1. i don't get it.....people don't seem to see the disconnect
i could be completely wrong, but my take on it is this: the ad states that by roberts ruling that they have the right to protest/free speech it is being alleged that he believes they also have the right to blow people up.
secondly, the incident they refer to in the commercial happened a few years after roberts ruling.
someone explain to me how that is not a huge gap to jump logically.
Showed that in the commercial Naral was making an implied link between Roberts and the defense of the 1998 Birmingham womens clinic bomber. Stewart pointed out that Roberts wrote a brief supporting Operation rescue in 1991 and the bombing occured in 1998.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.