Dare I say.......................

[catnipdipper]

I don't think he worked hard to raise as much money because he was a shoo in who didn't even need the money. He coasted in with no opposition.

Scary guy and Moran too. C Street Christian Fundamentalists under sway of Ultra Rightists.

[lacrew_2000]

I bet Sam tried to raise every cent possible...he has presidential aspirations; and, he has to prove to potential supporters that he would be a serious contender...and part of that is demonstrating that he can raise money effectively.

So we've gone from "Sam won due to big money" to "he probably didn't try to raise money" in one thread?

For those who don't like Sam, take comfort in the fact that his fundraising did not match up to Kathleen's; and, he has a long way to go before he becomes a serious contender.

I see the Koch's are the lightning rod of the day. They have given money to Sebelius in the past

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Yeah, what Phil said. Except for the part about the USSC ruling. The Phelp's may be protected from any criminal action being taken against them, but that doesn't protect them from being held liable in civil court for deliberately seeking to inflict mental pain and anguish. If a lady in New Jersey can sue a TV station for pain and mental suffering after they aired the wrong lotto numbers, then the father of a fallen soldier has every right to sue the Phelps. The lady in NJ is seeking $75K in damages for what amounts to "speech", ie broadcasting lotto numbers. In her case, she can't even claim that the TV station's error was deliberate, just incorrect. Phelps on the other hand deliberately sought out his victim, and did everything he could to inflict maximum pain and suffering with his words. The first line of the First Amendment states "CONGRESS shall make no laws". Congress, not the civil courts. If the father can get 12 jury members to agree that Phelp's words were deliberately hurtful, and hold him liable for the father's suffering, great. Phelp's got his opportunity to say wht he wanted to say, in accordance with the First Amendment, and the father was afforded HIS right to hold Phelp's responsible for his actions. Its a win/win in my book.

But what the hell do I know? I am no Constitutional scholar. And I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either. Aside from that though, you are spot on Phil.

Originally Posted by Philhelm

Well, I was hoping to narrow the scope a bit, but in general, I will say that the Republicans, as a party, are suffering from a severe case of hubris, not unlike the Democrats in 2008, when they had said that the Republicans would be in the political wilderness for decades. Of course, two years later things changed, and round and round we go.

At the very least, the Republican party and its supporters are charged, as they made somewhat of a rebound. That sort of emotion is to be expected. Unfortunately, many of their hopes are misplaced, as most of the new Republicans will ultimately betray them, just as with most of the Democrats (Note my avatar).

So that I'm not disingenuous, I'm not much of a fan of either party, although I favor the Republicans more, since at least some of their rhetoric gives me something to work with (Rhetoric, mind you, not actions). The average Republican is more receptive to free market concepts, and I can usually be persuasive with them. For instance, I managed to convince one of my friends that Palin is a dipshit and that U.S. soldiers shouldn't be deployed all across the globe (He's currently a soldier, and we had served together in Iraq). I'm still trying to convince him that the abortion and gay marriage issues are only distractors in the political sense (Right or wrong, abortion is here to stay, and gay marriage will eventually be accepted in every state of the Union), and that we should end the War on Drugs.

Now, it's time to convince my left-wing friends that the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of Phelps was actually a good thing. That will be a hard, hard sell, to people both left and right. I'm just disappointed, since I would have thought that most on the left would understand the importance of protecting freedom of speech, no matter how vile. The whole point is to protect that speech which is hated, not that which is popular.

In any case, the U.S. is screwed. It doesn't matter what letter is in front of our politicians' names.

[catnipdipper]

In my opinion Sam learned his lesson in '08. Not Presidential timber and won't be. Santorum has his role for the moment anyway.

Wisconsin and northern Illinois had a huge influx of German immigrants that were refugees from the failed Revolutions of 1848. Bismark crushed them united Prussia and all the intellectuals, scholars, and progressive scientists and thinkers. Up until 1946 there was a Progressive Party there much like the DFL in Minnesota.

I predict a comeback for this kind of thinking.

If Kathleen took Koch money she likely made them beg for the privilege of doing so.

This is it For Brownback inho.

[Cheaper2buyit]

Galt your in the wrong thread but hay atleast sheens rich your cat is well you know you picked it out

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Yeah, what Phil said. Except for the part about the USSC ruling. The Phelp's may be protected from any criminal action being taken against them, but that doesn't protect them from being held liable in civil court for deliberately seeking to inflict mental pain and anguish. If a lady in New Jersey can sue a TV station for pain and mental suffering after they aired the wrong lotto numbers, then the father of a fallen soldier has every right to sue the Phelps. The lady in NJ is seeking $75K in damages for what amounts to "speech", ie broadcasting lotto numbers. In her case, she can't even claim that the TV station's error was deliberate, just incorrect. Phelps on the other hand deliberately sought out his victim, and did everything he could to inflict maximum pain and suffering with his words. The first line of the First Amendment states "CONGRESS shall make no laws". Congress, not the civil courts. If the father can get 12 jury members to agree that Phelp's words were deliberately hurtful, and hold him liable for the father's suffering, great. Phelp's got his opportunity to say wht he wanted to say, in accordance with the First Amendment, and the father was afforded HIS right to hold Phelp's responsible for his actions. Its a win/win in my book.

But what the hell do I know? I am no Constitutional scholar. And I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either. Aside from that though, you are spot on Phil.

I'm not a fan of the Phelps familiy (I was a soldier at one point, so he wouldn't be a fan of me either), but my support for the ruling is out of principle. The problem is that to punish the Phelps family would be to allow the courts to decide which uttered words are acceptable in society. Once we follow that route, which other words will be arbitrarily chosen as being taboo? Who should decide which speech is protected and which is not? Where would it end?

This is why I oppose any concept of hate speech legislation, or anything which chills free speech (such as circumventing the First Amendment by being held liable in a civil court). The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect that speech which the majority would hate, not that which is popular. The majority-approved speech does not need such protection. If we are to live in a truly free society, then it is absolutely necessary to tolerate things that we find distasteful. I'm sure we all hold views or say things that others would like to suppress.

Similarly, take something like prostitution. Because a majority finds it immoral, despite it being a victimless "crime", it is an illegal activity. Apparently most people don't believe that a mutually agreed upon transaction, between two consenting adults, should be legal. Again, if we lived in a truly free society, people would tolerate the exchange of money for sex, even if they found it personally abhorrent. But this is what happens when we allow the state, via the tyranny of the majority, to dictate morality. I have no problems with living in a nation that operates under the rule of law , but our laws should be few and just. There should be no crimes other than what harms the life, liberty, or property of others.

[Longermonger]

I just wish they'd stop bleeping out lyrics on the radio. Fuck the FCC. Fuck them in their cunt.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

[There should be no crimes other than what harms the life, liberty, or property of others. ]

Well, this is precisely my point. What makes the Phelps case unique from, say a protest held in front of the White House, is that Phelps deliberately seeks to disrupt the funerals of soldiers. He does indeed have the right to free speech, but when his speech tramples of the liberty of others, that is when it becomes appropriate to hold him liable. What of the father's right to bury his son in peace? Phelps took that away from him. A civil suit isn't about abhorrent speech, its about the fact that this father only gets to bury his son once, and the memory of his sons funeral is tainted by the unconscionable three ring circus Phelps turned it into. Because its not just Phelps. Its Phelps, its the various groups who organize themselves to attempt to disrupt Phelp's protest, and more often than not, the media can't resist coming out to cover it all, again because of Phelps. Somewhere in all that mess, there is a grieving family, trying to deal with the loss of their loved one, and trying to show their loved one the honor and dignity of a respectful burial. All that falls by the wayside by the deliberate attempts by the Phelps clan to wound with words. That isn't free speech, that is freedom to terrorize. Justice would be giving the family the opportunity to take their case before 12 ordinary citizens and ask them to hear the case and decide where Phelp's freedom ends, and where the father's liberty begins. But thanks to the USSC there is neither justice nor liberty for the families of soldiers.

[Philhelm]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

[There should be no crimes other than what harms the life, liberty, or property of others. ]

Well, this is precisely my point. What makes the Phelps case unique from, say a protest held in front of the White House, is that Phelps deliberately seeks to disrupt the funerals of soldiers. He does indeed have the right to free speech, but when his speech tramples of the liberty of others, that is when it becomes appropriate to hold him liable. What of the father's right to bury his son in peace? Phelps took that away from him. A civil suit isn't about abhorrent speech, its about the fact that this father only gets to bury his son once, and the memory of his sons funeral is tainted by the unconscionable three ring circus Phelps turned it into. Because its not just Phelps. Its Phelps, its the various groups who organize themselves to attempt to disrupt Phelp's protest, and more often than not, the media can't resist coming out to cover it all, again because of Phelps. Somewhere in all that mess, there is a grieving family, trying to deal with the loss of their loved one, and trying to show their loved one the honor and dignity of a respectful burial. All that falls by the wayside by the deliberate attempts by the Phelps clan to wound with words. That isn't free speech, that is freedom to terrorize. Justice would be giving the family the opportunity to take their case before 12 ordinary citizens and ask them to hear the case and decide where Phelp's freedom ends, and where the father's liberty begins. But thanks to the USSC there is neither justice nor liberty for the families of soldiers.

Don't get me wrong; I sympathize with that position. I don't agree with the Phelps family, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences that could arise from suppressing them. I don't like the idea of new laws being enacted, through court opinion, which would affect over 300 million people for the actions of a couple score (or however many people are in the Phelps family).

I don't believe that Phelps had infringed on the liberty of the fallen soldier's family though. They were still free to bury their son. The Phelps family had commited no act which restrained the family's freedom of action. Now, I had only glanced at the Supreme Court's opinion, which wasn't long, but to my knowledge there were already laws in Kansas which would pertain to the Phelps family protest at a funeral. The Phelps family had obeyed the current laws when they had conducted their protest (For example, maintaining a certain distance from the burial site). Not that I would ever say that a law is inherintly good, but from the Phelps' perspective, they had maintained legality. I think it would be immoral to retroactively enforce laws on people (i.e. ex posto facto).

Ultimately, I think that the issue of property rights could solve this situation, without having to address the First Amendment issue. If the cemetary is a public place, then the Phelps family is within its rights, as despicable as they may be. On private property, the owner would be allowed to oust them at his or her convenience. This is where I agree with someone like Rand Paul, who had disagreed with parts of the Civil Rights Act. When dealing with private property, the owner should be allowed to accept or deny people of his or her services for whatever reason whatsoever, even if it's something deplorable. Usually people think of racism, and denying minorities a service; however, such discrimination isn't always the case. In fact, discrimination isn't inherently wrong. People discriminate whenever they make choices. Sometimes being discriminate can be a positive thing, as in the case of the Phelps family.

Ultimately, I'm not concerned with what the Phelps family had said. From my perspective it is immaterial. What matters to me is the concept that the government will deny people the right to say something, regardless of how cruel the words may be. I do not wish to give such authority to the state. From a private perspective, the Phelps family can be socially shunned or denied private services. I would be onboard with that. I just don't wish to see the government involved in such matters.

I agree with the Founding Fathers that a pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can get the government to commit any act, no matter how atrocious. The Phelps family represent a minority (a very small one at that). I'm opposed to silencing the minority, since there will come a time in which the minority will be morally right, but socially reviled. This does not apply to the Phelps family in my opinion, but I do not wish to give the authority of which speech is right to the majority. That is the core of my position.