Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 06, 2010, 12:57:36 PM
-
I hope they do the right thing.
High court struggles with funeral protest case
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
POSTED: 06:40 a.m. HST, Oct 06, 2010
WASHINGTON >> Supreme Court justices on Wednesday pondered the vexing question of whether the father of a dead Marine should win his lawsuit against a fundamentalist church group that picketed his son's funeral.
The complexity and weightiness of the First Amendment issue were palpable in the courtroom as justices heard arguments in the case of Albert Snyder. His son died in Iraq in 2006, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral to make their point that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the question is whether the First Amendment must tolerate "exploiting this bereaved family."
There was no clear answer from the court.
Snyder is asking the court to reinstate a $5 million verdict against the Westboro members who held signs outside the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, including ones that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers, "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates the USA." The Marine was killed in a Humvee accident in 2006.
The church also posted a poem on its website that attacked Snyder and his ex-wife for the way they brought up Matthew.
Justice Stephen Breyer said the Internet aspect of the case troubled him because the church was saying something "very obnoxious" about private individuals.
"To what extent can they put that on the Internet?" Breyer asked. "I don't know what the rules ought to be."
The case pits Snyder's right to grieve privately against the church members' right to say what they want, no matter how offensive.
Westboro members, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps, have picketed many military funerals.
They welcome the attention the protests have brought, mocking their critics and vowing not to change their ways whatever the outcome at the Supreme Court.
"No American should ever be required to apologize for following his or her conscience," said Margie Phelps, a daughter of Fred Phelps and the lawyer who argued the case for the church.
Fundamentalist church members turned out in advance of the argument Wednesday morning, to march in front of the court with placards of the type they've been carrying to military funerals. One young boy held up a sign that reads, "God Hates You."
A line of people trying to get into the court stretched around the corner of the majestic building perched atop Capitol Hill.
Snyder won an $11 million verdict against the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. A judge reduced the award to $5 million before the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict altogether, citing the church's First Amendment rights.
For Snyder, the case is not about free speech but harassment. "I had one chance to bury my son and it was taken from me," Snyder said.
Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups have sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelpses' "psychological terrorism."
While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, have called on the court to side with the Phelpses because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/104422719.html
-
Fred Phelps is a charlatan, any resemblance between him and a Christian is purely coincidental. That worthless son of a bitch makes a living off suing people, hell he sued Sears once because they delivered his TV late.
Maybe we will get lucky and during one of their protests a toyota prius's accelerator will get stuck and the whole family will get mowed down.
-
The bad thing about this is someone will die eventually.You get a father who lost his son in the war and he hears protests at the funeral,its only a matter of time before people die.
-
The bad thing about this is someone will die eventually.You get a father who lost his son in the war and he hears protests at the funeral,its only a matter of time before people die.
If it were my kid - I would have ZERO hesitation about taking him out. i would not lose a second of sleep over taking these vermin out.
-
Not sure exactly how I would react, but I would find it very difficult to restrain myself.
I think this kind of protest has the primary effect of inciting people. Hard to distinguish this from things like the "fighting words" exception to protected speech/expression.
-
The fighting words exception is pretty much dead in constitutional jurisprudence. The best way to restrict this kind of harassment is a time/ place/ manner restriction over certain kinds of speech. Hopefully someone made that argument or brought up the possibility.
-
The fighting words exception is pretty much dead in constitutional jurisprudence. The best way to restrict this kind of harassment is a time/ place/ manner restriction over certain kinds of speech. Hopefully someone made that argument or brought up the possibility.
Makes sense.
-
This is a tough case, no question. No sane person can defend the Westboro church...the "God Hates You" chants are grossly amusing and contradictory. However, that type of speech has time and time again been deemed protected.
Take the Klan or Black Panthers, both groups spew very similar rhetoric to every person in ear shot at numerous places around the country. Klan members in the south still hold rallies and protest on public property for all to see and hear...Panthers still protest at the polls with as much hate and gusto as their counterparts and both are deemed "protected speech" so as long as no one persons physical safety or property is damaged.
I think the Westboro bunch is despicable and on one hand I'd love to see the court rule against them but I am always cautious of decisions that have potential to open the door to infringements on other areas that they would not have otherwise. This can be very dangerous ground, when the court started ruling by means of precedent more often at the turn of the 18th century, instead of taking the constitutionality of each case to consideration first, this opened a dangerous door for several different instances. My concern is that it might open one of those doors here.
George, I understand what you're saying about the "time & place" argument, but the view of what's proper can vary greatly from individual to individual...most people would agree that Klan and Panther rallies and protest are improper at any time and any place but their right is still protected so as long as civil order is kept.
Take a look at abortion protest in front of clinics, to me this law makes sense...regardless of your views on abortion, as I am someone who is pro-life, from a legal standpoint the protest laws make sense. There is a rule about how close you can be to the clinic when you protest for the reason of keeping protesters from interfering with clinic employees but the law does not prohibit the protesters from hurting the feelings of the clinic workers.
With all of that in mind, I think the court should consider, did the Westboro protest interfere with the funeral? No question it was beyond distasteful and I'd just assume see the Westboro church burn to the ground but was their interference? If so, that should make the answer to the question a lot easier for the court.
-
A solemn, private ceremony that is quasi religious in nature ( a funeral/ burial) has the right to proceed in peace without being bombarded and harassed by a bunch of disruptive nut jobs that are disrespecting the memory of the deceased. Case closed.
To hold a march, or an organized protest, you are required to receive a permit from the municipality. The time/place and manner should be just out of earshot of the funeral procession and ceremony so as not to interfere or disrupt the burial. There are similar rules in place for numerous other forms of speech. This seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable situation to apply the same set of standards.
A reasonable society can place restrains on speech so as not to restrict it unnecessarily or silence it completely. These freaks can have their little protest before or after the funeral, or during the funeral as long as it doesn't interfere with the ceremony or harass those paying their respects to the dead.
-
Yeah. I agree with George. Let them protest. Just do it someplace else.
-
A solemn, private ceremony that is quasi religious in nature ( a funeral/ burial) has the right to proceed in peace without being bombarded and harassed by a bunch of disruptive nut jobs that are disrespecting the memory of the deceased. Case closed.
To hold a march, or an organized protest, you are required to receive a permit from the municipality. The time/place and manner should be just out of earshot of the funeral procession and ceremony so as not to interfere or disrupt the burial. There are similar rules in place for numerous other forms of speech. This seems like a perfectly logical and reasonable situation to apply the same set of standards.
A reasonable society can place restrains on speech so as not to restrict it unnecessarily or silence it completely. These freaks can have their little protest before or after the funeral, or during the funeral as long as it doesn't interfere with the ceremony or harass those paying their respects to the dead.
Very well said...hopefully the court will agree.
-
charge em with disturbing the peace.
or, better yet, give the cops an hour off work. Let's see who comes out on top... the enraged family/friends of the deceased, or the pompous sign-holding protesters.
-
I do not see how someone can be charged with a hate crime by calling someone a black but these protesters go unscathed. I hope someone mans up and starts blasting all of them.
-
super soakers filled with piss. works every time.
-
super soakers filled with piss. works every time.
I DOUBT IT,THEY LOOK LIKE THEY ARE INTO GOLDEN SHOWERS.
-
Its going to be interesting to see what happens when old Fred finally kicks the bucket, I bet we have military traveling 1000's of miles to piss on his grave
-
Its going to be interesting to see what happens when old Fred finally kicks the bucket, I bet we have military traveling 1000's of miles to piss on his grave
They'll probably ask people to respect their mourning and his memory and allow them to have a dignified funeral... ::) (like the ones they didn't let US soldiers have)
I think the Supreme Court will side with Westboro though but it would be interesting to see the votes and most importantly, the reasoning.
This is probably one of the most difficult issues for the SCOTUS.
-
Has always surprised me that this guy is still alive.
-
im not defending these guys
but i wonder if god could be very happy with us after what we done to the innocent citizens of iraq
(http://www.johnmurphyforcongress.org/images/child%2520running2.jpeg)
(http://www.samliquidation.com/images/bloody_burnt_baby.jpg)
(http://members.shaw.ca/jmoelaert/bloody_iraqi_child.jpg)
-
So you randomly grabbed some pictures from the net and assume it was US military? Here's an idea go to michaelyon-online.com if you really want to know what goes on in Iraq/Afghanistan. He is an independent journalist who supports his imbed status with private donations.
-
So you randomly grabbed some pictures from the net and assume it was US military? Here's an idea go to michaelyon-online.com if you really want to know what goes on in Iraq/Afghanistan. He is an independent journalist who supports his imbed status with private donations.
your denying that innocent people, children (thousand of them, hundreds of thousands? have been killed and were (american citizens) have their blood on our hands for allowing this immoral unjust war to have taken place
-
your denying that innocent people, children (thousand of them, hundreds of thousands? have been killed and were (american citizens) have their blood on our hands for allowing this immoral unjust war to have taken place
::) ::)
Do you want me to start submitting beheading and stoning pics?
-
im not defending these guys
but i wonder if god could be very happy with us after what we done to the innocent citizens of iraq
The Westboro christians assert that due to homosexuality which they consider a sin that justifies death, "god" is punishing the US by killing US soldiers. Essentially they rejoice in the death of Americans because of their religion and their god. Not much different than muslims who cheer when an American dies.
Civilian casualties, on any side, are always horrendous and inexcusable but this case doesn't have to do with civilian casualties, as the Westboro christians care not for civilian casualties but only for homosexuality as a sin and they rejoice in American deaths. Demanding accountability for civilian deaths and atrocities is one thing, applauding the death of US citizens (like the Westboro christians do) is despicable and traitorous. Now, whether "god" would be happy with civilian casualties, probably, given the amount of atrocities committed in the name of religion.
-
::) ::)
Do you want me to start submitting beheading and stoning pics?
so because they kill innocents we should too?
???
-
The Westboro christians assert that due to homosexuality which they consider a sin that justifies death, "god" is punishing the US by killing US soldiers. Essentially they rejoice in the death of Americans because of their religion and their god. Not much different than muslims who cheer when an American dies.
Civilian casualties, on any side, are always horrendous and inexcusable but this case doesn't have to do with civilian casualties, as the Westboro christians care not for civilian casualties but only for homosexuality as a sin and they rejoice in American deaths. Demanding accountability for civilian deaths and atrocities is one thing, applauding the death of US citizens (like the Westboro christians do) is despicable and traitorous. Now, whether "god" would be happy with civilian casualties, probably, given the amount of atrocities committed in the name of religion.
I see :o
-
The bad thing about this is someone will die eventually.You get a father who lost his son in the war and he hears protests at the funeral,its only a matter of time before people die.
why would that be a bad thing? I'm shocked a few of these guys havn't been pecked off from a distance already. It's not like they would have a short suspect list to go from lol...
-
The Westboro christians assert that due to homosexuality which they consider a sin that justifies death, "god" is punishing the US by killing US soldiers. Essentially they rejoice in the death of Americans because of their religion and their god. Not much different than muslims who cheer when an American dies.
Civilian casualties, on any side, are always horrendous and inexcusable but this case doesn't have to do with civilian casualties, as the Westboro christians care not for civilian casualties but only for homosexuality as a sin and they rejoice in American deaths. Demanding accountability for civilian deaths and atrocities is one thing, applauding the death of US citizens (like the Westboro christians do) is despicable and traitorous. Now, whether "god" would be happy with civilian casualties, probably, given the amount of atrocities committed in the name of religion.
Good post
-
why would that be a bad thing? I'm shocked a few of these guys havn't been pecked off from a distance already. It's not like they would have a short suspect list to go from lol...
A cop buddy of mind said that if someone came from out of state and was 200 yards away and took a dude out and was remotely competent at covering tracks, he would get away with it if they took this dude out like that.
-
your denying that innocent people, children (thousand of them, hundreds of thousands? have been killed and were (american citizens) have their blood on our hands for allowing this immoral unjust war to have taken place
First of all you can stop with the fucking immoral, unjust propaganda bullshit. And exactly how do you know this information on civilian casualties? Were you there? How do you know it wasn't some Al Queda asshole blowing up a market? If you really want I can go back and find the senate bill that authorized regime change in Iraq, I believe it was passed under Clinton. Like I said check Yons website, if you chose not to then don't post a bunch of unsubstantiated information.
-
I assume everyone has heard about the Patriot Guard Riders? Probably the best form of action against the Westboro christian scum.
They attend funerals of fallen US soldiers and try to shield the memorial from Westboro defacement.
-
I assume everyone has heard about the Patriot Guard Riders? Probably the best form of action against the Westboro christian scum.
They attend funerals of fallen US soldiers and try to memorial memorial from Westboro defacement.
I really wish a retired sniper would take one of these people out from about 500 yards out and no one ever could ever figure out who did it.
-
I really wish a retired sniper would take one of these people out from about 500 yards out and no one ever could ever figure out who did it.
I'm thinking all it would take is one or two... the others would suddenly realize 1. They aren't in that big of a hurry to meet their maker and 2. Maybe homosexuality isn't all that big a deal..
-
A cop buddy of mind said that if someone came from out of state and was 200 yards away and took a dude out and was remotely competent at covering tracks, he would get away with it if they took this dude out like that.
If he rented a car, paid cash for his hotel, food, gas, had a weapon that wasn't traceable to him (Stolen and changed hands several times) recovered the brass, wore booties over his shoes, gloves, didn't smoke or drink anything while laying in wait, got to and from the site unseen, disposed of the rifle unseen and NEVER spoke a word to anyone about it, and NO ONE had any prior knowledge of his intent... he or she would be difficult to catch..
-
First of all you can stop with the fucking immoral, unjust propaganda bullshit. And exactly how do you know this information on civilian casualties? Were you there? How do you know it wasn't some Al Queda asshole blowing up a market? If you really want I can go back and find the senate bill that authorized regime change in Iraq, I believe it was passed under Clinton. Like I said check Yons website, if you chose not to then don't post a bunch of unsubstantiated information.
Thank you.
-
Good summary. I like Ginsburg's question: Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"
High Court Struggles With Military Funerals Case
by NINA TOTENBERG
October 6, 2010
At an emotional argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices struggled with a case testing whether picketers at a military funeral may be sued for inflicting emotional distress on the family of a dead soldier.
The case, Snyder v. Phelps, pits the father of a Marine killed in Iraq against seven religious picketers who demonstrated at the soldier's funeral with signs that read "God hates fags" and "You're going to hell." Though the Marine wasn't gay, the picketers say they were carrying God's message to condemn "sodomite enablers."
The picketers, all members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., traveled with their pastor, Fred Phelps, to Maryland to demonstrate at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who died in Iraq. They have picketed at hundreds of other military funerals in recent years, preaching their message that the casualties of war are God's punishment for society tolerating, and even embracing, homosexuality.
Context
Cpl. Snyder's father, Albert Snyder, sued the picketers for intentional infliction of emotional distress and won a $5 million judgment, but a federal appeals court threw out the award, declaring that even outrageous and offensive opinion is protected by the First Amendment right of free speech.
Inside the courtroom, Snyder's lawyer, Sean Summers, told the justices that "if context ever matters, it matters at a funeral." But some justices pointed out that the picketers had obeyed all police instructions and stood 1,000 feet away from the church. Moreover, they noted that part of Snyder's emotional distress claim involves a derogatory Internet posting that he came across a month after the funeral.
"Suppose there had been no funeral protest, just the Internet posting," asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Would you still have had a claim for damages?"
Summers answered yes, because of the "personal, targeted epithets directed at the Snyder family."
Moreover, he contended that just because the picketers were in compliance with the criminal law does not mean they are immune to lawsuits for civil damages.
Drawing The Line
A Marine's father sued picketers who held objectionable signs at services for his son, other troops.
Justice Stephen Breyer noted that Snyder had not seen the picketers' signs at the funeral, that he only saw the signs when he viewed TV coverage afterward. So, the justice asked, where do we draw the line on when you can sue for damages, and when you can't? It was a refrain heard repeatedly throughout the argument.
Summers repeatedly contended that the private, targeted nature of the speech is what makes it unprotected by the First Amendment.
But Chief Justice John Roberts wondered obliquely whether it was the content of the speech that was objectionable. "So you have no objection to a sign that said get out of Iraq?" Summers replied that he indeed would have no objection to such signs carried by picketers at a funeral.
Justice Scalia pounced on that answer, observing, "So the intrusion upon the privacy of the funeral isn't really what you are complaining about."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor moved back to the line-drawing dilemma asking: If you were a Marine and I went up to you, objecting to the Iraq war, and I said that "you are perpetuating the horrors" of that war, would the Marine have grounds to sue?
Summers first said yes, then no.
Free Speech
Justice Elena Kagan noted that the court has long been protective of even outrageous opinions because to impose damages based on a jury's tastes, likes or dislikes is to undermine the whole idea of free speech. Why, she asked, wouldn't a general statute that simply bars demonstrations within 500 feet of a funeral take care of the problem?
Justice Samuel Alito interjected that a law like that wouldn't bar someone from coming up to Snyder at the funeral and spitting in his face. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg caustically pointed out that "you would have to be a lot closer than the law allows to spit in someone's face."
If Summers, representing Snyder, had a difficult time of it, Margie Phelps, representing the picketers, faced even tougher questioning. Phelps is the daughter of Pastor Phelps, the lead picketer in the case. And the justices threw one hypothetical after another at her.
First Amendment
"Suppose your group or some other group picks a wounded soldier and follows him around, demonstrates at his home, his workplace, at his church," postulated Justice Kagan. Suppose in doing that, they are saying offensive and outrageous things similar to those spouted by the protesters in this case. Does that soldier have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Phelps answered that "any nonspeech activity like stalking, importuning, being confrontational" could indeed justify a damage suit.
Kagan followed up, asking whether there could be a claim for demonstrations, without disruption, at a person's home, workplace or church. Phelps said that in that case, there would be no basis for a lawsuit.
Justice Ginsburg neatly summed up the issue in its most basic terms: "This is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is: Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine's family when you have so many other forums for getting across your message?"
Phelps argued that if demonstrators abide by the law's requirements for time, place and manner of their protest, they know when they are acting legally. The notion of exploitation, however, is so wide open, she said, that it provides "no principle of law to guide people as to when they could or could not" protest.
Publicity
Chief Justice Roberts noted that the protesters here had selected the funeral as a demonstration site to get publicity for their cause. Does that matter, he asked?
No, Phelps said flatly, because every speaker tries to get maximum exposure for his cause.
Taking another tack, Justice Alito observed that the picketers' argument "depends on the proposition that this is speech on a matter of public concern," and he posed yet another hypothetical: What if someone believes that African-Americans are inferior and then berates an African-American on the street with epithets of racial hatred?
While contending that "the issue of race is matter of public concern," Phelps conceded that "approaching an individual up close to berate them gets you out of the zone of [First Amendment] protection."
What Is Appropriate?
Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, seemed to reject Phelps' conception of what constitutes a matter of public concern. "In a pluralistic society," anything can "turn into a public issue," he noted, while at the same time suggesting that can't be enough to justify allowing protesters to follow people around with pickets.
Justice Breyer, citing the right to be let alone, noted the First Amendment does not bar state damage suits when they are appropriate. But what is appropriate?
The justice again said he was "looking for a line."
Phelps replied that "there must be some actual physical sound, sight, intrusion if you are talking about invasion of privacy."
Justice Sotomayor inquired, what is the line between strong opinion on a public issue and personalizing it to create "hardship for an individual?"
That is the question facing the court — and Wednesday's argument gave few hints on how the justices will resolve it. It did appear, though, that some justices who just months ago expanded the right of free speech to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts in candidate elections are looking for a way to limit the rights of picketers at funerals.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130379867
-
First of all you can stop with the fucking immoral, unjust propaganda bullshit. And exactly how do you know this information on civilian casualties? Were you there? How do you know it wasn't some Al Queda asshole blowing up a market? If you really want I can go back and find the senate bill that authorized regime change in Iraq, I believe it was passed under Clinton. Like I said check Yons website, if you chose not to then don't post a bunch of unsubstantiated information.
im not defending democrats you ignorant bastard
we caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people with our immoral fake "war on terror"
bottom line
-
im not defending democrats you ignorant bastard
we caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people with our immoral fake "war on terror"
bottom line
First of all, who is "we" you ignorant fucktard?
Secondly, what does the war on terror have to do with Iraq?
Finally, I recommend that you stop sniffing glue and trolling getbig to find pics of chemically enhanced geriatric females. Clearly, the two or three brain cells that you have left are evaporating.
-
First of all, who is "we" you ignorant fucktard?
Secondly, what does the war on terror have to do with Iraq?
Finally, I recommend that you stop sniffing glue and trolling getbig to find pics of chemically enhanced geriatric females. Clearly, the two or three brain cells that you have left are evaporating.
we the people of the us, the ones responsible for all these innocent deaths..... :-\
face it its hard
-
So the people of the US are responsible for civilian deaths in any country where the US government decides to engage in military action?
You're not too bright are you?
-
US government decides to engage in military action
last time i checked this was a democracy, we the people are the government.
the blood is on our hands face it
-
im not defending democrats you ignorant bastard
we caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people with our immoral fake "war on terror"
bottom line
I mention Clinton because he happened to be POTUS when the bill was passed and that somehow translates into you defending democrats? And you call me an ignorant bastard?
Really? We caused the death of hundreds of thousands, provide proof or shut your pie hole.
And its a "fake" war now? Again provide proof.
-
last time i checked this was a democracy, we the people are the government.
the blood is on our hands face it
Really? Last time I checked we live in a representative republic.
Here's an idea have a fucking clue about the US governmental system.
I thought the public school system sucked, but you have really opened my eye's just how useless it really is.
-
Im starting to suspect this POS is a Muslim or terrorist sympathizing leftist. He is using the same warped logic that terrorists use to excuse killing civilians on purpose.
-
Im starting to suspect this POS is a Muslim or terrorist sympathizing leftist. He is using the same warped logic that terrorists use to excuse killing civilians on purpose.
He's just another clueless lib trying to sound intelligent. And just like Obama uses all vague, lofty language with zero proof to back up his claims.
-
Really? Last time I checked we live in a representative republic.
yep
that's a democratic system you ignorant bastard
hard to face the fact that were personally responsible (you and me) for so many civilian casualties :-\
-
Im starting to suspect this POS is a Muslim or terrorist sympathizing leftist. He is using the same warped logic that terrorists use to excuse killing civilians on purpose.
simmer down now
-
this is logical:
were attacked by saudis yet we invade a country that posed absolutely no threat to us causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process.
thats very moral :-X
-
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
there you go
these innocent civilians would be alive today if not for our invasion of their country.
:-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
let me guess, those are all inaccurate lib sources though.... try and find some way to weasel out of the responsibility, you can't. the blood is on our hands, how christian of us...
-
This is Blackens worst gimmick yet. Sheer stupidity and ignorance personified.
-
Im starting to suspect this POS is a Muslim or terrorist sympathizing leftist. He is using the same warped logic that terrorists use to excuse killing civilians on purpose.
we sure liberated these poor kids.... :-X
(http://www.universalfriends.org/Images/Iraqi-civilian-deaths5.jpeg)
(http://www.uruknet.de/pic.php?f=fallujah15dic.jpeg)
(http://thetruthorthefight.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/dead_iraqi_children.jpg?w=400&h=300)
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s260/Key_To_Zion/Iraq%20War/050723_IraqiCivilians_vlwidec.jpg)
(http://www.truthmove.org/workspace/photos-content/iraqi-civilian-victims.jpg)
(http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/files/summer2007/iraqi_medical.jpg)
-
This is Blackens worst gimmick yet. Sheer stupidity and ignorance personified.
im more inclined to believe you're a gimmick of blacken, you appear to be just as ignorant
-
This is Blackens worst gimmick yet. Sheer stupidity and ignorance personified.
I like how he tries to sound intelligent while having the grammatical skills of a fourth grader. Then again, hiding your posting style through grammatical errors and misspellings is the mark of a shitty gimmick.
A sad, uneducated and very boring gimmick.
-
I like how he tries to sound intelligent while having the grammatical skills of a fourth grader. Then again, hiding your posting style through grammatical errors and misspellings is the mark of a shitty gimmick.
A sad, uneducated and very boring gimmick.
can't attack the message so attack the messenger
-
can't attack the message so attack the messenger
I stopped reading the majority of your posts last week. Only reason I read the one above is because I saw you quoted me.