# Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Chavez



## Kenpodoc (Aug 23, 2005)

Apparently the United States is now harboring terrorists. Pat Robertson has called for the assasination of a Foreign leader. Christian extremism at its most delightful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/

Perhaps our presiden

Jeff


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 23, 2005)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/



> 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, Robertson said. Its a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I dont think any oil shipments will stop.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 23, 2005)

Mod Note:

 Threads merged due to topical similarity.

 -Dan Bowman-
 -MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Marginal (Aug 23, 2005)

Not surprising. He's also been busily asking God to kill a supreme court justice for weeks now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 23, 2005)

Mighty Christian of him.  I remember reading that in the Bible...not.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 23, 2005)

Unbelievable...except from him.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 23, 2005)

Wasn't this the guy who said that 911 happened because of the gays? 

Or did he just agree with another 'Christian Preacher'.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2005)

Disengage brain...open mouth....insert foot.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 23, 2005)

> "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.
> 
> "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."


Aparently he forgot about President Ford's decision on political assassination (which was pushed by a Democrat congress).

I see where he is coming from - considering how many troops we've lost and billions spent when we could have spent one round instead.

Not that it would have magically turned Iraq into a Democracy... but then who cares.

Pat a terrorist? - *laugh* - now I've heard it all....


----------



## evenflow1121 (Aug 23, 2005)

As much as I disagree with Chavez (lived in Caracas for 2 years, not Venezuelan btw) he was elected by the popular vote in Venezuela. He may dislike our government, but the people living over there seem to be just fine with him, besides isnt Venezuela our main petroleum seller?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 23, 2005)

For the record ...I believe it was 59% of Venezuala's Petroleum exports that are shipped to the United States. I think Venezuala is actually third on our supplier list (behind Canada and Saudia Arabia)


----------



## still learning (Aug 23, 2005)

Hello,  This man needs to go back to reading and studing the bible!  Evening if he gets his wish....will the next leader be better or worse?  and do we kill them too? untill  Pat is a happy man?

 He lost his way to do  Gods work. Is Pat playing "God" now?

 I am a very disappointed person who had respect for him.....not anymore...Aloha


----------



## Marginal (Aug 23, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Aparently he forgot about President Ford's decision on political assassination (which was pushed by a Democrat congress).
> 
> I see where he is coming from - considering how many troops we've lost and billions spent when we could have spent one round instead.


Yep. Worked great in Iran.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 24, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Aparently he forgot about President Ford's decision on political assassination (which was pushed by a Democrat congress).
> 
> I see where he is coming from - considering how many troops we've lost and billions spent when we could have spent one round instead.
> 
> ...


If an Islamic mullah said the same thing he would be called a terrorist. I'm inclined to call them both terrorists. Off the top of my head I can't think of any situation where assasination has served the U.S. well.

Jeff


----------



## Gemini (Aug 24, 2005)

He's claiming now that he used the term "take him out". and he was misquoted by the AP. And "take him out could mean alot of things including abduction...". Wrong. The quote posted by Shesulsa was taped. Everyone and GOD saw it. There was no misunderstanding. He was as clear as always.

The man is just plain scary. He and Hugo Chavez (Castro wannabe) deserve each other.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 24, 2005)

The scarier thing is that this moron is ...

 ... still on TV preaching as a 'servant of the Lord';

 ... revered by many non-denominational Christian followers;

 ... well seated on the shoulder of formidable politicians;

 ... not going anywhere.

 This viewpoint is likely revered by certain members of the general populus because it comes from a man of "the cloth" - "the Lord works through him" .... I just cringe when I think of all the prescribed justifications that many will use to back this idiot.  

 It's one reason (the main reason) I left organized Christianity and whenever I entertain trying to find a church or local organization where I can take my family to study this facet of spirituality, some **** like this happens.

 It's misplaced spirituality.  It's wrong thinking.  It's sinful.  It's ... certainly not Christian.

 I'm incensed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2005)

Lets see, I wonder what Pat Robertson's beef is with Hugo Chavez?  As president of the Venezuela, he promised to use the countries oil revenue to combat the extreme poverty in his country.  People in Venezuela seem to like him for this.  One would think that an action like helping the poor would seem almost Christ-like.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2005)

Come on this guy was not a priest. To blame organized Christianity is kind of a stretch. To date ALL of the preists I have ever met have been very good people who have never expressed any intolerance of any person.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 24, 2005)

a serious note, blaming christianity for this guys remarks is like blaming the catholic church for breeding pedophiles.  

on a more serious note, here we have a wacky, lunatic American making ignorant un-American remarks... i always knew he was a liberal. :ultracool


----------



## DngrRuss (Aug 24, 2005)

Oh no you don't Sapper.  Don't give him to the left.  We don't want him.  He's all yours.

 The right does not get to use him and his mailing list, then throw him to the left when he says something blazingly stupid.

 It only proves that morons on both the left and the right can be Un-American.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Come on this guy was not a priest. To blame organized Christianity is kind of a stretch. To date ALL of the preists I have ever met have been very good people who have never expressed any intolerance of any person.


 Perhaps not, but he is considered to be one of the most outspoken Christians and a pseudo-leader in that arena.  

 And I can see where you draw the conclusion that I'm blaming organized Christianity, but I left because of the major players in that arena would espouse ideas and dogma that were not befitting Christiandom, IMVHO.


----------



## Xequat (Aug 24, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> It only proves that morons on both the left and the right can be Un-American.


Hahaha, good point.  I guess you can get away with saying things like this when you own the show you're speaking on.  I wonder if he would get fired for saying something like that on a show that wasn't his?  Hopefully the 700 club drops to about 7 members now, but I doubt it.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 24, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> a serious note, blaming christianity for this guys remarks is like blaming the catholic church for breeding pedophiles.
> 
> on a more serious note, here we have a wacky, lunatic American making ignorant un-American remarks... i always knew he was a liberal.


From the CBN (700 Club Web Site) .. 



> It's alleged that the radical left in the west has forged an alliance with radical Muslims who want to destroy the west. CBN News witnessed this strange coalition in London in 2003: a massive anti-American, anti-war demonstration by radical leftists and radical Muslims. They are two groups with seemingly nothing in common except hatred of America, capitalism, and Israel.
> 
> The Hip Hop music and the pot smoke was an odd mix with the headscarves and the Muslim call to prayer. But it got even stranger when the leftists, who had been shouting obscenities and death threats against George Bush, became reverent during the prayer.
> 
> ...


Yeah ... Robertson is a leftist .... now that's funny.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 24, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> a serious note, blaming christianity for this guys remarks is like blaming the catholic church for breeding pedophiles.
> 
> on a more serious note, here we have a wacky, lunatic American making ignorant un-American remarks... i always knew he was a liberal. :ultracool


Certainly catholics should not be blamed but perhaps the structure of the organization and the lack of response by upper management could be predicted to have led to a situation whereby the pediophiles were shuffled around and not stopped. 

As to Pat Robertson the evangelical churches with which I've had experience seem to have no trouble castigating the poor pregnant 17 yo or the 25 year old woman trying to escape an abusive relationship. (I've had patients who were counselled to stay in abusice relationships because it was "God's will")Yet, they seem to remain mute when Pat Robertson makes sedicious, viscious suggestions.

Jeff


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 24, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> From the CBN (700 Club Web Site) ..
> 
> 
> Yeah ... Robertson is a leftist .... now that's funny.



it was a joke michael, i hope you weren't serious


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2005)

Well, Im a Roman Catholic. I dont really pay attention to Robertson and the other denominations. I also dont feel all that responsible for them.....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 24, 2005)

Amazing. Robertson is a moron, nothing new there. The amazing part is how upset people get when Robertson suggests the assassination of a foreign leader, and the same could care less when an Air America personality insinuates someone should assassinate a sitting US president. In fact, those same people will go to great links to equivocate and spin and try and run interference for their fellow leftist.

I would dare to suggest had this been a leftist suggesting someone should assassinate Tony Blair for backing Bush (or calling for a million Mogadishus), that we'd be hearing some of the same folks chiming in against Robertson now, running interference for him. Hmmmm.

The one thing that makes Robertson a target is that he proclaims himself to be a Christian and a conservative (the only two unforgiveable sins as far as the left is concerned).

Robertson is an extremist moron with a big mouth, which puts him in good company with many leftists. He's no more of a moron than Michael Moore was when he suggested the terrorists on 9/11 attacked the wrong people.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 24, 2005)

This would be the perfect time for God to just step in and sort of distance himself from this Robertson fellow.

"What?  No, no, he's not on MY payroll.  I don't know what he's up to here..."


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 24, 2005)

Well he recanted... story here ...  go figure. Mebbe he realized that he wouldn't be invited to another presidental ingauration. 
It's a wonder that people listen to guys like him at all. Sigh. 

("...and I say to myself... what a wonderful world..." ~Louis Armstrong)


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 26, 2005)

Why are the same people calling Robertson a terrorist while at the same time protesting the war in Iraq whose leader called a hit on Bush Sr. while he was in Kuwait?

Does this not make Hussein and his country a bunch of terrorists?

I'm going to convert to a liberal so I can have everything both ways too.


----------



## Kenpodoc (Aug 26, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Why are the same people calling Robertson a terrorist while at the same time protesting the war in Iraq whose leader called a hit on Bush Sr. while he was in Kuwait?
> 
> Does this not make Hussein and his country a bunch of terrorists?
> 
> I'm going to convert to a liberal so I can have everything both ways too.


Hussein also was a terrorist. (At a practical level he was far more of a terrorist but this does not excuse Robertson's actions.)  Hussein's statements do not carry over to all of his countrymen. Robertson's statements also do not carry over the the rest of us. Unlike Robertson, I don't remember Hussein claiming to be a religious and moral example for all to follow.

Protesting the war is a different topic, but is not the same as agreeing with Hussein.  One can choose to protest the war on completely different grounds. Hussein was clearly a bad man and did not deserve to continure to rule. One can however question the planning or lack of it and it still remains to be proven if this action has made my life safer or more dangerous.

Jeff


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 26, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Why are the same people calling Robertson a terrorist while at the same time protesting the war in Iraq whose leader called a hit on Bush Sr. while he was in Kuwait?
> 
> Does this not make Hussein and his country a bunch of terrorists?
> 
> I'm going to convert to a liberal so I can have everything both ways too.


This is a bit trollish Mike, don't you think? Your inference here is that the labelling of Robertson as a terrorist is a Liberal practice, that the propensity to mislabel this man is a condition of Liberalism. I don't think so.... Robertson doesn't really fit the definition. He hasn't acted to incite or create terror to use as a weapon against a civilian population. Really, is anyone _afraid_ of Pat Robertson?  :lol2:  Anyone calling him a terrorist is in need of an appropriate definition.  Substandard education is not specific to political ideology.

 Further, your statement implies that anyone who calls for the death of another is a terrorist. I disagree with that. John Gotti wasn't a terrorist, he was a businessman. An illegal businessman, but certainly no terrorist. 

  So, your upcoming "conversion" to liberalism may be a bit hasty here.


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 26, 2005)

No, not necessarily trollish. Par Robertson is the target of criticism of nearly every liberal group out there. He is the posterboy of the rightous "Right Wing Christian" fundamentalists. This is well known.

The calls for him to be arrested by the FBI are a nail in the coffin for the same groups who assert Husssein had no link to terrorism, and that removing him was unjustified.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The scarier thing is that this moron is ...
> 
> ... still on TV preaching as a 'servant of the Lord';
> 
> ...


 Is he any scarier than Reverend Al Sharpton talking about jews? There is a long of list of leftists with followers harming America, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, etc. I guess we only notice lunatic religious nuts on the right.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Why are the same people calling Robertson a terrorist while at the same time protesting the war in Iraq whose leader called a hit on Bush Sr. while he was in Kuwait?
> 
> Does this not make Hussein and his country a bunch of terrorists?
> 
> I'm going to convert to a liberal so I can have everything both ways too.


 Nah, see that's entirely different.  As we know, it's no terrorism if it's about Bush.  Then it's just an act of political protest.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Is he any scarier than Reverend Al Sharpton talking about jews? There is a long of list of leftists with followers harming America, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, etc. I guess we only notice lunatic religious nuts on the right.


 I notice most raving lunatics I happen to see / hear / experience no matter of their affiliation.

 But THIS thread is about THIS lunatic.  It seems to me you have the problem with his being affiliated with your political leanings, not me.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I notice most raving lunatics I happen to see / hear / experience no matter of their affiliation.
> 
> But THIS thread is about THIS lunatic. It seems to me you have the problem with his being affiliated with your political leanings, not me.


 His a radical christian, why would I have a problem with his political affiliation? Just because he has backed the republican party by default, doesn't mean he is in anyway anymore representative of the republican party than Sharpton is of the left.  I just thought I'd point out for perspective that Robertson is about equally as nutty as his counterparts on the left.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> His a radical christian, why would I have a problem with his political affiliation? Just because he has back the republican party by default, doesn't mean he is in anyway anymore representative of the republican party than Sharpton is of the left.


 Then why did you bring political affiliation into the picture by making this statement?



> There is a long of list of leftists with followers harming America, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan, etc. I guess we only notice lunatic religious nuts on the right.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Then why did you bring political affiliation into the picture by making this statement?


 Because political affiliation is a part of this topic.  Had Robertson been a leftwing hack, instead of a right wing hack, the very people discussing it would not have even bothered, ergo, political affiliation is the only reason for even having a topic about the right wing wacko, Pat Robertson.  Your very statement about Robertson being "on the shoulders of politicians" is a reference to political affiliation.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Chances are that the topic would never have hit the board...


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Certainly catholics should not be blamed but perhaps the structure of the organization and the lack of response by upper management could be predicted to have led to a situation whereby the pediophiles were shuffled around and not stopped.
> 
> As to Pat Robertson the evangelical churches with which I've had experience seem to have no trouble castigating the poor pregnant 17 yo or the 25 year old woman trying to escape an abusive relationship. (I've had patients who were counselled to stay in abusice relationships because it was "God's will")Yet, they seem to remain mute when Pat Robertson makes sedicious, viscious suggestions.
> 
> Jeff


 Interesting point - where are all the other religious leaders at a time like this? I have heard no other religious leader complain about this statement - not Jackson, not the Pope, not Sharpton ... no one.  Why not?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Interesting point - where are all the other religious leaders at a time like this? I have heard no other religious leader complain about this statement - not Jackson, not the Pope, not Sharpton ... no one. Why not?


 Well, if you want to know the truth, the answer is probably professional courtesy. Even if they disagree politically, doctors, lawyers and preachers are hard pressed to publically denigrate a fellow.  There's an unspoken truce I would imagine.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

The great White Shield - yes, yes.  

 It's a fine line to ride, that professionalism, is it not?  So would you rather see other action on this by the religious community? or at least more outcry?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The great White Shield - yes, yes.
> 
> It's a fine line to ride, that professionalism, is it not? So would you rather see other action on this by the religious community? or at least more outcry?


 I personally don't care. There's more than enough non-religious outcry to make a mountain of this molehill, without starting a religious war over it. 

It's in the same category as college professors calling for a "Million Mogadishu's" against US troops, we shouldn't give him more publicity than he already has.  I mean, Pat Robinson, despite is celebrity, is still a private citizen, and has the right, like all private citizens, to say the most asinine things imaginable.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

I dont think the Pope should even recognize televangelists IMO. I dont even think he fits in that crowd.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I mean, Pat Robinson, despite is celebrity, is still a private citizen, and has the right, *like all private citizens, to say the most asinine things imaginable.*


 I love it.  


 ok, back to topic. (Sorry, that one had me chuckling).


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I mean, Pat Robinson, despite is celebrity, is still a private citizen, and has the right, like all private citizens, to say the most asinine things imaginable.


 
 True.  But if you or I said it in a public arena ... what would happen to us, ya think?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> True. But if you or I said it in a public arena ... what would happen to us, ya think?


 If you said it, a bunch of right wingers would be calling you all sorts of nasty names.  If I said it, a bunch of leftists would be calling me a fascist, and demanding that I get charged with a hate crime.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's in the same category as college professors calling for a "Million Mogadishu's" against US troops, we shouldn't give him more publicity than he already has. I mean, Pat Robinson, despite is celebrity, is still a private citizen, and has the right, like all private citizens, to say the most asinine things imaginable.


This isn't in the same catagory.  If a college professor calls for a million mogadishu's there audience is going to be rather limited.  Pat Robertson, unfortunately, has millions who watch him everyday....700 club, Christian Coalition, etc...

Stupid is stupid, but stupid with a big audience is dangerous.  

On a side note, I don't think the liberals need to say anything after this.  We should just sit back and let the right wingers pull the pin and drop the grenades in their own boats!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This isn't in the same catagory. If a college professor calls for a million mogadishu's there audience is going to be rather limited. Pat Robertson, unfortunately, has millions who watch him everyday....700 club, Christian Coalition, etc...
> 
> Stupid is stupid, but stupid with a big audience is dangerous.
> 
> On a side note, I don't think the liberals need to say anything after this. We should just sit back and let the right wingers pull the pin and drop the grenades in their own boats!


 Not to mention Pat Robertson is allegedly a "conservative", right?  I mean, that's what's really dangerous. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It's not really that you are attacking Robertson, he's a moron.  It's that in the same breath you have to make a token effort to defend the professors statement as less dangerous.  That's the power of ideology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Not to mention Pat Robertson is allegedly a "conservative", right? I mean, that's what's really dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, classroom of people listening to one idiot with some supposed authority vs tele-evangelist with millions of people watching everyday hanging off this guy's every word.  

HMMMM....

Ideology, I don't think so.  I believe the appropriate response, "Yeah, I guess you have a point."


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, classroom of people listening to one idiot with some supposed authority vs tele-evangelist with millions of people watching everyday hanging off this guy's every word.
> 
> HMMMM....
> 
> Ideology, I don't think so. I believe the appropriate response, "Yeah, I guess you have a point."


I also have to mention that sometimes these extreme forms of religion tend to disable people's ability to reason...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

So freedom of speech needs to be weighed against audience size?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, classroom of people listening to one idiot with some supposed authority vs tele-evangelist with millions of people watching everyday hanging off this guy's every word.
> 
> HMMMM....
> 
> Ideology, I don't think so. I believe the appropriate response, "Yeah, I guess you have a point."


 The fact that you truly believe that one is worse than the other says a lot.  The professor indoctrinates thousands of students in his career who, in turn, go on to be leaders.  Tele-evangelists sell metaphorical snake oil on TV.  Actors in hollywood are adored by millions.  Stupid statements by all of the above have a significant impact.  

The one difference?  The professors are often paid by the tax payer, so in a sense they have a GREATER obligation to speak with some tact.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So freedom of speech needs to be weighed against audience size?


 Audience size and political ideology. Basically, if you generally agree with a person's politics, he gets a pass when he says something moronic. If you hate the guys politics, any stupid thing is indicative of his entire political belief system.

Now, as for Pat Robertson....he's a private citizen.  It would seem to me that he has a moral obligation to use a little more discreation when speaking, as he IS the head of a large religious organizations and has an audience of MILLIONS.  Of course, as a private citizen, that moral obligation is between him, god and his followers.  

We should label Pat the moron that he is and move on without trying to make this an indictment of the entire conservative world.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Or religion....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The fact that you truly believe that one is worse than the other says a lot. The professor indoctrinates thousands of students in his career who, in turn, go on to be leaders. Tele-evangelists sell metaphorical snake oil on TV. Actors in hollywood are adored by millions. Stupid statements by all of the above have a significant impact.
> 
> The one difference? The professors are often paid by the tax payer, so in a sense they have a GREATER obligation to speak with some tact.


While I agree 100% that public servents like teachers must speak with some tact...I still think there is a difference and I'm not defending the professor btw.

Pat Robertson will reach in one day more people then that professor reaches in his entire career by a factor of 1000.  Further, Pat Robertson says stupid stuff like this _everyday_.  I'm surprised it made news this time...

upnorthkyosa

Thats my last word, I'm going fishing.  The Browns (trout) are running in from Lake Superior and I've got a personal record of 28 inches to beat.  Last week I whacked a 25.


----------



## Loki (Aug 27, 2005)

> #30 - *Is Pat Robertson correct when he says we should kill Hugo Chavez?*
> No, it's immoral and illegal.
> Yes, Jesus would kill Chavez.
> Yes, it's God's will.
> No, that's damn stupid!


 http://www.ihatepatrobertson.com/

  Lot's of great stuff.


----------



## DngrRuss (Aug 27, 2005)

I hate to say this, but I agree with Sgt.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Wrong is wrong.  Professors do "indoctrinate" impressionable students to specific ideologies.  If that young person has no real grasp of his own ethics and politics, the professor is a powerful influence.

 However, I also agree that Robertson reaches more prople in a single day then that professor reaches in a lifetime.  As I said, wrong is wrong, but the after-effects now fall into a question of degree.

 Learning hatred, hypocracy, intollerance, and anger is no different whether it comes from the pulpit or the classroom.  I think the bile rises especially high against Robertson because of his supposed _Christian_ stance.  Most sincere and honest Christians that I know wouldn't stand for that crap from one of thier local leaders.  But Robertson has a national audience, and owns his own airwaves.  

 If a professor makes a blazingly stupid statement, he can be sanctioned, fired, or at the very least put into some deep, dark acedemic hole where he won't be influencing anyone.  Rich, powerful, mass-media nuts like Robertson don't have to suffer the inconvenience of checks and balances.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Aug 27, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> ...*Professors do "indoctrinate" impressionable students to specific ideologies. *If that young person has no real grasp of his own ethics and politics, the professor is a powerful influence.
> 
> However, I also agree that *Robertson reaches more prople in a single day then that professor reaches in a lifetime*. As I said, wrong is wrong, but the after-effects now fall into a question of degree.
> 
> ...If a professor makes a blazingly stupid statement, he can be sanctioned, fired, or at the very least put into some deep, dark acedemic hole where he won't be influencing anyone. Rich, powerful, mass-media nuts like Robertson don't have to suffer the inconvenience of checks and balances.


I think that there is a vast difference between the types of individuals that are reached by any random professor and any random televangelist.

People who follow Pat Robertson blindly probably are not going to significantly impact society in any way greater than voting (if they even bother to vote) in elections; however, the young men and women who sit in a professors lecture hall day after day have the possibility of becoming very influential in this society (lawyers, judges, doctors, professors, politicians, etc, etc.).

Does anyone honestly believe that there is a judge or politician out there that hangs on every word that proceeds from the mouth of Robertson? I don't think so.  Education tends to make one somewhat analitical.

Whichever ideology owns the systems of education and mass media, in time, will own the government.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 27, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> People who follow Pat Robertson blindly probably are not going to significantly impact society in any way greater than voting (if they even bother to vote) in elections; however, the young men and women who sit in a professors lecture hall day after day have the possibility of becoming very influential in this society (lawyers, judges, doctors, professors, politicians, etc, etc.).


Well now that we've established that the conservative elements in the forum no longer beleive that the media shapes or impacts public opinion in any way, I'll never have to hear about the problems presented by the liberal media or "liberal hollywood elites" like Micheal Moore (well, unless he's giving a college lecture) again. This is a productive discussion!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 29, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Well now that we've established that the conservative elements in the forum no longer beleive that the media shapes or impacts public opinion in any way, I'll never have to hear about the problems presented by the liberal media or "liberal hollywood elites" like Micheal Moore (well, unless he's giving a college lecture) again. This is a productive discussion!


 Since you weren't paying attention, let me says this again. Robertson is on the same level as the nut Professor who called for a "Million Mogadishu's", nothing more, nothing less.  They both have power and influence, but some people choose to focus more on the damage of one than the damage of the other, because they tend to be more in line with the politics of one or the other.  Nuff said.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Since you weren't paying attention, let me says this again. Robertson is on the same level as the nut Professor who called for a "Million Mogadishu's", nothing more, nothing less.


Lets' put Pat Robertson in proper perspective here. 

1) He owns and appears on his TV network daily.
2) He controls a great deal of money, money which he uses to advance his causes. (Lobbist groups etc)

The professor on the other hand does not posess his own personal TV network. And he likely does not have access to  millions of dollars with which to further his particular agenda. 



> They both have power and influence.


Robertson posesses a deal more power and much more influence. As I said, if you argue that Pat Robertson is just as powerful as a college professor, then you're arguing that the media has no meaningful influence. I understand why you want to make college professors seem impossibly powerful, (lots of liberals in them there colleges) but really... Come on.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 30, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Lets' put Pat Robertson in proper perspective here.
> 
> 1) He owns and appears on his TV network daily.
> 2) He controls a great deal of money, money which he uses to advance his causes. (Lobbist groups etc)
> ...


 It never fails, though there is no obvious difference in the stupidity, you still try and try to paint Robertson as "More dangerous" while the leftist professor calling for the death of thousands of American troops as "less dangerous". And I understand why you want to overplay Robertson and underplay "college professor". Robertson is one of those "dangerous conservatives". 

It's amazing when people can't even see their own biases. I haven't defended Robertson, I merely put him in perspective. You still feel the need to attack Robertson, while simultaneously making a backhanded effort to defend other kinds of idiots saying questionable things. Stupidity is stupidity. Robertson is NO MORE or LESS responsible for measuring his words than a college professor. I don't care how big his audience is.  

I don't care about Robertson, I just want to see if you're willing to view stupid statements by leftists in the same light folks are attacking Robertson.  Apparently not.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It never fails, though there is no obvious difference in the stupidity, you still try and try to paint Robertson as "More dangerous" while the leftist professor calling for the death of thousands of American troops as "less dangerous". And I understand why you want to overplay Robertson and underplay "college professor". Robertson is one of those "dangerous conservatives".


You're changing the subject now. First you're talking about who's powerful, now you're talking about who's dangerous. 



> It's amazing when people can't even see their own biases.


Indeed. 





> I haven't defended Robertson, I merely put him in perspective.


Nope. You, like Fox news and a host of rightist pundits have been quick to marginalize Pat saying "Well, he's out of date, he's not that important, he has no influence..." That's not putting him in perspective. That's spin. 


> You still feel the need to attack Robertson, while simultaneously making a backhanded effort to defend other kinds of idiots saying questionable things.


Nope. I'm simply pointing out that Robertson has more influence than a random college professor. 





> Stupidity is stupidity. Robertson is NO MORE or LESS responsible for measuring his words than a college professor. I don't care how big his audience is.


He just happens to reach way more like minded people, and he's usually leading people in prayer while he's asking God to kill off liberal supreme court justices etc...  



> I don't care about Robertson, I just want to see if you're willing to view stupid statements by leftists in the same light folks are attacking Robertson.  Apparently not.


Get someone of similar power up there saying something stupid, and I'd agree with you. A crazy professor ain't Jessie Jackson.


----------



## Xequat (Aug 30, 2005)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/24/122804.shtml?et=y

You guys should have some fun with this one.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 1, 2005)

Xequat - Stephenopolous was wrong, and should have been taken to task for the article. Although, no doubt, many conservatives cheered Stephenopolous' idea at the time.



On a side note ... has everyone seen the generous, some-might-say very Christian-like, offer from President Chavez? 



> The Venezuelan president, applauded by supporters for his self-proclaimed socialist revolution to fight poverty, has offered to send cheap fuel, humanitarian aid and relief workers to the disaster area.
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuelan state oil firm PDVSA has offered $1 million from its U.S.-based refinery unit Citgo for relief efforts.


But I especially find astute, the President's observation ...



> "That government had no evacuation plan, it is incredible, the first power in the world that is so involved in Iraq ... and left its own population adrift," Chavez said in a cabinet meeting broadcast live on television.
> 
> ...
> 
> "That man, the king of vacations ... the king of vacations in his ranch said nothing but, you have to flee, and didn't say how ... that cowboy, the cowboy mentality," said Chavez, chuckling in a reference to Bush without naming him directly.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 1, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Xequat - Stephenopolous was wrong, and should have been taken to task for the article. Although, no doubt, many conservatives cheered Stephenopolous' idea at the time.


I agree, but I guess he wasn't.  Who knows, but I'd guess that just as many liberals would have supported it as conservative support Robertson's idea, and I'd guess that just as many conservatives would have attacked it as there are liberals attacking Robertson.  I'm just saying that it doesn't matter if you're left or right, if you call for the assaination of a foreign leader, you're wrong.

Yes, you are right.  That is a great offer from Chavez.  In fact, the UN is sending billions in aid, and a billion alone from France.  Thank you.

If Chavez were so astute, then he'd know that the President can do everything he can do in the White House from his ranch in Texas.  Congress is not in session, either.  Nobody left anybody adrift.  There were plenty of warnings, the southbound expressways were converted to run north for evacuees (thus answering Chavez' question of how to flee), and there were a few days in which to do it.  As soon as vehicles are able to get back in there, I'm sure they will.  It was the worst natural disaster in US history, and now somehow that's Bush's fault because he was not at the office that day?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2005)

It's nice to see that Pat Robertson's organization 'Operation Blessing' is third on FEMA's list of charitable organizations for New Orleans relief.

Yes ... Operation Blessing is listed right after the Red Cross and America's Second Harvest.

And a look to 'Faith Based Initiatives', take a look at the organizations listed by FEMA:


American Red Cross
America's Second Harvest
Operation Blessing
Adventist Community Services
Bnai Brith International
Catholica Charities, USA
Christian Disaster Response
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee
Church World Service
Convoy of HOpe
Corporation for National and Community Service Disaster Relief Fund
Feed the Children
Lutheran Disaster Response
Mennonite Disaster Service
Nazarene Disaster Response 
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance
Salvation Army
Southern Baptist Convention - Disaster Relief
United Jewish Communities
Union for Reform Judaism
United Methodist Committee on Relief


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 2, 2005)

Michael,

Is it purely circumstantial that the first three are not like the rest of the list? After "Operation blessing", everything is alphabetical. Is this list supposed to catagorize how much each is donating? If so, thats a bit odd that the end is alphabetical. If its not catagorized that way, then is the information regarding OB being "third" from another source?

Also, what do you mean by being "third". How are you catagorizing being third? Money sent? People? Technical aid? The third to get there? Just curious!

Thanks!

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 2, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> Is it purely circumstantial that the first three are not like the rest of the list? After "Operation blessing", everything is alphabetical. Is this list supposed to catagorize how much each is donating? If so, thats a bit odd that the end is alphabetical. If its not catagorized that way, then is the information regarding OB being "third" from another source?
> 
> ...


You are correct, the first three are 'Send Cash'. The rest are Cash or Volunteer. I thought I posted the link, sorry.

http://www.fema.gov/press/2005/katrinadonations.shtm

Some on this thread have said that Mr. Robertson is a "wacky, lunatic American". Others have sarcastically made excuses for Mr. Robertson. And here is the *Federal* government saying 'Send Him Cash'. 

And I know, Operation Blessing isn't the same as sending the cash to the 700 club, but, the ties that Robertson has with corruption in Africa (Charles Taylor, Muboto Sese Seko) are fairly well documented. 

Aren't there any charitable organizations in the country *not* aligned with a church? If not, can't we just call UNICEF?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 6, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> You're changing the subject now. First you're talking about who's powerful, now you're talking about who's dangerous.
> 
> Indeed. Nope. You, like Fox news and a host of rightist pundits have been quick to marginalize Pat saying "Well, he's out of date, he's not that important, he has no influence..." That's not putting him in perspective. That's spin.
> Nope. I'm simply pointing out that Robertson has more influence than a random college professor. He just happens to reach way more like minded people, and he's usually leading people in prayer while he's asking God to kill off liberal supreme court justices etc...
> ...


 I guess we have our answer in the form of race baiters trying to profit off of Hurricane Katrina. Funny how timely things come to light. In the word's of Kanye West, America is setup "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible." 

I'd be willing to bet Kanye West has a bigger audience than Pat Robertson. What's more dangerous to this country, one right wing religious nut calling on the assassination of a 3rd world thug, or Kanye West claiming that "whitey" is racist, and is just trying to rescue black people as slow as possible. 

Which has the greatest potential for inciting violence? If one is protected, both are. What say you? Kanye isn't the only idiotic race baiter attempting to create conflict, either. We've got the two usual suspects, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, along with a whole host of others. And what they've all said is FAR worse and more damaging to the country than what Robertson said. 

I truly doubt any of Robertson's middle aged audience is going to pickup a gun and assassinate Chavez.  I think the odd's are far more likely that cops are going to get shot at in response to the idiotic words of race baiters attempting to start controversy.  

Don't think so?  Al Sharpton managed to get a jewish shop owner's store burned down and several people shot by calling him an interloper when he fired a guy.  One of Sharpton's protestors shot several people and burned the store to the ground, and that was just over some guy getting fired.

Now, we have these guys telling disaster survivors that it's all "whitey" and the governments fault.  Is it any wonder cops and rescue workers are getting shot at?

Again, it's enough to make me sick when I think that Americans of all races and colors are risking their own lives rescuing Americans of all races and colors, and these clowns have to use their celebrity to attempt to divide us in time of disaster. I'd love to hear someone actually defend this inanity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 6, 2005)

If you don't think racism is alive and well in the deep south (and in my neck of the woods for that matter) then, "you've got another thing commin'"

Can you honestly tell me that race (in a city that is 60% black in the deep south) played absolutely no part?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Which has the greatest potential for inciting violence?


Personally, I think the fools gibbering garbage like "They should've just gotten out of the way!" Are more likely to directly be inciting violent responses.



> And what they've all said is FAR worse and more damaging to the country than what Robertson said.


At least Jackson got us cheap Venesualian oil.  



> I truly doubt any of Robertson's middle aged audience is going to pickup a gun and assassinate Chavez.


Still trying to spin his influence down? 'Least you admit he has an audience no. 



> Again, it's enough to make me sick when I think that Americans of all races and colors are risking their own lives rescuing Americans of all races and colors, and these clowns have to use their celebrity to attempt to divide us in time of disaster. I'd love to hear someone actually defend this inanity.


This explains that bizarre anon rep ding I got a while back... One that was angry that I wasn't advocating a communistic uniformity in the US.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the fools gibbering garbage like "They should've just gotten out of the way!" Are more likely to directly be inciting violent responses.
> 
> At least Jackson got us cheap Venesualian oil.
> 
> ...


 Not sure I understand your anonymous rep ding reference. If you're insinuating it was me, you're mistaken. I'll ding you in the forum if I feel I have something to say, in view of everyone. I don't back down from debates.  Why bother with anonymous dings, no one else can see them, and the audience principle is the point. Anonymous dings are a little passive aggressive for my tastes.

As for the asinine assertion that inciting racial violence by creating a racial issue where none need exist, isn't "dangerous", it really isn't worthy of a comment. Any reasonable person can see the inanity of that rationale. Especially when Al Sharpton and his ilk have talked his followers in to shooting people and burning down businesses over far less alleged provocation. 

It wasn't that long ago that an Al Sharpton called a jewish shop owner an "interloper" and protested his store. Then, one of Sharpton's protestors entered the store, shot several people and set it on fire. Hmmmmm.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If you don't think racism is alive and well in the deep south (and in my neck of the woods for that matter) then, "you've got another thing commin'"
> 
> Can you honestly tell me that race (in a city that is 60% black in the deep south) played absolutely no part?


 I guess racism is where you look for it. 

What's more, yes, I can honestly say that race played absolutely no part in the response. It's played plenty of role in the asinine statements made afterwords, though. 

Funny thing, when I first saw the devastation in New Orleans, I didn't see black people and white people, I saw Americans caught in a natural disaster.  As time went by, I kept hearing "Pay attention to what race these people are" over and over again.  Then I was told how racist I was, over and over again.
Racism is where you look for it. 


I'm not exactly sure how we're supposed to END racism, with all this obsession with race and racial differences. I had always assumed racial neutrality was the ideal, race blindness, but perhaps i'm wrong and someone has come up with a new ideal for race relations. 

Perhaps we are all supposed to abide by some complex racial hiearchical response to racial differences. Perhaps we're supposed to feel guilt in the presence of some race groups as pentence for some alleged past wrongs done by people other than ourselves.

Or maybe, everyone should just lighten up.


----------

