2009.10.30
Is this what they teach at Regent Law School?
The religious right continues to scream about the addition of sexual orientation to federal hate crimes law. I've wondered whether they deliberately misrepresent what the law does or if they are just ignorant about it and don't want to hear the truth.
It looks like Pat Robertson lands squarely in the ignorant camp. Check out these clips from his television network.
Robertson: You know, there’s a law – what about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs? Not a chance!
Um, Pat, the very same hate crimes law that now protects gays has always protected people based on their chosen religious belief. In fact, religion is the only protected group that is a choice. Plus the hate crimes law does not trump the First Amendment. Your preachers are free to spout bigotry from the pulpit all they want.
(h/t Crooks and Liars)
RSS feed 
If someone beats up someone because they are gay if they let a church or not, it is wrong, these guys want the world to go back to the 18th century. If they are Christians or not, if they do violence against someone they have to pay for the crime.
If Republican Attorney General Candidate of Va. gets in Ken Cuccinelli, he wants to advocate for a view of the law which allows for the criminality of consensual sexual conduct among adults loosely defined as a ‘homosexual act’ . Another words the line between the church and state are getting really thin.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
I wonder if we'll get the missionary police running around for law breakers in their own homes too.
Comment by Other John — October 30, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
In the clip, Robertson asks if a pastor preaches against homosexuality, then someone in his congregation goes out and attacks a homosexual, will it come back on the pastor.
As Christian correctly notes, it will not. The First Amendment protects against that (unless the preacher explicitly says, "Go out, right now, and beat up the first gay person you come across," knowing that there's a good chance someone in his congregation will follow the directive).
But there seems to be no sense by Robertson that the preacher may share some of the moral blame, if not the legal blame, if a member of a preacher's congregation does take a sermon and use it as a reason to beat someone else up. Hate crimes law or no, if a preacher is inciting violence among his congregation, at the very least you'd think that might lead to some personal reflection.
I sense none of that here.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 30, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
The only thing Pat Robertson is good at is flaunting his self-righteous propaganda using his empire. I have tried to respect him, but I just can't...because he shows little or no respect for people who disagree with him or who practice anything different from him.
Comment by Other John — October 30, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
A Christian will hate the sin of homosexuality, but love the sinner. No beatings here.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 30, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Dan #3
if a preacher is inciting violence among his congregation, at the very least you'd think that might lead to some personal reflection.
I sense none of that here.
Maybe the reason you "sense none of that here" is because Robertson isn't inciting violence among this congregation.
Comment by Suzie — October 30, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
#5 Good start as to beating or not promoting it. But if you know this or not there are many Christians who are gay.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 30, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
If a Christian is a homosexual and chaste: not a problem.
I did see a comment on another blog where the writter suggested using the RICO laws against groups who helped passed Prop 8 in California. The hatred and intolerance of homosexuals towards Christians seems to outwiegh any hatred and intolerance coming from the other direction. Just read a blog on the subject.
Comment by Patt — October 30, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
And to think Virginia will most likely elect a governor who graduated from Pat Robertson's so-called university. Didn't McDonnell's thesis mention homosexuality? And something about a woman's place in society? I fear for Virginia women.
Comment by Kathryn — October 31, 2009 @ 12:44 am
In response to #8. This is so typical of the "religious wrong". I get very tired of hearing: "If you don't allow me to discriminate against you, you are discriminating against my religious beliefs."
I don't care what you believe, or what your bible says, you don't have the right to hurt or kill me, discriminate against me, or prevent me from having the same rights as every other citizen of this country. I pay more taxes than any married person of the same income level in this country & I have fewer rights.
Before you argue right/wrong with me & start quoting your bible, let me just say that I'm not a christian so your bible doesn't apply to me. Your have to come up with something better to justify your actions.
Comment by Mark Lee — October 31, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Some Christians are actively trying to prevent gays from having rights, and sometime actively trying to repeal rights that already exist. That's called oppression. Gays are angry at those who are trying to oppress them. Don't try to turn the tables to suggest that the oppressors are being discriminated against by those that they are trying to oppress.
Comment by Sighko Sis — October 31, 2009 @ 7:57 am
dont care what anyone does in their bedrooms. it isnt my business. if it is evil then they will pay later. if it isnt, then there was no issue. what i totally object to is tsomeone's way of living, no matter who or what you are being crammed down my throat like a pelosi health bill. do what you want, no one can take anything from you because of that, and leave me out of it, leave my kids and schools and govt out of it. just do you own thing and get over it already.
Comment by pammala — October 31, 2009 @ 8:56 am
The current hate crimes law has been on the books since 1969, and NEVER over the past 40 years has someone been prosecuted for expressing prejudice against members of a race or a religious group. Christian pastors have been invoking Scripture against non-Christians for as long as there have been Christians, and the hate crimes statute has never been used against them. Take Pat Robertson, for example: He has been railing against Muslims for his entire life and went completely apoplectic when a Muslim cleric first delivered the invocation at a session of the House of Representatives, but Robertson was still within his rights to do so. The fact that the hate crimes law now includes sexual orientation will not inhibit the venting of his spleen.
Comment by Chuck Anziulewicz — October 31, 2009 @ 9:13 am
Pam...
That would be great if everyone was being treated fairly. The problem is, we're not.
Simply saying "get over it" doesn't cut it with me and a lot of others like me.
Comment by Will — October 31, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Christians commit all sorts of sins; it is human nature. Unfortunately, homosexuals are celebrating their sin, which is kind of like spitting in God's eye. It is a very bad thing.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 10:19 am
Hmmm....why do we harp on the sin of homosexuality, yet we ignore that part about getting your girlfriend pregnant. Pat Robertson knows a little something about that. (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.)
Comment by s — October 31, 2009 @ 10:35 am
@15: Again, sin as described in the Bible is a moving target. While there are absolutes (murder, pedophelia, etc.) feeling love, respect, loyalty and devotion to whomever moves you to such a state cannot possibly be wrong by any definition.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 31, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Will #14,
There is nothing you can tell me about school- and workplace bias. I have been a blonde woman in a man's world since I was 18. It's not different than being black or gay in that you view everything that happens or is said, through a prism. You either do something about it or live with it, but please don't whine about it.
Comment by Suzie — October 31, 2009 @ 11:00 am
#17 If you believe in sin and all that, fine, but please keep that kind of thinking away from the law of the land. There is a reason our fore fathers wanted the church and government to be separate. Here is hoping you see the light.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Thank God for sins!
Comment by Blue John — October 31, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Sin is sin is sin. But for the First Commandment, all sins are equal, hence sodomy=murder=lying=stealing=adultery=fornication=pedophilia, etc.,etc.
That one may enjoy sinning is not news, nor does it excuse it. Doing the right thing is typically harder than doing the wrong thing.
AND THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! I defy anyone to find that phrase in the Constitution. GOOD GRIEF, CHARLIE BROWN!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 11:39 am
#21 I hear your self rightness but please try to understand that because someone is not on the same page as you is not bad or a sinner.
And your wish for a church run state is only that, a wish that will not become true except in the fiction section.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Bill Hudson:
I am not self righteous. And while you are correct that not agreeing with me is not a sin, disagreeing with God is a sin. And God condemns homosexuality.
AND I have never advocated, nor do I desire, a "church run state". I stand for the Constitution, which does not call for an atheistic state, hostile to religion.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 11:49 am
#23 When you talk like that I call that self righteous, sorry but of it walks like a duck..... And your main phone line to God is funny. My higher being tells me you are so very wrong. But that is where wars start is it not?
By the way some of of that do not think like you do are not atheistic and we are not hostile to religion. It is where you lose some folks there.
By the way I too and many other are Americans and calling your self or others that think like you do the true one is false and not my friend, very American.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Bill Hudson: I am a real American. I do not steal from others via taxation, I do not disparage my country at home or abroad, I do not apologize for this country, I do not envy others, nor do I expect others to conform to me, I respect the Constitution, and I revere our founding principles.
In other words, I am not a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive, fascist, socialist or commie. I did not vote for obama.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
#25 We liberals are not commies here (I am laughing)nor are we fascist ( us from the left have a long history fighting the fascist) and I am a American and there are many of us.
But I am so glad you did not vote for our President. I do not think you would fit in.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 31, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
GFK, perhaps you should be a Real American and respect your President, respect your federal and state elected representatives even when they were not the ones you voted for as I have for eight years, and yet stand up for our freedoms at home and abroad to whomever tries to ursurp them whether they be Conservatives with the "Patriot Act", Liberals with "gun laws"; police that overstep their bounds in alcohol and drug searches, Religious zealots that want to control government, unions that want to control employee voting rights.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
As for Pat Robertson, he remains second only to Rush Limbaugh as money grabing entertainer who would say or do anything to get more money. Like Rush he takes advantage of feeble minds and cons them of their hard earned money. Yet our "liberal media" continues to suport them in the name of free speech while they reap the rewards of advertising and fees. Capitalism run amok that poisons society. I firmly support their free speech and right to say whatever they believe. However, the greed that the "liberal media" has in keeping them on the air to collect the advertising is hypocrisy at its highest form.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
GFK, I believe the Patriot act violated the oath or many a Republican yet I hear no complaits from you on that.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
GFK, you may disagree with what they have done, but you offer no proof of Oath violation of protecting our Constitution, it is your interpretation only. The Patriotic Act directly violated our rights as protected by the Constitution.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
#37 - "...stand up for our freedoms at home and abroad to whomever tries to ursurp them..."
That's exactly what he's doing Richard. Obama and his staff are walking all over our Constitution. Do you expect people to be quiet about it and show respect?
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Show respect, yes. Be quiet, no. If you believe our tights are being taken, certainly shout to the Heavens. But jsut as you compained about the lack of respect for GW and there was, be respectful and honest in what your discouese is now. Much of whay is being said lacks honesty and sincerity with little basis of fact.
If you have such concerns for our freedoms, where were they when the Patriot act was passed?
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
#32- My concerns for the Patriot Act were voiced quite loudly...just not on this site.
Sorry, Richard, I will show no respect for Obama. He's a threat to our nation and I can not, will not show a miniscule of respect for the man.
If a Republican were in office, doing exactly what Obama is doing, I'd feel the same way. Don't doubt it.
Comment by Patrick — October 31, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
I am only a little upset by our tights being stolen, much more so about our rights. Sorry
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Perhaps you would Patrick, and I am glad you were vocal against the Patriot Act and continue to be. Though, so far in the Obama Admisnistration I find I have to disagree with you. I have seen actions such as the GM and Chrysler bailout that I wish could have been handled differntly, however, the politics, (specifically from the Republicans)that would never approve of such a bailout without the Gov't assuring a repayment to the taxpayer. If and when they recover and the stock is not sold and the Govt get out of the auto business I will agree with you. However, I do believe they had to be salvaged for our economy to survive.
I assume you are also upset by healthcare reform. Considering that I make a very good living and have most anything I want, I find that healthcare is the one area that is flling behind rapidly. Insurance rates have skyrocketed, care standards have fallen through the floor. It is unfortunate the industry has failed to correct its deficits, so much like Theodore Rossevelt and the monopolies, the Govt must step in and make corrections. Had the health care industry listened to the complaints for the last several years this would not be happenning. See what Sarbannes Oxley did to accountants after Enron, same thing.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Every member of Congress that votes for healthcare reform violates his oath of office. Every member of Congress that voted for the auto, bank and AIG bailouts violated his oath of office. Every member of Congress that votes for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al. violates his oath of office.
The President--barack hussein obama--has violated his oath of office through his promotion of the above noted programs, by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize with Congressional authorization, and by signing the defense authorization bill containing the hate crimes provision.
All deserve impeachment.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
The Patriot Act did not violate the Constitution. Sorry, it just did not. And I doubt many of you even know what the Patriot Act did.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 31, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
GFK, I thought you knew your history. All of the things you say are unconstitutional have had similar if not virtually the same actions throughout the history of the United States. From Alexander Hamilton setting up the National Banks, to the putting down of the Whiskey Rebellion, to Abrahamn Lincoln pursuing the Civil Way, to Roosevelt attacking the monopolies, to WWI and II rationing and taking over the autoindustry, to Eisenhour building the interstates, to setting up the Fed after the Great Depression, to social security and medicare, to John Kennedy starting the space program, to Johnson starting his poverty programs, to Reagan manipulating the tax law and the interest rates, to GW Bush shutting down World Com, Enron, Adelphia, to Sarbanne Oxley to many other acts some that I agreed with and some I did not like the Patriot Act. You are spouting nonsense as far as Constitutionality and misinterpreting that Great Document.
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
National Bank--Unconstitutional
Suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion--Constitutional
Using military force to prevent state secession--Unconstitutional
Attacking monopolies--Unconstitutional
WWI--Constitutional
Rationing and taking over the auto industry--Unconstitutional
Interstate Highway System--Constitutional (borderline)
The Fed was set up in 1913, before the "Great Depression"--Unconstitutional
Social Security--Unconstitutional
Medicare--Unconstitutional
Space Program--Constitutional if used as part of the defense department
The Great Society's anti-poverty programs--Unconstitutional (and ineffective)
Reagan "manipulating the tax law and interest rates"--Never happened
[Reagan's tax cuts, passed by Congress]--Constitutional [and needed]
GW Bush "shutting down World Com, Enron, Adelphia--Never happened
Sarbanes-Oxley--Unconstitutional
Patriot Act--Constitutional
GFK's "spouting"--Eminent common sense, and astute analysis of the issues
The Left's arguments on the Constitution--to be polite, incredibly mistaken, and misguided
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Someone said in a recent blog you were elitist, I believe they are wrong, you appear to be the only one since 1776 that can understand the Constitution.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Richard:
For once, you are quite correct. But I am working diligently to expand that number.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 11:48 am
oh my science...this is ridiculous. People shouldn't be allowed to commit hate crimes on anyone. Gays, Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Whites, Asians,Native Americans, Wiccans, Satanists..ect... Whoever they may be, a person has the right to be who they are without fear. I told my extremely christian mother about this, thinking in a christian way she would at least be for protecting people simply because they're people, but that didn't happen. She decided the law was bad because "christians are still persecuted". Are you kidding me?! So what? Other people are persecuted too, why should the christians be the only ones who deserve protection? (I am an atheist, and so far haven't experienced anything in the way of discrimination except from my own mother. But, I would stand up for anyone's right to any kind of belief regardless of my views on it)
Comment by Olivia — November 1, 2009 @ 11:56 am
All crime is hate crime. What hate crimes do is to enhance punishment for "special" groups. In other words, some are more equal than others. This is wrong, and unconstitutional.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
@21: Done screaming? Here is where the separation of church and state is derived from -- and you didn't have to read very far down, it is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. It reads in total:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The first 16 words make it plain that religion shall exist separate and apart from the government.
Look it up.
Comment by Saintbridge — November 1, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Disabled persons were included in this legislation.
Comment by Sherrye Lantz — November 1, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
@39: Louisiana Purchase -- unconstitutional.
Should we give it back and get a refund?
Comment by Saintbridge — November 1, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Saintbridge wrote "@39: Louisiana Purchase -- unconstitutional.Should we give it back and get a refund?"
-----------------------
None of the items posted by the individual you are debating is "unconstitutional". The reality is that many of the people who wrote the Constitution disagrees with his interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation of the Constitution, Almost every President who ever held office disagrees with his interpretation of the Constitution, Every Senate and Congress that has sat for the last 200 years disagrees with his interpretation of the constitution.
When one considers that all these learned people have been, and currently are on the opposite end of the spectrum from the party who deems most of the Government of today "unconstitutional", it puts the entire argument into perspective.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
@47: I know; just needling him/them.
Comment by Saintbridge — November 1, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
@44--No they don't; it makes it clear that, inter alia, the federal government cannot establish a natural church, akin to the Church of England, for which taxes were assessed from all to support at the time of the American Revolution. "Look it up."
@45--The inclusion of disabled persons does not cure the legislation of its constitutional infirmities.
@46--Is it? It was purchased pursuant to a treaty, negotiated by the President, and ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, and it does not contradict any of the citizens' or states' rights. Moreover, the Constitution explicitly provides for the entry of new states composed of territory not already contained within the United States. Congress could not have done this via legislation.
But if you feel strongly, sure. Let's give it back. And West Virginia must be returned to the Commonwealth. It will call into question the treaty ending The Mexican War, the Gadsden Purchase, the Alaskan Purchase,and the Treaty with the nation of Hawaii. But hey, I can make a case in either direction.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
"Reagan "manipulating the tax law and interest rates"--Never happened- gfk"
-------------------------------
Ah, but it did happen. An d coupled with his deregulation of oil and natural gas, cable TV, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping and allowing Banks to invest in a broader set of assets,along with reducing the scope of the antitrust laws was set the stage for thirty years of greed, and avarice such as was last seen in the decades prior to the great depression.
We should actually call the current recession/depression the Reagan failure, rather than the Bush Failure because the roots of this fiasco were planted by Reagan, and came to fruit under Bush.
---------------------------------------
Excerpt from Reaganomics by William A. Niskanen:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html
The changes to the federal tax code were much more substantial. The top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48 percent to 34 percent. The individual tax brackets were indexed for inflation. And most of the poor were exempted from the individual income tax. These measures were somewhat offset by several tax increases. An increase in Social Security tax rates legislated in 1977 but scheduled for the eighties was accelerated slightly. Some excise tax rates were increased, and some deductions were reduced or eliminated.
More important, there was a major reversal in the tax treatment of business income. A complex package of investment incentives was approved in 1981 only to be gradually reduced in each subsequent year through 1985. And in 1986 the base for the taxation of business income was substantially broadened, reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment. It is not clear whether this measure was a net improvement in the tax code. Overall, the combination of lower tax rates and a broader tax base for both individuals and business reduced the federal revenue share of GDP from 20.2 percent in fiscal 1981 to 19.2 percent in fiscal 1989.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Joe Mostowey:
My analysis is solid, accurate, and irrefutable. It is supported by the Constitution, the founders, The Federalist Papers, the notes of the ratifying conventions, the MAJORITY of Presidents, a majority of historical and legal scholars, and is solidly in the mainstream.
Now I will give you, my analysis does not appeal to those who value power over the legal difficulties associated with the Constitution. It does not appeal to those who seek to use the power of government to grab the wealth of others for their own benefit. It does not appeal to the Marxists, the socialist, and the fascists. It does not appeal to large businesses who prefer unconstitutional government regulation and subsidies to protect their market shares. And it does not appeal to the intellectually incurious, ignorant, and unlearned.
But I am quite correct. As I have written before, right and wrong are not subject to majority vote.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
No, apparently only one opinion matters: yours.
But, of course, that opinion actually matters to only one person: you.You can state it all you like, but none of the things you assert are unconstitutional will be undone as a result.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 1, 2009 @ 3:05 pm
Joe Mostowey:
Presidents cannot pass legislation. Presidents cannot set tax rates.
Congress passed all the tax laws from 1981 through 1989, when Reagan was president. Just as it did pre-1981, and post-1989.
And the deregulation you so abhor unleashed businesses, lowered prices, and allowed the creation of new industries and products.
The only "greed" I see are those demanding that the government take from some and give to them. That is greed--coveting others' property. It is not greed to wish to keep what is rightfully yours. It is not greed to establish a company such as Microsoft that revolutionized the way all businesses now operate, and brought information to every American. It is not greed to provide working families affordable products like Wal Mart does.
Capitalism, freedom and the United States Constitution are wonderful things. You should embrace them.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
#52 Well said, and maybe the far right will have a county by itself. I think Texas wants to do it. Those from the right say the darnest things.
#50 I remember back then when Reagan got in. The gap between the rich and poor became very wide.I am hoping we can undue the damage that man did.
#38 It seems like you really read your history. Would like to sit down with you and coffee and discuss history.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
No, Dan Radmacher, my voicing of an opinion will change nothing. But that does not mean that some or all of those things might not be undone. In 1988 no one believed that the Berlin Wall would fall, yet in the following year, down it came tumbling, along with the Soviet Empire.
And I find it interesting the intensity and vehemence that those on this blog who disagree with me, including you, express themselves. If I am so wrong, why do my opinions touch such a nerve? No one can state why I am wrong, just that I am.
Of course, they too, and you, are entitled to your own opinions. But when someone writes that the sky is red, it is my prerogative to point out that they are wrong. I cannot make them agree with me, but their failure to agree does not make me wrong, or them right.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
GFK you are definitely beyond reproach in your own world.
Comment by Richard — November 1, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
@52-"No, apparently only one opinion matters: yours.
But, of course, that opinion actually matters to only one person: you"
Couldn't that be said of most opinions, or endorsements, for that matter?
Comment by Another Chris — November 1, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Actually, no, AC, especially the first part. I believe all sorts of opinions matter, even GFK's. Where he falls down, in my estimation, is his apparent belief that only his opinion is correct, and that, really, when he states opinion it is not opinion but fact - and that, were everyone as brilliant as he it would be as obvious to the rest of us as the color of the sky.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 1, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
#55 Wow, we have said time and time again why we think you are wrong but #56 might of hit the nail on the head there.
As Frank Rich said today, you guys are being Stalinists of the right and you are sinking the GOP which might not be such a bad idea.
Tell you what, in the next President election have Sarah Palin run with maybe Jo the Plumber somewhere in there and you will have given us your defeat on a silver platter.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Dan Radmacher:
Show me an indecisive attorney, and I'll show you someone who should have entered a different profession.
And I have also noticed that those who oppose me are as adamant, or more so, than I. They are, of course, wrong.
Finally, I shall notice that you do not criticize my positions when they [rarely] agree with your own positions.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Mr. Koontz, You incredibly tasteless comment regarding 'the bills infirmities' in relation to its inclusion of disabled persons is an insult to so many people, many of which received their disabilities in service to this country. If you thought it was a 'cute' comment, think of those whom you degraded with such a poor choice of words. You should be ashamed. When I think of the vets who have served selflessly, to see your input is apalling. Have you no sense of decency?
Comment by Sherrye Lantz — November 1, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Sherrye Lantz:
There was nothing insensitive about my comments. The phrase about "infirmities" is common parlance in legal writing. I am sorry you were offended, but no offense was intended.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
Getting back to the the subject of the story, Pat Roberson is a real nut case.
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."- You know who
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
Pat Robertson for President!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
#64 Even better ,I hope he gets on the GOP ticket, then the President will have another 4 more years to work out the mess.
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. (talking about allowing gays in DisneyWorld)
This guy is really a nut case.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote...And the deregulation you so abhor unleashed businesses, lowered prices, and allowed the creation of new industries and products.The only "greed" I see are those demanding that the government take from some and give to them. That is greed--coveting others' property. It is not greed to wish to keep what is rightfully yours. It is not greed to establish a company such as Microsoft that revolutionized the way all businesses now operate, and brought information to every American. It is not greed to provide working families affordable products like Wal Mart does.Capitalism, freedom and the United States Constitution are wonderful things. You should embrace them.
------------------------------------
Deregulation gave us Enron (remember the rolling blackouts and brownouts in California? The ones that cost hundreds of lives, and billions in lost business?) Gave us the current stock Market which, with it's short selling is more akin to a Ponzi Scheme than an investment organization, gave us energy prices off the scale-which played a major role in the current recession, banks too big to fail, which have seen the advent of 40 percent interest rates, ARMS, derivatives, Fees that are so high many cannot use the bank, the loss of more than 70 percent of Gasaoline refineries , resulting in a tremendous loss of refinery capability and storage capacity resulting in an instability in fuel prices - the list of things deregulation has given us, that have proven harmful to the stability of the economy, to the welfare of any person who works for a living are too numerous to mention.
If we are going to go to true capitalism, then all of the "copyright" laws should be dropped, so that any individual can produce and modify any product to sell as cheaply as they can.
This is what true capitalism is. That is why the European states had Guilds several hundred years ago - to protect trade secrets. The copyright deal was tempered with regulation of the markets to prevent monopolistic behaviors.
In most third world countries you find unfettered capitalism, which is why they can develop no real economy.
If you protect one side of the coin, then there must be protection for the other side as well, hence, regulatory agencies.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote:"My analysis is solid, accurate, and irrefutable. It is supported by the Constitution, the founders, The Federalist Papers, the notes of the ratifying conventions, the MAJORITY of Presidents, a majority of historical and legal scholars, and is solidly in the mainstream."
And I have blown your argument out of the water several times in this forum.
If your "analysis" were correct, then the writers of the Constitution would agree with you -they don"t.
If your "analysis" were correct, then the Supreme Court would agree with you -they don"t. And haven't for more than 200 years.
If your "analysis" were correct, then the Congress would agree with you -they don"t. And haven't for more than 200 years.
If your "analysis" were correct, then the Presidents would agree with you -they don"t. And haven't for more than 200 years.
So, If you are soooo right, explain why only you (and a few crackpots) hold your "analysis" to be the correct way of viewing this document.
Explain how the Supreme Court under John Marshall finds your "analysis" to be wrong?
Explain how Gouverneur Morris, James McHenry, Alexander Hamilton, several of the framers of the Constitution came to an opposite conclusion from you?
Explain how Robert Yates in the anti-federalist papers reached the same conclusions as Gouverneur Morris, James McHenry, Alexander Hamilton,and refused to sign the Constitution.
History,the people who wrote the Constitution, The courts, the residency and the Congress all come to a different conclusion -What make you right and these learned people wrong?
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
#66 Well written and I hear you on the copyright thing, that fight is still going on. The site below keeps their eye on it.
http://www.p2pnet.net/categories/music
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote..."Presidents cannot pass legislation. Presidents cannot set tax rates.Congress passed all the tax laws from 1981 through 1989, when Reagan was president. Just as it did pre-1981, and post-1989.And the deregulation you so abhor unleashed businesses, lowered prices, and allowed the creation of new industries and products."
-----------------------------------
Umm, Here's a news flash for Glen, Until the PRESIDENT signs a bill into law (unless Congress has a VETO PROOF majority) no bill becomes law.
And many Presidents have members of their party introduce legislation that the President desires, The President sets the heads of his agencies to implement his policies and laws in a manner he dictates.
BTW, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan signed into law the biggest (adjusted for inflation) peacetime tax increase in history.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
This guy is really a nut case.
He is also the mentor of our current Republican candidate for governor.
The nut does not fall far from the tree.
Comment by Art Hill — November 1, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
More neat quotes from the guy who has a main phone line to his god.
“They gamed it, these guys are out and out communists, they are radicals, you know some of them killers, and they are propagandists of the first order and they don't want anybody else except them. That's why Regent University for example is so terrifically important and why we're setting up an undergraduate program that hopefully will see shortly 10,000 students, and then from there 250,000 because you don't want your child to be brainwashed”
Who is brainwashed here?
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
@66--Joe, of course you are against copyright, patent and trademark laws. First of all, as opposed to health care and social security, these items are actually in the Constitution. Second, the purpose of these laws is to encourage innovation by protecting an inventors' investment in new technologies. What you are arguing is that others should be able to misappropriate that investment, at no costs to them. Kind of like forcing your neighbor to pay for your health care and retirement.
I lived in California during the brown outs and black outs. Those energy shortages were caused by government, not Enron.
And Third World countries do not practice capitalism. Cuba? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Not a capitalist to be found.
The fact is that capitalism and the protection of private property through a fair judicial system permits wealth to be created, and society to flourish. Government creates no wealth, is wholly incapable of acting in a competitive fashion, and, in our system of government, is Constitutionally prohibited from being in or regulating business.
In the words of the greatest President since George Washington, "government is not the solution; government is the problem."
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
From the bill: Sec. 2: Findings: "The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem."
Helping to slow the increase in violence against all peoples may be the intent of this act, everyone fits one of these groups.
Comment by catspaw — November 1, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Catspaw:
It is not the federal government's function to define and combat violent crime.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — November 1, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
#72 Here's another idea you just might like. On the next President election get that other nut case Ms. Bachmann on the ticket. Her quotes I am sure will make the news and more material for the comedies out there.
More quotes from you know who:
“If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to."- Mr. nut case himself
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 1, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz Wrote: "@66--Joe, of course you are against copyright, patent and trademark laws. First of all, as opposed to health care and social security, these items are actually in the Constitution. Second, the purpose of these laws is to encourage innovation by protecting an inventors' investment in new technologies. What you are arguing is that others should be able to misappropriate that investment, at no costs to them. Kind of like forcing your neighbor to pay for your health care and retirement."
-----------------------
You are real good at making statements for people, distorting what is said, Glen.
I Said and I quote" If we are going to go to true capitalism, then all of the "copyright" laws should be dropped, so that any individual can produce and modify any product to sell as cheaply as they can.
This is what true capitalism is. That is why the European states had Guilds several hundred years ago - to protect trade secrets. The copyright deal was tempered with regulation of the markets to prevent monopolistic behaviors.
In most third world countries you find unfettered capitalism, which is why they can develop no real economy.
If you protect one side of the coin, then there must be protection for the other side as well, hence, regulatory agencies."
-------------------------------------
You should not have unlimited protection on Copyrights without having regulations to prevent monopolistic abuses -But then you were fully aware what I stated, and just wanted to twist it to meet your own ends.
In many third world countries, copyrights effectively do not exist. People readily steal ideas, and reverse engineer products, then make the same product to sell in street markets and black markets with little or no interference from their government. Just walk through any market in any African Nation, any Mid Eastern nation, and you will readily see the truth to that statement. In Europe, home of the original Copyright laws, until the advent of Crown protection, If you had an idea, or product, you kept the secret (as in Glass manufacture) or formed guilds to protect methods and materials and formulas to prevent your competitor from doing a better business off of your idea than you could.
If there are copyrights, there must be time limits on the copyright and protections for those who would be unable to buy the product from a "limiter" -one who would restrict the market to maintain high prices.
The other side of the coin is unfettered capitalism, with no regard for copyrights.
One should always remember that one governs only with the permission of the governed - when laws become too burdensome or too onerous, then the laws of government becomes ignored - and governments topple.
-------------------------
Glen Franklin Koontz Wrote:In the words of the greatest President since George Washington, "government is not the solution; government is the problem."
--------------------------------------
Reagan was a KOOK, a Crackpot. Anyone with that sentiment listed above has no business being in Government.
If Government were the problem, you sir would be out of a job, anarchy would be the order of the day, and there would be no Businesses, No Copyrights, no laws beyond survival.
That is why the first thing any community does is create a government - with schools, with necessary laws, with necessary safeguards for their citizens, then the businesses.
Not Business first, people second.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: I lived in California during the brown outs and black outs. Those energy shortages were caused by government, not Enron.
-----------------------------------
Riiiight, Glen - Yer wrong again. Enron had a pattern of restricting supplies to drive up prices.
http://www.truthout.org/article/tapes-show-enron-caused-rolling-blackouts-california
In one January 2001 telephone tape of an Enron trader the public utility identified as Bill Williams and a Las Vegas energy official identified only as Rich, an agreement was made to shut down a power plant providing energy to California. The shutdown was set for an afternoon of peak energy demand.
"This is going to be a word-of-mouth kind of thing," Mr. Williams says on the tape. "We want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to go down." After agreeing to take the plant down, the Nevada official questioned the reason. "O.K., so we're just coming down for some maintenance, like a forced outage type of thing?" Rich asks. "And that's cool?"
"Hopefully," Mr. Williams says, before both men laugh
-------------------------------
California's attempt to deregulate energy markets became a disaster for consumers when companies like Enron manipulated the West Cost power market and even shut down plants so they could drive up prices.
When Enron took over the Dominican Republic's power grid in 1999 the ensuing blackouts produced riots and was directly responsible for producing dead people
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 1, 2009 @ 8:10 pm