if not outright treason - both of which were once considered serious crimes in this country - punishable by imprisonment, or worse.
What this idiot Phelps is doing is purposely encouraging those who have vowed to destroy the United States of America.
I don't think that is what was intended by our founders as "protected speech."
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
In no way whatsoever is this
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 3:50pm.
In no way whatsoever is this an example of treason. That's just ridiculous
Treason: What Qualifies?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 10:55am.
Then what specifically would qualify as being treason in your world?
Their goal is not to aid and
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 5:15pm.
Their goal is not to aid and abet foreign nations or terrrorists who are in opposition to US policies. Their goal is to protest their government. This is a First Amendment right. That their jacked-up views may be viewed favorably by US enemies does not make it treason.
It's whacked how there are quite a few people here who believe themselves to be conservatives, yet come down on the side of more government (and more intrusive government) and who come down on the side of violating others' Constitutional rights. I would think the default positions would be less government and defense of liberty.
THIS is whacked
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:44am.
It's whacked how someone who wants the government in charge of giving food and clothing allowances to people wishes to scold and lecture people on what conservatism is.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, unfortunately that isn't
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:01am.
No, unfortunately that isn't a right.
"And so is my inalienable right to beat the crap out of them."
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:13pm.
ZZZZZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNG!
Nice shooting, Dan.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Incestmo supports Westboro
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:50am.
Of course Incestmo, you would support these &%$#@! from Westboro.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
"First Amendment rights do
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:55pm.
"First Amendment rights do not end when they come in conflict with your own."
Actually under certain circumstances they do according to the Supreme Court (anti-abortion protest limitations upheld by the SCOTUS as an example - also hate speech laws upheld by SCOTUS is another example that comes to mind).
And according to SCOTUS
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:01pm.
And according to SCOTUS government can seize private property and hand it over to another private entity. There is no doubt that many SCOTUS rulings are in direct opposition to the Constitution.
Hate speech. I detest that term. Hate speech...hate crime = thought crime. Abominations.
Well, after all, abominations ARE your specialty
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:40pm.
.
"They [Westboro Cult] are
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:52pm.
"They [Westboro Cult] are rabid dogs who need to be taken to the wood shed."
IMHO both figuratively and literally.
But I don't support them at
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:02am.
But I don't support them at all. I support the Constitution and I support our inalienable rights that the Constituion protects.
Satchmo...
Submitted by beauxdog on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:25pm.
Not all NBers are brainless twits like Free Stinker.
You have offered nothing but thoughtful, polite discourse, while they have been insulting and intolerant.
Everything you have said has been in the conservative, constitutionalist vein. They are too stupid too see that constitutionalist principles aren't always popular.
If they had any brains or guts, they would confront you with facts rather than insults.
In the end, I am not saying you are 100% correct... but you sure deserve respect as opposed to the mindless crap they have been spewing at you.
I love listening to Satchmo... one of my favorite movies was the one he did with Danny Kaye... Red Nicholes and the Five Pennies.
Beauxdog
Thank you.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:29pm.
Thank you.~Thoughtful, polite discourse
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:33pm.
See my tag for further thoughtful discourse by Pervmo.
Beauxdog
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:46pm.
Ah, now the friends of the incest defender come out from under their bridges . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I've never defended incest. I
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:03pm.
I've never defended incest. I have no idea why you are behaving as you are in this thread.
~You can't parse your way
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:04pm.
out of the perv's corner. Sorry. See my tag.
Then you are even more
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:06pm.
I've never defended incest. I have no idea why you are behaving as you are in this thread.Then you are even more clueless than we all first thought.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:46am.
Unfortunately for you beauxdog, satchmo has condoned incest on another thread. Call me crazy, but I take a dim view of people who condone incest as he has.
Another reason for the invective thrown at him is for his whacked out views on other issues.
You ought to actually pay attention to what is going on before rushing to his aid.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And the Speshul Ed hypocrisy
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:14am.
And the Speshul Ed hypocrisy little red bandwagon rolls on...
I haven't watched him lately
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 11:29am.
I haven't watched him lately on TV, but he's certainly not indifferent on his website.
Money, Money, Money
Submitted by misterbee241 on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:00pm.
I'd like to know who finances Phelps and his traveling clown circus.
Mr B
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 12:51pm.
From what I understand they finance it through their "church." I heard a figure of $250,000 for this. Remeber the protesters are small in numbers, only 5 or so. That is a lot for such a small "church." It has got to be comning from somewhere else.
This is what makes me so sick about these fools. They call the Patriot Guard Riders, smelley. These are the men and women who ride bikes and love their country, They form lines at funerals of the brave men and women who serve(d) this country to sheidl the family from these______. They are going to protest the PGR. I hope they get their asses whipped. Pardon the language but that is the way I feel.
"I hope they [the Westboro
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:32pm.
"I hope they [the Westboro Cult members] get their asses whipped."
Two closely related things have thus far prevented that from happening too often.
First off is their well-stated and oft-threatened intents to sue if ever assaulted. This alone prevents a large bulk from physically assaulting them. They have won several such suits in the past.
Secondly, they make certain they have police protection available and they make certain law enforcement knows they (the Westboro Cult) will sue if requested protection does not protect them from physical assaults (they've received some hefty settlements on that alone).
For example, at a Westboro Cult protest in Seaford, Delaware back in 2006 several people managed to break through police lines to attack the Westboro cultists. The cultists fled in a police van according to one report I found (an FNC report says it was a Fire Dept. vehicle) but not before two windows in the van were shattered. 5 people were eventually arrested.
The Westboro Cult are a very
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:19pm.
The Westboro Cult are a very litigious bunch with their leader, Fred Phelps (having a law degree from Washburn University but eventuallly disbarred in Kansas and eventually by the federal court - no big shock there) as well as his daughter (Shirley Phelps-Roper - also a law degree from Washburn), his daughter's husband and various other members of the cult suing people and organizations at the drop of a hat. In doing so they intimidate many into out-of-court settlements. So the two main sources of money keeping that bunch going are the membership themselves and financial gains from various lawsuits.