But It’s Freedom Of Speech

This week Pat Robertson said the US should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. There are many posts about this mostly on left leaning blogs and the reaction is the expected prattle. I do not agree with what Robertson said and I think it is sad that a man of his stature and position would say something like this given that so many people listen to what he says. As I said, I do not agree with what he said but I do know he has as much right to exercise his right to Free Speech as does some degenerate Flag burner and in my opinion, more so. At least he said it and that makes it speech.

I am bewildered at why there has been so much concern about what he said. Where was the outrage when Air America said that George Bush should be assassinated? There was little outrage and many on the left actually supported the idea (here, here, here. Some links are blogs reporting on the leftist support).

I remember a debate at Adam’s site, in reaction to the grenade attempt on Bush’s life, where the assertion was made that it would be bad for George Bush to be assassinated in another country. Some who commented indicated it would be bad because we would then have a reason to attack another country. Others made it sound like it would be OK if he were killed in America. Those commenting backtracked and they might have actually not meant it the way it came out but it sounds a bit too Freudian for me. Go to the link, read the post and the comments and then you decide.

So anyway, we have Robertson getting chastised for exercising his right and everyone has his panties in a wad. No one wants to condemn Air America for suggesting the same fate for our President. I think it is disgusting the left would decry a call for the assassination of the President of another country but applaud a call for the death of our President. In all fairness, maybe no one knew about Air America since no one actually listens to that noise generating station.

I do not agree with Robertson but I will defend his right to say it. On the other hand, I would not piss on a Flag burner to put him out.

More links here and here.

And to top it off Ariana Huffington’s blog has a post about Robertson and how bad he was for saying it. Some jackass commented that “Someone should assassinate Bush” (you have to search the comments). Just goes to show the mentality of the left.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

14 Responses to “But It’s Freedom Of Speech”

  1. Adam says:

    Look, one of these days you’re going to realize that what goes on with a random “leftist” blog does not always represent some “mentality of the left.” I hate it when you make blanket statements like that. Heaven help us if I judged all Republicans by what I saw on your website.

    Also one of these days you’re going to realize the difference between defending what somebody says and defending somebodies right to say it. So far I’ve only seen people mentioning how stupid Pat was to say it. I’ve yet to see somebody say he couldn’t do it.

    I can’t believe you are bringing up that stupid thread on my site again. I hope that reasonable people will see that you took things the wrong way from the start. Someday you’ll realize that “made it sound like” does not equate to somebody actually meaning something. That whole thread is just more examples of embarrassing arguments on my website that I wish would have never happened. If you keep linking to that shit you’ll force me to destroy my archives.

    While I’m into “someday” tonight, someday you’ll realize that simply believing you are right on a subject and smarting off every five minutes about it doesn’t change the way things are. Specifically in Texas vs. Johnson, “The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word.” I wish you’d take that into account when you write about flag burning and stop saying “Well it’s not even speech, it’s an action!! Actions aren’t speech!!!!” We don’t’ want people to accuse that of being the mentality of the right…

  2. Big Dog says:

    One,
    two.

    Here are just 2 links where people call for him to go. Many talk shows featured interviews with people who felt the same.
    I know Texas vs. Johnson. It is the ruling the SCOTUS erroneously made to allow Flag burning. Citing a decision I see as flawed does not support your argument. I know what they wrote and I have read what the founders wrote. The founders opposed it. The activist SCOTUS allowed it, that does not mean they were correct.

    I did not take things the wrong way from the start. You should read it again.

    Someday you will realize that regurgitating bad decisions does not turn them into good ones and that you are really in no position to tell me what I should or should not realize “someday.” And as for blanket statements you are the king of “everybody knows” or “everybody agrees.” These only apply to the everybodies you know because they are all a bunch of dyed in the wool donks who live off the teat of the government.

    And someday, you will realize that I have all the right in the world to write what I want and you can judge republicans by what you see because what you see is common sense. I just don’t expect you to recognize it.

    I know, my site is filled with hate. Oh wait. It is not hate, it is my expression like burning a Flag, just not as reprehensible.

  3. Schatz says:

    Just a side note, based on the above tirade from Adam I wanted to remind everyone that court decisions and case law can (and often are) rescinded or repealed and new (or in some cases previous) decisions made. (Think, death penalty, gun control, taxation, etc.)

    However, the words of our Founding Fathers are not subject to such changes. They are what they are. Of course, this is just IMHO.

    Second, I would have to ask the question that if gestures or actions are protected as the same as speech, how come when someone makes a vile gesture (such as slicing a finger across their throat) it is not actionable but a verbal threat is? Isn’t that a tad contradictory?

  4. Adam says:

    Big Dog:

    “Citing a decision I see as flawed does not support your argument.”

    You are a funny, funny man. Citing a decision you see as flawed does not support my argument? Oh yeah, because it’s not the law or anything. How could I be so dumb? Abortion is not really legal either since Roe vs. Wade was a flawed decision as well! I’ll inform the police. What a hoot!

    “These only apply to the everybodies you know because they are all a bunch of dyed in the wool donks who live off the teat of the government.”

    Keep this up and you’ll have your comedy show in no time! Teat of the government…ho ho ho! I can’t believe you’d turn right around and say something like that. The only people I know living off the “teat of the government” are the people who need it. But then again, they wouldn’t need it if they didn’t have all those luxury items, right? They’d have plenty of money on their own if they just gave up their car for working, their house for protecting their children, heck, just give up the kids. Then they wouldn’t have to live off that bad old “teat” would they? They wouldn’t have to work two jobs to make the same amount of money they made 10 years ago. But then again, at least employment is back up, they can actually get those two lesser paying jobs instead of the single good paying job with benefits…

    Schatz:

    Of course they can be rescinded, but that doesn’t change the fact that their ruling is law, no matter if Big Dog thinks it’s flawed or not. Man, that still cracks me up.

    Not all gestures and actions are protected by law. The cases are situational, and not even all attacks on the flag are lawful.

  5. N. Mallory says:

    Well, my opinion is that Robertson shouldn’t have said what he did from the start.

    I also think it’s hypocritical of this administration to condemn religious fanatics who don’t claim to be Christian but haven’t exactly come out and condemned him. Why isn’t Robertson being put on some watch list? or hauled in for questioning? Isn’t what he said inciting hate and encouraging hate crimes?

    I also think that any such remark about any world leader is wrong. I don’t think it’s right to even joke about…though I will admit to having wondered in the past if it wouldn’t have been cheaper to take out Saddam than go to war, I would have never encouraged it.

    Oh, and I’m starting to think that common sense is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone thinks they’re using common sense after all.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Adam, I do not have to agree with the law. I only have to allow you to act under it. I IN NO WAY have to like it. Citing something I already know does not support your argument. You dismiss the founder’s words for those of judges with whom I happen to disagree. I don’t imagine any of those folks on the teat are hurting. They all probably have a cell phone (a luxury) and more than one TV (a luxury) and cable (a luxury) and I know of at least one who has his own web site (not a necessity).

    As for working 2 jobs, with all the luxuries they probably have to. I worked 2 jobs and I made less as a private than most welfare recipients. But I worked and paid my own bills including my education. My children go to college with their own money that they earn during the day to attend classes at night. So quit crying about how tough it is.

    NM, just a point. IMHO all crimes are hate crimes. However, Robertson said what he did as a private citizen. Why are not half the Senators on a watch list (Kennedy was but they were worried about all the little bottles of scotch being stolen). Why are half the actors in Hollywood or Michael Moore not on a watch list. They say things that are distasteful. Fact is, we have a right to free speech whether we feel he should have said it or not.

  7. N. Mallory says:

    So…we have a right to free speach, but people in other countries who talk bad about our country and incite hate towards our country do not?

  8. N. Mallory says:

    er…speach = speech. Duh.

    Oh, and I’m sure Robertson thinks he’s using common sense too. Probably Michael Moore as well.

    I’m happy for MM for doing something about his weight. Maybe then people will stop using it as an insult tactic and focus more on his “real flaws”.

    BTW, Adam didn’t say “most” Americans agree with MM, he said “many” do. Personally, I agree with some of the stuff he says because I’ve researched the facts. I don’t agree with some of the stuff he says too, because I’ve researched it. I do agree that he manipulates the facts to agree with his views, but in this day and age, who doesn’t? There’s a lot of fact manipulation going on all over the place. Most people just don’t want to see it because they want to believe the pretty picture they’re presented with.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Our Constitution does not cover what people from other countries may or may not do. That is entirely up to their government and any Constitution they might have.

    Why the concern about what other countries say? They have been bad mouthing us for years. Quite a few of them only want us when they need help, otherwise could care less about us.

    As for Adam, you might be right. I am so use to him saying everyone and most that I must have seen that instead of read it.

  10. Adam says:

    You don’t imagine that these people “on the teat” are hurting? That’s because you don’t know these people. These aren’t the kind of people who have cell phones, cable, or any of that stuff you accuse them of, and I’m not talking about myself when I talk about these people.

    Your problem is you cannot see past your own life. You and your family manages these things. Good for you. Lots of people do it, and it’s great. That doesn’t mean everybody can do it, because they can’t. Your problem is you look down on these people who can’t work life the way you did. You think that if they can’t afford something it’s because they have cable TV, etc, etc. You’re just kidding yourself. People have it tough in America and you’re nuts to disregard that.

    This is why it is the job of our government to provide for them. Not because some founders thought some way, but because we can. If you can help somebody, it is wrong not to. The idea that it hurts people to help them is just a lie made up by people too busy in their own life to help others.

    How simple you make your arguments against social programs just shows how flawed your thinking is.

  11. Big Dog says:

    I don’t see it as the job of government to provide for anyone and I am sure the Constitution does not say that.

    I misread what you said and I can admit that.

    As for me, you assume I have this glamorous lifestyle when in fact I worked from meager means to where I am. I give back to my community through charity and volunteer work so don’t act like people who were able to make something of themselves are selfish. You should have the same record of giving that I do and then you could talk.

    I know there are dirt poor people in the world and the government helps provide for them. We can not give everyone a mansion but they have a place to live a car and food on the table. If they are that poor they qualify for Medicaid.

    You should really try better arguments than to call me names and attempt to insult my intelligence. That is truly foolish on your part.

  12. Adam says:

    You’ve said time and time again that you worked to get where you are and again I say good job. I’m not saying you don’t give to your community or volunteer, just that you have an attitude that everybody should handle things like you do. You hardly ever say “there are dirt poor people in the world” but instead insist that people “live off the teat” of America and still have luxuries. That’s insulting and suggests that the majority of people collecting welfare are abusing the system. Abuse of the system is going to happen, you can’t help that. Time and again you’ve preached that you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support other people. I always get the feeling that if you had your way you’d slice out social programs all together. Thank God you don’t have your way, because America would be nowhere today without our social programs.

  13. Big Dog says:

    There are needed programs. The fact is that people, not the government, pay for those programs and we should have some say in how our money is spent. It is our money no matter what you think or feel. The government takes it from us. This country is not free in that respect for anyone who earns decent wages. We should not have to pay more for mismanagement. If I want to save for social security I should get to decide where MY money goes.

    This is where you are wrong. You feel that this money belongs to the government and it does not. We have it taken from us and should have some say in how it is spent. And as far as I am concerned social programs that are needed should be for Americans. I do not care about giving my money to the rest of the world. That is why they have their own governments.

    A few questions, How did America get along before social programs came in to existence? How did we make it work 125 years or so ago? We were somewhere then and they did not exist so your argument is logically false.

    We can do something about abuses. When the government can not account for billions of dollars there is a problem. Anyone who defrauds the system should go to jail and never be eligible for assistance again. When a major company can not account for its money you guys on the left are all over the big republican companies who screw people. If the government can take my money and do what they want with it why can’t Enron do the same with its employee’s money?

  14. Big Dog says:

    I am not sure which part of I don’t want my media biased in either direction was unclear so I will say it again. I want facts, not spin. Hope that clears it up.

    You can say that the media was not friendly to Clinton but you are in error. Dick Morris has said that the media ignored many of Clinton’s indiscretions until after he had safely won reelection and then they went after him. I will bet the show you saw was after he was in his second term. Perhaps the media is not as you guys say going after Bush because there is really no scandal. There are speculations and the Rove story that unraveled. There is the third person hearsay DSM but there is really nothing to show anything illegal. We will certainly not find any sexual harassment.

    And it does not surprise me as it did you that you heard about it on Fox. They actually report most of the news. They have a Conservative slant but they report it and let you decide. That is what I want, just to make that clear again.

    And one other thing. You guys have helped quite a bit. Soldiers in Iraq say it is better than the MSM reports and there are good things happening. Since we know that violence and exploded cars with dead bodies sells and nice things do not you have quite clearly pointed out that the MSM is not reporting the nice things because it will not make them money.
    Thank you