Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UK bans UK anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
anakie Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-09 11:46 PM
Original message
UK bans UK anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church
Source: The Australian

BRITAIN has barred entry to two members of a US church for inciting hatred against gays and others, the government said on the eve of a planned protest by the radical group.

The Westboro Baptist Church, based in Kansas, has been planning to stage a protest against a play being put on by a gay youth group in southeast England.

But the Home Office, Britain's interior ministry, said Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper have been told they cannot travel to Britain because of their views.

.........

'God hates Australia'

On Monday, Westboro Baptist Church announced that God sent the bushfires to Victoria to kill the sinners and that church members would picket the national day of mourning.







Read more: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,2508...



Good on the UK; and their views are not welcome in Australia either. Narrow minded bigots they are.


Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great news . . . and we need more nations to join in to STOP ...
religious whackos from "inciting hatred against gays and others" --

and that includes from the pulpits, as well ---

If you hear it, turn your back to the pulpit--!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. Now if we could just get them to ban Ahmadinejad
Hopefully he won't be coming back to the US anytime soon to spew his hatred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. can we set him and his peeps afloat in a boat --
and never let them land?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Shame we don't ban them here...
They incite violence here as well. I am one of those who believes strongly in the First Amendment. To a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. Strongly, to a point? At what point do they get to turn off your right
to free speech?

I'd be curious to know what harm you think they're doing. If they offend you, do what everyone else does and ignore them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. I have mixed feelings about banning their hate speech, but I know exactly what harm
it does. Rick Warren's, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. What is the harm?
They expose homophobic bigotry for what it is: insane, illogical ranting.

Do you see a movement forming around them, or people distancing themselves from Westboro Baptist? If you were the parent of a slain soldier in Iraq who had some prejudices against homosexuality and they picketed your son's funeral, would you be more or less likely to buy their line about homosexuality as a sin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. What is the harm? Hate crimes against gays, families shunning their gay relatives bc they are
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 10:58 AM by No Elephants
an abomination to God, these particular nuts causing grief to families of fallen heroes as they try to bury them, disrupting schools, suicides by shamed gay teens and adults, etc. Not to mention corrosion of their own souls and spirits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I don't know of any hate crimes which have been inspired by
WBC, or any families that are falling in line. WBC makes it very easy and obvious to hate homophobia.

Let's be honest - no gay teen has ever been shamed or committed suicide based on the lunacy of WBC. As far as the "corrosion of their own souls and spirits" that's a fait accompli.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Because whenever someone commits a hate crime against gays or a gay gets shamed, you
know exactly what contributed to it?

What gives this group the right to show up at a middle school in Massachusetts and create a scene over a composition, simply because the composition did not condemn gays?

And you are limiting this to Phelps' group and to murder and suicide. British laws are not so limited. Neither are hate speech laws. Neither was my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. What gives them the right is the First Amendment
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 01:03 PM by wtmusic
and just because you find what they say offensive doesn't take that right away.

No one has killed themself because of A1, and A1 is not responsible for any particular opinion. Selectively nullifying it in someone else's case allows them to selectively nullify it for you.

I can't believe I have to explain this. Did you ever have a civics class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Where do I begin? First, my discussion with you was about the harm
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 01:49 PM by No Elephants
hate speech causes, not whether or not there is a rightto engage in hate speech. Having flailed around with your harm arguments, you not only moved the goal post, you took it off the field and substituted a tennis net, namely "rights" to hate speech.


Since you did bring up the First Amendment clear out of left field, though, there's just nothing like just assuming the conclusion you'd like to reach, is there?

Whether or not restrictions on hate speech violate the First Amendment is far from the settled issue you assume and/or try to imply it is. If you really knew anything about the First Amendment, except the bare fact that it exists (duh), you'd realize that it is a much more complex issue. And, of course, the issue has nothing to do with what you or I find offensive. Talk about a straw man!



"No one has killed themself because of A1, and A1 is not responsible for any particular opinion. Selectively nullifying it in someone else's case allows them to selectively nullify it for you."



Um, what? I'm not like Adlai Stevenson. I'm willing to wait for the translation.




"I can't believe I have to explain this. Did you ever have a civics class?"




You actually think that you "explained" anything?

As far as my being cognizant of the First Amendment, my very first post on this said that I had mixed feeelings about restricting hate speech, but I had no doubt that it caused harm. What do you think caused my mixed feelings about restricting hate speech, if not the First Amendment? Besides, you had already posted on that to someone else. However, again, the discussion between you and me as not about alleged rights to hate speech, but about whether hate speech causes any harm.

A civics class? Taught by whom? A high school teacher who probably majored in history and never took a law course taught by a law prof in his or her life? I've posted with a couple of those and they had a lot of wrong notions about the Constitution. Worse, they were very sure they did know it all and therefore did not even know enough to do any research. Pitiful.

Finally, anyone who cannot understand, without explanation, that homophobic hate speech harms people in general and gays in particular, or that spewing homophobic hate speech at middle schools and funerals also causes harm is in no position to be arrogant about what explanations anyone else may or may not need. So, take it elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. "Mixed feelings about restricting hate speech" means
you would consider removing someone's right to it, doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. That was our initial discussion, so who's moving goalposts now?

It may be that homophobic hate speech is offensive and in that context "harms" gays, but there is nothing legally we can do about it. The approach has to be through activism and support of gay marriage and gay rights - not removing the rights of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. "Mixed feelings about restricting hate speech" means
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 02:49 PM by No Elephants
you would consider removing someone's right to it, doesn't it?"

No, but you are taking my statement totally out of context. Your penultimate post to me claimed I was unaware of the First Amendment and therefore needed you to inform me of its existence. I pointed to my remark about mixed feeling to illustrate that I indeed knew of the existence of the First Amendment without your instruction. If I were not a defender of the first amendment, there would be zero reason for mixed feelings about hate speech. I have no innate love of hate speech that would result in mixed feelings.

"It may be that homophobic hate speech is offensive and in that context "harms" gays, but there is nothing legally we can do about it. The approach has to be through activism and support of gay marriage and gay rights - not removing the rights of others.


Again, you are assuming the conclusion in a complex and unsettled area. Legal scholars have made arguments and analysis of prior cases on both sides of the issue, but the SCOTUS has not yet addressed this issue. When the SCOTUS decides a case challenging a restriction on hate speech, we'll all know what the law of the land on that particular point is.

Until then, your belief that hate speech is 100% protected by the First Amendment is your assumption and your opinion, nothing more and nothing less. It is not so simply bc you claim it to be so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Hate speech is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment.
This is not a matter of my opinion. It has been reaffirmed in many cases:

"American Booksellers involved a First Amendment challenge to an Indianapolis civil rights ordinance that made it a crime to distribute materials that depicted women as "sexual objects for domination, conquest, or use." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the ordinance calling it "thought control." The Court ruled that the First Amendment gives government no power to establish "approved views" of various subgroups of the population."

<>

R. A. V. considered a challenge to a St. Paul ordinance punishing the placement of certain symbols that were "likely to arouse anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race, religion, or gender." Robert Victoria, a teenager, had been convicted of violating the ordinance after having been found to have burned a cross on the yard of a black family. The Court, in an an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed R. A. V.'s conviction on the ground that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized some hurtful expression (specifically that aimed at racial and religious minorites) and not other hurtful expression (that aimed at other unprotected groups) based on the political preferences of legislators. Scalia makes clear that "fighting words" is not, as Chaplinsky had suggested, a category of speech that is wholly outside of First Amendment protection."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw...

Unless you're prepared to argue that gays deserve protection from hate speech and African-Americans don't, the issue is settled.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. No, the issue is not settled. You have not looked at the cases cited in that article very
carefully. In fact, you have not read the article very carefully.

Candidly, I really don't have an interest in discussing the First Amendment with people who are not lawyeers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Ok, you run along and talk to some lawyers.
When you get all lawyered up please come back and straighten me out. You seem to think that merely claiming I didn't read my sources constitutes a rebuttal.

Whatever. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Telling you you did not read your source carefully was simply a statement of fact. That was
obvious from your post. It was not a rebuttal. I did not attempt a rebuttal for the reason I stated, namely, I have no interest in discussing the First Amendment with anyone but lawyers. That's why I tried to confine my participation in this to your statement about absence of harm.

Lawyers have studiedy how judges decide cases for a minimum of three years and Constitutional Law in particular for a minimum of one year. And that's before they set foot out of law school. Most others think they know everything about Constitutional just because they've heard of the Consttution. It doesn't work that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. "Candidly, I really don't have an interest in discussing the First Amendment with people who are not
lawyers."

I trust you didn't mean that as it sounded. We don't restrict our discussions of the economy to economists, of Iraq and Afghanistan to military specialists, etc.

You have the right to not discuss anything with anyone you don't wish to discuss it with (part of the First Amendment, no?). DU could grind to a halt if we have to prove our credentials before our opinions are considered as worth discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. I meant what i said, but i spoke only for myself. Not sure where you
think we disagree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnie624 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. Ugh!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. Two points
Firstly, this is in the UK. The US constitution does not apply to us. Not that we don't value free speech; but we don't have a 'first amendment' as such.

Secondly, 'free speech' laws generally only apply to citizens of a country, not to would-be tourists and visitors. As long as there are borders, countries have a right to exclude anyone whom they choose from visiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
48. nah , the best way to combat these idiots
is to show up wherever they are and block them and their signs from view with others signs and other people. just make their efforts pointless and useless. they actually give up pretty easily from what ive seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
55. How can we ban someone who already lives here?
I don't understand what you are getting at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Fred is a British subject?
Well, his church out to be removed for being an illegal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. no he isn't, I think the article title is a typo n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anakie Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. definately a typo
Went back to check the article and they did get it wrong. Funny that it took that long to notice, I didn't.


Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hmmm....
"Reporting the British ban on its website, the US church added: "God Hates the UK - Land of the Sodomite Damned".


:rofl:

That's a catchy title. Maybe we should use it for tourism purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. It'd make a good movie title...
for a documentary focusing on successful British social programs. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. I'd go for that
I'd like to see it on Pound Sterling notes and coins. I propose it as a national motto.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland- "Land of the Sodomite Damned"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. LOL! We should change ours to
"In God We Rust"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
7. They should be banned from this country
They abuse the freedom of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Cool...who gets to decide what's abusive? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Me.
That's who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Welcome to DU, W!
:spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annarbor Donating Member (543 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I've seen them in action Bluestateguy
And I'm in complete agreement with you on this one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. You'd appoint BSG as Royal Arbiter of What's Offensive?
:rofl:

This is fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Does this mean that we can choose someone whom BSG does not get to listen
to, because we have deemed this person offensive.

That's an interesting idea. Royal Arbiter of What's Offensive for a day! We all get to choose one person that we can prevent other people from listening to. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
42. I've seen 'em in action, too. I just walked by on the other side of the street.
No harm done.

The 1st Amendment is for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
9. What we've got to do is convice any countries to WAIT to ban their visit UNTIL THEY LEAVE THE USA...
then, the US AND the country they were traveling to can ban them SIMULTANEOUSLY, then they'd have to spend the rest of their lives on a fucking boat in the middle of some ocean somewhere and WE CAN BE RID IF THEM!!!

pass it along...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
47of74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
10. To Her Majesty's Government
To Her Majesty's Government I offer my own personal thumbs up for taking a stand against hatred;

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RyanClark Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. UK bans UK anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church
As someone who has had the 'privilege' to see this group in action live (I don't live terribly far from Topeka), I can say Britain's interior ministry has done their people a great favor in keeping these insane people out of their country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. The UK banned a Dutch anti-Muslim legislator a couple of weeks ago, too.
These two would be pretty high on my list of people whom I would not want to hear from. I do not know much of the UK's history of banning foreigners with unpopular views, but the idea of the government deciding whom I can listen to and whom I can't is a little creepy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. It's not unpopular views
It's views that are likely to inspire violence that are disallowed. Rev Wright would be perfectly acceptable, David Duke would not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Reverend King's views could easily be considered in that light.
You are on a slippery slope, my friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
49. We don't seem to be sliding on it though
This has been exactly the same for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. That's a tough call.
Someone can rile people up by pointing out perceived or real injustices that target specific ethnic, racial, or religious groups. Would that person have to specifically advocate violence to be barred from the country? Or would the prospect that some wacko would take the message and become violent or that the reaction against the message might become violent be enough to keep the speaker out?

AFAIK, there is not public input in the UK on the decision on whom to admit and whom to bar. Absent that I'm not sure I want my government deciding what is in my best interest as far as what I can listen to and what is inappropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #25
50. Yeah, it is
Based on the court decisions that have already been held (note: Phelps can challenge the decision in court if he chooses), it amounts to the "reasonable man" test i.e. would the archetypal (and theoretical) "reasonable man" conclude that the speaker was encouraging violence?

Public input: Depends what you mean. There's isn't an official public forum. However, anyone can write to the MP, many do (I correspond with our MP on occasion) and any decision maker would be very foolish to ignore those opinions.

As for the state deciding who can and cannot speak: The state has always done this, even yours. Remember, Phelps is not a British citizen and therefore, the protections of the British Constitution (yes, we do have one) do not apply to him. Between entry/exit visas, D-notices (or "national security" in your own country) and the old boy network, states have always made decisions about which foreign nationals can and cannot speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
43. There are those who would accuse Rev. Wright of hate speech.
But you'd allow him. See, that's why we all have the 1st Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Little smug there
First off, we have the right to free speech too, subject to a few limits (of the "shouting fire in a theatre" variety) but Phelps is not a British citizen and therefore, the British Constitution doesn't apply to him (yes, we do have a constitution and unlike your own, ours explicitely says "citizens"). Contrary to popular belief, we are not yet the 51st state.

Secondly, states have always excercised control over whether foreign nationals can speak.

Thirdly, PATRIOT Act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
30. The US didn't provide a visa for Cat Stevens for reasons of "national security"
Edited on Fri Feb-20-09 01:09 PM by wtmusic
which of course was a sham. He was a popular singer who had converted to Islam and the US government didn't want his opinion.

Many ways to skin a Cat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dorian Gray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
27. I wish he was banned in the USA too
He's a hateful man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
40. One of these days Phelps will be caught at a rest stop, in a daisy chain
Mark my words!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
47. The world is not interested in hearing their hate parada propaganda
Are these clowns now on a "We hate the world" tour?!

fuckin idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-21-09 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
54. Every time I think Phelps has hit rock bottom, he and his friends find a new low. Ugh. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 17th 2019, 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC