August 25, 2005
Is Mr. Robertson's Speech Protected?
A firestorm of commentary has been generated every since Pat Robertson, one-time Republican presidential candidate and leader of the 1.5 million member Christian Coalition advocated the assassination of Venezuelan presiden Hugo Chavez. Mr. Robertson has since apologized (kind of), and perhaps the matter is put to bed. Or is it? Do Pat Robertson’s comments fall under the protection of the citizens’ first amendment rights to free speech? Or, are his comments so incendiary that it endangers the national security of the United States and should he be punished in some way?
Suprement Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". One wonders whether or not the statements made by Pat Robertson on Monday are protected under the 1st amendment. Where does the protection of free speech end? Would speech still be protected if it endangered the national security of the United States? Does Pat Robertson's standing in the community as a political leader and public figure put us more at risk from retaliation by Chavez than an ordinary pubic citizen with little to no public face? Does speech change protections based on the speaker's public standing? It seems reasonable to assume that me, you or any other citizen advocating the assassination of a foreign governmental official is less dangerous to the US than if someone like a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Executive administration or the Congress says this. I believe it is against the law for a governmental employee to advocate assassinations. However, if a public citizen does is it protected speech? Any constitutional lawyers out there? I'd like know what is protected and what isn't. Does Robertson get a bye because he is simply a public citizen, or does he get held to higher standard because of his public image and visibility?
Tell me what you think,
Best Regards,
Dennis
Dennis,
The only reason he should be held to a higher standard is because he is supposedly a Christian and the face of his ministry.
He has demonstrated the hypocrisy of the Evangelical Christians. He sanctioned killing another human being, he lied when he stated that he did not call for the assassination of Chavez.
A real spiritual leader. His organization has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. They use Gods name to promote bigotry and to judge those who do not agree with them.
They’re no more spiritual than a cult.
Right now Jesus in considering converting to another faith.
The short answer is that yes, his speach is protected. He is saying that our government should engage in a particular action, so that is polical speach that gets the highest protections. There are much more complicated doctrines ect, that I could go into, but I think this is a pretty easy case under current 1st Amendment jurisprudence.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 25, 2005 12:55 PMThanks Misha,
Does this apply to organizations as well? What if the Republican or Democratic National Committee advocated assassination of foreign leaders? What about the New York Times? Is there some qualification of protection based on use of the speech?
Posted by: Dennis at August 25, 2005 01:10 PMThanks Misha,
Does this apply to organizations as well? What if the Republican or Democratic National Committee advocated assassination of foreign leaders? What about the New York Times? Is there some qualification of protection based on use of the speech?
Posted by: Dennis at August 25, 2005 01:11 PMAndre,
Certainly Pat Robertson does not speak for all Christians of any party affiliations. To suggest that his opinions represent more than a relatively minor percentage of Christians I would think to be presumptuous.
Evangelical Christians are not all hypocrites by your inference or any others.
Please clarify your comment “his organization has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ”
What organization are you speaking of?
Posted by: steve smith at August 25, 2005 01:17 PMSteve Smith,
The 700 Club.
He has millions of devoted followers and viewers. His ministry consists of over a million people alone. I would not consider that small. He is one of the most recognized Christian ministers world wide.
I hear so many people who call themselves Christian who do not follow the teachings of Christ. You yourself condone killing. You cannot call yourself Christian and pick and choose when and where you will apply the teachings of Christ.
“To suggest that his opinions represent more than a relatively minor percentage of Christians I would think to be presumptuous.”
If you look at what I wrote you would see that I was specific to Evangelical Christians.
There is a difference between Bible-Thumping and being spiritual.
Dennis- the more complicated inquiry is whether he was directly insited elligal activity. So, if Roberts, got up in front of one of his rallies and instructed his flock to directly kill a PARTICULAR person at a PARTICULAR time, then he could get in trouble. If he said that the U.S. government should kill someone, no matter how direct he was, he would be protected. Also, if he got up in front of his flock and said that at some point, someone should kill Chavez, he would also be ok. Basically, it takes a signifigant level of specificity and level of control over the people you are insiting to get in trouble. I think the answer is the same for groups and the absolutely the same for the NYTs (actually the NYTs might get even more protection, becaues its the press).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at August 25, 2005 02:35 PM“You cannot call yourself Christian and pick and choose when and where you will apply the teachings of Christ”
Unless your picking and choosing whether its a fetus or not.
Posted by: kctim at August 25, 2005 03:33 PMDennis:
Unfortunately, this type of speech from Robertson or, for example, Howard Dean as the Chairman of the DNC is protected.
However, had a uniformed military individual stated this publicly, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice would kick his butt.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 25, 2005 03:46 PMDennis,
Perhaps I can clarify, or at least not confuse matters further.
Holmes’ famous standard of protected speech involved two tests: proximity and degree. In other words, the crucial consideration for speech that promoted an illegal act was how likely that speech was to foment that act. That’s why your ability to say, “I’m so mad at my wife I could just kill her” is protected by the First Amendment, but your ability to say, “If I gave you $10,000, would you kill my wife for me” is not. The former statement fails in degree. It is unlikely to elicit an illegal act. The latter succeeds in degree, however. It is likely to elicit an illegal act. (Parenthetically if you asked your cat or your dog to kill your wife or asked me to do it in Japanese, your speech would be protected because it fails on proximity. Since we couldn’t understand you, we’d be unlikely to commit the illegal act you advocate.)
Prosecuting Robertson’s speech is prevented for the same reason. Prosecution could succeed on proximity (the people who could commit the illegality he espoused could certainly have been influence by his assertion), but it would fail on degree. The likelihood of the Bush Administration being influenced to the extent that a public offical would be induced to violate the law is highly improbable. It’s possible, but not to a degree sufficient to prove causation. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Robertson had advocated selling plutonium to al-Qaeda. Same likelihood; same result: free speech.
The same principle applies to threatening the President, for example. Illegal speech must present, in the words of Justice Holmes,
“a clear and present danger that [it] will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”Therefore, your denigration of President Bush as a “lying, murderous son of a b***h” is protected by the First Amendment. It doesn’t create a clear and present danger that you’re going to kill him. On the other hand, if you go on TV and say, “I think we should assassinate that lying, murderous son of a b***h”, you’re going to find yourself in a whole lot of trouble with some people who have shiny badges and big guns. Your words have created a credible threat on the life of the President, which is a clear and present danger that Congress has a right to prevent. The bottom line is that unless you can prove probable causation, the speech is protected.
Holmes’s standard replaced the “bad tendency” test, which had grown out of a pernicious English law called “constructive treason.” Constructive treason held that any criticism of the throne whatsoever was treasonous in that it could foment an insurrection. (Gotta love them Brits). In essence, the proximity and degree standard changed the threshold of illegality from “could” the speech elicit an illegal act to “would” the speech do so. Unless the answer to that question was “yes, it is highly probable or absolutely certain that this speech will elicit an illegal act”, it must be protected by the First Amendment. “No” and “maybe” were insufficient grounds to prohibit it. Determining the exact definition of “highly probable” on a case-by-case basis gives the boys and girls on the Supreme Court something to do. It’s one of the reasons we keep them around.
One final note: Holmes also wrote that,
“… . the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”Looks to me like Robertson substantiated Holmes’ contention. The overwhelming condemnation of his comments from every facet of the political spectrum proved to me that the marketplace of American ideas is working just fine. Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 25, 2005 03:53 PM
Andre,
You are correct, you did say Evangelical Christians, I missed that. My error.
I feel sure that you recognize that nobody (including Evangelical Christians) is perfect and/or without sin.
Our kind and generous Saviour is extremely forgiving and restores the balance to our lives.
There is biblical reference/history for killing. GOD’s instruction to Noah to build the Ark, the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah for example.
I personally do not support or belong to any of the organizations to which Pat Robertson is affiliated. I did some googling though and learned that the worldwide number of people who are associated with the Evangelical Christian teachings is in excess of 200 million. Also Evangelicism and pentecostalism are the fastest growing religions in the world.
Chuck,
Thanks for the explanation. It was very informative. I’m reminded of (I think it was Henry II who said to his advisors “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” talking about Beckett and wanting to get rid of him, but not Really saying get rid of him. I think the test you describe for intent is the key.
Anyway, excellent post, thank you very much.
Best Regards,
Dennis
Andre
“I hear so many people who call themselves Christian who do not follow the teachings of Christ”
Going by what you said, anybody who believes in abortion cannot be a Christian.
Unless you pick and choose if a fetus is a human life or not.
Isn’t it only illegal if you are trying to incite violence within the U.S.? I’m confused. I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble for trying to incite violence in other countries. Has this ever happened before? Are there cases that are similiar and that have set precedent?
If anything positive comes out of this, it is that televangelists are being exposed for the frauds that they are.
Posted by: john at August 25, 2005 06:54 PMjohn,
“If anything positive comes out of this, it is that televangelists are being exposed for the frauds that they are.”
I belive that you give the American public too much credit. If what you say were the case, the purge would have started with Swaggert and Bakker nearly 20 years ago, yet there is stil an overwhelming worldwide audience for these bozos, Robertson being only the most recent example.
Does he have the right to his speach?
Absolutely.
Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean you should.
Oh, and, BTW, especialy if you are going to say it in front of the TV cameras, and then try to lie about it afterwards.
Isn’t is a crime to use public airwaves to make death threats or incite violence?
If Janet Jackson’s tit is worth $500,000 - how much is Robertson’s assassination quote worth? Shouldn’t he loose his broadcast license (or the station that carried his show?)
Posted by: tony at August 25, 2005 09:35 PMWhat a strange debate.
I suspect that this has more to do with Chavez’s celebrity-status among the American left (for his many anti-Bush statements) than with the left’s sudden desire to regulate the speech of private citizens. At least I hope that’s the case.
The provision against assassinating foreign leaders is a relatively new policy of the executive branch—it was never ratified by the congress. I think it’s a good idea NOT to assassinate foreign leaders, but it’s certainly a debatable question, one that anybody’s free to have an opinion on one way or another.
Saying that it’s “unchristian” to advocate killing shows little understanding of either history or Christianity. Would it have been “unchristian” to advocate assassinating Hitler? Perhaps it would have been a bad move for other reasons, but calling it “unchristian” is just ridiculous.
Posted by: sanger at August 25, 2005 11:40 PMSanger,
“Saying that it’s “unchristian” to advocate killing shows little understanding of either history or Christianity. Would it have been “unchristian” to advocate assassinating Hitler? Perhaps it would have been a bad move for other reasons, but calling it “unchristian” is just ridiculous.”
But to do it before a worldwide audience of possibly 200 million?
Rocky, my point is that whether it’s 200 million or 2 billion—so what? The real issue is who one is advocating killing and why. There is HUGE moral difference between saying that Hitler should be killed and saying that Mother Theresa should be.
There’s nothing unchristian, for instance, in saying that serial killers should be executed, even if many Christians would disagree. One can advocate fighting wars, which by definition inolve killing—or not fighting them—and still be “Christian.”
I don’t care for Robertson or his views, but I see right through the left’s response to his remarks. Chavez is one of their heroes—for his anti-Bush postions, I hope, instead of for his jailing of dissidents, censorship of the press and for his bankrupting his country. If Robertson had said Kim Jong Il instead of Chavez, this wouldn’t be a story.
Posted by: sanger at August 26, 2005 12:03 AMsanger,
Frankly I could give a rat’s ass about Chavez, other than the fact that he is the leader of a country. Pat Robertson is the leader of one of the largest “Christian” sects on the planets. As far as I am concerned if he had called for the asassination of Kim Jong Il it still would be a story and Robertson would still be a moron for announcing it on world wide TV.
The current American attitude is part of the reason why we aren’t quite so beloved around the world right now.
So what if Chavez is a socialist, if he is not oppressing the people of his country, what business is it of Pat Robertson’s?
sanger,
This is from wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
“Social Programs
Venezuela under Chávez has started numerous social programs: Barrio Adentro, an initiative to provide free health care to poor and underserved areas, Mission Robinson and Mission Sucre to increase literacy and basic education. The literacy programs are centered on learning to read, and understand the Venezuelan Constitution and their inherent rights as Venezuelan citizens. These programs have been criticized as inefficient and incomplete by opposition figures but are widely heralded and appreciated by Chávez backers and by many international observers.
Many of these programs involve importing expertise from abroad; Venezuela is providing Cuba with 53,000 barrels (8,000 m³) of below-market-rate oil a day in exchange for the service of hundreds of physicians, teachers, and other professionals. (BBC)
Oil profits — about 25 billion dollars in 2004 — allowed Mr. Chávez to carry out what he calls a “new socialist revolution.” The leftist platform includes massive social spending. Hugo Chávez has built free health care clinics, subsidized food and created small manufacturing cooperatives. Political scientist Michael Shifter says these projects have galvanized his core supporters — the poor — who make up around 60 percent of the country’s population.”
I, for one, think that we should stay out of the affairs of other countries.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 12:56 AMPat Robertson had foreknowledge of the effect his public speech has on his followers as is made clear by the rash of abortion clinic violence and bombings years ago. This month Rudolph was sentenced for the Olympic as well as the clinic bombings. He only apologised for the Olympic bombing. Furthermore, this is not the first time Pat Robertson has called for the assassinatioon of a world leader. (Hussein)
Might i ask the readers why Pat Robertson is allowed to continually spew hate while imams are classified as terrorist organisations ‘under the guise of humanitarian activities’ for doing the same as Robertson?
Posted by: jo at August 26, 2005 02:22 AMjo,
Robertson delivers votes and money to the Republican Party. Robertson has the ear of Mr. Bush.
Oh, and, Mr Bush is still looking for “moral leaders”.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 02:29 AM—-
Robertson delivers votes and money to the Republican Party. Robertson has the ear of Mr. Bush.
Oh, and, Mr Bush is still looking for “moral leaders”.
—-
I think Bush is still looking for a moral compass.
I’ll re-post this - just to make the point again:
It is illegal to use public broadcast licenses to incite violence or issue death threats.
It’s not morality, or some whacked out theory of left-friendly… it’s illegal and he should be taken off the air. End of story.
Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 07:09 AMWow, Interesting posts everyone. I was interested in the legalities of the question. Misha and Chuck provided terrific explanations so thanks very much to them. As to the political aspect of Robertson’s speech, I’m frankly not surprised he did this. He’s got a history of pretty nutty views such has the nuke at foggy bottom and praying for the early vacancies on the Supreme Court. What I am still surprised at as the influence this man and Jerry Falwell still have on a large number of Americans. I personall think Mr. Robertson, like many other televangelists (i.e. Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton) is some what of a P.T. Barnumesque con-man.
Although I don’t find it surprising, I do find it dissapointing that the Republican leadership (Bush, Frist, Hastert) have not soundly repudiated this man for his remarks. If it was me, I think I would distance myself greatly from him even if bumping off Chavez was my policy. How does this help the Bush Administration? I see it as a major embarrassment for them and definitely a road-bump in Latin American relations if they don’t take Pat to the “woodshed”.
Anyway, thanks for the posts, it’s been fun..
Best regards,
Dennis
Saying that it’s “unchristian” to advocate killing shows little understanding of either history or Christianity. Would it have been “unchristian” to advocate assassinating Hitler?
Yes, Jesus Christ and Bloodbath are pratically interchangeable! [rolls eyes]
Posted by: Taylor at August 26, 2005 10:48 AMTony, you, I or anybody else can go on television tomorrow and say that the US military should kill {fill in any name here) and it won’t be illegal. To say otherwise demonstrates no understanding of the law whatsoever.
There are narrowly defined laws pertaining to inciting violence, but there’s abosolutely no any of them could possibly pertain to a private citizen’s view on goverment policy. Was Robertson inciting the military to violence? This has to be the strangest idea I’ve heard in a while.
I think Robertson is a dope, but if we regulate him, we’re gonna have to pretty much censor the entire left of this country as well.
Posted by: sanger at August 26, 2005 11:41 AMThese are funny:
“The only reason he should be held to a higher standard is because he is supposedly a Christian and the face of his ministry.”
Funny they never felt Clinton should hold himself to a higher standard as president of an entire country!
“Does he have the right to his speach?”
“Absolutely.”
“Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean you should.”
“Oh, and, BTW, especialy if you are going to say it in front of the TV cameras, and then try to lie about it afterwards”
This is just hillarious and on so many levels…..I guess it depends on what side you stand on, but I’m curious, isn’t this what the left yells about all the time? Freedom of speech, damn who it hurts?
“Robertson delivers votes and money to the Republican Party. Robertson has the ear of Mr. Bush.”
Can I hear……Howard Dean?
Misha et. al.,
John Dean claims that there are some laws specific to threatening foreign leaders (Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b)) which Robertson might have violated. Could you take a look at what he says to see if you think it has any merit?
Thanks.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 26, 2005 12:27 PMLawnboy
He is grasping at straws. The act obviously applies to foreign officials in the United States: “foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person”. Pass a law against criminal stupidity and Robertson is done.
As an conservative, evangelical Christian I feel like quoting Henry II myself about Robertson: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest”.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 26, 2005 01:30 PMOh, just to clear up some of the “speaks for Christians” stuff:
“I was misinterpreted”: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/017192.html
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 26, 2005 01:45 PM—-
Tony, you, I or anybody else can go on television tomorrow and say that the US military should kill {fill in any name here) and it won’t be illegal. To say otherwise demonstrates no understanding of the law whatsoever.
—-
I am in media… and I fully understand the laws governing use of public broadcast airwaves. One quick way to loose your license is to use your license to incite violence. What Robertson did was propose assassination - and that clearly violates FCC regulations. You or I can say whatever we want to on air - as long as it is being used as news coverage. Once you or I become a staple of a running TV series, all of that changes.
Read up on the FCC regulations before you start telling me I have no understanding on the law.
Posted by: tony at August 26, 2005 02:03 PMtraci,
“Can I hear……Howard Dean?”
I can only assume that you have a point.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 02:36 PMThis exemplifies the need for differentiation between government and religion, for this reason: Killing Hitler WOULD have been the best governmental policy, but it would NOT have been the Christian thing to do.
People with only a vague understanding of the Bible tend to relate the Old Testament, God sanctioned killings to modern, practical applications where people should be killed by the standards of governmental policy, e.g. capital punishment.
The difference is that we (everyone in the world) here and now (according to the bible) are in the New Testament. The bible says that God’s wrath was satisfied at the cross, meaning that because of Jesus’ death He doesn’t require us to eliminate sinful hordes of people, or execute criminals.
All of the tangible acts, written laws, etc of the Old Testament, (including war and executions) are now now merely symbolic of what takes place in the spiritual realm. And Jesus himself taught his followers to consult God the Father on issues of judgment, that we are NOT to take these matters into our own hands.
Would it be in a given country’s best interest to overthrow and assasinate a genocidal dictator? Of course, but it wouldn’t be Christian.
So, being said, this makes Pat Robertson’s comment extremely unchristian; The best policy for a nation may not fit into the mold of the predominant religion and the values of a religion if (enforced via government) may not make a nation completely free - this understanding should open some eyes as to why church and state are best left separate.
Posted by: brando at August 26, 2005 02:44 PMYes, Rocky, and I think it’s loud and clear! You’re smart enough to figure it out.
Posted by: Traci at August 26, 2005 03:11 PMTraci,
Ok, I guess I will have to explain this to you.
“”Does he have the right to his speach?”
“Absolutely.”
Geez, I hope you didn’t have a problem with this, you know 1st Amendment and all.
“Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean you should.”
It is called discretion, look it up.
“Oh, and, BTW, especialy if you are going to say it in front of the TV cameras, and then try to lie about it afterwards”
I like everyone else on this planet have seen the tapes. Sorry you cannot take a statement like this out of context. After having the balls to suggest an asassination, he then went further to say that our Special Forces should take him out.
I don’t find any of this particularly humorus.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 03:42 PMNo, I wouldn’t start prosecuting Pat Robertson unless he actually tried to put together such a mission himself. I’m sure that would break some kind of laws somewhere, moreso if he actually succeeded. Speech like that is protected.
My views would change if the targets are our own leaders. Aside from hoping God would smite them, which I would say is in bad taste for a Christian, he hasn’t done that.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 26, 2005 04:39 PMStephen,
“No, I wouldn’t start prosecuting Pat Robertson unless he actually tried to put together such a mission himself.”
I don’t think that Robertson should be prosecuted. The man is a doddering old fool that doesn’t engage his brain before he speaks.
What I don’t like is that he has no small pull in our government, where his foolishness could really cause the rest of us problems.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 04:48 PMThe FCC license is another matter, though, from my experience. I’m not certain Robertson owns any stations, but those who do carry them may have to deal with it.
The trick here is that while speech is free, the broadcast airwaves are not- they are licensed from the government under certain regulations. That’s what made Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfuction such an issue.
Do we care enough to make it stick? Who knows. But Robertson needs to learn that the rules apply to him. After all, in Romans (I believe), we are told that it is God who puts us under the authority of our rulers. He should respect that authority.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 26, 2005 04:49 PMStephen,
Ah, but Mr. Bush has stated that the Bible trumps the laws of men.
Quite a conundrum we have here.
Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2005 04:52 PMRocky-
The trick with that is that if somebody legislated or decided based on the bible, it’d still be the laws of men.
The laws of God were legislated by God, and are enforced by him. I believe the bible is the best approximation of that, but it is an approximation put into the words of men by writers who had their own agendas and cultures.
The New Testament tells us there’s room for wisely considered discretion, and that too much attention paid to the law itself at the expense of the spirit is to be avoided.
So, Bush is right in the spiritual and moral sense, but I wouldn’t take his argument before a judge or a pastor.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 26, 2005 05:02 PMIf so, then I’d like to see him answer for this verse:
Romans 13:1 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
Posted by: brando at August 26, 2005 05:06 PM“You cannot call yourself Christian and pick and choose when and where you will apply the teachings of Christ”Unless your picking and choosing whether its a fetus or not.
kctim,Your point?
Perhaps it was that fetus killing is the only type of killing the neo-con Christians won’t endorse?
Posted by: Taylor at August 26, 2005 05:53 PMJust wanted to thank brando for his insightful comments. True Christianity is not this sort of pseudo civil American religion that Bush has concocted. It is not always going to be convenient for the nation who uses it. Jesus was pretty clear about turning the other cheek. Under the Bush doctrine, you should strike the other person’s cheek BEFORE they have a chance to strike yours. People love to turn to the old testament to justify this kind of thing, all the while ignoring tons of other things in there that would be unacceptable today.
Posted by: Cameron at August 26, 2005 08:54 PMRocky~
O.k. I guess I will have to explain this to YOU!
None of the quotes you replied to me on are mine! They are quotes I pulled out of the posts above! If you wanted to critique the parts that were my answeres to them…..you should have “quoted” those w/ your responses……(mine would be the ones w/out quotation marks)!
Posted by: Traci at August 27, 2005 08:23 AMTraci,
You are absolutely right, those are my words which, by the way, you appearantly found hysterical.
You don’t get it.
Don’t bother.
Posted by: Rocky at August 27, 2005 12:41 PMTraci,
That’s right, I forgot. I’m a racist.
Posted by: Rocky at August 27, 2005 12:53 PMMy hope is that even though this type of speech may be protected, those in this position will actually think before they make statements such as these. Apologies such as the one that Mr. Robertson made ring hollow.
I also hope the charletans that make their living off of other peoples ignorance will be put on notice that folks are paying attention, and sooner or later they will find the judgement that is waiting for them.
Posted by: Rocky at August 27, 2005 07:46 PM(So, what do we do about these sort of whacko’s…???)
Church: God Punishing GIs Over Gays
By BETH RUCKER Associated Press Writer
SMYRNA, Tenn. (AP) — Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee …
http://news.lycos.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1081550&from=email
Posted by: tony at August 29, 2005 10:50 AMRocky~
“That’s right, I forgot. I’m a racist.”
Seriously….GROW UP!
traci,
“Seriously….GROW UP!”
Sooner or later you will realize that there is a great big world out there and not everyone is going to agree with you. If you want to discuss a post, read the whole damn thing, not just the points that catch your eye.
Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 11:58 AMRocky, Rocky~
Seriously, I do not even know where to go w/ this!
Are you seriously indicating that I am the one w/ the problem?????
I DO read all of the posts in their entirety….do you?
I also do understand that there are going to be people that disagree w/ me!!! Do you? So far you have gotten hot and bothered and told me not to bother and then you had to resort to a childish “Oh yeah, I’m a racist” comment which I can only guess that you are bringing up sore feelings from a previous post!
This will be my last post to you, as I feel you are not capable of debate. But, please do not get confused on this….just because you are the first to become “snarky” or rude w/ someone does NOT mean you are correct! Life Lesson of the week!
All other posters: Great debates!
Traci,
“This will be my last post to you, as I feel you are not capable of debate.”
And for that I thank you.
America, what a country.
Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2005 04:20 PMTraci,
To bring Clinton into this debate only shows that you are trying to turn the debate into argument about parties. The Dem. vs. Rep. thing gets old when that is not the focus of the discussion.
I have to agree with Rocky that none of the points you made were pertinent to the debate.
