Megyn Kelly discusses Westboro Baptist Church with Bill O’Reilly
Kelly argues areas where O’Reilly has misrepresented the facts surrounding this case. O’Reilly accused Kelly of saying the case had no merit, while Kelly’s position was that it was going to be a closed case.
O’Reilly accused the other two judges in the case with concurring with Judge Shedd’s view that “reasonable people can debate the worthiness the appropriateness of Westboro position.” Kelly points out the other judges threw the case out for other reasons, and did not need to concur with Judge Shedd.
Kelly goes on to explain to O’Reilly that Judge Shedd has a point. “It may not have been intentional infliction of emotional distress, for this Westboro Baptist Church people to go outside of that funeral and protest, because to make that claim under the law you have to prove conduct that is extreme and outrageous, but extreme and outrageous don’t have the meaning that you and I understand them to have; legally it means something else.”
Latter on Kelly also points out that the Westboro protest was a thousand feet away from the funeral. For a moment, I thought Kelly was going to point out another area where O’Reilly has misrepresented this case, as the protesters didn’t disrupt the funeral.
O’Reilly states at the start of the clip:
As you may remember, these fanatics disrupted the funeral Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, twenty years old, killed in Iraq.
Evidently the Westboro group wasn’t very successful in disrupting the funeral in question. The father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder did not see t signs of the protesters until he saw them on television later that day.
Kelly points out this case has serious implications on free speech, which it has; but this case has also been a serious misrepresentation of the facts by O’Reilly.
Megyn Kelly discusses Westboro Baptist Church with Bill O’Reilly
Kelly argues areas where O’Reilly has misrepresented the facts surrounding this case. O’Reilly accused Kelly of saying the case had no merit, while Kelly’s position was that it was going to be a closed case.
O’Reilly accused the other two judges in the case with concurring with Judge Shedd’s view that “reasonable people can debate the worthiness the appropriateness of Westboro position.” Kelly points out the other judges threw the case out for other reasons, and did not need to concur with Judge Shedd.
Kelly goes on to explain to O’Reilly that Judge Shedd has a point. “It may not have been intentional infliction of emotional distress, for this Westboro Baptist Church people to go outside of that funeral and protest, because to make that claim under the law you have to prove conduct that is extreme and outrageous, but extreme and outrageous don’t have the meaning that you and I understand them to have; legally it means something else.”
Latter on Kelly also points out that the Westboro protest was a thousand feet away from the funeral. For a moment, I thought Kelly was going to point out another area where O’Reilly has misrepresented this case, as the protesters didn’t disrupt the funeral.
O’Reilly states at the start of the clip:
As you may remember, these fanatics disrupted the funeral Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, twenty years old, killed in Iraq.
Evidently the Westboro group wasn’t very successful in disrupting the funeral in question. The father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder did not see t signs of the protesters until he saw them on television later that day.
Kelly points out this case has serious implications on free speech, which it has; but this case has also been a serious misrepresentation of the facts by O’Reilly.
This is what happens when you show up at a tea party with a “no medicare” pledge?
This pledge to stop using governmental programs is very popular with big government advocates. Underneath, the argument is quite simple: if you don’t like governmental control in one area, you should forgo governmental control in all areas.
The main purpose behind the pledge is to label as “hypocrites” those who would halt the expansion or call for reducing the role of government. The implied argument is that if you think its wrong for the government to be in control of the items listed but do not abstain from using them, you can’t be taken seriously.
In essence, it’s asking people to act as though they live in a world that doesn’t exist. Government is involved with almost every aspect of our lives; it’s impossible to live government-free. The argument is tantamount to telling an environmentalist who complains about air quality to stop breathing.
Those calling for government to stop farm subsidies are not hypocrites for eating. An environmentalist calling for the elimination of fossil fuels isn’t a hypocrite each time they use a fossil fuel, because the fossil fuel free world does not exist. Calling for the reduction of government in a life dominated by government isn’t hypocritical, either.
The hypocrisy here is in ignoring how government has slowly taken away from people the ability to be self-reliant. The money for all the services government supplies comes from the people. A natural consequence of taking wealth from people is that they become dependent on the entity that now has control of their wealth.
The cruel nature of these attacks is especially clear when asking people to abstain from Social Security. Money taken from paychecks for Social Security throughout the years hinders individuals’ ability to save for their own retirement. These activists then have the nerve to call people hypocrites to accept some of their own money back from the Social Security system in order to survive.
These listed items in this pledge makes a very different point than intended: Government is too big–so big it’s clearly impossible to live without direct involvement in each of our lives.
Warnings of political violence and domestic terrorism in America seem to be all the rage these days. Bricks thrown through windows and buses being egged–oh my!
It is just talk; for real examples of political violence, you have to look outside of the US: places like Iraq, where today suicide bombers killed 42 people. Or South Africa, where President Jacob Zuma called for unity after the murder of a white supremacist on Saturday.
No curfews in America due to riots, as there are in India right now. Police in riot gear aren’t battling protesters, but they are in the UK where the EDL clashed with police over a new mosque being built.
Below is a video that sums up the fighting being waged in America today. When it comes to political violence and domestic terrorism, I think the US might just come in dead last.
Washington D.C Monument pillow fight April 3rd 2010
It cracks me up to read the comments to these articles, where the subject of adopting some Libertarian ideas is introduced to either Democrats or Republicans. The comments often run along the lines of, “Well I agree Libertarians here and there, but I part ways when it comes to the authority I wish to maintain over other people.”
Here is an example of one what I mean; it’s from one of the comments left to the article on The Free Republic.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” — Ronald Reagan
Up to the point of the Constitution. Sometimes I’m not sure that some Libertarians cross that line. Otherwise, I’m pretty much in full agreement and let the states work out the details. Politically and financially, our country would be rich. Spiritually, its another story. Our country needs real help in that area.
And as usual, a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.
Sure. Fight conservatism, fight America, and help the left with their 1960s agenda to destroy American Christian culture and traditions, while somehow fantasizing that you can win those left wing compatriots to leave the conservative economic policies standing. Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain. Libertarian Party Platform: Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
For comparison, here is an article from the Daily Kos, The Libertarian Dem. The thought process runs along the same lines when evaluating Libertarian principles. These comments are from the Democratic Underground about the Daily Kos article.
I’m for max individual freedom, but w/a social safety net I’m for rights of gun owners, gay folks to get married, whistleblowers not to get fired, speech, freedom from unlawful search (strenghten 4th amendment), internet privacy, credit info privacy, but I’m for pension protection, environmental legislation, worker rights, universal health care.
And also a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.
Dems don’t need libertarian contradictions Warpy echoed my thoughts: “There is an obvious need for big government to protect the powerless from the powerful, whether it’s natural disasters or cartels of obscenely rich men.” I wouldn’t depend on self-proclaimed libertarians, with their vague language and curious double standards, for those protections. “Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn’t be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy”. That is pure Republican pro-business talk.
The Daily Kos article is from 2006, back when the Democrats didn’t control the house, senate, or the White House. The Democrats were searching for ways to get back into power and briefly considered adopting some liberty-minded principles. Just as the Democrats didn’t adopt any Libertarian values while out of power, I doubt the Republicans will seriously embrace any Libertarian ones.
As Ron Paul is fond of saying, “Freedom is popular,” and the majority of Americas are pro-freedom. If everyone is for freedom, what is left to distinguish one party from another? What distinguishes these parties is where they do NOT support freedom–they are special and unique via the avenues they limit freedom.
The areas where the Democratic and Republican parties differ from Libertarianism are the areas where they call for coercive government. The base of voters for both the Democratic and Republican parties are the ones who want limits to liberty; if either party were to truly commit to not running other peoples lives, they would loose their base and hence, their identity.
Both parties existence is due to a self-deception of being pro-freedom while simultaneously calling for restrictions to freedom. As seen in the comments above, the “I’m all for freedom, except where I’m not” perspective is how they choose their respective parties. The Authoritarian Party of Democrats and Republicans can never truly be for freedom, because they would cease to exist if they did.
“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”
Congressman John Boccieri of Ohio being questioned about the health care law.
Off-camera: Where in the Constitution…
Rep. Hare: I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.
Off-camera: [Laughter.] Jackpot, brother.
Rep. Hare: What I care more about — I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.
Off-camera: You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold!
Rep. Hare: I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now you tell me…
Off-camera: That’s the Declaration of Independence.
Rep. Hare: It doesn’t matter to me. Either one…
[Lots of childish sniping.]
Off-camera: Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to…
Rep. Hare: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Off-camera: That’s what I thought.
Later on Phil Hare responded to the video.
”I support the constitution, I served in the military for six years. I don’t need anybody including Mr. Schilling and his political crew telling me I don’t believe in the Constitution. I’m proud of my vote I cast. Millions of people now will have healthcare that never would have had it before and if they want to play ‘gotcha stuff” on whether I support the Constitution, that’s shameful, because I do”
The congressman is basically trying to make the argument that the morality of saving lives trumps all other concerns. In short, morality trumps legality. He supports the Constitution–as long as it is in keeping with his own moral views. Like so many other politicians, Hare fails to see the danger in this line of reasoning.
The problem with Phil Hare’s statements is not the constitutionality or morality of health care; it’s the assertion that question of constitutionality is irrelevant and meaningless. The rule congressman Hare follows here is that his own moral compass supersedes the Constitution. He fails to see the contradiction in cases where his morality may conflict with the document that gives his authority legitimacy.
The Constitution is legal basis for congress, the federal government and the health care law itself. If the legal authority of the Constitution is irrelevant, that in turn makes the authority of congress and any laws passed by congress irrelevant.
Health insurance companies should provide coverage for treatment of pornography addiction.
And my rebuttal:
People can form psychological dependencies with just about everything–we have workaholics, iphone-aholics, shop-aholics. For every human activity, there is someone out there who has turned it into an addition.
Associating pornography with a drug addiction is to lead people to believe its the same as a physical addiction. A closer comparison would be a gambling addiction.
Destroying families? This claim can be made against anything consuming a large amount time. Work, religion, political activism, and on and on could be said to destroy families.
For every form of speech considered offensive, there is a group considering it an abuse of free speech.
There are also well educated people that are not against pornography. Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Bad feelings are associated with the subject, so the subject must be bad. Appeal to Emotion fallacy.
Interest in a sexual practice prompts seeking it out in porn, not the other way around. Confusing Cause and Effect fallacy.
Sixty-two percent of unfaithful husbands had affairs with someone at work, but I wouldn’t claim working causes affairs. Correlation does not imply causation.
The implicit suggestion is that pornography causes rape. The responsibility for rape is with the rapist alone. Saying pornography causes rape gives rapists excuses.
The process of becoming sexually aroused involves seeing your partners body as an object for sex. If sexual objectification were to cease, so would the human species. People of other gender may objectify others; the cause is a lack of empathy, not exposure to pornography.
Others could just as easily be labeled for fear of pornography: pornophobia.
If pornography addiction were included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, it would be an expression of political correctness. The DSM at one time listed homosexuality as a disorder.
Isn’t health insurance expensive enough?
Now its my turn for my theory about the role pornography plays in relationships. First off; I feel sympathy for anyone whose relationship has deteriorated due to addictive personality disorder. I don’t blame the focus of the addiction for the underlying personality disorder; I blame the disorder.
I don’t doubt there are some people who view pornography like an addict. From my own personal experiences and discussions with others, the conflicts surrounding pornography are more often a symptom of a problem in the relationship, caused by jealousy and lack of communication about sex.
Example–from the article mentioned above.
He (ex-husband) viewed it regularly during high school and college — and, although he tried hard to stop, continued to do so throughout the course of our marriage. For the past few years he had taken to sleeping in the basement, distancing himself from me, emotionally and physically.
Evidently there was conflict when it came to pornography, because the husband felt a reason to stop. The reason to stop might have been religious, or judging from the tone of the article, the husband might have been keeping his sexual interests secret from his wife.
If the reason for stopping was due to religious reasons, odds are that didn’t work out too well. The more you try not to think about something, the more you end up thinking about it. The more taboo a person finds a sexual activity that interests them, the harder they try to suppress those thoughts, the greater the urge becomes to indulge.
If the husband felt the need to keep his sexual interests secret (perhaps going to the basement to view porn), keeping secrets destroy relationships. Keeping parts of oneself hidden away from your significant other is what creates the divide that ends relationships. You can’t feel close to someone if you aren’t open and honest with them.
In a marriage, what one partner does affects the other. That is a fact. So yes, porn is a problem because it affects the person who is supposed to be the husband’s only object for affection.
While I empathize that people feel hurt when their spouse is sexually attracted to someone else, it’s unrealistic to expect your spouse to never find anyone else attractive. It is realistic to ask them to not act upon those attractions and remain monogamous.
Believing your spouse only finds physical features about you attractive is self objectification. Only considering the physical dimension of attraction leads to hurt feelings. The issue is not pornography, but feeling lack of worth outside of physical appearance.
Mutual admiration for one another goes farther in ending jealousy than physical attractiveness. In dealing with personal jealousy surrounding sex, couples can find security when they first find one another attractive as a person. If there is little beyond physical attraction, the relationship won’t last anyway.
Marriage counseling is fine, but please don’t add porn addiction to health insurance coverage, it’s expensive enough as it is.
Its obvious they were disturbing the peace by disrupting the funeral. They should have been arrested.
There is a problem with accusing the Westboro Baptist Church of disrupting the funeral. They didn’t disrupt the funeral, as 4th District which reversed the judgment pointed out.
The protest was confined to a public area under supervision and regulation of local law enforcement and did not disrupt the church service.
If the intent of the Westboro Baptist Church was to disrupt the funeral, they failed badly. Albert Snyder, the father of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who died in Iraq, did not see the signs of the protesters until he saw them on television later that day.
Reporting the church members disrupted the funeral is inaccurate. The lawsuit isn’t even about disrupting the funeral; the lawsuit alleges privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. If the Westboro Baptist Church had disrupted the funeral, they probably would have been arrested.
I don’t know which category this misreporting falls under: defamation, libel or slander. I see a potential for news outlets to be sued by Westboro Baptist Church, for the very similar reasons they were being sued by Albert Snyder–intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The church could claim their image has been harmed, by news outlets falsely reporting they were engaged in an illegal activity. Westboro has ammunition to backup the claim because the court has stated they were not disrupting the funeral.
Bill O’Reilly has offered to pay the $16,000 court costs for Albert Snyder to the Westboro Baptist Church. This sad story has the potential to become even more shocking and depressing. If O’Reilly continues to misrepresent the facts, he might end up handing over even more money to the church.
Not enough fear mongering has been done about the mandatory purchase of health insurance. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, saying having mandatory health insurance will lead to government specifying mandatory purchases on everything. The slippery slope helped make mandatory health insurance purchase requirements possible, by virtue of mandatory auto insurance.
It’s not a stretch to assume at some point, something else will be added to the list of mandatory purchases. Health and auto insurance will be used as the justification for further governmental control of personal income. I can’t predict what the next mandatory purchase will be, or how many there will be. Once the government has been granted a new power, it inevitably discovers additional “need” for exercise of the new-found power.
To avoid abuses of such authority, the next logical step would seem to be to set limits on how far government can go in requiring mandatory purchases. This obviously won’t work, because the federal government has repeatedly shown itself to ignore limits. Case in point, the federal debt limit: each time the debt limit is reached, congress simply votes to raise the debt limit. Once a limit has been placed on power, they simply vote to extend the limits of the power.
There is the belief that as long as you have freedom of speech and religion, you still live in a free country, or that if you loose some of the ability to decide what to do with your own money but still have these basic rights, you are still free. The fallacy of this belief becomes clear as the percent of control the government has over income becomes closer to 100 percent than to zero percent.
Once the amount of taxes crosses fifty percent of income, people take notice and start to complain. They quickly come to realize the closer you get to being taxed at 100 percent, the closer you are to having zero freedom. If 100 percent of what you make is taken by government, then basically government owns you and the fruits of your labor. So government has to be careful not to go too far past the halfway point to enslavement.
The TEA Party protests indicate to me the government has pushed the boundary of taxation about as far as it safely can. While I’m sure there is still some room in there to squeeze in minor taxes, there is no room for large-scale tax increases–the type needed to fully fund health care coverage for all Americans. That’s why a new form of governmental control over income was needed. Enter mandatory purchases.
Allowing the federal government the ability to mandate purchases has opened up this new lane in The Superhighway to Serfdom. You’ll still have somewhere around half of your income in your hands, but the amount of your income you’ll have control over will gradually decrease through mandatory purchases.
Government needs to be careful not to load up this new lane of serfdom to quickly. Once people are heavily taxed and burdened with mandatory purchases, seeing they have little control over their lives, it sometimes produces consequences like the French Revolution. I hope a movement will form to undo this new dangerous power, and I hope it will be called the BABE Party, Bitten At Both Ends.
Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.
It reminded me how often opposing views towards the changes in America’s health care system were dismissed, by pointing out that Social Security was at first met with similar opposition and is now “wildly popular” or a godsend.
It’s true: when the government returns your money, it is wildly popular! Income tax return checks are wildly popular, too. Unemployment checks are extremely popular as well. I guess it is important to point out times when government is magnanimous enough to give you your own money back!
In any other part of society, when someone gives you your own money back it’s not considered a godsend–it’s considered theft or fraud when you don’t get your money back. It’s only a godsend to get money back from an entity who has the power to take away money at will, under no obligation to give it back. As in a bully that takes a kids lunch money and “generously” gives some of it back later on.
Rendell does have it correct in describing Social Security as a godsend, because the definition of godsend is “something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.” Any time the bully that is our federal government gives money back to the people they took it from, that is is a godsend.
Government has Munchausen syndrome when it comes to Social Security; the government takes your money away, making it harder to save for retirement, then pats itself on the back for saving you. They can’t be content with helping only those in need, and instead make everyone ill and dependent on government for the cure.
🍪 Cookies?!? Well, not the delicious kind, sadly...but you still get to pick your own. 🍪
