David Pakman | Fred Phelps | News | Shirley Phelps-Roper

Watch: David Pakman Interviews Shirley Phelps-Roper

Spr

David Pakman interviews the Westboro Baptist Church's Shirley Phelps-Roper about the threats from hacker group Anonymous, which Anonymous said over the weekend were made up by the WBC.

Pam Spaulding notes that the conversation turned to claims made by her estranged brother Nate that the children of the Fred Phelps were abused, SPR lashes out:

"Phelps-Roper indicated that hitting children is part of 'teaching children exactly like their creator told them to do it,' causing Pakman to ask later in the interview whether police involvement was appropriate."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Isn't Pakman a filthy, fag enabling Jew?

    Should Shirley be enabling his filthy, fag enabling Jew show with her presence?

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Feb 22, 2011 2:30:14 PM


  2. Pakman can pack me any day!

    ... Yeah, I'm the reason we have no rights. My bad, guys!

    Posted by: Mike | Feb 22, 2011 2:40:26 PM


  3. I wish the Media in general would quit giving the attention Whores of Westboro so much air time.

    Posted by: Chadd | Feb 22, 2011 3:12:06 PM


  4. Loss of media coverage doesn't mean the bigots and homophobes go away. If anything, the WBC loons are the perfect spokes-bigots to help keep the public aware of the issue.

    Posted by: RJ | Feb 22, 2011 4:04:52 PM


  5. Another handsome dingbat in control of queer media. I listened to this, and Pakman was pathetic. He had no counter argument against this nut bird, and didn't call her on any of her falsehoods. Like Maddow with the nut job from Uganda, he let her attack us nonstop.
    When will gay culture choose brains and character over looks. Until we do, we'll have disasters like this, not to mention The A List.

    Posted by: Wilberforce | Feb 22, 2011 7:35:39 PM


  6. WILBERFORCE:

    Speaking of brains, you should probably look into a person before you talk about them so much. Packman isn't gay, and he isn't part of "queer media." He is the host of a left wing/progressive radio show, not a queer radio show.

    Further, he's stood up for queer rights many, many times during interviews. I listen to his podcast regularly, and you really can't judge him "pathetic" and brainless based on one single interview.

    All your ad hominem and insulting language is worse than any "unchallenging" interview could ever be. If all you can say is that he's stupid, you really have no argument.

    Posted by: Will | Feb 22, 2011 8:34:12 PM


  7. @Will
    I've heard plenty of his interviews. They are weak, and in the same way. He asks questions of far right nut bars, and accepts their dumbot answers at face value, without a challenge. And that's putting it mildly.
    This one was of concern to the queer movement, so I consider it queer media.
    It's also typical of commercial media, which often skapegoats us, using us as distractions from serious issues. It's a very old game. If you can't see it being played here, there's nothing more to be said.

    Posted by: Wilberforce | Feb 22, 2011 9:38:55 PM


  8. @Will
    I also explained in detail exactly why he is stupid. You must have missed that part.

    Posted by: Wilberforce | Feb 22, 2011 9:43:23 PM


  9. I also like how it took less than an hour for sumeone to defend the good looking celebrity. Shock.

    Posted by: Wilberforce | Feb 22, 2011 9:45:29 PM


  10. Here's how I see Mr. Pakman and Ms Maddow (since she was also brought into this thread): they know who much of their audience is. They are not going to change too many minds on their own, but collectively some of what we term nowadays "independent voters" will be swayed when they hear much of the same information come from various people.
    We have Bill O'reilly and Glenn Beck on the right, plus Olberman and others on the left. They are hard-pressed to let people speak or finish full thoughts. Contrary to the bully dialogues that some espouse on this blog, I think just allowing some people to speak and dig their own graves is a perfectly acceptable way to run an interview. For instance, David listened and when he heard an opportunity to bring up the possible need for police involvement for the punishment being doled out in the westboro church, he attempted to lead Ms Roper down that road. That is the best you can do, attempt to get these people to admit their crimes - and yes, I do believe people are abused beyond the point of spankings in this westboro church. Eventually, someone will have to investigate. No one is going to win against westboro on the grounds of first amendment, so maybe if it becomes more like that church where they took all the kids away, some of the members will start waking up from their brain-dead comas.
    When you have people like Martin Ssempa, Bahati, Santorum, any westboro fanatic, you will never change their mind. So, as David said, he is just listening, and that is what we need more people to do - albeit listen critically and verify facts. Asking everyone to be loud-mouthed defenders of everything gay is just going to turn the loud-mouthed part of the gay movement into a caricature of the westboro church.

    Posted by: jonny | Feb 22, 2011 11:54:43 PM


  11. Additionally, one thing Shirley said was that kids are not being punished / raised (depending your point of view) by the laws of god. In that case, Nathan and her daughter who left should have been killed for disobeying their parents. Maybe that's worth investigating.

    Posted by: jonny | Feb 22, 2011 11:57:41 PM


  12. So far, this post is one of my bests!

    Posted by: Hockey jerseys | Sep 25, 2011 10:19:14 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Indiana House Democrats Leave State to Block Anti-Union Bill« «