Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

Where Do We 'Draw the Line'?

Some have gotten their drawers in a knot over all the Carson 'news', calling the accusations low, among other words; but is it?

I ran across this today: "Attack ad accuses GOP candidate of choosing ‘prostitutes over patriots’", Web Link

The race is for Governor of Louisiana and it seems to be another ugly political race.

From this piece: “The choice for governor couldn’t be more clear: John Bel Edwards, who answered our country’s call and served as a Ranger in the 82nd Airborne Division,” a voiceover begins. “Or David Vitter, who answered a prostitute’s call minutes after he skipped a vote honoring 28 soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedom. David Vitter chose prostitutes over patriots. Now the choice is yours.”

Is this fair?

I'm hoping for a rational discussion on what we feel about political ads and seeing as how this particular race isn't for President and isn't in the State of CA, we might be able to discuss what is and isn't 'over the line'.


Comments

All of which has nothing to do with the false accusations against Ben Carson, or the kid glove treatment of Obama.

You and your pwecious widdle media hacks got a black eye over the attacks on Ben Carson. That can happen to hypocrites that don't bother cleaning their own house first.


The media got another black eye with their obnoxious debate questions too.


As long as there are people gullible enough to "believe" tv and talk radio horse-pucky, it will be used as a means to foment anger and grab votes.

What people get bent out of shape about in these parts is when it's THEIR horse-pucky that's called-out for the horse-pucky it is.

Is Carson's obvious egotistical rewriting of his history pertinent? Yes.

Why? Because it points to a pattern of dishonesty and self-delusion.

Is that unusual for the folks who feel they've got what it takes to be POTUS? Not at all.

What's happened over the last 15-20 years is an anti-intellectual movement that has gained lots and lots of momentum. In essence, people have been manipulated into thinking their opinion is just as valid as fact and science. Once you achieve that - the denigration and devaluation of actual knowledge and understanding - you can control those people very, very easily. And that's what folks like Levin, Limbaugh, Beck, Savage and others have accomplished.

You can see the code words everywhere: "Elites" is the most commonly used. Ever see that used on TA?

So you throw some political chum into the waters and watch the sharks arrive for dinner. That's what the political ads do. And those who lean towards the smearer think it's just fine because it confirms their biases.

This too shall pass. In 100 years this period will be called "Idiocratic" and laughed about when those people discuss the foolishness of putting opinion on par with fact.


I'd like to thank both francis and uff for their attempt at contribution, but this thread was initiated to discuss "where we draw the line" in political ads and campaigns, not as a venue for the ridiculous ranting and name calling that those ads and campaigns seem to draw and generate.

Coasters makes some good points. Maybe I can add to that.

Politics is a contact sport. We've been over that numerous times. It seems however (and I could be wrong) that the higher the elected position, the more scrutiny a candidate receives. I think that's a good thing. A Presidential candidate, for example, should receive more scrutiny than say a City Council candidate.

I would also note that there sure seems to be a strong link to money. Yeah, I know, that probably should be obvious and the higher the position sought, the more resources are needed and used to get that spot, but I don't believe I've determined a direct link between the amount of money to position and leeway to 'the line' mentioned..

Ironic, sort of, because the old saying think global, act local is one I believe in. Locally elected, the City Council for example, have more of a direct impact on our daily lives and routines than President of the US (another example).

Honesty, morals, ethics, transparency, bringing folks together instead of dividing them, vision, forward thinking and so much more; these are qualities I like to see in someone I'm asked to vote for. A sense of humor, serious brain tissue and other qualifications are nice, too, but not necessarily critical (to a point).

Anyway, there are a few more points and a little direction.


George, you have a habit of posting anything some evil Republican does while ignoring worse in a Democrat. This thread appears then to be just another one of those pieces.

If you would like to try again using a Democrat for once, I'm willing to listen.


George thank you for posting this. I share your concern. A couple of things.

First, if you're going to make an accusation, you best be right. But the evidence here is paper thin. A leaked phone record to a suspected pimp (let's call it what it is, "Madam" is a garbage word) showing a single call in proximity to a specific vote proves nothing. It's odd, but meaningless without further explanation.

Second, I expect all Americans to honor and respect veterans. Someone who uses veterans for personal or political gain is no friend of mine, and certainly wouldn't ever get my vote. I question the planetary residency status of any politician who is surprised by this sentiment, and would like to see some sort of record of earth birth.

Third, and with all that other stuff said, scrutiny is part of working in government. I work for a small government organization and play a small part. I might make decisions that could potentially effect tens or hundreds or very rarely thousands. I was subject to pretty intense scrutiny and a good deal of embarrassment during the hiring process. An investigator was hired to look into every aspect of my back ground, including educational, financial and criminal. My (least) favorite part was when they asked for contact information for ex girlfriends so that they could be contacted for information. Inaccuracy, except the smallest and most inconsequential, was terms for immediate dismissal from the process.

As the position becomes more powerful, it makes sense to me that the scrutiny becomes more intense and more public. A governor or senator representing a state needs looked at carefully. A president effecting world affairs daily needs intense and often very inconvenient scrutiny. Unfortunately, for many higher offices, this job is so significant that it is carried out by the opposition, the public and the media in general. We keep hearing about "gotcha" journalism and a biased media, and I'm a little baffled by the whole thing. The media is doing its job by forcing candidates to answer questions that they would rather not, and they serve their role as impartial inquisitor well in my opinion. I prefer media inquiry to that of an obviously biased opposition candidate.

At the end of the day questions need to be fair. Which is to say they need to have a reason for being asked (value) and allow for an honest and complete answer from the candidate. Accusations of wrong doing, lying, incompetence, etc need to be well founded, vetted and leave room for the candidate to offer explanation and contribute to the dialogue.

This attack is way off the mark, and is backfiring for obvious reasons. It offers a good insight into how bad things can get if the opposition is allowed to run wild. This issue was better handled by the news media who quite correctly decided that it lacked the evidence and value to make it even worth bringing up.


Excuse me, uff, but did you open and read the link provided?

It's neither nice nor productive to assume.

I would add here that there can be very little doubt about how I feel about and what I think of the GOP these days; but this thread, as spelled out in the title, isn't about me, you, or any particular political party.

If you'd like to contribute, please do. If not, that's fine, too. For some reason, I think it might be interesting to see where folks stand on 'the line'. For me, it seems to be a combination of points collectively; but that's just me.

For an example; suppose next Wednesday's Review sported a headline on the front page - 'Council member prominently featured on Madison Ashley customer list' - and this Council member was married, with young kids. Now imagine the same headline, only replacing Council member with Senator, Congress member or President and the headline was on the front page of the Washington Post?

Is it the offense? Is it the political office? Is it the location? Is it the individual? Would you have the same reaction, in total, regardless of party, elected position or wealth? Would it even matter to you? If so, why?

That seems a much more productive avenue to travel. There will be many more stupid attacks by Presidential candidates between now and next November. We'll have plenty more opportunities to judge and comment. Maybe, if we can discuss it reasonably, we can determine our own 'trigger points'.


Affect/effect. Ugh. Sorry.


Sorry George but your posts are so consistently hyper-partisan that it's silly to try to engage in meaningful discussion. Show you're fair and make your point on the back of a Democrat for once.


Uff, the problem is that the GOP, ever since the Tea Party started, provides an enormous amount of opportunities to poke and prod. I am all for fair's fair. If Bernie Sanders says he was kidnapped by aliens and probed, I'm going to ROFL and he would never get my vote.

Look at this, for example...

Web Link

Michele Bachmann wants to save as many people as possible because "Jesus is coming soon.".

Do you realize how many people and movements have said that? Do you understand that 100% of them have been wrong? What are the odds of something true being wrong 100% of the time? When do we step up to our epistemological responsibilities and call horse-pucky on these people? You would need to be stupid or crazy to believe tht people are going to be swept to the heavens as incorporeal spirits while the rest suffer, "Left Behind". Makes a great story.

And she was once a mover and groover in the Tea Party Movement.

The GOP has provided a very target rich environment for a media that make s living at finding and knocking targets down.

That doesn't mean the Dems haven't had their share. There's Charlie Rangel. Anthony Weiner. Bill Clinton, who is still many women's favorite Dem of all time. These men were all weak and/or corrupt.

I wish the media spent more time on substance rather than peccadilloes, but those peccadilloes often point to deeper issues. That's the point people make about Lewinsky and the point people are making about Ben Carson's possible mythologizing of himself. The Benghazi witch hunt found absolutely nothing. Nothing and, yet, the GOP led effort continued for months LOOKING for peccadilloes.

Rapture or not, we all reap what we sow.


There is a full political spectrum of wrongdoers among us. Consistently picking out one group to condemn, and again discussing in detail the misdeeds of yet another person in that same group is just over the top. Coasters, while I share your distaste for extremely religious activist types, your post here pretty much supports what I say about targeting Republicans.

But carry on, everyone... I'll get the popcorn out

:-)


"Show you're fair and make your point on the back of a Democrat for once." That's the second time on this thread and matter that you have made that comment. "If you would like to try again using a Democrat for once, I'm willing to listen." That was the first. You have mis-spoken both times. It seems you are incapable of an intellectual discussion on political matters, appearing to allow personal feelings, thoughts and opinions of others cloud your judgment and reason.

Perhaps my response to your initial mis-statement was too subtle, so let me try again, being a little more direct: IF you were to open the initial link provided, and then actually read it, you would see that it is a democrat making the accusations ad that sparked this thread. Further, in your first comment, you offer to listen, per conditions. Well, that's nice and all, but I don't know that anyone cares if you listen or not, frankly.

Either you have something to contribute or you don't. As Coasters notes: "Uff, the problem is that the GOP, ever since the Tea Party started, provides an enormous amount of opportunities to poke and prod." He's right and it is something I have been on for a while. Nobody likes to feel their intelligence is being insulted and your GOP candidates do that on a daily basis; but I have and am addressing that on other threads.

This one is not about candidate specific, but voter specific. What are we willing to put up with? What do we want to see in our model of a candidate. Where's the line?

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent and will have been exhausted from the start of this Presidential run to its conclusion next November. The Koch bros alone have pledged $900 Million! TV, paper, news reports, mailers, radio spots and more will inundate our lives telling us who to vote for and why. Through it all, there is a line. Everyone has one and most are probably fairly close - from their perspective (party fav) of course.

If you find yourself unwilling to even open a link to comprehend this topic because of personal issues, then there's not much I can say other than have a nice day.


I opened and read that link, George, when you first posted it. Maybe you don't understand that your ongoing hyperpartisanship renders your motives suspect.

But again, go for it.


your post here pretty much supports what I say about targeting Republicans

I target the absurd and ridiculous that people hold as "truth". If it wears a GOP t-shirt sometimes, that's not my fault, Uff.

The challenge for "conservatives" is that they are being pulled further and further to the right which means more extreme. More extreme produces more absurdity, more stupidity.

A typical example is that I say, "Let women have the freedom to choose and stay out of their lives.". Certain folks will hop online and immediately cast me as "The Abortion-on-demand crowd". That's patently false. I am part of the the " Let people make their own difficult decisions" crowd. I believe in freedom of choice.

Why? It's not black and white. I don't know why a woman needs or wants an abortion, but I leave it to her and her SO to decide, not society. Intervention into that decision process by government is a perfect example of BIG GOV'T, in my opinion.

Turning these issues into black and white is the problem. If we could all back away from dictating how people deal with their lives on a day-to-day basis, it would decrease tensions and improve life.

I voted for Bob Dole for President, not Bill Clinton, in 1996. Bob's said himself that he would never make it in today's GOP - the party has become too extreme. In less than 20 years, the GOP has gotten to the point where there is no room for moderation or compromise. It has been enveloped in ideology that seems to be ripping it apart. That creates a lot of opportunity to point out the comedy in it's approaches and policies. Benghazi is an excellent example. What a shining example of GOP dysfunction. Government shutdowns are another. What reasonable person thinks it's fine to lower our credit rating to make a point? How absurd and irresponsible.

And, again, you reap what you sow.


Here's a shining example, Uff:

Web Link

Ted Cruz, a Harvard educated man, associating with a Pastor who believes LGBT should be exterminated and who wants to require Presidents to submit to Jesus's rule. In other words, to completely throw out the 1st amendment.

Is Ted using the pastor or does he really believe what he says? He's clever enough to metaphorically state that any POTUS who doesn't start the "day on his knees" isn't fit for the office, so doesn't go so far to attack the Constitution directly. But the absurdity of a potential POTUS encouraging this mentality is a huge problem.

Huckabee and Jindal were both there, too.

How are we ever going to defeat religious extremism like ISIS if we have our own politicians supporting extreme religious leaders like Swanson?

Here's Swanson's schtick about killing gay people for the "sin of homosexuality" and that "I think they should receive it" when discussing the death penalty for homosexuals.

Web Link

Do you see Democrats doing this?


Coasters, thank you for the thoughtful input. +1.

Ideologues and extremists are not just found in the middle east. We have our share right here in the US and 30-40 of them can be found walking the halls of Congress. That is frightening.

As a direct result, the envelop of reason has been stretched to its breaking point, which I would say the political ad at the start of this thread helps demonstrate. But that ad isn't on an island. That type ad is now commonplace and we will be seeing a lot more like it between now and 11/16. It is more than disturbing - but it is what the GOP candidates in particular are told to do by those that fund them, as if it is all acceptable. It is not.

In the "old days", candidates argued issues. Yes, from time to time one would chastise another, but it was palatable. Kennedy, for example, used humor to counter a critic. He then would delineate the issue, sort it out and come to his conclusion, which he would explain.

We don't see that type of country first attitude anymore. Congress has been so busy fighting the system that they've severely damaged it and the GOP is collapsing before our eyes. It is both very disturbing and very hurtful to our country.

It will not be until the American public says they've had enough of that sort of partisan vitriol, rhetoric and personal attacks before this cancer will stop. The question remains; "where's the line"?

We might want to keep that question in mind as we are subjected to untold amounts of crap advertising until the 2016 election has come and gone.


George. There used to be collaboration between the parties. They understood that the pendulum swings back and forth, not just one direction. I miss those days.

Carl Sagan said,

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance.

Amen.


This might qualify for another example of possibly crossing the line: "TRUMP: Hillary Clinton is running for president 'because she wants to stay out of jail'", Web Link

First, a disclaimer; I laughed when I saw the title. I laughed through a good part of the piece ... maybe all of it. Finally, I get a kick out of The Donald. He is hilarious ... and not stupid.

Here is the start of the piece; "Real-estate mogul Donald Trump suggested Monday that former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have serious legal problems if he gets to appoint the next US attorney general."

"Speaking at a presidential campaign rally in Springfield, Illinois, Trump assailed Clinton for her controversial email practices at the State Department. Trump asserted that Clinton committed a "crime."

"You better remember: There's a six-year statute of limitations on that crime. So Hillary's running for a lot of reasons. One of them is because she wants to stay out of jail. Because I am sure — and first of all, everybody gets a fair shake with me — but I am sure whoever the attorney general is, you've got a lot of years left on that crime. That's a crime," he said.

"If I win, we're going to look into that crime very, very seriously, folks," he added. "She's watching right now and she's saying to herself, 'Man, I better win.' So we have to make our country great again. We have to do it. We're going to make it so good."

I love "We're going to make it so good." If I can come up with any specificy on that, I'll post it here - but doesn't it just make you feel warm all over?

Trump being ... Trump. Gotta love it. Just look what this guy has done to the top tier of the GOP, which of course has shuttered down the ranks. Just "amazing", really.

So, has The Donald crossed the line? I mean, the title alone seems pretty sketchy, don't you think? Maybe we should sic Clay on The Donald to remind the mogol that if he thinks a crime has been committed, he should report it to the authorities and not post it on TA!


^^^ First, a disclaimer; I laughed when I saw the title ^^^

Take care not to trip on the graves of the 4 dead Americans you're dancing on.


As IF anyone needed confirmation of the bigotry the GOP is offering us in the form of Presidential candidates and posture: "Rachel Maddow Has No Time For GOP Candidates Joining Anti-Gay Rally" / "Ted, Mike and Bobby -- consider yourselves burned." - Web Link

Here's how this one starts off: "Rachel Maddow expressed her dismay after three Republican presidential hopefuls joined the National Religious Liberties Conference this weekend, pointing to the anti-gay rhetoric of the event's organizer."

"GOP candidates Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal were among the bold-faced names present at the two-day event, held last weekend in Des Moines, Iowa. Still, most headlines focused on Pastor Kevin Swanson, the conference's chief organizer, who linked a same-sex kiss to devastating wildfires in his home state of Colorado and condemned Harry Potter because author J.K. Rowling specified that a principal character was a gay man."

"This is a political event. This is a Republican presidential candidates' event," Maddow emphasized. "It really was a ‘kill-the-gays’ call to arms. This was a conference about the necessity of the death penalty as a punishment for homosexuality."

It is absolutely shocking that in this day and age we still see such bigotry. To make matters even worse, this is coming from individuals, republicans, that are seeking the Presidency! What are these folks smoking? Sickening.

All the truly real issues out there for us to deal with and this bunch has to manufacture issues - what, to feel better about their own shortcomings and insecurities?

Haven't we had enough hate?


Which thread do you want to talk about this on?

The minister might be a freak but that does not mean the candidates share his extreme views.


^^^ The minister might be a freak but that does not mean the candidates share his extreme views. ^^^

Using the logic of Spurious George, we should be outraged at Hillary Clinton because one of her supporters publicly stated he wants to strangle Carly Fiorina. (That gained a chuckle from the Teflon Pantsuit.)

Talk about a War on Women!


>>Using the logic of Spurious George, we should be outraged at Hillary Clinton because...<<

Or outraged at Obama because he supported Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright for 20 years.


^^^ Or outraged at Obama because he supported Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright for 20 years. ^^^

In the words of Boyd Crowder, "that's different."


"Haven't we had enough hate?"

Apparently not, as the prior two posters demonstrate.

It must be an extremely difficult task to try to not only defend, but continue to support such extreme hate, but somehow a very few find a way.

Maybe one of the issues the candidates should promote through discussion is how we improve the attitude of the severely hate inflicted; but then that's what phycologists and drug companies are for.

Perhaps the GOP candidates should offer 'happy drugs' to anyone stupid enough to accept them for their vote. Kind of like the old days when candidates would get voters drunk for their vote.

Here's another view on the outrageous incident Maddow comments to above; "Republican Candidates Attend Rally Where Pastor Advocates "Death Penalty" for Gay People", Web Link

"On Friday, three Republican presidential candidates — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — attended an event in Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by a controversial Colorado pastor who has frequently advocated against gay people, including that the government should put them to death."

"The event, dubbed the National Religious Liberties Conference, was hosted by pastor Kevin Swanson, who delivered a fiery speech in which he said Biblical law calls for "homosexuals" to be executed."

"Yes, Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death penalty for homosexuals," he said. Swanson said he was "willing to go to jail for standing on the truth of the word of God."

"Swanson then invited Jindal, Cruz and Huckabee on stage for a Q&A session with the 2016 presidential candidates."

"Before Swanson began interviewing Cruz, Cruz joked, "You're not going to ask about fantasy football, are you?" Instead, Swanson asked Cruz how important he thinks it is for a United States president to fear God."

"Any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this country," Cruz responded.

Maybe a different approach might provide some insight into such extreme behavior. To see, a simple question might help reveal the thought process to get to such an extreme view.

How does someone's being gay impact your life? Let's start with that. Pretty simple, direct question.


Take care not to trip on the graves of the 4 dead Americans you're dancing on.

He says, as the GOP continues to flog the 4 dead for political gain. Has there ever been a more pathetic group of cowards?


^^^ He says, as the GOP continues to flog the 4 dead for political gain. Has there ever been a more pathetic group of cowards? ^^^

Excuse me, but that pathetic excuse for a woman that you support for president is directly responsivle for the tragedy in Benghazi.

It is you and you ilk that were gleefully proclaiming her to have "won" her appearance before the Benghazi Committee, which I might add is about finding out what happened before, during and after the attack. And we still don't know what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi. Partisan tribalists like "Coasters" don't want to know, it may put that wretched woman they support in the proper light. They don't care about the 4 dead that died because Obama and Hillary needed to perpetrate the lie that "al Qaeda is on the run," a lie that "Coaster's" and its ilk swallow whole.

None of the Democrat candidates has a realistic policy on foreign affairs, Islamic terror or immigration. They've all demostrated or proclaimed their incompetence on such matters. Every one of them would enact policies that would result in an ISIS attack on US soil. And "Coasters" would be right there cheering them on. Because abortion! Climate change! BUSH(!!!)


"Excuse me, but that pathetic excuse for a woman that you support ..." One could easily argue that this comment, along with the person that made it is over "the line" - way over.

So I guess when all else fails (your party sucks, your party's offerings for President suck, you're on the wrong side of pretty much every issue and you have your head firmly planted), the next thing you do is attack not an issue, but a gender. Yeah, that's the winning ticket.

bigot: chauvinist, partisan, sectarian, racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist, ...

Yep; check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, ...


Hate speech on hold while families are identifying their loved ones in French morgues.


While there is no question that the French bombings are yet one more tragedy that we all suffer, it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Does the world stop because of terrorism? Is there no news, but terrorism? Are we to fall further victim to terrorism? Is the 2016 US Presidential election now on hold or just cancelled because of terrorism?

Get a clue, Seal, and a grip. There is more 'out there' than your little world and how you might feel on any given day - said with all due respect, of course.


George stop for a couple of days. "My little world" as you put it shaked the entire World. Have some common decency and stop your hate speech. Last count 480 people are severely harmed. A third of those died.


^^^ Hate speech on hold while families are identifying their loved ones in French morgues. ^^^

It is not "hate speech" to point out the lies of Hillary, Rice and Obama regarding the attack on our consulate in Benghazi. It is not "hate speech" to point out that Hillary, Rice and Obama deliberately choose to deceive Americans regarding regarding the attack to maintain the false meme that "al Qaeda is on the run."

Qualifying any speech that makes you feel uncomfortable as "hate speech" is not the way to respect the dead -- it simply sweeps them under the rug until a new deceptive narrative can be created.

It's time to draw a line against irresponsible governance by Obama. Even some in the Democratic Party are waking up to Obama's poor handling of the threat posed by ISIS. Those people in Paris weren't killed by Global Warming. They were killed Islamic terrorists that took advantage of the same refugee policies that Obama is attempting to enact here in the US.

God Bless the French.

"Rev. Jeremiah Right" the Islamic terrorists.


"Last count 480 people are severely harmed. A third of those died." That is, without question, a complete and total tragedy. Terrorism and those that carry it out hurts us all, everywhere, and must be stopped.

But, as you can see, it seems what you term as "hate speech" is only hate speech when it opposes Your views. Interesting perspective, Seal. You go out of your way to chase me around TA with a hatchet, yet have no comment to others that discuss your POV.

Be careful, Seal; some call that hypocritical.

That said, we can not allow terrorism to rule our lives. I know I won't. Life goes on here on the coast and globally, as you can see. The dems had their debate, the Warriors won #11 in a row last night, the NFL games are on as we 'speak', and there is plenty of news being provided from all corners of the world on all kinds of things.

"George stop for a couple of days." Is that the PC thing to do, Seal? Over 7 Billion people on this planet and you "tell" me to stop for a few days? You've got nerve, I'll give you that much.

I would say that You, Seal, have crossed the drawn line. I would add that that is unfortunate. Perhaps there is someone else out there that wants/needs to be told what to do. It isn't me.

I would close here by adding that the "hate speech" you mention is coming from the quotes I've posted of others. Example (from above): "The event, dubbed the National Religious Liberties Conference, was hosted by pastor Kevin Swanson, who delivered a fiery speech in which he said Biblical law calls for "homosexuals" to be executed."

"Yes, Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death penalty for homosexuals," he said. Swanson said he was "willing to go to jail for standing on the truth of the word of God."

That, in my book, is a fine example of "hate speech". Maybe it's time to re-evaluate your definitions and outlook?


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium