no name joe

I think it would be very hurtful if you skipped the wedding festivities.  However, there is nothing wrong with not partaking in the alcohol or not dancing.  Just go enjoy.  Visit with people.  Enjoy an iced tea or cold Coca-Cola.  Celebrate this big day with your son and daughter-in-law.  Failing to do so could potentially damage your relationship with them very deeply.  If there is a toast, simply toast with your glass of water, tea or cola.  Or simply don't toast.  But by all means go to your son's wedding. 

Some people will never recognize that a coup d'etat has taken place in this country and the constitution no longer applies.

 

God bless,

Larry

 

I'm truly confused by this statement. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government.  The US has never had such.  We elect a President and members of Congress.  When the term is over or when they are elected out of office, they exit peacefully and the new elected official.

 

How do you think a coup has taken place?  

 

I understand that the wealthy control things.  It is the wealthy donors who fund campaigns.  I know wealthy hire lobbyists to write and change laws.  That has always been the case.  Yes there are some ills in our system, but nothing like other countries, especially in developing countries.

 

I'm really scratching my head here.

No, kob, how the SCOTUS "interprets" the constitution is not  the law of the land. The Constitution is. SCOTUS is not supposed to interpret the Constitution - they are to apply it. Big difference that too many citizens don't understand - and that is why they get away with things like  do.  

 

When the state's citizens VOTE to add an amendment to the state constitution, any court that overthrows it is stepping over it's bounds.  Each state has a certain way to amend their state constitutions. IN and UT are two which send final decision to the people to vote.  That is not violating constitutional rights - it is ensuring that the state constitution is followed.  And the federal constitution does not trump state constitutions (at least it's not supposed to, but we are living in such a "the federal government has every right to..." era that too many people sit back as SCOTUS twists it to do so).

 

Yes, RvWade needs to be overturned. Simply because it never should have been even heard by SCOTUS. But the 10th amendment of that Bill of Rights you mentioned guarantees that the federal government (and that would include SCOTUS) does not have the constitutional authority to okay or negate abortion, same-sex marriage, segregation, etc.

 

You would be right pre-Civil War.  However, after the Civil War the 14th Amendment was adopted:

 

 

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

No state may make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US.  Under the 14th Amendment, a State may not pass a law that violates the federal constitutional rights of a citizen of the US.  This means that the Bill of Rights now extends to the states as well.  A state cannot pass a law that violates a citizens rights under the Bill of Rights. Post Civil War, the states had to abide by the Bill of Rights as well.

People need to understand that SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to throw out a state referendum wherein the people of the state voted to amend their state constitution.  But in this brainwashed society in which we live, folks accept whatever SCOTUS says...totally misunderstanding what state's rights are, and how the 10th amendment limits EVERY branch of federal government.

 

SCOTUS did put a stay (and it was unanimous) on the federal court decision re: Utah's amendment.  Indiana is getting ready to vote on it - and I believe that when it comes up for a referendum, the citizens of IN will vote to add the same-sex marriage ban to the state constitution.  That falls outside the purview of SCOTUS, because it is the will of the people of said state, in compliance with their state constitution.  But, again, people don't seem to understand what states' rights are...and are so quick to bow to federal government and say, "whatever, big brother."

 

But a State cannot violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.  A state cannot pass a law making it illegal to go to church.  Or marry someone from a different race.  Or fine people for exercising free speech.  If that were the case, the Bill of Rights would be useless.

 

I'm not saying it same sex marriage is a constitutional right.  But if the Supreme Court of the US says it is, it is the law of the land.  States cannot reject that.  Just like states could not lawfully segregate their schools when the US Supreme Court found doing so was unconstitutional. Just like states cannot restrict abortions before the first trimester.  That is why overturning Roe v. Wade is so important.

 

How the Supreme Court interprets that constitution is the law of the land.  

There won't be a "last."  The US Supreme Court will declare bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so all states will have to recognize the marriages.

It's no surprise you take this position which is the typical liberal, watered down and worldy approach.

Children don't have to go through "phases" and Scripture teaches we are to raise and train our children rightly from the beginning. Properly raised children will not go through extreme "phases".

Children of Christian parents should stand out as such, they should not mimic the world, rather they should be separate from the world.

The idea it's okay to allow a child to act like the world because one or both of the parents did when they were children is not biblical at all.

Christians are to live, speak, act and raise their children in accord with Scripture. Children of Christians are to be raised in accord with Scripture, which means separation from the world, not copying the world.

Children raised in the ways of the world, rather than in the ways of Christ, most often continue in their worldly ways and we see examples of that all around us.

Any parent wanting the best for their child should be more than worried, they should be very concerned any time they see their child going the way of the world. It's the parents duty to guide, train and instruct their children so they don't go the way of the world. It's a parents duty to continually point their children to Christ and teaching them to live in accord with the Word.

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a large extent. However, I do not see a particular hairstyle as either Biblical or unbiblical. Hair is something that can grow out, or be cut. It is not permanent. Hairstyles go in and out of style and change over time. What is in style for a child today will not be in style 5 years from now. What I work on with my children is not their outward appearance, but their heart. I work with them to love God with all of their heart, soul and mind and to love their neighbor as their self. I teach them to have love, joy, peace patience, etc.

Harping on what type of hairstyle one can and cannot have seems to me to be making rules that are simply not there. It seems to me that it adds to Scripture that which is not there, as I read it.

I don't think any hairstyle is a "sin." Kids like to do unique things at times, and he will grow out of it. It looks ridiculous, in my opinion, but if they want a mohawk, it doesn't bother me. Kids like to experiment. I tried some crazy things when I was a kid. I had a "Skater's cut" which I hated, then I grew it out into a pony tail, which I liked at the time, then I got a buzz cut. I then bleached it blonde. It is all a phase. The great thing about being a kid is that they can do things and no one thinks twice about it. Hair is temporary. You can do things to it and it will grow out and can be changed. Unlike tattoos that are permanent. So for a kid, my rule is that if it isn't permanent, and if it causes no harm or potential harm, why not let them do it? They are learning and experimenting..

My 4 year old cut her long, beautiful hair because she wanted it shorter. I did not like that. But we took her to a hair stylist, who made it look good, and told her that if she wants to do something to her hair, let us know and we will take her to the hairstylist. She then grew bangs. Now she is growing all of her hair out long again. A friend of mine put dreadlocks in her 4 year old's hair because he asked for it. And they turned out adorable. He is now 6 and has chopped them off and has a short hair cut.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

As a matter of fact, they can. A heterosexual pedophile is attracted to opposite sex children while a homosexual pedophile is attracted to same sex children.

All are sinners needing to repent and be born again in Christ.

I'm just saying, pedophilia and homosexuality are two entirely different things. Just because a person is one does not make him the other. To compare the two is not right, and is quite offensive.

One is legal, one is illegal. One is between two consenting adults, one is between one adult with power of a young person. Two entirely different things.

I do not see how the two can be compared.

Homosexual is being sexually attracted to the same gender.

Pedophilia is an adult being sexually attracted to and preying upon children.

The two things cannot be compared.

He needs a vasectomy!

Wrong, his mother is an American, yet even her being an American, if he was born in a foreign country, he is not eligible to be president of this county.

Now, if his mother was in the military, & was on military duty in a foreign county, that would be different, but she was not.

Of course laws mean nothing to those that break them, like all law breakers, they feel they're above the law.

The US Constitution requires one to be a "natural born citizen." It does not say "a citizen born on US soil." A natural born citizen means one who is a US citizen by virtue of his or her birth. A person born to someone who is a US citizen, is a US citizen by virtue of his or her birth, it does not matter where the birth took place. The Constitution does not require one to be born on US soil or within the borders of the United States. It is simply not there.

A naturalized citizen is one who is not a US citizen when he or she is born, but becomes a citizen under the immigration laws. A natural born citizen is one who obtains US citizenship by virtue of their birth.

Under what authority do you say one has to be born on US soil? This has perplexed me since this controversy was first stirred up.

First, he was born in Hawaii. That fact is documented. He produced the document, and even it is questioned.

Second, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother is a US citizen, unquestionably, making him a U.S. Citizen and eligible to be President. The Constitution is followed. Nowhere does it demand that you be born on US soil. You must be a natural born citizen. Obama was born to a mother who was a US citizen, making him clearly a natural born citizen.

Why bother calling yourself a Christian when you reject so much of what God says?

No sick agenda? They are living in a sin which God calls an abomination. A sin so great that God calls for the death penalty for those who engage in this sin.

Children are to be raised by parents, which is their mom and dad, alternately by a surviving spouse, grandparents, or others who do not choose to live in the sin of homosexuality.

There is no justification for placing children in the keeping of homosexuals and the only way anyone could support such a thing is to say to God they don't care what He says, they are going to ignore His Word and do as they please. Such is a state of rebellion, another grievous sin.

Their only agenda is to protect their family, something I am sure you would do as well if your family were under assault. And yes, I believe strongly that these children are right where they need to be. Do you propose we rip these children away from their parents? Parents who provide well for them physically and emotionally? One of which gave birth to the children? The only parents these children have ever know. Yeah...that is a Christian attitude.

If the law required a sinless life to raise children, I guess none of us would be fit parents, now would we.

Just because its right in your mind doesn't make it right in God's word.

Send the children to live with the first set of non-perverted family you can find. These "loving, nurturing, and committed" people are considering the children first aren't they? They have made arrangements if tragedy were to strike them both to have the children cared for, haven't they? They are surely going to have them live with a real family (man-woman married) with Bible based principles and love for God, aren't they? Or, maybe not! Maybe they are just concerned with promoting their sin sick agenda.

Kindofblue, do you ever study the Bible about these situations and consult God's word before you buddy up with perversion?

They are actually paying me to make good arrangments for their children after they die. If they both die, the children will go live with another couple (who happen to be heterosexual and married). If one dies, the other will continue to raise them.

They have no sick agenda. They are two people who have made a commitment to one another to share their lives together and raise their children together. What we are protecting against is a rogue family member trying to take their children away from them just because this family member may not agree with their sexual orientation.

I fully support their right, and my only regret really is that they cannot adopt the children together.

And yes, they are absolutely looking out for their children first. They love their children the same way I love my children. Their life does not look much different from my life. They go to work to provide for their children, they work hard caring for their children, they go to dinner together, have fun on the weekends, take their children to parks, the zoo, go visit grandma and grandpa, etc. They want nothing other than to protect their family. So we are setting up wills, making sure there is life insurance in place to provide for the children if one or both of them die, etc. No different from any other family, except that the law does not recognize their life long commitment.

What you're really saying here, although you're supposedly asking for "the biblical perspective," is that there is a difference between what is going on in your mind and what the Bible really says. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Christian (or at least any Christian who is at all familiar with Scripture) could entertain even for one second the possibility that a homosexual relationship constitutes "marriage" or a legitimate "couple" or a "family." It's just ludicrous; I don't get it. I'm not meaning to be offensive, but it's just sad to see how the status quo of our culture has affected some Christians...how they so easily establish a new norm in their minds, not because of anything Scripture says, but merely because of changes in our culture. Culture becomes the standard instead of the Bible. Thoughtful discernment is thrown to the wind.

Whether you like it or not, there are "families" that do not look like the "traditional" family. My clients and friends are one of many, many examples. My daughter's friend at preschool is another example.

I raise a very, very legitimate question. You will encounter same sex couples, who are in monogomous relationships that have children. People in these type family situations are a reality of life, like it or not. So the question of how we as Christians relate to these people is very important, as Chirst loves them like he love you and me.

So do you propose that in that situation it is right to tell the couple to split? If so, who gets the children? Who has the legal rights to the children? Even though not legally married, they will have assets owned jointly, joint bank accounts. Who has rights to raise the children? How are they to divide property? As a Christian, should I tell them to split up, or stay together for the children? I have come down on the side to stay together and raise the children they decided to have together.

Religious marraige, and marriage for legal purposes, though often combined, are two very different things. I am not saying churches should marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony. I am saying that same sex couples are a part of our life. They have legal issues. A secular recognition of that, whether you call it marriage or civil union, in my mind, is important to deal with these issues from a legal standpoint.

But even moreso, from a religious standpoint, I cannot for the life of me see how God would want a gay couple who has children who know them both as mommy would want them to separate. God hates division of families and divorce, after all. If a mother and father have a child, and are not married, many Christians would tell them to get married and raise the child, rightfully so. Why should it be different for a gay couple who have children?

I am not even speaking of the morality of same sex relationships. I am just speaking in the interest of children and dealing with legal issues that come up. But I am interested when you have two moral issues in conflict, like we have here. Perhaps the best answer for a same sex couple with chilren who come to Christ is to say live together as a couple, raise the child, but abstain from sex. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So I have an honest questions for you all. I am helping a lesbian couple with their estate plan, and am having some difficulty because they are not "married" per se. For all intents and purposes they are. They have are in a long term, monogamous reltionship, and they have two beautiful children, and would marry if the law would allow it. Unfortunately, it will not, and that makes planning their estate rather difficult for various reasons.

Anyway, so to my question, we all know or will know same sex couples, and will know same sex couples with children. My daughter goes to school with a girl who has two moms. My clients are a committed couple with two children. So, From a Biblical perspective, what would you say a couple in this situation should do? Should they "divorce" and seaprate? That is wrong, in my mind because they have chilren who know and love them both as parents. In my mind it is right for them to stay together to raise the children they decided to have. It would be wrong to tear this family apart.

If you were blind folded could you tell the difference between wine and beer producers?

I could tell you which type it was, the types of grapes that were used, etc. Coffee the same way...I can tell you what region it is from...whether grown in Guatamalla, Columbria, Ethiopia, Sumatra, etc.

I have discerning tastebuds....any food or drink of high quality, I can recognize and love. I'd rather spend a bit more and eat less if the quality is outstanding....be it coffee, fine cheeses, organic milk, free range eggs, wine, beer, good olive oils, a fine meal at a fine dining establishment, etc. One of the true joys in life.

I also have a discerning taste in music. I love live music be it jazz, bluegrass, an amazing jam band, a great symphony, a Broadway show, etc. Another true joy in life.

God has given some people amazing abilities to make fine food and drink, or to make incredible music. It is great to be able to appreciate it from time to time.

The issue is not whether he had an affair. That is the most minor of his problems. If it were just an affair, it might be "forgiven" and he might survive.

However, the affair was with someone that he hired...a subordinate. This opens the University up to legal problems. This impacts the University as a whole. It is not just an embarrassment, but this has many legal implications. Did somone else not get the job because he hired his mistress? Did his mistress sleep with him to get the job? Are there any potential sexual harrassment claims?

Then there are the contractual issues. Did he breach his contract? If not, someone is going to have to come up with millions of dollars to buy out his contract. People are not going to be happy about that. Is it just an affair, or did he open the University to potential legal claims? Is that a breach of his contract?

What all of this comes down to is 1) did he breach his contract? If the answer is no, then he cannot be fired unless a lot of money is paid. I suspect there he did violate his contract in some way, so the answer then becomes 2) what do we do about it?

Firing him does not only impact his life. It impacts his recruits, the coaches he hired who picked up and left good jobs to join him, it impacts those who have to pitch in money to buy out his contract, if that is necessary. He has two Heisman trophy candidates on his team....if he is fired and the team suffers due to lack of leadership, it will have a direct impact on the players lives.

There are many complex issues here. It is not about whether he committed immoral actions, which he did. It is about so much more than that, and this impacts the lives of so many more people.

These are the issues that the University must be concerned about. Jeff Long is put in a very difficult position. This is not an easy decision that must be made. All of the hype about this is about winning, is not true. This is not about winning and losing. It is about protecting the University and minimizing harm to the many people who will be impacted by his foolish decisions.

I just returned from our Good Friday service. The alter had been stripped of all of it ornamentation, leaving only the cross, draped in a black cloth. The priests wore black, as they read meditations on the suffering and death of our Lord Jesus. Music was toned down, every thing was slow, to symbolize the death like march that Jesus took to the place called the Skull. We were encouraged to remember his death from the perspective of the disciples...they were left confused, afraid, grieving and in despar. The same situation we all find ourselves in.

Thus, we left the service in silence. Feeling a bit of despair. Feeling hopeless. Oh what a celebration it will be Easter morning. A white cloth will drape the cross of Christ instead of the black. The ornametnation will return to the sancturary and alter in celebration of the risen Christ. We find hope not in his death, but in his ressurection. Death leads to despair. His resurrection leads to life and hope. Thanks be to God!

I cannot fathom why any Christian would not want to celebrate Easter. It is my favorite holiday of the year.

You don't have to call it easter....call it REssurection Sunday or whatever. However, it is a day in history that God chose to raise Jesus from the dead, symbolic of our spiritual death and ressurection in Christ. It is a holiday that is distinctly Christian. Unlike Christmas, which is a day that was picked to celebrate the birth of Christ (my second favorite holiday), we know Christ was raised. Threfore, Christians celebrate this on Easter. Call it what you want to, but this is distinctly Christian. Jesus commanded us to remember this at the Passover feast he had with his disciples as he instituted the ordinance of Communion.

The Passover of course, is celebrated to remember God delivering his people from slavery in Egypt. This is more than a remembrance of the historical event, it is a rememberance of spiritual significance. Slavery represents our sin and evil inclinations. Egypt (our evil inclinatins and sin) is what enslaves us. God poured out his judgment on Egypt as he will judge our sin. However, God provided a Passover Lamb to appease God and pass his people over from judgment. The Passover Lamb is symbolic of God speaking to us and providing a way to deliver us from the sin that enslaves us. Ummmm.....does any of this sound familiar? This year, I have concluded, that I should begin celebrating Passover as well (after a long discusion with a Jewish friend). The symbolism is amazing, and Jesus celebrated teh Passover feast, so shouldn't I as well? It is a time of self reflection to determine my struggles and what enslaves me...similar to Lent, which is a good exercise as well. We can then reflect on the sacrifice that is necessary....a Lamb in the old testimate...and THE Lamb in the New Testament. Tomorrow, as there are Good Friday services, we reflect on the death of Christ and the despair. We are all dead spiritually and have no hope on our own. Then when Easter arrives on Sunday, we realize that we do have hope....in the empty tomb and ressurection of Jesus! AMAZING!!!! Christ is alive and that gives us hope. He can deliver us from death and from what enslaves us.

Yes, "Easter" per se has pagan roots. However, perhaps God chose the time of year for the death and ressurection to occur. Spring is a time when we recognize new life, fertility, etc. It is a time when what appeared dead in the Winter brings forth new life. The physical and spiritual realm, I believe are connected. Physical is representative of spiritual. So, when the earth brings forth new life (created by God)...even the Pagans recognized this and created what is called Easter. The two days coincide......is this a coincidence? I do not believe so. You see, Christ symbolizes hope and new life. Christ causes what is dead to blossom in new life. The physical represents the spiritual. God created the physical, and has created Easter to be a cosmic window in time in which he sent Christ to die and be burried and rise again. This coincides perfectly with the Feast of the Passover....again no coincidence. The Passover was a time to reflect on historical delvierence from slavery, but also to reflect on our spiritual slavery and God delivering us from that into life.

So, that is my not so short answer about what Easter is.

EDIT: Just to clarrify....I do not condone celebrating pagan holidays. My point is that Spring is a time to celebrate new life and bringing life from what appears to be dead in God's Creation. God chose this time to send his Son to die and raise from the dead to connect the spiritual with the physical. It is no coincidence. The pagans recognized new life coming from God's creation and created "Easter," so if anthing, they took a Christian/Jewish holiday and put their own meaning on it. My point is that Easter, or Ressurection Sunday, and Passover are Christian, by their very nature.

Women in ministry is a complicated matter. Scripture can be interpreted in different ways in this. For example, there are instances when women are deacons in the Bible, and other instances when women prophesy. Women were judges in the Old Testament and led the people of God. On the other hand, you have Paul's writings which seem to contradict that.

Furthermore, there is the question on how do we interpret Scripture. Some Scripture was written to a specific congregation to address a specific issue in that culture. The cultural application of that day may not make any sense today, but if you extract the universal principal, then that principal applies today, even though it may apply in a different way.

For example, Scripture tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss. In some culutres, that is the mode of greeting. Where I live, it is not. In fact, if I greeted a woman with a kiss on the cheek here, she might be offended, even though it is "commanded" in the Bible. That was a customary greeting of the day. Paul obviously does not mean in a culture where that is not the greeting, to give one another a kiss. On the contrary, the universal principal is to greet one another in the name of the Lord. Today that might look like a handshake, or greeting someone with God's peace. A friend from Albania greets fellow Albanians with a kiss, but that is not customary here.

Another passage says women are to keep their heads covered. Is that merely cultural? Probably so. The principal is to dress modestly and in a manner that does not draw attention to yourself. But that does not mean a woman must wear a hat or a shawl today.

Those are some examples. So the question is, when Paul addresses qualifications of ministers, does that apply to the culutre of the day? When Paul says pastors must be a "Husband of one wife" does that exclude women? In that day, women were no more than property and had no standing under the law. Today that is different. So it could be argued that that was relevant to the culture of the day, and that the universal principal is that a person must be faithful to his or her spouse to be a minister of the gospel. I am honestly not sure which way I lean on this, except that it should be left to the local church, and should not divide a local church.

Ok, I will say it. The pressure exerted on those companies to drop Limbaugh and the others are Democrat front groups. They are the government for all intents and purposes. Most of their members are serving in or enter the revolving door of public office from moment to moment.

Next, what Limbaugh said is not "hate". Only a heathen would take personal offense at those comments. Folks living according to the Bible don't want the government to steal from their fellow citizens so they can continue to fornicate on someone else's dime. Fluke and the government are the one's attacking a religious organization.

Fluke is a liar and a deceiver of the worst sort as all of these operatives are. They are truly doing the devil's work.

You have a lot to learn mister but it all starts with the Gospel. If you cannot get the Gospel and the Doctrines that Christ commands Christian's to follow right, the rest will not likely fall into place.

Calling a woman a whore and a slut is hateful, plain and simple. Let's look at how Jesus responded to such a situation. An adultrous woman was caught in the act. The Pharisees broght her to Jesus to stone her and kill her for violating the law. Jesus loved her and took her out of harms way. He did not jump on the bandwagon. He told that he who is without sin shoudl cast the first stone. The Pharisees stepped away one bay one until just the woman was left. Jesus never called anyone a whore or a slut or any other demeaning name. He reached out to people, who are fallen, just like you or me, in love and in grace.

I sure hope you are not coming to Limbaugh's defense here, because what he did was wrong and hurtful. He was trying to silence a woman for speaking out on an important issue. There are many reasons a woman takes birth control. SHe was not speaking about her individual situation, but the situation of many women. What Limbaugh did was to take an important policy discussion, where reasonable minds can differ, and turn it into a personal attack.

So, I will just say this to you, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Second, as for the policy issues, there are two sides to every debate. You say people are forcing you to pay for something. Did you ever think this might save you money? Did you ever think that the best way to lower abortions is to prevent pregnancies in the first place? By insurance providing health coverage for contraception (my current policy does, by the way), it will likley lower the number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, and lower the burden on the health system, and reduce premiums. If more women who did not want children took birth control, there would be far fewer abortions, which is a fantastic thing.

Further, I pay for things I do not like all the time. We all do. I do not like that my tax money goes to subsidize row crops in farming and large scale meat. But I pay it anyway. I would rather organic crops and vegitables be subsidized. I did not like that my tax dollars went to support the war in Iraq, which I did not beleive in, but I paid it anyway without grumbling. That is fine. That is how our system of government works. So again, my attitude come back to Jesus' teaching on this:

"Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God what is God's." Jesus advocated paying taxes into a system that would ultimately lead to his death and that would lead to the persecution and death of Christians. He never grumbled and complained. He paid taxes due and devoted his life to the work of his Father.

And one last point, a private corporation is not a government. There is no reason they shold support someone that they do no like the message of. Limbaugh made truely hurtful comments and comments that were irresponsible and abusive of his position, and he is taking a hit for it. It is called capitalism. WHen Christians boycott Home Depot for gay rights reasons, that is fine, but I don't hear you say that people are trying to silence and violate the free speech of Home Depot for that boycott. It seems you have a double standard here.

My point is that private action is not a violation of free speection. This is capitalism at work, plain and simple. They did not pull their ads because of Limbaugh's conservative message, they did so because he was mean spirited to a young woman. I do not see this as an attempt to silence speech at all.

What did Hannity, Beck and Levin say that was "offensive, hateful, and demeaning"?

No one said anything about the government being involved in this.

I was referring to Rush Limbaugh. I have no idea about the others, as I have no idea who they are.

I was referring to "free speech." "Free speech" in our country means the government cannot violate it. Private individuals can do as they please. Pulling advertisments from a talk show or boycotting a talk show has nothing to do with free speech. People can put as much pressure as they want to on a person to quite their message as long as it is not a government actor.

Sponsors pulling ads from a show is just a business decision. They feel that if the speaker puts out a message taht is offensive, and they sponsor it, then they will lose business. On the other hand, they might decide controversial speech is what their business needs as it will build an audience and they can sell their product.

Perhaps I misunderstood the original message. I took it to mean that advertisers pulling ads from the Limbaugh show was an attempt to quiet his message and quiet "free speech." I do not see it that way. I see it as the host made offensive comments, and advertisers have bailed on him because they do not want to be associated with that crude, personal attack on someone. It is interesting as well that some see Limbaugh's attack on this young woman as an attempt to bully her into silence.

How does advertisers pulling ads from a show for a host fronting a personal attack on a young woman by calling her a slut and a whore have anything to do with free speech?

Last I checked, the Constitution prohibited government from interfering or censoring political speech. It had nothing to do with private indivudals or companies reacting to offensive, hateful, and demeaning comments of the speaker.