QueenZone discussion #923809

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: But this just sounds like harassing people, with the real possibility of emotional damage (especially to kids).

<font color =BrianJM> RollingBowieQueen wrote: I just hope that when she does die she gets whats coming to her by her standards,(ie God kicks her out of that Golden Gate and down to hell. And with any luck, Freddie will be looking down on her and sniggering)

<font color =BrianJM> RollingBowieQueen wrote: I just don't understand these homophobes. But I do think Tyra and the Fox people are going about her in the wrong way. If you tell someone like her that she's pathetic, evil, mean, nasty piece of work etc. then they'll get a skewed kind of satisfaction out of saying 'Yes, see? I told you, we are being stifled, cut off. You're all so short-sighted that you can't see what's right in front of you...' and so on.

<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: When I heard that her church wanted to picket the funeral of all those young Amish girls that were brutally murdered, I was filled with so much disgust and anger. They were calling them whores and saying that it was good that they had died because of what they would become. From their perspective, everyone is going to hell except for them. I wonder what God thinks of their hate and wrathful acts towards others? I think they are all misinformed and are very disturbed.

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote:

<font color =BrianJM> RollingBowieQueen wrote: I just hope that when she does die she gets whats coming to her by her standards,(ie God kicks her out of that Golden Gate and down to hell. And with any luck, Freddie will be looking down on her and sniggering)

To be honest, though I'm mimbly-wimbly on the idea of "God" - I would hope that he would forgive this woman, too. From what I've heard about this "Hell" place, no one deserves to go there and suffer for eternity.

<Font Color=Carrot> EARWAX!?! wrote: She Deserves it

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: They are very forceful and frustrated with their message because it is rejected by everyone else. It is very believable that they are terrorized just as much, if not more, than they do to others.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: They are very forceful and frustrated with their message because it is rejected by everyone else. It is very believable that they are terrorized just as much, if not more, than they do to others.

They're terrorized? Do you mean because they believe they have to do this in order to get to heaven? And if they don't spread the world they're sinning like the rest of the world? It does make sense when put that way - it's like seeing the pictures of tiny Palestinian children wearing suicide belts. It's what they know, so it's who they'll be. BUT, these are people with higher educations - they're lawyers - their careers depend on the power of persuasion. Surely they must know the way to influence others is not through harassment but through dialogue. There seems to be more to this than a goal of spreading the word of god and saving the world. Though if it isn't that, I can't figure out what it is.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: In the Tyra interview, she explicitly stated that they have had property destroyed, etc., by others outraged by their actions, which is very believable. I hope you read my entire post, as it has some very insightful points for someone trying to see the situation from another perspective.

Sparrow wrote: excuse the lack of punctuation but shes disgusting. its like watching andrea yates get off death row for killing her children. this is what makes me so angry about my country that we allow these people to get away with so much. she should be in jail, but tahts my opinion. *awaits slaughter*

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Excellent points, both of you! I only wish I was around to get into this debate, since it seems to be over.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: ...Well, book smarts aren't hard to have...in fact I think they are the easiest type of get, all you have to do is read the books and memorize the stuff you need. Hitler had book smarts, and so does this family. That doesn't make them smart by any stretch of the imagination; they are too wrapped up in their own hate and self-righteousness to see that their actions are hurting people. The older members of the family don't give a crap, because they have a victimhood mentality...everyone is against them, so it's ok to lash out and hurt people.

Sparrow wrote: excuse the lack of punctuation but shes disgusting. its like watching andrea yates get off death row for killing her children. this is what makes me so angry about my country that we allow these people to get away with so much. she should be in jail, but tahts my opinion.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Sparrow wrote: excuse the lack of punctuation but shes disgusting. its like watching andrea yates get off death row for killing her children. this is what makes me so angry about my country that we allow these people to get away with so much. she should be in jail, but tahts my opinion. *awaits slaughter*

Andrea Yates is a completely different story. She'd been on medication and then her doctor suddenly and radically altered her dosage just days before the murders. This woman, this Phelps-Roper, however, isn't medicated and hasn't broken the law. That's the point I keep trying to make because that's what bugs me about this. They know how to manipulate people and events without stepping outside the law. As infuriating as their actions are, they cannot be stopped legally because they're not doing anything illegal.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Excellent points, both of you! I only wish I was around to get into this debate, since it seems to be over.

It seems the debate is not over after all. ;-)

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: ...Well, book smarts aren't hard to have...in fact I think they are the easiest type of get, all you have to do is read the books and memorize the stuff you need. Hitler had book smarts, and so does this family. That doesn't make them smart by any stretch of the imagination; they are too wrapped up in their own hate and self-righteousness to see that their actions are hurting people. The older members of the family don't give a crap, because they have a victimhood mentality...everyone is against them, so it's ok to lash out and hurt people.

You're right, but I wonder if the younger ones really fail to see how their actions hurt people. The daughters - at least the older one - seemed to get off on that the way her mother does. They also seem to enjoy having the last word after a battle of name-calling and raised voices. They know they're not changing anyone's mind or opinion, they're just there to shout the loudest. At least, that's how it seems to me. So, what happened? The patriarch of the family (who is now dead and buried, I believe) decides homosexuality is disgusting and so turns to scripture to 'prove' how vile "fags" are? He warps passages in the bible to fit his needs and spreads the word - along with hatred and vehemence - to his children (many of whom, btw, are estranged from the family due to their beliefs and actions). They become so absorbed in their hatred and their need to prove their opinions as fact, that they screech and preach until they get the obvious reactions, which only proves to them that they've been right all along - American is doomed because her people won't bow to their 'raging mad god'. They win either way. You agree and they will have saved you. You fight and they see how many sinners there truly are, as well as how much more 'work' they have to do. Who marries these people? I guess we can only hope they frown on inbreeding and slowly (quickly?) die out.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Sparrow wrote: excuse the lack of punctuation but shes disgusting. its like watching andrea yates get off death row for killing her children. this is what makes me so angry about my country that we allow these people to get away with so much. she should be in jail, but tahts my opinion. *awaits slaughter*

Andrea Yates is a completely different story. She'd been on medication and then her doctor suddenly and radically altered her dosage just days before the murders. This woman, this Phelps-Roper, however, isn't medicated and hasn't broken the law. That's the point I keep trying to make because that's what bugs me about this. They know how to manipulate people and events without stepping outside the law. As infuriating as their actions are, they cannot be stopped legally because they're not doing anything illegal.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Excellent points, both of you! I only wish I was around to get into this debate, since it seems to be over.

It seems the debate is not over after all. ;-)

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: ...Well, book smarts aren't hard to have...in fact I think they are the easiest type of get, all you have to do is read the books and memorize the stuff you need. Hitler had book smarts, and so does this family. That doesn't make them smart by any stretch of the imagination; they are too wrapped up in their own hate and self-righteousness to see that their actions are hurting people. The older members of the family don't give a crap, because they have a victimhood mentality...everyone is against them, so it's ok to lash out and hurt people.

You're right, but I wonder if the younger ones really fail to see how their actions hurt people. The daughters - at least the older one - seemed to get off on that the way her mother does. They also seem to enjoy having the last word after a battle of name-calling and raised voices. They know they're not changing anyone's mind or opinion, they're just there to shout the loudest. At least, that's how it seems to me. So, what happened? The patriarch of the family (who is now dead and buried, I believe) decides homosexuality is disgusting and so turns to scripture to 'prove' how vile "fags" are? He warps passages in the bible to fit his needs and spreads the word - along with hatred and vehemence - to his children (many of whom, btw, are estranged from the family due to their beliefs and actions). They become so absorbed in their hatred and their need to prove their opinions as fact, that they screech and preach until they get the obvious reactions, which only proves to them that they've been right all along - American is doomed because her people won't bow to their 'raging mad god'. They win either way. You agree and they will have saved you. You fight and they see how many sinners there truly are, as well as how much more 'work' they have to do. Who marries these people? I guess we can only hope they frown on inbreeding and slowly (quickly?) die out.

Yay! I love a debate! (as most people around here know).
The younger kids? They are brainwashed. I don't think they see. The adults don't see the pain they are causing because they don't want to see it. The little kids don't see it because they are sheltered from it, put into the reality their family thinks they should see, and before they see the real outside world in all its glory, they are told how to view it...a filter is put in place before they even get a chance to see anything that could make them question their beliefs.
They are raised as very young children to believe what their parents tell them (we are all that way, but most of us had decent parents), reality is nothing more than perception. Before they get out into the &qu

YourValentine wrote: I have a question: why is it legal in the USA to disturb a funeral? Aren't there any laws to regulate public demonstrations? In Germany you need to notify the authorities if you hold a public demonstration and if the peace is going to be disturbed you won't get permission to do this demonstration. You can go to court and ask the court to overrule the city council decision (which happens very often when Nazi -like organisations want to do a demonstration)but I cannot imagine that a court would allow a religious or allegedly religious group to spread their hate messages near a funeral.

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I totally support these people's rights to be hateful and obnoxious. After all, they would probably find me to be hateful and obnoxious and just because (I hope) the majority of people are appalled at their "message" doesn't mean their right to say it should be taken away. The rights of a minority should be protected, even if they're doing something "hateful". After all, "gay rights" apply directly to a "minority" that, from what I can tell - the majority does not "approve of" or finds "disgusting".

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I totally support these people's rights to be hateful and obnoxious. After all, they would probably find me to be hateful and obnoxious and just because (I hope) the majority of people are appalled at their "message" doesn't mean their right to say it should be taken away. The rights of a minority should be protected, even if they're doing something "hateful". After all, "gay rights" apply directly to a "minority" that, from what I can tell - the majority does not "approve of" or finds "disgusting".

I totally agree with Charlie here. There's nothing more dangerous than the tyranny of the majority. Reasonable exceptions always lead to unreasonable exceptions, so it's best to not make any exceptions at all.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

<font color=red>The Audacity of Charles wrote: I totally support these people's rights to be hateful and obnoxious. After all, they would probably find me to be hateful and obnoxious and just because (I hope) the majority of people are appalled at their "message" doesn't mean their right to say it should be taken away. The rights of a minority should be protected, even if they're doing something "hateful". After all, "gay rights" apply directly to a "minority" that, from what I can tell - the majority does not "approve of" or finds "disgusting".

I totally agree with Charlie here. There's nothing more dangerous than the tyranny of the majority. Reasonable exceptions always lead to unreasonable exceptions, so it's best to not make any exceptions at all.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: I don't necessarily think that's a double standard, Sparrow. I also hate hypocrisy and double standards...but there is a limit. Think, do, say whatever you want. I don't care. But as soon as you cause pain or grief to someone else...that's where the line is. Because at that point it's not about freedom of anything anymore...you've hurt another person, and you never have the right to do that.

Mr.Jingles wrote: WOW, this woman is such a crazy bitch that she just made Tyra Banks a likeable person.

Mr.Jingles wrote: ...I'd still do Tyra

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: ...I'd still do Tyra

^ **rolls eyes at Dan** Typical guy

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

YourValentine wrote: I have a question: why is it legal in the USA to disturb a funeral? Aren't there any laws to regulate public demonstrations? In Germany you need to notify the authorities if you hold a public demonstration and if the peace is going to be disturbed you won't get permission to do this demonstration. You can go to court and ask the court to overrule the city council decision (which happens very often when Nazi -like organisations want to do a demonstration)but I cannot imagine that a court would allow a religious or allegedly religious group to spread their hate messages near a funeral.

Hey Barb, interesting question actually. In the US, it tends to go that we don't get laws passed against things until they happen and we realize a law is needed....we don't tend to think about the what if's too much. So I don't think anyone ever thought that anyone would disturb a funeral and that laws should be passed to ban it, until this stuff started happening.

¼Microwave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

YourValentine wrote: I have a question: why is it legal in the USA to disturb a funeral? Aren't there any laws to regulate public demonstrations? In Germany you need to notify the authorities if you hold a public demonstration and if the peace is going to be disturbed you won't get permission to do this demonstration. You can go to court and ask the court to overrule the city council decision (which happens very often when Nazi -like organisations want to do a demonstration)but I cannot imagine that a court would allow a religious or allegedly religious group to spread their hate messages near a funeral.

Hey Barb, interesting question actually. In the US, it tends to go that we don't get laws passed against things until they happen and we realize a law is needed....we don't tend to think about the what if's too much. So I don't think anyone ever thought that anyone would disturb a funeral and that laws should be passed to ban it, until this stuff started happening.

May I chime in? Excellent answer CMU. Yes, in America every citizen is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's an actual written law. To assume that this only happens in the US, sounds a bit jaded, Barb. You asked why it was legal? It's not. For something to be "legal" doesn't it have to be approved by someone? There's no law in America that says "You may go to funerals and piss on graves".

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: ...I'd still do Tyra

^ **rolls eyes at Dan** Typical guy

It's funny, there's the Tyra clip with four women arguing about god, sin, anger and righteousness... and then there's Dan, sinfully lusting over the "fag-enabler" in the group. Sheesh, Dan. Didn't you HEAR their message?! Don't you get it? Your thoughts have now pissed off an already raging mad god!!! Heavens above, I wonder what kind of pestilence will be unleashed upon us now. America is doomed, and all because of Mr. Jingles. Nice going...

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Although that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness thing" is in the Constitution, which isn't actually a law. It's the document that forms the basis that our laws are anchored on, but it's not actually law in and of itself. Kind of a moot point though.

¼Microwave wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Although that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness thing" is in the Constitution, which isn't actually a law. It's the document that forms the basis that our laws are anchored on, but it's not actually law in and of itself. Kind of a moot point though.

Well, actually the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land". So I think it is actually a law, the first one. No other country has that. A document that actually guarantees the rights of the people and not the government.

¼Microwave wrote: No other country has that. A document that actually guarantees the rights of the people and not the government.

¼Microwave wrote: Since common law varies from state to state, I wasn't referring to that.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Since common law varies from state to state, I wasn't referring to that.

State common law varies from state to state. Federal common law does not. Common law is pretty much any law which derives from the Judicial branch of the government.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: ...I'd still do Tyra

^ **rolls eyes at Dan** Typical guy

It's funny, there's the Tyra clip with four women arguing about god, sin, anger and righteousness... and then there's Dan, sinfully lusting over the "fag-enabler" in the group. Sheesh, Dan. Didn't you HEAR their message?! Don't you get it? Your thoughts have now pissed off an already raging mad god!!! Heavens above, I wonder what kind of pestilence will be unleashed upon us now. America is doomed, and all because of Mr. Jingles. Nice going...

**laughes** It's ok MagicalFreddieMercury...this is just Dan. We have to remember that he's a member of the male species, and therefore thinks with the brain that isn't in his head most of the time. :-) Besides, according to this group we were already doomed to go to hell anyway, so no harm no foul. It's gunna be a hell of a party down there though...pun intended

Donna13 wrote: "Sex drive doesn't work only on men. There's a ton of girls who would (or at least consider) banging Johnny Depp if they were given the chance." With or without his pirate costume?

Mr.Jingles wrote: pirate outfits, gold teeth, and talking like Keith Richards.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Of course none of them want to admit it.

¼Microwave wrote: I didn't know they had Federal common law. I wonder what that covers...

Donna13 wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Since common law varies from state to state, I wasn't referring to that.

State common law varies from state to state. Federal common law does not. Common law is pretty much any law which derives from the Judicial branch of the government.

Only one correction (or addition), Music Man: some government agencies are under the control of Congress, therefore they are considered legislative agencies (I think that is the term - I forget) as opposed to agencies under the control of the Executive branch. They can do all the rule making they want, but if they start getting outside what Congress or the Executive branch intended for their purpose they can be corrected. Are you studying law?

Mr.Jingles wrote:

Donna13 wrote: "Sex drive doesn't work only on men. There's a ton of girls who would (or at least consider) banging Johnny Depp if they were given the chance." With or without his pirate costume?

Either way... Whatever turns you girls on the most, but I can see that there's a strong fetish for pirate outfits, gold teeth, and talking like Keith Richards.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Donna13 wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

¼Microwave wrote: Since common law varies from state to state, I wasn't referring to that.

State common law varies from state to state. Federal common law does not. Common law is pretty much any law which derives from the Judicial branch of the government.

Only one correction (or addition), Music Man: some government agencies are under the control of Congress, therefore they are considered legislative agencies (I think that is the term - I forget) as opposed to agencies under the control of the Executive branch. They can do all the rule making they want, but if they start getting outside what Congress or the Executive branch intended for their purpose they can be corrected. Are you studying law?

I was only vaguely familiar with this, but I did want to stress that under the US Constitution, each branch of government provides its own source of law. I am not studying law, but legal philosophy is quite interesting, yes? I may study law in the future, but right now I am a mere undergraduate college student.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: And I'm fairly certain that Johnny Depp's role in Edward Scissorhands is what launched his status as a sex symbol.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: And I'm fairly certain that Johnny Depp's role in Edward Scissorhands is what launched his status as a sex symbol.

He was actually a sex symbol before then, when '21st Jump Street' became one of the most popular shows on TV. I remember one of my sister's friends had this giant Johnny Depp poster on her wall.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: But speaking of Johnny Depp, I loved Cry-Baby, even though I always get a lot of blank stares when I mention it.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: This woman, this Phelps-Roper, however, isn't medicated