Christian Conservative Pat Robertson says to assasinate Venezuelan President Chavez [Archive]

View Full Version : Christian Conservative Pat Robertson says to assasinate Venezuelan President Chavez

hm0504

08-23-2005, 07:15 AM

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

hm0504

08-23-2005, 07:15 AM

Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html

Trailscout

08-23-2005, 07:22 AM

Chavez has become increasingly belligerent and demonstrably closer to communist Cuba. They look like Sandinistas all over again. Cuba hasn't had the resources to export communism for a number of years. Their recent alliance with oil-rich Venezuela is disturbing.

Maybe the CIA needs to take him out. Robertson is a man known for being blunt and a bit impetuous, but perhaps he is right on the spot this time.

And it certainly may be time for old Fidel to say farewell. Could we muster enough Cuba Libre patriots for a new Bay of Pigs invasion?

ken0254

08-23-2005, 08:58 AM

Yeah, THAT'S IT, no need to have stopped with taking Sadam Hussein, we might as well go after Chavez, and while we're at it, let's go after Castro, then after we have taken Castro out, we'll go to North Korea and get rid of Kim Jong Il. After all, Bush said the world was better off without Hussein, wouldn't the world be better off without these other 3 too??

ken

Trailscout

08-23-2005, 09:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ken0254:
Yeah, THAT'S IT, no need to have stopped with taking Sadam Hussein, we might as well go after Chavez, and while we're at it, let's go after Castro, then after we have taken Castro out, we'll go to North Korea and get rid of Kim Jong Il. After all, Bush said the world was better off without Hussein, wouldn't the world be better off without these other 3 too??

ken </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely! These rogue states do not exist in isolation, they threaten their neighbors and the whole world. North Korea is arms merchant to the highest bidder, no matter how devilish the terrorist group. I'd love to see us finish the job General McArthur tried to finish, but was hindered by President Truman.

roadrambler2

08-23-2005, 09:23 AM

Ah yes, are all right wing zealots this loony.
Now i know that i can sleep at night with these wacko's in charge! Only in America!
Run Well and Smooth---Roadrambler

Qikdraw

08-23-2005, 10:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Absolutely! These rogue states do not exist in isolation, they threaten their neighbors and the whole world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you're the one threatening your neighbours. Saying we should just off their leaders.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">North Korea is arms merchant to the highest bidder, no matter how devilish the terrorist group. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the US is the largest arms merchant on the planet. We keep selling arms to nations with terrorist links, and then wonder where the terrorists are getting their stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd love to see us finish the job General McArthur tried to finish, but was hindered by President Truman. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go again, threatening our global neighbours. Apparently you're a rogue nation. Maybe we should 'sanction' you?

Just as an FYI. Bush tried to get Chavez out already. In 2002 money was funneled into Venezuela to help support a group trying to forcefully take over. They failed.
Chavez has caught American soldiers who are helping train their military in trying to incite the military into rebelling.
They've caught American soldiers taking pictures of electrical plants and other infrastructure buildings, and thrown them out as spies. He says next time he'll throw them in jail.

We've already been trying to undermine democracy in south America. In Haiti we helped overthrow a democratically elected leader and put in thugs who are human rights abusers and have no intention of holding real elections.

Now we have people saying we should just off a few leaders because we don't like what they say. What happened to a country's right to self governance? What made the US the only one on the planet who is allowed to be free to make their own choices?

Trailscout, you talk about bringing democracy to Iraq, but you are for taking away democracy in South America. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

Its so nice to see "christians" advocate offing people. Sorry, but if you advocate that, you'r not a christian. You can get thrown in jail for death threats here, I'd like to see Robertson in jail for that.

What a discusting attitude.

Qikdraw

Trailscout

08-23-2005, 11:40 AM

Qikdraw, you apparently can't argue the immediate danger that North Korea poses, at least you blew right past it. Even the liberal European states are shaking in their boots and feverishly negotiating with them to stop their nuclear program.

I do not support every deal the USA has ever struck with tin horn dictators in the name of national interest. Just the same, I am more than happy to see us institute regime change where there is a clear and present danger to our national security or to regional stability.

I do not know if assasination is as effective as total regime change. I would think that in the case of Venezuela, simply removing Chavez would put a similar tyrant in power. That would not be a concern here, except that Venezuela is flush with their oil riches and Chavez is on the verge of abolishing the token democracy and fully implementing a communist dictatorship and begin to undermine all the democracies of Central and South America in conjunction with Cuba.

I admit that assasination of Chavez is probably an insufficient response to the problem. We probably need to launch a full-scale military operation there.

Qikdraw

08-23-2005, 12:38 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Qikdraw, you apparently can't argue the immediate danger that North Korea poses, at least you blew right past it. Even the liberal European states are shaking in their boots and feverishly negotiating with them to stop their nuclear program. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

North Korea is a problem, and yeah, I blew by it because I can't believe you advocated offing a head of state, and now you're for full scale invasion against a country that has done nothing to the US at all.
See we should be dealing with North Korea and not in Iraq. Iraq has done nothing but make the US a bigger target. Why aren't we dealing with Pakistan? Which as I have said before has WMDs, has terrorists in the country, helps terrorists, gives weapons to terrorists, and is a military dictatorship. All we are doing for Pakistan is giving them $100 million a month, and billions of American taxpayer dollars to give them weapons as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not support every deal the USA has ever struck with tin horn dictators in the name of national interest. Just the same, I am more than happy to see us institute regime change where there is a clear and present danger to our national security or to regional stability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But at whose whim? This "pre-emptive" strategy we can just use to say that because Mexico will one day, maybe in a 100 years, will become a viable country with a great economy and large military that we should attack them now. (they do have oil too y'know)
Unless there is an immediate threat, that is verifyable, there is no reason to attack another country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do not know if assasination is as effective as total regime change. I would think that in the case of Venezuela, simply removing Chavez would put a similar tyrant in power. That would not be a concern here, except that Venezuela is flush with their oil riches </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know anything about how the income from the oil is disbursed? Because the majority of that money is not going to Venezueala. Its going to former dictators of Venezueala who ripped the country off,and are holding all its bank notes. The US and WTO help support this. One thing Chavez has done to piss off the US and WTO is he has said he FIRST wants to use oil revenues to help Venezuealans. Building schools, hospitals, etc... The US and WTO don't like that. They want Chavez to keep paying the former tin-pot dictators of Venezueala.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and Chavez is on the verge of abolishing the token democracy and fully implementing a communist dictatorship and begin to undermine all the democracies of Central and South America in conjunction with Cuba. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll need proof of that if you please. All I have heard is that Chavez has called on South American countries to band together economically to help fight the intrusions by the US. The US has messed up South Ameria by installing so many dictators in the past, and continues to do so. Look up "School of the Americas" to get an idea of what I mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I admit that assasination of Chavez is probably an insufficient response to the problem. We probably need to launch a full-scale military operation there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full scale military force based on what? He has no ties to terrorism, no WMDs, no threat against the US's national security. Other countries ARE allowed to exist and run their country the way they like. You and others like you are the ones threatening neighbours and threatening America's safety by making comments like that.

Also the US's policy concerning Cuba is idiotic at best. What has pissd off the US is that Cuba has grown economically, and is doing better every year, even with the embargo. The embargo is outdated and does absolutely nothing.

My father was going to head back to Cuba this year, (he says teh Caribbean during the winter months) two years ago he spent 3 months in Cuba and loved it. He wanted to go back, but the US government put out a policy that said ANY vessel, from ANY nation can be boarded and seized if they are seen leaving Cuba. (they don't have to be carrying illegals, or illegal goods) The US Coast Guard has come out and said they won't enforce it, but the policy is still there, and it makes people from other nations uneasy. The US has no right to threaten people from other countries this way.

Qikdraw

namedun

08-23-2005, 02:00 PM

Does everyone remember how the first World War started? The assisnation of Arch-Duke Ferdinand was the spark, but the gas that supplied the entire explosion was mainly just nations rattling their sabres at each other. There was a documentable atmosphere of desire for conflict within Europe, and I now believe that national leaders and the media are trying to cultivate this exact same atmosphere in the US. What exactly am I talking about? Just watch the news, see the names of countries dropped with vague or non existant evidence, but quasi-accused of harboring terrorists, creating nuclear weapons, etc.

Trailscout

08-23-2005, 02:40 PM

Pakistan is not an admirable country, but most of our problems there come from some renegade provinces near the Afghan border. We probably came close to declaring war on them, but looks like Musharaaf decided to cooperate with us.

Iraq has done plenty to deserve invasion. They were briefly occupying part of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, they were bombing Israel, they attempted to block the Straits of Hormuz. They were committing genocide just as Slobby Milosovich did (and which President Clinton saw fit to invade the former Yugoslavia).

The investors who built the oil infrastructure of Venezuela deserve to be paid for their efforts. I have seen no evidence that they are former dictators, but that would hardly disqualify them from receiving a fair profit for their labors. I have no problem with Venezuela imposing a tax on oil sales to fund social programs, but stealing the oil equipment from its owners is not justified.

Chavez is an undisputed pawn of Cuba and Cuba is well-known for international terrorism and exporting revolution and warfare. Chavez just signed his death warrant by his profession of solidarity with the last little evil empire of the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine is justification alone for war on both countries. I agree that the embargo against Cuba is a stupid useless gesture, when all-out war is the real solution.

Sorry about your Dad, but if he chooses to visit a hostile nation, he will have no one but himself to blame if he gets arrested or shot for treason.

Qikdraw

08-23-2005, 03:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Pakistan is not an admirable country, but most of our problems there come from some renegade provinces near the Afghan border. We probably came close to declaring war on them, but looks like Musharaaf decided to cooperate with us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So did Osama Bin Ladin and look where that got us. So did Saddam.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Iraq has done plenty to deserve invasion. They were briefly occupying part of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, they were bombing Israel, they attempted to block the Straits of Hormuz. They were committing genocide just as Slobby Milosovich did (and which President Clinton saw fit to invade the former Yugoslavia). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if commiting genocide is a reason to step into a country, why are we not in Sudan? I agree that that would be a good reason to go into a country and I would support such a measure, but oddly enough none of the reasons you mentioned were original reasons for going into Iraq. Genocide is a conveinient excuse now, but it wasn't used originally. Plus teh Reagan administration was shaking hands with Saddam while he gassed people, and supported him through that. In fact even stopped congress from passing measures to sanction Saddam for the gassing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The investors who built the oil infrastructure of Venezuela deserve to be paid for their efforts. I have seen no evidence that they are former dictators, but that would hardly disqualify them from receiving a fair profit for their labors. I have no problem with Venezuela imposing a tax on oil sales to fund social programs, but stealing the oil equipment from its owners is not justified. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Owners" who originally stole that ownership from Venezueala. I suggest doing some research on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chavez is an undisputed pawn of Cuba and Cuba is well-known for international terrorism and exporting revolution and warfare. Chavez just signed his death warrant by his profession of solidarity with the last little evil empire of the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine is justification alone for war on both countries. I agree that the embargo against Cuba is a stupid useless gesture, when all-out war is the real solution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is stopping European expansion into the Americas a basis for all out war in South America?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry about your Dad, but if he chooses to visit a hostile nation, he will have no one but himself to blame if he gets arrested or shot for treason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Treason? What are you talking about? My father is Canadian, and as such is allowed to travel into Cuba without restriction. Even if the US is idiotic about it.

What you are promoting is why people around the world hate Americans, and is also the reason why Americans are in danger around the world. You are eroding national security and the lives of Americans by promoting all out war on nations that have done nothing to you.

You seem to have skipped by my request for information on Chavez taking away democracy as well.

Qikdraw

Trailscout

08-23-2005, 03:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
...Plus teh Reagan administration was shaking hands with Saddam while he gassed people, and supported him through that. In fact even stopped congress from passing measures to sanction Saddam for the gassing.

Treason? What are you talking about? My father is Canadian, and as such is allowed to travel into Cuba without restriction. Even if the US is idiotic about it.

What you are promoting is why people around the world hate Americans, and is also the reason why Americans are in danger around the world. You are eroding national security and the lives of Americans by promoting all out war on nations that have done nothing to you.

You seem to have skipped by my request for information on Chavez taking away democracy as well.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refer you to CNN for the scoop on Chavez's publically announced intentions to abolish democracy. It's all over today's news.

I voted for Jimmy Carter, not Reagan. I am a Democrat, just a conservative one.

There are millions of Cuban expatriates who hate Castro, having first-hand knowledge of his repression of freedom of religion, the press, and freedom to travel.
I hope that they will join forces with freedom lovers on the island to liberate Cuba someday.

JFK's dream took us to the moon before the decade ended. Let's help fulfil his dream of freedom for Cuba!!

Viva Cuba Libre!

S.M.A.

08-23-2005, 04:08 PM

I'm going to make this short and sweet: even though I don't entirely agree with what he said, it does make a bit more sense that when he suggested that we nuke the Department of State.

Stuart

Naturist Mark

08-23-2005, 04:36 PM

KirkOntario

08-23-2005, 05:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat Robertson is a crackpot who has said all manner of absurd things over the years. The only time the MSM took him seriosly was his absurd claim that George Bush told him on the eve of the Iraqi invasion (the invasion not the occupation) that there would not be a single casualty. Of course, the 2004 election was on so the media reported it as "God's truth." http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

hm0504

08-23-2005, 05:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
...
Pakistan is the greatest proliferator of nuclear weapons technology ever - they sold it to North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and apparently anyone else willing to pay. When they were forced to roll up A Q Khan's network (Khan is the "father" of the Pakistani Bomb), they made him make a public confession - then pardoned him. They are also involved in developing missile technology in cooperation with North Korea, which they funded by selling their advances to just about anyone.
...
-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One correction I think, Pakistan is known to have sold nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea -- however, there is no evidence of nuclear technology transfers to Iraq.

Qikdraw

08-23-2005, 06:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
I refer you to CNN for the scoop on Chavez's publically announced intentions to abolish democracy. It's all over today's news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked at all the news reports on Chavez on CNN and I didn't see anything on there about him aboloshing democracy. Can you please give me a link?

I saw him offer to direct sell gas to poor Americans for really cheap, I saw him and Castro offer to educate, for free, poor Americans, and also offer free health care.

I understand why the US feels he is a disruptive influence in the region though. He is promoting a solidified South America that will stand up to American meddling. (The 2002 coup attempt and Haiti being good examples) The US feels that they alone should be the ones allowed to meddle, and they certainly do not want a unified South America. If that happened the resources they have, and the cheap labour would be a serious threat to the US economy. That however is not reason enough to invade. That doesn't promote democracy, nor capitalism. In South AMerica the US has been the biggest bar to democracy than any other nation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I voted for Jimmy Carter, not Reagan. I am a Democrat, just a conservative one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, A Zell Miller type Democrat?

By the way I was just using the Reagan administration as an example of what the US government was doing while Saddam was gassing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are millions of Cuban expatriates who hate Castro, having first-hand knowledge of his repression of freedom of religion, the press, and freedom to travel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Millions? Is there really that many? I always thought it was more in the range of 100,000.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I hope that they will join forces with freedom lovers on the island to liberate Cuba someday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think when Castro goes we will see Cuba become more like Haiti, which is not a good thing. Sadly it will become like that WITH the US helping out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JFK's dream took us to the moon before the decade ended. Let's help fulfil his dream of freedom for Cuba!!

Viva Cuba Libre! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want Cubans to have as much freedom as possible as well, however inciting a civil war, or outright attacking Cuba is not a good way to go about it. ALl that would do would reduce the populace to living in squalor. It ain't great now, but it ain't as bad as it could be if civil war or we attacked would be.

I do have one bit of good news though!

No I didn't save a bunch of money on Geico. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But we do agree that Clara Bow is cute. SO even though we disagree on this, we can agree on something. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

08-23-2005, 06:43 PM

As a side note I wonder if the US will do anything to Robertson. According to what one the the CNN articles said was that what Robertson did was violate international and domestic law.

One government official did say that he was a private citizen and as such he is allowed to say whatever he wants. But thats not exactly true. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. So there is actually limits on what you are allowed to say. What if someone were to go on TV and call for the assasination of the president of teh United States? That guy would be in jail so fast!

In India a mystic was caught to be a fraud, and when he went on his TV show the mystic called for his followers to kill the guy who exposed him. The Indian police arrested him for doing that. What Robertson has done is the same thing.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

08-23-2005, 06:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
As a side note I wonder if the US will do anything to Robertson. According to what one the the CNN articles said was that what Robertson did was violate international and domestic law.

One government official did say that he was a private citizen and as such he is allowed to say whatever he wants. But thats not exactly true. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. So there is actually limits on what you are allowed to say. What if someone were to go on TV and call for the assasination of the president of teh United States? That guy would be in jail so fast!

In India a mystic was caught to be a fraud, and when he went on his TV show the mystic called for his followers to kill the guy who exposed him. The Indian police arrested him for doing that. What Robertson has done is the same thing.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously don't read a lot of Left wing blogs --they've been calling for the assasination of Bush for months, we've heard gun shots on the soundtrack of air america, seen the t-shirts sold to the left.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002059.htm

You post confuses fraud, defamation and hate speech all at the same time.

Ren

08-23-2005, 06:55 PM

This one's a new, interesting topic at least, so I'll jump in before it devolves.

Pat Robertson is a crack-pot. That showed when he dissed feminism in 1992 saying it would lead to women killing their children and turning into lesbians. But, like many a crack-pot in this country, he has a following and we must watch what he's saying to his lapdogs.

As for Hugo Chavez, you're going to go back and forth on this. It seems that the wealthy class has a problem with his socialism, since it would take away some of their capital gains. However, he was elected and in spite of the U.S. interference survived a recall because he represents the poorer factions of his state. He's not necessarily a temperate man and there are accusations of human rights violations. But if that was a standard for leadership, we'd have no world leaders. None. There are still free elections in Venezuela coming up --- hopefully U.S. money will stay out of this one.

Fidel Castro is another problem altogether. There is great fear for a person to cling to a dictatorship. The arbitrariness of punishment is definitely a problem and of course the US doesn't like him, given the Missile Crisis and all. But socialism is an interesting experiment - Cuba has a great literacy rate, has universal health care, and has schooling paid right through graduate studies. You can't say it's all bad or all good, and there could be a median to this ideal way of governing.

But, people are greedy - they want more and more, and they can't "all just get along," so socialism is called a "failure" and capitalism is seen as the only way. I'm not so sure that capitalism is a great success. Our literacy rate is much lower, our attention paid to science, logic, and reason isn't much better, our citizens have a health care problem, and education is for the wealthy or a few lucky ones who rise up. You can't say it's all bad, but you can't say it's all good either.

The Chavez problem is that he's cavorting with Fidel and has entertained Iran. He's critical of the Bush administration in much the same way they're critical of him.

The biggest issue here is that it seems that certain high people in the U.S. think that the rest of the world is here to serve U.S. interests, rather than being a part of the global community. This is why we're in trouble in the Middle East. A Chavez assassination is not what is needed. What is needed is a change of thought in how the U.S. regards itself in relation to the rest of the world.

Unwired

08-23-2005, 06:58 PM

If anyone is gullible/susceptible enough to be incited to action by Pat Robertson, maybe they'll get confused and assassinate the gay Teletubby instead...

...I can't believe anyone still takes that guy seriously. Anything he says is purely for entertainment purposes only, as far as I'm concerned.

UW

KirkOntario

08-23-2005, 07:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
This one's a new, interesting topic at least, so I'll jump in before it devolves.

But, people are greedy - they want more and more, and they can't "all just get along," so socialism is called a "failure" and capitalism is seen as the only way. I'm not so sure that capitalism is a great success. Our literacy rate is much lower, our attention paid to science, logic, and reason isn't much better, our citizens have a health care problem, and education is for the wealthy or a few lucky ones who rise up. You can't say it's all bad, but you can't say it's all good either.

The Chavez problem is that he's cavorting with Fidel and has entertained Iran. He's critical of the Bush administration in much the same way they're critical of him.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cuba also has spacious (okay the black out boxes are not spacious) gulags. People of course are 'greedy': they want basic freedom, hope, soap, gasoline, little things like that which is why by the 1000's they risk their lives to float on homemade rafts to Florida.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/189355419...786-3782551?v=glance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554198/102-1632786-3782551?v=glance)

BackpackerBrian

08-23-2005, 07:55 PM

Let me get this straight . . . we have a Conservative Christian calling for the assisination of Chavez. Maybe it's me, but shouldn't the commandment, "Thou shall not Kill" come into play somewhere here??

Talk about messed up. That dude is dangerous.

Dolby

08-23-2005, 08:42 PM

It's truly laughable to see Robertson, who is supposedly "Christian," calling for the use of murder to remove the leader of a country which has in no way threatened or acted against us, simply because our government doesn't agree with some of his policies, and some feel he's too close to Castro. Whatever happened to the whole "Thou shall not kill" thing? Scary. Yet people will continue to follow him. Religion and politics, what a great mix!

As for invading Cuba...why???? That's all we need, another war. Cuba no longer poses any threat to this country now that the Soviet Union is gone. Then again, that's never stopped us from pulling the puppet strings all over the 3rd world, despite the consequences.

Bob S.

08-23-2005, 09:15 PM

Robertson was already taking some heat for hawking his diet drink on his TV show. And now this.

Of all the soundbites I have heard so far, the best one came from Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC show, "Countdown". He was introducing the show and asked the audience, "Quick, who would Jesus assassinate?"

This man is the head of a religious/political group and is advocating killing a head of state. This is not only wholly irresponsible, but also very unChristian.

As for freedom of speech, yes we have it, but it also comes with a huge responsibility. This is one that Robertson doesn't seem to be grasping.

Bob S.

ken0254

08-24-2005, 03:57 AM

I think Pat should just stick to "praying away hurricanes" from Va. Oh, did you hear, Regent University is opening a new school, The School for Political Assasination. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ken

Naturist Mark

08-24-2005, 04:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

You obviously don't read a lot of Left wing blogs --they've been calling for the assasination of Bush for months, we've heard gun shots on the soundtrack of air america, seen the t-shirts sold to the left.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002059.htm
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't depend on Drudge, Malkin and O'Reilly for facts. You've been warned before about them, when they don't get the facts wrong they just lie.

No one on Air America called for the asssasination of GWB. From the way you parsed your words, you seem aware of that, but still gave the impression that they did. Talk about confusing fraud, defamation and hate speech all at the same time. Very Rovian.

Back in April there was a brief controversy about a skit played at the beginning of the Randi Rhodes show. To add to the obsurdity of the situation - it was investigated by the Secret Service. You'll note that nothing came of it. Here is the skit in its entirety: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.]

Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor taste, sure, but certainly NOT a call for assasination. Randi apologized for the skit, If she had been in the New York studio for that show it would not have aired, but she (and her producer) were broadcasting from Florida and didn't have access to prescreen all the 'bits' their staff had assembled in New York. That has changed.

-Mark

OZJames

08-24-2005, 05:57 PM

QIKDRAW - I am totally with you on this matter. I cannot believe that a person who claims to be a Christian can have such an attitude. The reason this world is such a mess today is becasue some countries mess with other countries politics and economies. It shocks me to think that there is even one person in America who is prepared to advocate murder for political reasons but it scares me to think that he has other support - even from members of this forum.

Love thy neighbour
Thou shall not kill

I would like a christian to explain to me how
Christains can justify murder for political reasons.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

usuallylurk

08-24-2005, 06:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Let me get this straight . . . we have a Conservative Christian calling for the assisination of Chavez. Maybe it's me, but shouldn't the commandment, "Thou shall not Kill" come into play somewhere here??

Talk about messed up. That dude is dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what is even more disturbing is that Robertson has a following ... who will actually believe that he's come up with something positive.

l2ltlarry

08-24-2005, 08:59 PM

If we stop and think about it, "Thou shalt now kill" cannot be absolute. I define "an a--hole" as "someone who either enjoys or doesn't mind hurting other people unnecessarily." We know that sometimes it is necessary to hurt other people, including killing them. How many of us want our police officers (I almost typed "policemen") to not carry guns. Even people who are anti-capital-punishment don't usually want the police to quit carrying guns; this strikes me as inconsistent. I notice that in the aftermath of London's 7-7, newspapers and other media are now showing British police, long noted for being unarmed, carrying what look like military weapons. In addition to police, we practice self-defense and sometimes kill to protect ourselves and people we care about (or even to protect strangers).

And sometimes war is considered necessary and people get killed. I have no use for Pat Robertson at all, but don't many or most of us, in our secret selves, think that the world would probably be better off without certain brutal, hurtful people being around to visit their devastation on other relatively innocent people? But of course, we can't express those thoughts out in the bright light of day, can we? Seems like maybe we're just a little hypocritical?

Does being called upon to engage in "necessary" killings make us no longer Christians?

P.J.

08-24-2005, 09:13 PM

I'm NOT going to advocate any sort of assassination, but if any of us were told to choose between killing one belligerent leadser, such as Adolf Hitler, or wage a conventional war between nations, I think that we would all choose assassination. Wouldn't that be a better alternative to the horrors of a widespread slaughter on some battlefield?
Like anyone who is in the public eye, Rev.Pat Robertson certainly should be careful what he says.
I'm sure that many are glad that he is not the head of state.
For that matter, I'm sure that many of us are glad that we aren't left to make these decisions!

Naturist Mark

08-25-2005, 05:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
If we stop and think about it, "Thou shalt now kill" cannot be absolute. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The commandment actually says "Do not commit murder". Nuance is often lost in translation.

Hugo Chavez is a populist who appeals to the vast underclass of Venuzuela - this puts him at odds with the privileged upper class and business interests. He is close to Castro. Some years ago, before he entered legitimate politics he attempted to take power in a failed military coup - obviously he is not all that attached to the idea of free and open democracy. I would certainly wish that Venezuelans would choose a more moderate person with a greater commitment to civil liberties and democracy.

But ...

He has been elected TWICE, and overwhelmingly by the people of Venezuela. If we believe in democracy we have to respect their choice, even if we don't agree with it.

Assassination of a head of state is against US law - except as a consequence of war.

Assassination is murder and is against the 10 commandments. It is certainly not Christian- just ask yourself "Who would Jesus kill?"

-Mark

hm0504

08-25-2005, 07:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has called for the United States to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat Robertson is a crackpot who has said all manner of absurd things over the years. The only time the MSM took him seriosly was his absurd claim that George Bush told him on the eve of the Iraqi invasion (the invasion not the occupation) that there would not be a single casualty. Of course, the 2004 election was on so the media reported it as "God's truth." http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm confused. Why are the silly rantings of unknowns on the left considered to be the Gospel of the Left, while the silly rantings of a well-known, long-established conservative dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Anyway since Pat Robertson's comments, Fox News pundits have been falling backwards over themselves to say what a has-been Pat is. Yet, only last week, Pat Robertson was the guest for a discussion on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" on John Roberts:
http://tinyurl.com/arcoy

S.M.A.

08-25-2005, 08:50 AM

The late night talk shows have also taken to mocking Robertson. Last night on Kimmel they showed a clip of him pushing up his glasses with his middle finger.

Stuart

KirkOntario

08-25-2005, 04:57 PM

I believe George Stephanopolous advocated the assasination of Saddam Hussein. That was shortly after he left the Whitehouse and could say that openly. I don't remember anyone making a big stink about him saying it either.

hm0504

08-25-2005, 05:42 PM

There are really two issues here:

1) Can it be legitimate for the U.S. to assassinate other world leaders?

2) If yes, what are the criteria for assassination?

The U.S. (and other countries) have attempted to assassinate other world leaders. I recall, for example, in 1986 Reagan attempting to kill Libya's Qaddafi by bombing the family home (Qaddafi was not there but one of his baby daughters was killed.) The reason for killing Qaddafi was given as his links to terrorists. Indeed, Qaddafi was THE Arab bad boy of the 1980s, but (and gosh, I love politics), now he's A-OK.

Similarly Stephanopolous urged the killing of Saddam Hussein because of Saddam's poor record. In contrast, Robertson urged the killing of Chavez because of what Chavez MIGHT do.

I would argue that IF it is OK to assassinate world leaders, then one had better have iron-clad reasons for doing so and have weighed the negative consequences as well.

Regarding the present issue, arguing for the assassination of a democratically-elected leader like Chavez certainly would send an interesting message about the U.S.'s belief in nurturing democracies, though if memory servers correctly, the U.S. has, in the past, assassinated democratic leaders.

NudeTopher

08-25-2005, 06:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Let me get this straight . . . we have a Conservative Christian calling for the assisination of Chavez. Maybe it's me, but shouldn't the commandment, "Thou shall not Kill" come into play somewhere here??

Talk about messed up. That dude is dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what is even more disturbing is that Robertson has a following ... who will actually believe that he's come up with something positive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, he broke two commandments. Not only "thou shall not kill" but also the one prohibiting "bearing false witness."

Leaving the religious aspects of his comments aside; Robertson doesn't seem to understand that "what is good (and legal) for the goose is good (and legal) for the gander." When the United States government decides which world leaders can live and which should die-then doesn't the rest of the world have the right to assasinate a US president of whom they don't approve?

Obviously, Robertson didn't think this through (a common problem when one leads an unexamined life-if 70% of the population voted for and supports Chavev, what makes him think that the next Venezualen president would be any different?

It's unbelieveable that this man gets the hearts, minds, and wallets of the rapture right sheeps.

Is there any humor in this? Sure there is - in Venezuala, Chevez enjoys a higher approval level then Bush does here. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

OZJames

08-25-2005, 07:44 PM

P.J. said <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> killing one belligerent leadser, such as Adolf Hitler, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler was systematically trying to murder the whole Jewish race - millions of people. I don't think it is appropriate to compare these two people - Hitler & Chavez

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ken Palmer

08-25-2005, 09:23 PM

I kind of thought the same way you did Brain. A Conservative Christian calling for the assassination of a leader of a nation? That kind of caught me off guard! I never thought I would see or hear that from someone in his position. You probably would expect that from an ordinary,average person "off the street." I really have to think about this one!

Ken Palmer

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BackpackerBrian:
Let me get this straight . . . we have a Conservative Christian calling for the assisination of Chavez. Maybe it's me, but shouldn't the commandment, "Thou shall not Kill" come into play somewhere here??

Talk about messed up. That dude is dangerous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504

09-01-2005, 05:23 PM

White House says send your New Orleans aid money to Pat Robertson:
http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-do...robertson-123509.php (http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-donations-to-rev-pat-robertson-123509.php)

Geez, and it was just last week the Right was disowning him, saying he was a has been.

KirkOntario

09-01-2005, 05:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
White House says send your New Orleans aid money to Pat Robertson:
http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-do...robertson-123509.php (http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-donations-to-rev-pat-robertson-123509.php)

Geez, and it was just last week the Right was disowning him, saying he was a has been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus you might note that money is directed to a CHARITY not to Pat Robertson. That money is held in trust for beneficiaries of its charitable objects and as long as unscrupulous people on the board don't siphon of the money to let's say....Air America..that takes money from children's charities they might just do some good! And we can all praise that! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Boreas

09-01-2005, 05:44 PM

Boreas

09-01-2005, 05:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
White House says send your New Orleans aid money to Pat Robertson:
http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-do...robertson-123509.php (http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/09/01/fema-directing-donations-to-rev-pat-robertson-123509.php)

Geez, and it was just last week the Right was disowning him, saying he was a has been. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Albinus you might note that money is directed to a CHARITY not to Pat Robertson. That money is held in trust for beneficiaries of its charitable objects and as long as the unscrupulous people on the board don't siphon of the money to let's say....Air America..that takes money from children's charities they might just do some good! And we can all praise that! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be true. Given the recent events though, it seems somewhat foolish to be aligning with such an organization. After all, "optics" count for an awful lot!

P.J.

09-02-2005, 09:12 AM

Rev.Pat Robertson does have the right to say whatever he wants. It is a free country that we live in.

What irks me is the way the radical left can say some truly absurd and insulting things and get a free pass, but those from the moderate right get constant attacks in the media.

Sen.Ted Kennedy, Rev.Jesse Jackson and Rep.Gary Stubbs are a few who should be considered to be an embarrassments to those who they're supposed to represent.

Sen.Ted Kennedy is no hero. His three older brothers were heros. The blood that Joe, Jack and Bobby shed was for their country...not for Ted's career in politics.

Rev.Jesse Jackson is all for Jesse Jackson. He has proven that his moral calibre makes him unfit for the clergy. To demand that he answers for his antics is not "racism."

As for Gary Stubbs, I'm sure that some of his supporters wanted him to set up housekeeping with Barney Frank.

hm0504

09-02-2005, 09:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Rev.Pat Robertson does have the right to say whatever he wants. It is a free country that we live in.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In wake of the London bombings, Britain is now putting limits on free speech -- namely to "ban incitement to religious hatred".

Should one be allowed to promote the killing of others? I suppose it would depend who the others were. Is it not illegal in the U.S. to utter death threats against individuals?

KirkOntario

09-02-2005, 10:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Should one be allowed to promote the killing of others? I suppose it would depend who the others were. Is it not illegal in the U.S. to utter death threats against individuals? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His speech was political and the 'other' is a foreign head of state. And as for it being a 'death threat' it would not meet any criminal standard. His words were 'take him out' which could mean other things than kill and it he was suggesting it be done by government under the powers of the state presumably.

hm0504

09-02-2005, 10:18 AM

You mean like "take him out" to dinner.

Robertson's speech makes it quite clear that he was promoting the killing of Chavez:
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

The question I raised about uttering death threats was meant to be a general one -- not Robertson-specific. And in light of the newly proposed British laws, I wonder if the U.S. would do the same if, say, some Muslim clerics in the U.S. were to begin to counsel homegrown terrorist attacks.

Naturist Mark

09-02-2005, 05:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

In wake of the London bombings, Britain is now putting limits on free speech -- namely to "ban incitement to religious hatred".
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ironically Pat Robertson is no longer welcome in the UK. He would be prohibited entry under Blair's new rules because of his advocacy of violence.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Blair's 12 point plan: <LI> Allowing Britain to deport anyone who fosters hatred, or advocates violence to further beliefs, or justifies acts of violence.
<LI> Making it an offence to condone or glorify terrorism.
<LI> Automatically refusing asylum to anyone who has participated in extremist violence anywhere.
<LI> "Better integration" for people living in Britain who are "presently inadequately
<LI> A new power to order the closure of any place of worship that is used as a centre for fomenting extremism.
<LI> Creating a list of those not suitable to preach who will be barred from Britain.
<LI> Compiling an international database of individuals whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain's security. [/list]

-Mark

l2ltlarry

09-02-2005, 08:21 PM

Mark, way back when the Iraq war started, columnist George Will said something I'd never seen stated so succinctly: "The first task of government is to establish a monopoly on violence." If this is true, and I think it probably is, then Britain really can't mean to ban all violence, just some violence. I notice British police now carry military weapons. These kinds of weapons are part of establishing a monoply on violence.

Bob S.

09-03-2005, 10:38 PM

"White House says send your New Orleans aid money to Pat Robertson"

Albinus, I looked at the FEMA (http://www.fema.gov) homepage and could not find that list of charities that had both Red Cross and Operation Blessing. There was a list of National Volunteer Orgs and had all kinds from secular to religious based--but still, no OB.

Bob S.

P.J.

09-04-2005, 12:46 AM

Those who like Rev.Pat Robertson along with those who don't, can agree that he should be careful what he says.
For what it is worth, he did apologize.
The 700 Club and Operation Blessing are legitimate charities, and are currently providing some relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
If you distrust or disapprove of any organization that Rev.Pat Robertson is involved with, then by all means donate to the relief organizations which you do approve of.
Charities connected with your own houses of worship are a start.
In addition to the faith-based organizations, there are also some excellent secular charitable organizations out there.
At this time, I think that we should be more concerned with those who have lost so much in the recent Hurricane disasters.
We can always argue, share our opinions and engage in our debates later.

NudeTopher

09-04-2005, 09:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:
Those who like Rev.Pat Robertson along with those who don't, can agree that he should be careful what he says. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">The oh so Reverend ONLY appologized after being confronted with videos of his statement; his first response was to deny the statement. So, was it a genuine apology, or a public relations spin? It seems to me that had he really had second thoughts about his statement he never would have initially denied it. An apology was after the media was showing videos of both his denial and orginal statment. On top of everything else he got caught with his balls in a wringer.</span>
For what it is worth, he did apologize.
The 700 Club and Operation Blessing are legitimate charities, and are currently providing some relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
If you distrust or disapprove of any organization that Rev.Pat Robertson is involved with, then by all means donate to the relief organizations which you do approve of.
Charities connected with your own houses of worship are a start. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">I think that we all have a responsibility to donate based on what we can afford. It was just a matter of (bad) luck that it hit the south; this could have devesated any of us.</span>
In addition to the faith-based organizations, there are also some excellent secular charitable organizations out there.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">I would suggest only giving to those organizations (regardless of secular vs. religious) that (a) have experience in disaster relief and (b) have a good history of actually using the majority of the donations for the stated cause. Too many charities have err "high costs of operation" and tend to fund their other projects with a percentage of the donated money.</span>
At this time, I think that we should be more concerned with those who have lost so much in the recent Hurricane disasters.
We can always argue, share our opinions and engage in our debates later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Parting comments:
- If anybody has a good suggestion on how to deal with the devestated people long term contact your elected representatives. It will take years to rebuild New Orleans and other effected areas and NOBODY has a plan, or even a clue, as to what to do with all of these devestated displaced people.

- I would think that when most people realize that Pat Robinson is a multi-billionaire (and I have nothing against capitalism- I just question how a preacher could become so wealthy off the backs of his flock) that they trust their donations to others that are more accountable about their finances.

- Pat Robinson is perhaps the best living example of why there needs to be a seperation between church and state.</span>

Bob S.

09-04-2005, 02:35 PM

At least most of you have the luxury of living far away from this snake oil salesman. I have the "priveledge" of living within a mile of him. ooh, how fun--sarcasm.

"For what it is worth, he did apologize."

No PJ, he denied. He altered his own words: (paraphrasing) 'Oh, I didn't mean kill him-haha. 'Take him out' could mean anything. They could kidnap him, give him a massive wedgie, become romantically involved with him. You see?'

He then got more flak from that denial and finally apologized. By the way, he hasn't exactly helped our cause down in Venezuela. Yes, he has the right to say it, but he has to own up to anything that happens as a result of what he said.

Oh, and some more Pat Robertson questionable dealings. He got the VA govt to do a study (couple hundred thousand dollard(?)) for creating an off ramp from I64 through the back of his property onto another local road (Centerville Tpk) which runs next to his complex. He also wanted to add another off-ramp (connencted to the other one) right into his complex where he would build homes and businesses. By the way, he already has one off-ramp that goes straight to Regent U (the lane becomes a right turn only lane into Regent).

Virginia Beach has always wanted another off-ramp but other places have already been studied and nothing is on VDOT's radar for the next ten years.

I have a long list of reasons to dislike Pat Robertson.

Bob S.

KirkOntario

09-04-2005, 06:29 PM

The irony of this entire thread is that back just before the first Gulf War the anti-war activists claimed that there was no need for a war the U.S. military should just assasinate Sadaam as though he could be located with a satellite and blasted off the planet. Did anyone suggest such a call was crimnal? Could this be the usual spirited defence of the usual leftist thumbing his nose at imperialst yankees?

hm0504

09-05-2005, 05:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
"White House says send your New Orleans aid money to Pat Robertson"

Albinus, I looked at the FEMA (http://www.fema.gov) homepage and could not find that list of charities that had both Red Cross and Operation Blessing. There was a list of National Volunteer Orgs and had all kinds from secular to religious based--but still, no OB.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The page has changed several times over the last week; I suspect the outcry over listing Operation Blessing caused its removal from the list.

hm0504

09-05-2005, 05:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The irony of this entire thread is that back just before the first Gulf War the anti-war activists claimed that there was no need for a war the U.S. military should just assasinate Sadaam as though he could be located with a satellite and blasted off the planet. Did anyone suggest such a call was crimnal? Could this be the usual spirited defence of the usual leftist thumbing his nose at imperialst yankees? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't it ironic how the Republican President George H. W. Bush got sucked in by those anti-war activists and didn't go in after Saddam during the Gulf War. Isn't it excrutiatingly ironic how in 1998, that same President wrote what a big mistake it would be to remove Saddam because of the instability it would cause in Iraq and in the region.

Thank goodness the current President George W. Bush chose to listen to his "heavenly Father" for advice on Iraq and is showing us just how wrong the "leave Saddam in place crowd" is.

KirkOntario

09-05-2005, 05:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Thank goodness the current President George W. Bush chose to listen to his "heavenly Father" for advice on Iraq and is showing us just how wrong the "leave Saddam in place crowd" is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that sort of characterization of the President's faith is an insult to millions of Christians. Christians do not consult their Lord as though he was a Oui-ja device or "magic 8-ball' that tells them what to do. To suggest otherwise is very unfair. Bush prayed for wisdom on Iraq and made the decision based on earthly not divine facts as he knew them at the time. History will prove that Bush the Younger was wiser than Bush the Elder.

NudeTopher

09-05-2005, 06:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Thank goodness the current President George W. Bush chose to listen to his "heavenly Father" for advice on Iraq and is showing us just how wrong the "leave Saddam in place crowd" is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that sort of characterization of the President's faith is an insult to millions of Christians. Christians do not consult their Lord as though he was a Oui-ja device or "magic 8-ball' that tells them what to do. To suggest otherwise is very unfair. Bush prayed for wisdom on Iraq and made the decision based on earthly not divine facts as he knew them at the time. History will prove that Bush the Younger was wiser than Bush the Elder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_RED">ROFLMBAO</span>
Albinus wasn't refering to "that heavenly Father;" he was refering to to GWB's father...you know Barbara's husband? You might have heard of him; not only was he once the president but <span class="ev_code_RED">he wrote a book deliniating the reasons NOT to invade Iraq!</span>

KirkOntario

09-05-2005, 06:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<span class="ev_code_RED">ROFLMBAO</span>
Albinus wasn't refering to "that heavenly Father;" he was refering to to GWB's father...you know Barbara's husband? You might have heard of him; not only was he once the president but <span class="ev_code_RED">he wrote a book deliniating the reasons NOT to invade Iraq!</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now it's my time to laugh. Dear christopher he was referring to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack and the suggstion unfairly made that Bush consulted Jesus on whether or not to invade Iraq.

NudeTopher

09-05-2005, 06:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<span class="ev_code_RED">ROFLMBAO</span>
Albinus wasn't refering to "that heavenly Father;" he was refering to to GWB's father...you know Barbara's husband? You might have heard of him; not only was he once the president but <span class="ev_code_RED">he wrote a book deliniating the reasons NOT to invade Iraq!</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now it's my time to laugh. Dear christopher he was referring to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack and the suggstion unfairly made that Bush consulted Jesus on whether or not to invade Iraq. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be so sure. Either way it's rather comical. I doubt he read his Father's book since he seems to detest books; and had he read it - he might have noticed the reasons not to invade Iraq. Looking at it your way, that's even more scarey. If he claims that he heard JC speak to him and instruct him to invade then that is both confirmation of my thinking this could be Crusades II and an indication of a psychotic break.

hm0504

09-05-2005, 06:34 PM

Actually NudeTopher,
I was indeed referring to the Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack which describes that President George W. Bush chose to consult his heavenly Father rather than his earthly one about the war in Iraq.

Personally, I think consulting both would have been a good idea given that his earthly Father was not only a former President, but the only one to have attacked Saddam's Iraq. Indeed, I find it incredibly strange and an amazing dereliction of duty that Bush the son did not consult his earthly father on this matter. You'd think it might have come up at least over the dinner table.

KirkOntario

09-05-2005, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Actually NudeTopher,
I was indeed referring to the Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack which describes that President George W. Bush chose to consult his heavenly Father rather than his earthly one about the war in Iraq.

Personally, I think consulting both would have been a good idea given that his earthly Father was not only a former President, but the only one to have attacked Saddam's Iraq. Indeed, I find it incredibly strange and an amazing dereliction of duty that Bush the son did not consult his earthly father on this matter. You'd think it might have come up at least over the dinner table. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but we all know had this father advised him to invade Bush would be bashed for listening to his father and consulting him in the first place. It's the usual set up piece.

KirkOntario

09-05-2005, 06:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Don't be so sure. Either way it's rather comical. I doubt he read his Father's book since he seems to detest books; and had he read it - he might have noticed the reasons not to invade Iraq. Looking at it your way, that's even more scarey. If he claims that he heard JC speak to him and instruct him to invade then that is both confirmation of my thinking this could be Crusades II and an indication of a psychotic break. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh the book is by Bob Woodward and it suggests no such thing.

NudeTopher

09-05-2005, 06:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Don't be so sure. Either way it's rather comical. I doubt he read his Father's book since he seems to detest books; and had he read it - he might have noticed the reasons not to invade Iraq. Looking at it your way, that's even more scarey. If he claims that he heard JC speak to him and instruct him to invade then that is both confirmation of my thinking this could be Crusades II and an indication of a psychotic break. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh the book is by Bob Woodward and it suggests no such thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. So you think it would have been wrong to seek a prior president's (who happens to be your father) opinion on invading Iraq in favor of "praying on it"?

KirkOntario

09-07-2005, 05:13 PM

http://www.washtimes.com/national/pruden.htm

Hmmm... don't see the outrage over Mary Landrieu threatening to punch the President. That's an actual felony in U.S. law. Could there be a double standard here?
Hmmm.. could it be that the Left has one set of 'rules' for them and one set for everyone else?

Unwired

09-07-2005, 07:06 PM

OK how about a compromise, we go after both:

Senator Landrieu for threatening the president with physical violence, and Pat Robertson for calling for the assassination of a duly elected head of state! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Both remarks could be regarded as inappropriate (http://www.alternet.org/story/24541/).

UW

Captain Zen

09-07-2005, 07:44 PM

Pat Robertson Describes U.S. Foreign Policy

by Jacob G. Hornberger

08/27/05 "Lewrockwell" -- -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has stirred up a firestorm with his call for “taking out” Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. What’s all the fuss about? All that Robertson has done is state publicly what has long been an important part of U.S. foreign policy – assassination of foreign rulers who behave independently of Washington.

John Perkins described how U.S. foreign policy works in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions. In order to place foreign rulers under Washington’s thumb, the first step is to ply them with foreign loans and foreign aid, oftentimes funneled through the IMF or World Bank. While such funds are sometimes billed as “money to help the poor,” the reality is that they are nothing more than bribes to line the pockets of grateful and dependent foreign officials in return for loyalty to Washington.

Sometimes a ruler goes “independent” of Washington, refusing to follow its orders or suggestions. That brings in the State Department and the U.S. Congress, which, in the name of “promoting democracy,” starts funneling millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to foreign candidates and parties who are opposing the recalcitrant ruler, with the aim of ousting him from office and replacing him with someone who is loyal to Washington.

If interference with foreign political processes doesn’t work, then the next step is an economic embargo or sanctions, whose aim is to squeeze the foreign citizenry into such misery and poverty that they will take up arms and violently overthrow their ruler and replace him with someone who is loyal to Washington. That of course has been the aim of the 40-year-old unsuccessful embargo against Cuba. It was also the aim of 12 years of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Iraqi children, again without success, after Saddam Hussein went independent after having received WMDs and military assistance from the United States in his war against Iran.

If the embargo or sanctions don’t succeed, the CIA steps in. Its job is to carry out either a coup or an assassination of the recalcitrant ruler, or both. As Perkins points out, that’s why the Ecuadoran president Jaime Roldos and the Panamanian president Omar Torrijos were assassinated. It’s also the reason for the CIA-supported coups in Chile, Guatemala, and Iran.

Cuba’s president, Fidel Castro, provides a good example of where independence of U.S. rule can get a foreign dictator in hot water with U.S. officials. While U.S. officials claim that the reason they oppose Castro is that he is a communist dictator, nothing could be further from the truth. After all, as a socialist Castro embraces Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, income taxation, welfare, and equalization of wealth – that is, the same socialist programs that U.S. officials embrace. Castro also treats suspected terrorists the way that U.S. officials do – military tribunals, denial of due process, no independent criminal defense attorneys, no jury trials, and swift punishment. Castro even favors the war on drugs, despite its decades of failure.

So what’s their real beef with Castro? Unlike his U.S.-favored predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, another brutal Cuban dictator, Castro has long kept his country independent of Washington, a cardinal sin as far as U.S. officials are concerned. If Castro had behaved with the obsequiousness toward Washington that Batista did, he would be as big a hero to the United States as, say, Pervez Musharraf, the unelected military dictator of Pakistan and former ally of the Taliban who decided to toe the official U.S. line after receiving millions of dollars in U.S. grants after 9/11.

What happens if assassination fails? That’s when the Pentagon steps in, as the people of Cuba, Panama, Grenada, and Iraq have discovered. But as Robertson correctly points out, military invasions are much more expensive than assassination, in terms of both blood and treasure.

Pat Robertson has done the nation a service by bringing to the surface a reality of U.S. foreign policy that all too many Americans have preferred not to confront, a policy that has long relied on foreign bribes, interference with foreign democratic processes, coups and assassinations, and military invasions to extend the power and influence of the U.S. government overseas.

Jacob Hornberger <jhornberger@fff.org> is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Copyright © 2005 Future of Freedom Foundation

jon71

09-07-2005, 07:49 PM

Landieu's comment was inappropriate. I do understand her emotion though.

Captain Zen

09-07-2005, 08:15 PM

If this threead is about Pat Robertson I found another nice piece that fits.

Christian-Terrorists and Secular-Fanatics: Licensed to Kill

By Yamin Zakaria

08/27/05 "ICH" -- -- Which is worse, those who incite violence, those who practice violence or those who practice violence while lecturing their victims? Why do nations, that profit most from the sale of weapons for war, death and destruction, shout loudest in claiming to be proponents of “peace”? How can the Christian-West bully others with charges of anti-Semitism, when they are the ones who built the gas chambers, implemented the inquisition, and carried out routine pogroms against the Jews for centuries?

In any legal system, the testimony of a proven liar has little merit if any at all, but why then do we have to accept and abide by the words of those who openly lied about Iraq’s WMD’s, or is this a virtue of a capitalist-democracy! Now we have mass murderers that have slaughtered over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, preaching about non-violence and the sanctity of innocent civilians, or is that UK civilians only? Words of hypocrites and liars are always exposed by their inconsistent deeds, and the following examples from recent events will further illustrate.

An American Judge recently ruled that it was the notion of free speech dictated by the first amendment, which gave the right to the newspaper [1] in Arizona to publish letters calling for the killing of any Muslim civilians, in retaliation for the deaths of any US soldiers in Iraq. So, here ‘free’ speech takes precedence over the incitement to murder innocent Muslims.

For sure, if any Muslim did anything remotely close to that, they would be automatically locked up in Camp-X-Ray for inciting violence. In fact, just on mere suspicion the Muslims get locked up in accordance to the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. This behaviour in the language of the cowboys from the Wild West or a KKK (Ku Klux Klan) member is: kill the Sand-******s and if they say anything we lynch them and even if we think they are gone say something we lynch them, like a per-emptive strike.

This week, the abusive xenophobic preacher, Pat Robertson, called for US Special Forces to “take out,” (assassinate) President Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected head of Venezuela. Chavez has not waged a military campaign against the US, on the contrary the US have funded coup attempts against him, underlining their status as democracy hypocrites. Despite calling for the assassination of the head of a democracy, on national TV, he has not been accused of inciting terrorism or murder or hate! Imagine the hysteria it would have caused, if a similar incitement was made by any Muslim on national TV, calling for the assassination of President Bush or Blair. NB: these two cases mentioned are not equivalent, as Bush and Blair are mass-murdering war criminals, for whom the Hague or Nuremburg equivalence are required, with an appropriate sentence for their crimes, whereas President Chavez is a new born baby compared to them!

This incident is even more ironic when you consider that Pat Robertson is a Bible-bashing fanatic, those people are constantly lecturing the non-Christian world and especially the Muslims, that they should turn the other cheek like Jesus. Of course we know why they preach such a message from history, both recent and distant, Africans, Native Americans and others will testify that they got the Bible shoved down their throats, were told to turn the other cheek to invasion, murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide in return for the loss of their lands, languages and “way of life”.

Chavez’s real crime is like Saddam, possessing lots of oil while showing disobedience to the US corporate interests. Pat Robertson himself stated the oil factor: “a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil that could hurt us very badly”. How can a relatively poor and militarily weak country like Venezuela hurt a superpower? Again Pat Robertson stated they “could” hurt us, meaning it is time for another pre-emptive strike. Far from turning the other cheek, Pat Robertson believes in pre-emptive slaps! These preachers are not followers of Jesus but of Judas.

Then the other crusader, Pope Benedict of the Catholic Church, lectured Muslims to tackle the “cruel fanaticism of terrorism”, as if ‘terrorism’ is the sole reserve of the Muslims. He obviously thinks that, the Western-Christian forces invading Muslim countries, killing innocent women, children and men by the tens of thousands, delivering State Terrorism are in line with Biblical teachings and Catholic doctrine. Or is this again the “noble savage” being told to turn the other cheek and not resist, lie back and enjoy it! Does anyone remember the Vatican calling the Serbs and Croats fanatics, murderers, terrorists or any such like? 200,000 Muslims bludgeoned, battered, raped, mutilated, shot, knifed, crucified (oh yes) in the centre of Christian Europe by the Christian Serbs and Croats and not a whisper. Had it been the Muslims slaughtering 200,000 Christians, no doubt it would then have been the “cruel fanaticism of terrorism”.

Enough with the Christian-Fanatics let us now look at what the secular fanatics have been up to. The shadow education secretary, David Cameron of the Conservative party compared Islamic extremist, meaning those who adhere to Islamic teachings, to the Nazis. I did not realise Muslims adhered to such European traditions as Nazism, was it not invented and practiced in Europe. Why the constant cry about the Muslims not integrating then?

Nazis killed millions and for the last 50 years it is Muslims who have also been killed in their millions, yet to Mr Cameron, we are the aggressors like the Nazis, what a twisted little mind he and his ilk have. The Nazi’s created unjust laws to victimise and alienate minorities, similar to what the British government has started to do. Like the Nazi’s, Mr Cameron, it is your government that have bombed, imprisoned, killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Nazi ideology is exclusively based on the supremacy of one race, while Islam is the exact opposite, all races being equal, yet Mr Cameron claims Islam/Muslims are similar to the Nazis. He called Muslims violent for resisting aggression in their own lands, but he thinks that invading a country which did not attack his and murdering over 100,000 civilians is not violent. I thought we no longer live in the age of racist white-Imperialism, Mr Cameron have you heard the one about “people who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.”

I would not call Mr Cameron or Blair or Bush Nazis, as the Nazis were more civilised in some respects. The Nazis did not for instance imprison, rape and torture children [2] as the ‘liberators’ has been doing in Iraq. It was not the Nazis who started to bomb civilians en masse. German and Japanese cities were deliberately targeted to cause maximum deaths amongst the civilians, a favoured tactic of ‘bomber’ Harris. Their cities were carpet-bombed and civilians were incinerated and boiled alive, while their armies were on the retreat. Those bombings served no real military purpose other than gratuitous acts of violence and terrorism.

Why were the Atomic bombs used against Japan’s cities when it was already close to surrender? It was close to surrendering because the firebombing of Tokyo had already killed more than the numbers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; also Hirohito already sent a message through Stalin to Truman that he wanted to negotiate surrender. If, the bomb was used to bring the war to an early end, surely the first one was more than adequate, why the second bomb after three days, in a war that had already lasted 6 years? Because these are the actions of inhuman beasts and savages; and these are the people lecturing the world about terrorism. However, I do agree with many of the Americans who claimed the bombs ended the war early and saved lives, because the back-up plan was the mass-production of chemical weapons to be used against Japanese cities that envisaged killing as many as 5 million people. So, you see, the most violent people on earth are lecturing the Muslims, and it would take the action of millions of Islamic ‘terrorists’ to attempt to equal their horrific record.

Now Blair wants to crack down on anyone glorifying or justifying ‘terrorism’. But who will crack down on those who justify, glorify and actually practice terrorism, State Terrorism? If ‘terrorism’ is the problem then why not define it, and more importantly apply the definition consistently. Obviously neither the US nor the British government can define it, as they will themselves be incriminated by those definitions. They are too embarrassed to say what those terms really mean: “Terrorism” is retaliatory strikes against the US and UK aggression; “incitement to hate” is expressing political opposition to the Anglo-US war crimes; “incitement to violence” is calling for armed resistance to US-UK aggression.

Not surprising, Blair is off to join the Carlyle group after he leaves the post of Prime Minister and he has been rewarded handsomely for generating the business of war. Naturally, he joins the war industry as the Carlyle group has very strong links to the White House and defence industry. Blair, you will be drinking the blood of the Iraqi children and consuming the flesh of their parents, I wonder even Hell can accept or accommodate people like you.

Another glaring hypocrisy missed by many is the issue of women’s rights. Post 9/11 and 7/11, majority or significant proportion of the attacks were directed against Muslim women in the US and the UK. They are easily identified by their Islamic clothing of Khimar (Head Scarf) and Jilbab (long loose dress). After, lecturing about how sacred women’s rights are in the West and especially how oppressed Muslim women are, the society did not even think twice to attack the so-called ‘oppressed.’ One would have expected these flag bearers of women’s rights, to show at least some level of remorse for attacking Muslim women, after the event. All those infamous and anti-Islamic newspaper columnists, journalists and politicians found their tongues and brain cells paralysed, suffering from a disease called hypocritus!

You see, the acid test works, hypocrites and liars cannot hide, as sooner or later they will be exposed by their own deeds. Whilst Bush and Blair try to legislate against people thinking, disagreeing and resisting; they are dependent on the masses not seeing past their ‘spin.’ Sooner or later people will ask about their inconsistencies, their hypocrisy and their lies, and they will have a great fall, when that happens, all of the presidents men wont be able to put Grumpy and Lumpy back together again!

Copyright © 2005 by Yamin Zakaria

[1] http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/02/business/news/18_59_447_1_05.txt

[2] http://www.sundayherald.com/43796

PascoDoug

09-08-2005, 05:36 AM

You were asked to post links to these articles, and not post them directly in the forum.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Captain Zen

09-08-2005, 07:44 AM

Excuse for too long posts, my no mind took over again.
BTW, how can Christianity ever be associated with killing? Does Christianity not propose to apply the teachings of Jesus?

jon71

09-08-2005, 08:12 AM

Yes it does Zen. Do not commit murder is one of the ten commandments. Of course Robertson is a fundamentalist not a Christian so what do he care about that.

Captain Zen

09-08-2005, 01:08 PM

You know Jon, that god never gave commandments? What ruler, king, creator would first create an entity in His own Image and then give it commandments, only to see they are not followed, and then not even punishes the culprits.
NO, god gave no commandements to Moshe, he gave His Ten Commitments.
When Moses left in desperation his bunch of unruly escaped slaves dancing around the golden calf, he went upon the mountain and cried out: "Oh Lord, give me a sign, show me that you are real, give me something for the people that they may know you!"
And god said: "I will make you ten promises that I am committed to keep for you.
First I promise you that when you have found me, you will want no other god before me.
Second I promise you that when you have found me and you know I am you, you can not kill any more.
Thirdly, when you have found me, you shall not lie again, and I promise you, 4, you will honor your parents and 5 you will not steal any more. And so forth all ten promises.
This is what god said to Moses, He gave His ten commitments which the Bible makers later have changed in commandments, for the obvious reason that they did not and do not want you to find god.
Once you have found, you are home, and need no church or priest any more.
So I for sure assume that Pat Robetson has NOT found god yet and he can not speak as an authority on the subject.

jon71

09-08-2005, 06:38 PM

I have to disagree about the commandments, I firmly believe they are from GOD. The latter part of your post Zen is about right. I see no sign that Robertson knows GOD or morality, he only has religiosity. I saw a sign in front of a church the other day. "Religion is of man, salvation is of GOD". I wish to reiterate "...of God" not of the church.

Captain Zen

09-08-2005, 06:52 PM

The ten commendmands were COMMITMENDS, from God yes, He promised that when you had found HIM (in your own heart) He would keep these promises. And I see men of God who know this to be so.
Bible makers changed the word "committments" in "commandments".
About changes in the Bible google roman catholic councils

pek1

09-13-2005, 07:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
The ten commendmands were COMMITMENDS, from God yes, He promised that when you had found HIM (in your own heart) He would keep these promises. And I see men of God who know this to be so.
Bible makers changed the word "committments" in "commandments".
About changes in the Bible google roman catholic councils </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proove it.

Pete

pek1

09-13-2005, 07:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I have to disagree about the commandments, I firmly believe they are from GOD. The latter part of your post Zen is about right. I see no sign that Robertson knows GOD or morality, he only has religiosity. I saw a sign in front of a church the other day, "Religion is of man, salvation is of GOD". I wish to reiterate "...of God" not of the church. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I concur. Good post, jon.

Pete

Sauna

09-13-2005, 11:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
I have to disagree about the commandments, I firmly believe they are from GOD. The latter part of your post Zen is about right. I see no sign that Robertson knows GOD or morality, he only has religiosity. I saw a sign in front of a church the other day. "Religion is of man, salvation is of GOD". I wish to reiterate "...of God" not of the church. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm very sorry but that was quite right

KirkOntario

09-18-2005, 06:04 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/17/946"02.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/17/94602.shtml)

"Sen. Mary Landrieu refused on Friday to withdraw or apologize for her threat to punch President Bush if he criticized Louisiana officials - despite Bush's magnanimous speech Thursday night and a federal downpayment of more than $60 billion dollars to rebuild her state"

This woman refuses to apologize or withdraw her threat? Is she really a United States Senator? How come no objection to this threat on here? I wonder why?

Bob S.

09-18-2005, 09:30 PM

Kirk, are you sure you got the right topic?

Bob S.

Trailscout

09-18-2005, 09:57 PM

Jon,

It's a bit over the top to condemn all churches everywhere. Jesus created the church and gave it a job to do. Working in harmony with other believers is God's way. If you disagree, please offer a scriptural alternative.

Unwired

09-18-2005, 10:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Jon,

It's a bit over the top to condemn all churches everywhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry...I must have missed that part. Can you point out exactly where or how he did that? Because I didn't see any evidence of such a condemnation in any of his posts.

UW

KirkOntario

09-19-2005, 03:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Kirk, are you sure you got the right topic?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just bringing in the analogy and showing the double standard. This US senator has threatned to assault the President of the United States. That's a crime. No outcry over this. Some half-baked televangelist threatens to foreign leader who is subverting the government of Columbia and allying himself with known enemies of the US and they are all over him.

Captain Zen

09-19-2005, 03:56 AM

As if "taking him out" has the same meaning as "punching".
And indeed, a home quarrel is nothing compaired to an international threat with political implications. After "Christian" R. said his definitely unchristian threat, Chavez had more reason to be pissed off at the US.

NudeTopher

09-19-2005, 04:04 AM

Robertson claims that God speaks to him on a regular basis. He also claims that God has told him the the U.S. must change politically.

IF you believe that he speaks to God,and if you believe that God is both interested in and active in politics perhaps Robertson has it wrong. Since the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all under Republican control perhaps God is suggesting that it's time for a party change with the power going back to the Democrats.

missouriboy

09-19-2005, 07:34 AM

Bush tells us that God speaks to him, too.

Now, if God speaks to people, why would He give two individual leaders conflicting instructions?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

hm0504

09-19-2005, 07:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
Kirk, are you sure you got the right topic?

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just bringing in the analogy and showing the double standard. This US senator has threatned to assault the President of the United States. That's a crime. No outcry over this. Some half-baked televangelist threatens to foreign leader who is subverting the government of Columbia and allying himself with known enemies of the US and they are all over him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Senator Mary Landrieu's comments are reprehensible and there should be an outcry over them asking her to retract them and apologize. The Democrats should take action such as having her removed from caucus if she does not.

BTW, in a related story, the Canadian Liberal Party (the party KirkOntario is always saying is anti-American) expelled Member of Parliament (U.S. Senator equivalent role) Carolyn Parrish for stomping on a George W. Bush doll as part of a TV comedy sketch:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/parrish-carolyn.html

This is despite that the Liberals have a minority government and doing so likely means they could lose power.

Captain Zen

09-19-2005, 08:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
Bush tells us that God speaks to him, too.

Now, if God speaks to people, why would He give two individual leaders conflicting instructions?

HAHAHAHAHA!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

God, in its amny forms speks to me too. HE just told me he is a joker and likes to confuse poeple. He sits back and looks at the mess they make of his creation. NAnd he llaughs his *** off for the stupidness he sees. God is like the little boy on the beach building a sandcastle. When it is ready after long and hard work, he destroys it again with tremendous joy.

jon71

09-19-2005, 08:38 AM

I'm not condemning the church, I'm simply saying that it is GOD, not the church that gives salvation. At it's best the church can be a great thing, but without GOD it would only be an institution of man. Religiosity, by itself, is of no value

Unwired

09-19-2005, 06:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

Senator Mary Landrieu's comments are reprehensible and there should be an outcry over them asking her to retract them and apologize. The Democrats should take action such as having her removed from caucus if she does not.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, Albinus, but it would seem that most people are engaging in highly selective outrage based on their own personal politics. Liberals are willing to dismiss Sen. Landrieu's comments as a frustrated utterance, while conservatives at best dismiss Robertson's comments as harmless, or at worst embrace them as a foreign policy initiative!

People ought to consider both of the statements in context and determine which is more truly dangerous, with more severe consequences.

UWrd

KirkOntario

09-19-2005, 07:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:BTW, in a related story, the Canadian Liberal Party (the party KirkOntario is always saying is anti-American) expelled Member of Parliament (U.S. Senator equivalent role) Carolyn Parrish for stomping on a George W. Bush doll as part of a TV comedy sketch:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/parrish-carolyn.html

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Expelled her only after she insulted the Prime Minister. That was the triggering not what she said about Bush.

KirkOntario

09-19-2005, 07:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:I looked at all the news reports on Chavez on CNN and I didn't see anything on there about him aboloshing democracy. Can you please give me a link?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chavez has not abolished democracy yet but he's on his way. Amnesty International and Human Righs watch have some pretty serious concerns about his jailing of those who criticize him, curtailing freedom of the press etc.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu)

jon71

09-19-2005, 08:52 PM

Curtailing the freedom of the press? You mean like Bush has done concerning the dead from the Iraq war and trying to obfuscate what's going on with Katrina.

KirkOntario

09-20-2005, 03:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Curtailing the freedom of the press? You mean like Bush has done concerning the dead from the Iraq war and trying to obfuscate what's going on with Katrina. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right Jon. Imprisoning people who criticize your government is EXACTLY like not letting photos be taken on government property. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

NudeTopher

09-20-2005, 03:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Curtailing the freedom of the press? You mean like Bush has done concerning the dead from the Iraq war and trying to obfuscate what's going on with Katrina. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right Jon. Imprisoning people who criticize your government is EXACTLY like not letting photos be taken on government property. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr umm... Before you salute Bush for not acting like a dictator you might wish to review some of the finer points of "The Patriot Act". More importantly, the Bush administration has not been doing very well in the Federal courts with regard to their denying due process to those that they have deemed "enemy combatants". At least the courts still believe in those pesky little things like due process and evidence.

09-20-2005, 04:04 AM

Which is why his fundie buddies are attacking the courts, saying they have too much power. If they don't like what they hear they condemn it just like Bush does.

Trailscout

09-20-2005, 04:15 AM

Fundamentalists are not the only ones who think that the courts have overstepped the bounds to the point of legislating from the bench.

If liberals and moderates (of which I am one), do not like the laws, why not vote for a more moderate political candidate?

09-20-2005, 04:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:

Senator Mary Landrieu's comments are reprehensible and there should be an outcry over them asking her to retract them and apologize. The Democrats should take action such as having her removed from caucus if she does not.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, Albinus, but it would seem that most people are engaging in highly selective outrage based on their own personal politics. Liberals are willing to dismiss Sen. Landrieu's comments as a frustrated utterance, while conservatives at best dismiss Robertson's comments as harmless, or at worst embrace them as a foreign policy initiative!

People ought to consider both of the statements in context and determine which is more truly dangerous, with more severe consequences.

UWrd </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why have only one statement be "truly dangerous"? I think all levels of government were at fault but that doesn't mean I can't consider the national level to be the worst.

And I don't think it is just liberals who feel this way.

09-20-2005, 04:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trailscout:
Fundamentalists are not the only ones who think that the courts have overstepped the bounds to the point of legislating from the bench.

If liberals and moderates (of which I am one), do not like the laws, why not vote for a more moderate political candidate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have it backwards. The judicial system protects those laws even as Bush and buddies try to circumvent it. That is what pisses them off. Just making a new law that suits the fundie purposes doesn't make all other law unapp