Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dude, just stop. I know it looks impressive on TV, but yammering nonsense doesn't actually have any legal weight.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Okay, this might be just me, but if this happened at a funeral I was attending I'd go ape gak banana's and start kicking peoples asses,

And they would sue the hell of out you for assault with their well-oiled legal machine. That's why they do this in the first place! Seriously, the more people lose their temper over their shennanigans the happier they are. That's the whole point of teh trolllin

It's not just the people who attack them they sue, but authorities where it happened, since the fact that the assault happened meant that not enough security was provided to maintain order, and their injuries were a direct result of that. And cities have deep pockets.

They really are trolls, deliberately inciting bystanders because that makes them money.

Is there an address we can write to in order to express our anger and dismay at this ruling?

One bright side, Bill O'Reilly has pledged to pay the court costs if they stand.

That means they'll get payed.

I can see this turning into a bloodbath in no time. You sue a soldier's family, which probably has some (Ex) soldiers in there too, before which you were disrupting pretty much the most sacred tradition left on this planet. That's real smart there.

How do these people wake up in the morning and not kill themselves actually?

Soladrin wrote:How so? They believe he is real, and that he actively killed my "relative". By their own logic they are guilty. But when it isn't in their favor, it suddenly isn't?

You are wondering why you can't charge someone with conspiracy to commit murder for believing in God. It shouldn't need explanation.

But, if you insist:

1. It can't be proven that God exists.

2. If he did exist any action he did would necessarily be justified, as his will is objective Justice itself.

3. God cannot be materially aided because he is omnipotent.

4. God isn't a person.

5. God cannot be convinced of anything, because he has a perfect understanding of Truth.

6. The God worshipped by Westboro is the same as the God as all of Christianity, Westboro simply believes they understand him more clearly.

7. It would set bad legal precedent.

8. It would strain our diplomatic relations with Heaven.

9. Freedom of Religion.

10. No prosecutor would even attempt to bring the case to trial, and if he did the judge would throw it out.

11. The glove found at the crime scene doesn't fit God's hand.

12. If Westboro's religious beliefs are true I'm guessing funeral protests are the least of our problems.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Soladrin wrote:How so? They believe he is real, and that he actively killed my "relative". By their own logic they are guilty. But when it isn't in their favor, it suddenly isn't?

You are wondering why you can't charge someone with conspiracy to commit murder for believing in God. It shouldn't need explanation.

But, if you insist:

1. It can't be proven that God exists.

2. If he did exist any action he did would necessarily be justified, as his will is objective Justice itself.

3. God cannot be materially aided because he is omnipotent.

4. God isn't a person.

5. God cannot be convinced of anything, because he has a perfect understanding of Truth.

6. The God worshipped by Westboro is the same as the God as all of Christianity, Westboro simply believes they understand him more clearly.

7. It would set bad legal precedent.

8. It would strain our diplomatic relations with Heaven.

9. Freedom of Religion.

10. No prosecutor would even attempt to bring the case to trial, and if he did the judge would throw it out.

11. The glove found at the crime scene doesn't fit God's hand.

12. If Westboro's religious beliefs are true I'm guessing funeral protests are the least of our problems.

Dude, stop being a smartass snob. Offcourse I know you can't actually sue someone for these kind of things. I'm just saying that if you followed their own logic they would be guilty, which makes it all the more aggravating. If it was possible to do what I said it would've been done from the get go.


also: 9. Freedom of religion, within current laws, in which they apparently found (Another) hole.

PS. Reminds me of the movie: The man who sued god (which rocks apart from the stupid birdy in the ending)

Soladrin wrote:And, freedom isn't free? How does that add anything to this situation?

I dunno. It sounds cool?

Freedom will never be free as long as we remain. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate this.

The law of the United States disagrees with you. Regarding your plan to punch them, at least. You can still picket them and stuff.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Soladrin wrote:And, freedom isn't free? How does that add anything to this situation?

I dunno. It sounds cool?

Freedom will never be free as long as we remain. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate this.

The law of the United States disagrees with you. Regarding your plan to punch them, at least. You can still picket them and stuff.

Explain taxes. (not a serious question >_< )

Soladrin wrote:Dude, stop being a smartass snob. Offcourse I know you can't actually sue someone for these kind of things.

You said "How so? They believe he is real, and that he actively killed my "relative". By their own logic they are guilty. But when it isn't in their favor, it suddenly isn't?"

I answered how it was so. Don't get on my case about it now.

The ruling seems to be within line of their constitutional right to protest so I can't really fault it. The strength of laws are best tested when following them is tasteless but important.

Honestly what he should of done was simply kill a few of them himself.

Soladrin wrote:Explain taxes. (not a serious question >_< )

?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Dude, stop being a smartass snob. Offcourse I know you can't actually sue someone for these kind of things.

You said "How so? They believe he is real, and that he actively killed my "relative". By their own logic they are guilty. But when it isn't in their favor, it suddenly isn't?"

I answered how it was so. Don't get on my case about it now.

Ok, yeah sorry, you got me by the balls there. My bad. Just got kinda worked up...

ShumaGorath wrote:The ruling seems to be within line of their constitutional right to protest so I can't really fault it. The strength of laws are best tested when following them is tasteless but important.

Honestly what he should of done was simply kill a few of them himself.

If he spends all of his money first then he can't give them any. This seems to call for a very expensive method of killing.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The ruling seems to be within line of their constitutional right to protest so I can't really fault it. The strength of laws are best tested when following them is tasteless but important.

Honestly what he should of done was simply kill a few of them himself.

If he spends all of his money first then he can't give them any. This seems to call for a very expensive method of killing.

This requires a: Just as planned outcome.

Soladrin wrote:Ok, yeah sorry, you got me by the balls there. My bad. Just got kinda worked up...

Well, you're dealing with professional jackasses here, if they can't piss you off through the internet they're not doing their job!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:This requires a: Just as planned outcome.

Elaborate revenge machines half off? Only used once!

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Ok, yeah sorry, you got me by the balls there. My bad. Just got kinda worked up...

Well, you're dealing with professional jackasses here, if they can't piss you off through the internet they're not doing their job!

Hehe, yep. You should just start anti-protesters protesters (which would be awesome). Out protest them!

How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

I'd pay to see that.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

I'd pay to see that.

I'll bring the beer!

Bookwrack wrote:One bright side, Bill O'Reilly has pledged to pay the court costs if they stand.

That's pretty awesome, good on him.

If I ever see a Westboro nutjob I'll gladly do the time for felony assault.

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

OW! I hurt myself ROTFLMAO!!!!

Seriously these guys have the right idea.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So all them right wing extremists want to bomb people for free healthcare but can't be bothered to go terrorise someone that actually needs it, like this God bothering soldier hater?

They were being opposed by some right-wing groups, actually. Motorcycle clubs, if I recall.

This is the group you're thinking of. Not right wing, just nationalistic/respectful:
"The Patriot Guard Riders is a diverse amalgamation of riders from across the nation. We have one thing in common besides motorcycles. We have an unwavering respect for those who risk their very lives for America’s freedom and security. If you share this respect, please join us. We don’t care what you ride, what your political views are, or whether you’re a "hawk" or a "dove". It is not a requirement that you be a veteran. It doesn't matter where you’re from or what your income is. You don’t even have to ride. The only prerequisite is Respect. Our main mission is to attend the funeral services of fallen American heroes as invited guests of the family. Each mission we undertake has two basic objectives.

1. Show our sincere respect for our fallen heroes, their families, and their communities.
2. Shield the mourning family and friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors.

We accomplish the latter through strictly legal and non-violent means.

To those of you who are currently serving and fighting for the freedoms of others, at home and abroad, please know that we are backing you. We honor and support you with every mission we carry out, and we are praying for a safe return home for all."

The Westboro Baptist Church is a tiny, moronic and hateful group. I doubt they get a lot of recruits, as I don't think any real Christians, or even decent people will stomach their gak.

I would consider the Patriot Guard more right-wing than not (mostly from a cultural standpoint), but I'll leave it at that, and agree that they're not an especially political group in either case.

In other news, it's rather amusing that they chose to protest the funerals of soldiers in response to homosexuality. It doesn't make any sense until you realize that they're just going for the combination of hatred that will get absolutely everybody mad at them.

Soladrin wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

I'd pay to see that.

I'll bring the beer!

I'll bring the lawn chairs and popcorn!

Nurgleboy77 wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

OW! I hurt myself ROTFLMAO!!!!

You are not the only one!

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

Oh, Gwar'd go for that, too! Dreadsock!

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

jp400 wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:How do we troll a bunch of profess-

Gwar!

Tell him that its a van full of RAI believers and lock him in.

Oh, Gwar'd go for that, too! Dreadsock!

Why don't we just get Gwar to do with a Bible what he already does with a Warhammer 40k rulebook? That'd show them.

Gwar can't touch a bible with his bare skin. We'll have to get him some gloves.

Heres a better idea. Wherever Gwar! is, lets just let him stay there and annoy those people instead.