In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2013 12:26 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:04:05 -0400, Hank© wrote:

On 4/22/2013 10:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Teamsters gather outside Medford church to shield Krystle M. Campbell?s
funeral Mass from possible Westboro Baptist Church protesters


MEDFORD - Some 200 members of Teamsters Local 25 members began gathering
at St. Joseph?s Church before 8 a.m. today, promising to block
protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church if they follow through on a
threat to picket the funeral of Krystle M. Campbell, who died in the
Boston Marathon bombings.

Campbell?s funeral Mass is set for 11 a.m., a week after the bombings.

Sean O?Brien, president and principal officer of Teamster?s local, said
the community reached out to the Teamsters yesterday ?because they know
how influential we are.?

?It?s the right thing to do,? O?Brien said of the decision to protect
the funeral. ?The family deserves a peaceful grieving process that?s
free from any coward-led group.?

O?Brien said the Teamsters mobilized their members and other unions
through Twitter and Facebook yesterday. He added that about 350
Teamsters are expected this morning, ?and we can get 1,000 if we need
them.?

The Westboro church is a fringe religious organization whose members
stage protests at high-profile funeral services to draw attention to
their views. At 9:30 a.m., no church members were visible in the crowd
growing around the church. The service is set for 11 a.m. today.

On Sunday, about 1,000 mourners attended Campbell?s wake at the Dello
Russo funeral home here.

A funeral director said that among those who came to pay their respects
were US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Representative Edward Markey,
Attorney General Martha Coakley, Medford Mayor Michael McGlynn, and
Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone.

Mourners waited in a line that sometimes lasted nearly an hour and a
half to file by photo displays chronicling Campbell?s life from when she
was a baby through her childhood and teen years to when she was an adult.

Through all the photos, her smile and freckles were ever-present.

Campbell was one of three people murdered during the April 15 terrorist
bombing that also wounded more than 170, some of whom lost legs or other
limbs from the shrapnel the bomb makers put inside their explosives,
officials said.

http://tinyurl.com/bw5k8w3

- - - - -

In the good old days, the Teamsters would have beaten the Westboro
assholes to a pulp.

Wouldn't you know that wherever there is potential for violence, the
unions are drawn like flies on ****.

Wonder where the union folks were during the funerals for the soldiers killed in Iraq?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


There was nothing for them there... They are only doing this to glom
onto the Boston families thing.. Kind of like harry and jps rubbing
blood on their ****s every time somebody dies with a gun. It's all for
the photo op, after all, the WBC has been kept in check by HA and Vets
for years now...

Holy crap, talk about insane babbling!!!!

In article ,
says...

On Monday, 22 April 2013 17:44:57 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 4/22/2013 12:26 PM, J Herring wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:04:05 -0400, Hank© wrote:



On 4/22/2013 10:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Teamsters gather outside Medford church to shield Krystle M. Campbell?s

funeral Mass from possible Westboro Baptist Church protesters





MEDFORD - Some 200 members of Teamsters Local 25 members began gathering

at St. Joseph?s Church before 8 a.m. today, promising to block

protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church if they follow through on a

threat to picket the funeral of Krystle M. Campbell, who died in the

Boston Marathon bombings.



Campbell?s funeral Mass is set for 11 a.m., a week after the bombings.



Sean O?Brien, president and principal officer of Teamster?s local, said

the community reached out to the Teamsters yesterday ?because they know

how influential we are.?



?It?s the right thing to do,? O?Brien said of the decision to protect

the funeral. ?The family deserves a peaceful grieving process that?s

free from any coward-led group.?



O?Brien said the Teamsters mobilized their members and other unions

through Twitter and Facebook yesterday. He added that about 350

Teamsters are expected this morning, ?and we can get 1,000 if we need

them.?



The Westboro church is a fringe religious organization whose members

stage protests at high-profile funeral services to draw attention to

their views. At 9:30 a.m., no church members were visible in the crowd

growing around the church. The service is set for 11 a.m. today.



On Sunday, about 1,000 mourners attended Campbell?s wake at the Dello

Russo funeral home here.



A funeral director said that among those who came to pay their respects

were US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Representative Edward Markey,

Attorney General Martha Coakley, Medford Mayor Michael McGlynn, and

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone.



Mourners waited in a line that sometimes lasted nearly an hour and a

half to file by photo displays chronicling Campbell?s life from when she

was a baby through her childhood and teen years to when she was an adult.



Through all the photos, her smile and freckles were ever-present.



Campbell was one of three people murdered during the April 15 terrorist

bombing that also wounded more than 170, some of whom lost legs or other

limbs from the shrapnel the bomb makers put inside their explosives,

officials said.



http://tinyurl.com/bw5k8w3



- - - - -



In the good old days, the Teamsters would have beaten the Westboro

assholes to a pulp.



Wouldn't you know that wherever there is potential for violence, the

unions are drawn like flies on ****.



Wonder where the union folks were during the funerals for the soldiers killed in Iraq?





Salmonbait



--

'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.





There was nothing for them there... They are only doing this to glom

onto the Boston families thing.. Kind of like harry and jps rubbing

blood on their ****s every time somebody dies with a gun. It's all for

the photo op, after all, the WBC has been kept in check by HA and Vets

for years now...


You really are crazy as a bedbug.

Just now figuring that out??

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

In article ,
says...

On 4/22/2013 5:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?


Yes, harry is one of those... Just like WBC...

Do you not support someone's, anyone's constitutional rights?

On 4/23/13 8:39 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:20:32 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/22/13 12:15 PM, True North wrote:
Looks to me like these unions are prepared to offer the family a decent time for burial and grieving.
They should be considered heros.


Most of the righties here probably support the Westboro boys because,
well, because they are christians.

Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?


It is Constitutional to peacefully protest any government action, but I
think it is disgusting, even though it is legal, to protest at the
funeral of a soldier killed in action.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

You left out some VERY important words. But, what I am saying is that
you can't cherry pick. If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it. But you don't want that. You want to use the parts
that appeal to you, and not the parts that don't appeal to you.

Here are some very important rulings regarding the 2nd amendment:

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court
ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the
powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled
that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This
ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on
whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective
militia right

A "militia" isn't one person.

On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."


You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella.

On 4/23/13 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:39:35 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Weren't you one of the people who supported anti war demonstrators
protesting military funerals?

I fully support constitutional rights, don't you?

So you think constitutional rights are absolute?

OK by me.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."


You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella.

You don't mind leaving out "Congress shall make no law" when your
local church wants to put a nativity scene in the park.


Local churches can put up whatever they wish on church grounds or other
private property. Government is not allowed to show preference for one
religion over another. Erecting a nativity scene on public property
violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the right-wing Supreme
court has allowed some slippage in the recent decade.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:55:16 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

If you want to make the constitution the law of
the land, so be it.


===

The constitution *is* the law of the land and the people who wrote it
were a lot smarter than some of today's wannabe interpreters.

On 4/23/13 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/23/13 11:51 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:14:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/23/13 10:40 AM, wrote:


" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."


You seem to have left off some significant words there, fella.

You don't mind leaving out "Congress shall make no law" when your
local church wants to put a nativity scene in the park.


Local churches can put up whatever they wish on church grounds or other
private property. Government is not allowed to show preference for one
religion over another. Erecting a nativity scene on public property
violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the right-wing Supreme
court has allowed some slippage in the recent decade.

You are still left out some significant words

How do you reconcile that with "Congress shall make no law"?

This is not a law, it is only a public entity, a church or religious
group, using public property.
If you called it a demonstration they would be allowed to say or do
just about anything they wanted to do.
We had "occupy" demonstrators setting up all sorts of displays in our
city park and they stayed there for weeks. Was the government
"establishing" a war on corporations?
There were more people offended by that here than any nativity scene
would ever be.


The words implicitly deny churches use of public property. Government
cannot show preference to one religion over another. That's a clause
closely connected to the "no law" language.

Demonstrations are not the same as displays. Every year, for example, we
get thousands of religious simpies up here protesting Roe v. Wade, and
they camp out on the steps of the Supreme Court and march down the
public's streets and sidewalks. So long as they have a permit, such
behavior is allowed.

Demonstrating against corporate excess is not the same as promoting the
religious crib scenes of a Jewish baby.