Talk:US televangelist Pat Robertson apologizes for assassination remark

Why I made a new article

I had considered updating the original article on the assassination remarks with the apology, instead of adding a new article, but decided that this is "new news" so should be a new article. Rather than repeat all the info from the previous article, I just provided a link to it, however, to avoid duplication of effort. StuRat 20:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it should stay it's own article. But try to add some more to the article, right now it seems cluttered with pictures :) --Mrmiscellanious 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I reckon the right thing to do in a case like this is add the new information to the original article, AND create a new article. Regular readers of the site are not going to keep checking articles they have already read for new information, so if something new has occurred, it should get a new article. - Borofkin 02:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be cluttered if the picture of Pat Robertson wern't so frigging huge. Maybe we could just use a smaller picture of him? I'm not sure there will be any more worth adding to this article. As to wether it should stay its own article, that depends on how much time elapsed between the two. If it was yesterday or the day before, one could probably get away with just changing the old article, AND changing its title. But as the old one is about to dispear off the front page, its worth addding a new one. Alternatively, one could consider pulling some stunt where the old one poped up to more recently, but I can't really grok when that would be preferable to just making a new small article. 134.214.102.33 14:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think changing the date would be appropriate for a continuously developing story, say the hostage crisis in Beslan, Russia. Adding new info each day and updating the date probably would have been the right way to handle that, until the crisis ended. StuRat 22:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the best idea would be to create a new article for each new event. -- NGerda 22:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Correct. -- NGerda 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. In the case above, I would not have considered "Day 2 of Beslan Hostage Crisis" to be a new event. StuRat 22:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There, I played with the image sizes. I think it's a little better now. What you guys think? --Yarvin 15:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a link from that article to this one, so I don't have to repeat the info here. That would mean every change would then have to take place in both articles, which would be bad. StuRat 02:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, however I think that an article as recent as the other one should be updated with the new information. I've added a single sentence about the apology, with a link to this article. - Borofkin 04:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article should include news relating to the US law against threatening our own president?(section below)Otherwise, I, myself,can't see an apology by this kook being a news story in its own right. Paulrevere2005 12:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's news article for two reasons:

• He has been an advisor to the President.
• We published the original remark, so it's only fair to publish the apology/retraction.

StuRat 22:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrisy abounds in "police states"

"S.C. Man Charged with Threatening the President’s Safety For Holding Protest Sign" [[1]] [[2]] Paulrevere2005 12:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Paul, might want to check on that. I'm seeing a lot of artilces saying he has previously trespassed many times for doing this, and I doubt ALL he was doing was holding a sign. Remember, verbal threats are still considered threatening in a court of law. --Mrmiscellanious 22:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

MrM; I can't figure out why anyone would assume that the guy charged was doing more than holding a sign? Why not just check it out? Anyway, here are the latest developments(that I could find) regarding the sign holder;

"May 27, 2005 SC Free Speech Case Heard in Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.Calling the case "an uncommonly silly prosecution by the government," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz today admonished the South Carolina lawyer prosecuting a protester arrested during President Bush's visit to Columbia in October 2002.The three-judge panel heard arguments in the case against Brett Bursey, who was originally charged with trespassing on public property in a crowd of ticket-holders to the president's fundraiser at the airport. Five months later those charges were dropped, but federal charges were levied not long after against Bursey for violating the statute governing "presidential assassinations, kidnappings and threats." This followed Bursey's refusal to retreat with his "No War for Oil" sign to a "Free Speech Zone" a half-mile away.The charges alleged, and the lower courts agreed, that Bursey "knowingly and willfully entered into, and refused to leave, an area secured by the Secret Service" and upheld a $500 fine. Bursey has argued that he was arrested for trespassing on public property and was never told that was in a federally restricted area."The Secret Service has been enforcing the law in favor of those who support the President while keeping those who oppose the administration's policies away from the President as well as the media," said Jeff Fogel, Bursey's attorney and Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.Co-counsel Lewis Pitts said, "The significance of this case is that, if upheld, it will give the Secret Service legal cover for their presently unconstitutional practice of insuring that presidential protesters are out of sight."An opinion likely will not be rendered for months. If they lose in the Fourth Circuit, Bursey and his attorneys said that they will appeal to the US Supreme Court.[[3]] Paulrevere2005 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason he was arrested had nothing to do with the sign he was holding, it was because he was in a secured area too close to the President. Had he been out to kill the President, he could have posed a threat. Is it your proposal that everyone should be allowed to walk right up to US Presidents when they are in public ? I don't really think you want that, because then Dick Cheney would take over after Bush gets killed, and he is even worse (no-bid Haliburton contracts, secret energy policy meetings with oil company execs, etc.). StuRat 05:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This ia a good source I think;[[4]]. Didn't you also think that all of America is a "free speech zone"? I did. Paulrevere2005 19:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all of America is a "free speech zone". That was a rather clumsy euphemism for the designated protest area. StuRat 00:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

M&M and Bob Dylan lyrics will get you 5 years

[[5]] [[6]]

• Actually, now that I look further, it's even worse than I thought.Now you can be locked up for singing M&M or Bob Dylan songs. So much for freedom in the USA.

I guess we lost it while we weren't paying attention...like right about now. Paulrevere2005 01:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't want him assasinated, we just want him dead

Damn televangelists. We don't want the dictator assasinated (martyrized), we just want him six feet under and afar. Daniel 15:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

He's not a dictator, he won an election there. StuRat 21:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Did he win HERE? I'm not quite so sure. Do you actually know what a fraud is? Do you know how elections are managed under dictatorship? You self-righteous gringos really don't know a thing about being free or being a slave, about being feed or being hungry. Come here please, and see for yourself the Chávez you seem to enjoy so much from your cozy home in the Civilized First World. Also, your sad "election" argument won't please the other whiners in this page. Your beloved Bush also won elections as President and Governor; his dad won as President and Vice-President o Ronnie Reagan, his brother(s) did too, etc., just as Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler and Chávez all got "elected". Sad, sad logic of yours. Daniel 15:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone who wins an election is good, just that they are not a dictator. That word refers to those who gain or keep power through military means, not those who win an election. If he cancels elections, then you can correctly call him a dictator. As for your allegations that the election was rigged, do you have any OBJECTIVE evidence (that is, NOT provided by the loser) ? If you do have such evidence, it would make a good news story here. From Wikipedia: "Although the opposition charged that there was widespread fraud in the recall vote, international observers said the official results matched their counts at polling sites." Also, please refrain from using derogatory terms like "gringo". StuRat 18:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What I find enlightening about our so-called "freedom" in America; is that if Daniel(above) was referring to President Bush, he could be locked up for 5 years. [[7]] Paulrevere2005 01:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Chávez just kills us, although he just locked up my brother. And believe me, no Venezuelan prison is an American prison. Daniel 15:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What ever happened to good old fashioned revolutions like the one we had in 1776? If the Venezuelans don't like their government that much; then they should just overthrow it themselves...and do what the French did with the Bastille. That's my opinion, and also, unless you've been a non-gang member in a Texas prison; you may have absolutely no idea what you're talking about re; American prisons, from what I've read.Paulrevere2005 19:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, don't think anyone should have the "freedom of speech" right to call for killing anyone in this country. If someone was trying to get a lynch mob together to kill you, I bet you would want them locked up. StuRat 05:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The point to me is how hypocritically one-sided it is. It's not a crime for Americans to call for the killing of foreign leaders; but it is a crime to sing a new M&M song or an old Bob Dylan tune(see subject above). Paulrevere2005 19:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, they have laws about such things, but they don't seem to lock up those people posting pictures of abortion doctors. Why should there be a diffrent standard for the president than for anyone else? Imagine a hypothetical site with a threatening list of "prominent pro-abortion (or gay rights) politicians". I expect that: (a) It would be shut down, but (b) its maintainer would not be jailed, unless (c) a president was put on the list. Seems quite hypocritical. - Nyarlathotep 14:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you there, we shouldn't have "special classes" of people who have more protection under the laws than others. In some states, there are harsher penalties for killing police than ordinary citizens, for example. Unfortunately, the "equal protection under the law" clause doesn't seem to be fully enforced by the Supreme Court in the US. StuRat 17:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

"Take him out"

Robertson's assertion that this didn't mean assassination is rather funny. I'm surprised he didn't claim he meant they should take him out on a date, LOL. StuRat 00:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)