|
Anyone else agree? | by SparkyR | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Wasn't Tim Robbins | by desertrat66 | 2003-04-17 10:24:23 |
|
Dude... | by Illiad | 2003-04-17 10:27:16 |
|
Illustrating the absurd | by DesertRat66 | 2003-04-17 10:56:03 |
|
Talk about absurd. | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 11:03:14 |
|
Sparky, I think you misread desertrat | by bitflipper | 2003-04-17 11:07:39 |
|
Nope. | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 11:14:31 |
|
*grins* | by bitflipper | 2003-04-17 11:26:13 |
|
yes, I agree. | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 11:41:58 |
|
I do believe | by DesertRat66 | 2003-04-17 11:46:46 |
|
that would be amazing indeed. | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 11:54:40 |
| the answer |
by DesertRat66 |
2003-04-17 12:11:50 |
No I don't consider Tim Robbins Anti-American, and idiot yes but anti-american no.
His complaints about the "violations" of his free speech rights stems from individials deciding not to associate with him. Not from the government throwing him into prison for saying what he did. Specifically being dis-invited to the Bull Durham event at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Similar repercussions have been felt by the Dixie Chicks etc. These individuals voiced their opinions on the war and private individuals/corporations chose to terminate their association with them for their actions. None of these people are incarcerated, and if they were I would be one of the loudest voices demanding their release. However for Mr. Robbins to declare his dis-invitation to the Baseball Hall of Fame event is somehow a violation of his First Ammendment Rights is absurd at best. My asking why he wasn't in gitmo yet was illustrating the absurdity of his comments by being absurd myself. Mr. Robbins isn't in jail, hasn't been arrested, heck, as far as I know he isn't even being audited by the IRS. How could being dis-invited to the Baseball Hall of Fame be a violation of his First Ammendment Rights? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Hey, we hang out here with you. | by NOLAWitch | 2003-04-17 12:37:43 |
|
Methinks all that newting has affected your brain | by desertrat66 | 2003-04-17 12:44:31 |
|
You're assuming, though, that Robbins | by NOLAWitch | 2003-04-17 12:50:04 |
|
He's an actor isn't he? | by DesertRat66 | 2003-04-17 13:23:23 |
|
So are Charlton Heston and Ronald Reagan. | by NOLAWitch | 2003-04-17 13:28:46 |
|
Ah but they are not working actors | by desertrat66 | 2003-04-17 14:17:06 |
|
Really? Where? | by Naruki | 2003-04-17 14:19:39 |
|
Of course not | by Nea | 2003-04-17 15:15:18 |
|
Time for a new law | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 13:56:09 |
|
It also seems to me that the majority | by NOLAWitch | 2003-04-17 14:00:41 |
|
I thought you were really funny... | by Naruki | 2003-04-17 14:07:48 |
|
When was the last time | by desertrat66 | 2003-04-17 14:15:11 |
|
ROFLMAO | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 14:16:58 |
|
Nice, real nice | by desertrat66 | 2003-04-17 14:21:53 |
|
This is degenerating rapidly | by theymustbidiots | 2003-04-17 14:32:33 |
|
You spout a lot, but refuse to be informed | by Naruki | 2003-04-17 14:35:39 |
|
Nope. Not because Arnold is an | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 14:42:15 |
|
I think you missed a bit back there. | by BloodyViking | 2003-04-17 13:38:54 |
|
You did NOT read the article. | by Naruki | 2003-04-17 13:51:05 |
|
I did read much, and skimmed the rest. | by BloodyViking | 2003-04-17 13:57:02 |
|
Granted that Mr. Robbin's claims | by bitflipper | 2003-04-17 13:58:34 |
|
It depends on whether | by BloodyViking | 2003-04-17 14:11:03 |
|
I don't dispute their right to do so... | by bitflipper | 2003-04-17 14:22:46 |
|
Who made the announcement public? | by BloodyViking | 2003-04-17 14:30:56 |
|
Good questions. | by bitflipper | 2003-04-17 14:52:55 |
|
No. I only know what has been presented here. | by BloodyViking | 2003-04-17 15:00:28 |
|
The reply | by SparkyR | 2003-04-17 13:30:36 |
