English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Doesn't he have the right to free speech?

2007-03-18 10:29:16 · 22 answers · asked by archangel72901 4 in Politics & Government Politics

That's in the bible EZMZ. It's a sign of the end times.

2007-03-18 10:37:41 · update #1

I haven't listened to see what Rush has had to say about it and I don't watch any news. I just read papers.

2007-03-18 10:38:42 · update #2

22 answers

Why does the media ALWAYS call good evil and evil good?

2007-03-18 10:34:16 · answer #1 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 8 2

General Pace has every right to free speech he's as much of an American if NOT more than most out there... He said he though homosexuality was immoral and he also said he thought adultery was immoral and just as someone who comes out of the closet under don't as don't tell is punished, so is an adulterer in the Army... the man is entitled to his opinion...and honestly there are LOTS of gay women in the military and no one seems to care, but heterosexual men are a bit more leery of homosexual men... not sure why it just is so!

2007-03-18 18:08:05 · answer #2 · answered by i_love_my_mp 5 · 1 0

The media made General Pace the story of the week. There is no story at all except that a good man in a high position spoke the truth. If only we had more men in high places that were truthful and honest like him.

2007-03-18 17:53:05 · answer #3 · answered by Gina P 2 · 2 0

Well not only did Pace express his personal views, but they were in line with ...*gasp*...the LAW!!!

While it is not illegal to be gay it IS illegal to be openly gay and in the military. It's a policy instituted by the lefty fave himself, Bill Clinton in 1994.

All Pace did was reiterate the official military policy on homosexuality. The reason he is coming under fire is because they are trying to get "Don't ask, Don't tell" overturned. By using his support of a law passed by a (Democratic) President they are attempting to make him the fall guy and get the law appealed.

The military has routinely supported "Don't ask. Don't tell" by citing its belief that homosexuality is detrimental to good order and discipline in the armed forces and that it is immoral.

2007-03-18 18:11:18 · answer #4 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 1 0

He is part of the Bush administraton, and as you know anything or anyone who is affiliated in anyway with our President is fair game to the persicution of the liberal left and it's biased controlled media. If one of the golden childerns generals had made the same comment you would have found a s,all article about it somewhere back in the classifies section of the paper. The bottom line is they will attack anyone and anything that they believe they can attach to President Bush, and of course in time it will be President Bush's fault it was said. Welcome to the world of the democrats.

2007-03-18 17:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by Papa Joe 4 · 4 0

Though, I disagree with General Pace he has the right to say what he thinks. This is being blown out of proportion. He is a military, 63-year old Catholic so it didn't surprise me what his opinion was on gay acts. The ACLU should defend Pace but they won't do it.

2007-03-18 20:32:51 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 6 · 1 0

My God man, are you kidding? How can you ask such an opinion? Why, I oughta come over there and wash your keyboard out with soap for typing that. You see, freedom of speech only exists for the PC crowd. What makes you think anybody else gets to say what they think? You actually believe in the Constitution? The First Amendment? That it applies to others as well? Silly boy.

2007-03-18 17:35:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 8 0

Dispite what some believe the General has the right to speak his beliefs. Guess that it's still not politically correct to say that you believe that homosexuality is immoral. I think that our military should not be infested by flaming fags no matter what the policy is towards homosexuality. I realize that whatever the percentage of gays in society is the military shares that percentage but I don't think that it should be expressed openly in the military.

2007-03-18 17:39:28 · answer #8 · answered by supressdesires 4 · 6 0

"hyperion_monk - I haven't heard anybody in the media calling for his head. Is that what Rush and Fox is telling you? "

Actually it was in the Washington Post...

The Post found Pace guilty of making "public expressions of intolerance." The subheadline of the editorial was, "Gen. Peter Pace denounces gays and lesbians who are busy defending their country." But he said nothing of the kind, and the paper knows it. The deceitful editorial is another attempt to intimidate people into not expressing opinions that contradict the politically correct views of the radical left. The Post, which runs announcements of homosexual "weddings," will not be content until homosexuality is celebrated in the military and the schools as just another alternative lifestyle. Pedophilia, of course, can be defined by its apologists in that manner.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth points out that the Pace view is consistent with the writings of the Apostle Paul, who denounced homosexuality as an unrighteous behavior that would keep someone out of heaven. So if the Post finds what Pace said objectionable, it is also taking issue with the traditional Christian view of homosexuality. Of course, it's easier for the Post to write an editorial denouncing Pace than attacking a disciple of Jesus Christ who doesn't serve in the Bush Administration.

This controversy says more about the Post than it does about Pace. It shows that a major American newspaper has become a virtual house organ of the gay rights movement. And it shows that this paper will not hesitate to use its power and influence to try to intimidate those with different views. It is the Post, in fact, which is being intolerant.


Liberals have been mis-quoting conservatives to fuel their attack since the times when Jesus walked the Earth.
When Jesus was on trial just before his crucifixion, the men who came forth as false witnesses used his words to ensure his persicution.

Both Mathew and Mark heard the same false witnesses.

Mark 14:58: We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Matthew 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

But John was there when Jesus had spoke those words, he never said he would destroy the temple... he was referring to his own body.

John 2:19
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
17 His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

It's just another liberal spin to get rid of a another conservative in power that they are afraid of. He has every right to give his opinion, it is absolutely his First Amendment Right.

2007-03-18 18:42:08 · answer #9 · answered by John Boy 4 · 1 0

The media is liberal and what the General said is against what they want to hear. He has the right to say what he wants and not loose his head over it. I'm surprised they even printed it!

2007-03-18 17:48:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Because Pace was the "story of the week"..in a few more weeks, someone else will put their foot in their mouth and the media will jump on that also.
btw, I don't have a problem with his saying that he believed homosexuality was "immoral".
But I do have a problem with his saying that homosexuality was equiivalent to "adultery".
I mean where did that come from?
Or is Pace gay himself.
(I remember another individual. Everyone always thought he was straight. From New Jersey. The governor or something. He was always putting down gays. Always protesting ...His name is McGreevy I think. He had to resign.
Because he's gay. Hypocrit.)
Is Pace a hypocrit also?

2007-03-18 17:45:43 · answer #11 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers