• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pat Robertson Threads

Wow

KidRocks said:
I've always maintained that r-wing extremism in America is manifesting and shaping itself into a form of Christian-terrorism by virtue of their hatred for Islamic extremism, in other words, they are becoming the enemy.
Wow, what a perfect example of why nobody takes the left seriously anymore.
 
I think Pat Robertson is a phony, he's no Christian. If he were a Christian he'd no suggest murdering any person!

Venezuela? A 3rd World Country, with barely enough military power to fight the drug-lords in the area.. a threat to us?
There's no reason to kill Hugo! The people of Venezuela love Hugo Chavez, we'd only create more adversaries. We kill him, bad stuff will happen.
 
The attack on 9/11 demonstrates the urgency in asking the right questions on the causes of terrorism. What can be at the root of such an ill feeling that can generate such monstrous acts?

We have to agree that military and violent acts of revenge don't solve the problem. Actually, all they do is Iraq proves to us is create more hate and despair, needing more violence in a never-ending vicious cycle whose only victor is terror.

I had alot of compassion for the victim's families' as I saw them on TV saying, "It is time to pray because God is with us in these tragic moments." What? So where was this God during the disaster relief, and why didn't he prevent it? If he is almighty, as they try to make believe, then why didn't he intervene? Instead, he did nothing, does that mean he is sadistic and bloodthirsty? If not, it proves he is either not all-powerful, or that he simply dosen't exist.

But while we are on the topic, what God are we talking about?

Are we talking about the God of a few madmen in the middle of their mystical delusions as they crash a plane into a building shouting, "God is great" as they confess their crime to him, or are we talking about the God of the victims who are praying to ease their suffering?

This is exactly the danger: a beleif in an "almighty God" that acts as a lever for the human desire for revenge. But what does God do? Absolutely nothing. If he loves man, why favor some and not others? If he is so powerful, why would he need pilots to destroy buildings and why didn't he protect the innocent people?

The truth is that this beleif in a "almighty God" is the cause of some of the biggest disasters humanity has ever known. It has been happening for thousands of years. Every army in the world went to war claiming that "God is with us". The Muslims did when they colonized Europe, as did the Christians when they mounted their crusades to save the tomb of Christ, the religious wars, the Inquisition, and tody the wars between India and Pakistan, in Cypress, Northern Ireland, in Kosovo, the Middle East, and the list goes on. Everywhere, people are killing eachother in the name of an "almighty God."

This evil especially lies in the "holy" scriptures attributed to this God, which where always written by men, whose meanings were distorted throughout the centuries according to the prejudices and interests of each age.

Whatever text it be, the Old testament, the Scriptures, the Koran, the Torah, all these "holy" books contain elements that encourage hate, intolerance, violence and barbarity.

"An eye for an eye"- right from the start you can see that barbarity showed up. It required Abraham to sacrifice his own son, by cutting his throat, an order from his "loving God". "If your right hand sins, cut it off." "Those who look back will be pillars of salt." There are many examples.

There is no lacking in examples of intolerance in Jewish texts forbidding marriage with non-Jews. Today the automatic entitlement to Israeli natonality for any Jew, and the impossibility of obtaing it for non Jews follow the same goals: ethnic cleansing, today directed against Palestinians.

Muslim writings cleary encourage violence towards non-Muslims as well as women, who they consider "inferior".This is the exact text supposedly given by their prophet:

Quote:
Once the holy months are over, kill the idolaters everywhere you find them, capture them, lay siege to them and ambush them. But if they convert, if they submit to prayer, if they give money, then leave them alone, because God is forgiving and has pity"-- Koran ix.5



Islam officially encourages racism and discimination:


Quote:
O beleivers! Don't take any Jews or Christians for friends; they are their own allies. He who befriends them will end up by becoming like them and God will not be a guide to such perverts"--Koran v.51.



Here is another instruction, where Islam asks its faithful to carry out violence under the pretext that man is supposedly superior to women:


Quote:
You will reprimand those women who you fear are not obedient: you will banish them to separate beds and you will beat them.."--(3) Koran iv,34.



I don't find it acceptable that any religion officially recognizes violence, discrimination, and intolerance.

All the politically correct condemnations of terrorism will change nothing.
 
Good post...

Any reason as to why it's in a "Pat Robertson" thread?
 
cnredd said:
Good post...

Any reason as to why it's in a "Pat Robertson" thread?

Thanks, I think a couple people in this tread mentioned "God", and how different nationalities distort their religious texts.
 
kal-el said:
I had alot of compassion for the victim's families' as I saw them on TV saying, "It is time to pray because God is with us in these tragic moments." What? So where was this God during the disaster relief, and why didn't he prevent it? If he is almighty, as they try to make believe, then why didn't he intervene? Instead, he did nothing, does that mean he is sadistic and bloodthirsty? If not, it proves he is either not all-powerful, or that he simply dosen't exist.
I stopped reading at this paragraph because it was obvious to me that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Most liberals don't believe in God because they are too arrogant to admit that there is something out there better than they are, but you took "pain and suffering" route.

You have to relieve that one of the great things about God is that he gave us freewill. Being a liberal, I'm sure you can admit that freewill is a good thing. God has nothing to do with these evil things that happen, people do. Evil people. If we didn't have freewill what would the point of our existence be?
 
GunsGodGlory said:
I stopped reading at this paragraph because it was obvious to me that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Most liberals....
I'm sorry, I stopped reading when you got to partisan blanket statements.... what were you saying?
 
shuamort said:
I'm sorry, I stopped reading when you got to partisan blanket statements.... what were you saying?

Sometimes I feel like a guy sitting on the bench watching my teammate swinging wildly at balls pitched in the dirt...I just lower my head and say, "You're not helping the team any!"...

Navy Pride is the king of that....
 
GunsGodGlory said:
I stopped reading at this paragraph because it was obvious to me that you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Most liberals don't believe in God because they are too arrogant to admit that there is something out there better than they are, but you took "pain and suffering" route.

You have to relieve that one of the great things about God is that he gave us freewill. Being a liberal, I'm sure you can admit that freewill is a good thing. God has nothing to do with these evil things that happen, people do. Evil people. If we didn't have freewill what would the point of our existence be?

You're right, a "supernatural" "God" has nothing to do with the bad things, but what about the good things? It is all up to people. Humanity's future isn't up to a "mystical" God.
 
I think perhaps the problem the left have with Pat Robertson is that he is a "Christian" on a "Christian" talk show advocating murder. He also blamed liberals and abortionists for 9/11 saying it was Gods punishment. Actually it was Ralph Reedbut it was followed by Robertson saying "I agree". He later distanced himself from the remarks saying he wasn't paying attention, but come on.

I also have to point out that the post at the beginnign was asking Christians to condemn his remarks, not apologise, their is a very big difference and the lefties on this post should have pointed this out immediately. It's also worth pointing out that most recent domestic terror in the U.S. has spawned from the Christian Right, wasn't some nutty serial bomber just sent down for bombings at the Olympics? The '93 WTC attack, the Oklahoma bombing and of course 9/11 are the only examples I can think of in recent years that weren't. Although I tend not to draw distinctions between one kind of radical, violent religious fundametalism or another.

But besides all this, Pat Robertson is a nut.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

cnredd said:
I am very surprised that those who have defended Cindy Sheehan's right to free speech have not afforded Pat Robertson the same right.

Anyone on the left who says that, even though Pat Robertson has a right to say what he says, what he is saying is stupid and wrong, will now understand the exact same justification of what those who oppose Cindy are doing.


And why am I not surprised to hear you defend Pat Robertson's right to free speech all of a sudden? What a hoot, you defending Pat Robertson's speech advocating terrorism under the guise of his right to "free speech".

I'm guessing that "terrorism" is ok as long as it's against percieved left wingers, right cnredd?
 
Last edited:
Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wishes. If he acts on that statement, he will be punished. Those are two completely separate issues (making a statement and acting on it).

As far as saying he is comparable to Islam extremists, I do not believe that. There is an important difference between them. Extremists act on their extreme views, I do not believe that Pat Robertson will. No matter how terrible what he said is, he has the right to say it.
 
Re: Wow

GunsGodGlory said:
Wow, what a perfect example of why nobody takes the left seriously anymore.

And that is exactly why our great country is going down the path of r-wing fascism.

Because prominent lunatics such as Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, etc calling for assassinations, murders, and the blowing up of newspaper buildings becoming all to common now days.
 
alex said:
Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wishes. If he acts on that statement, he will be punished. Those are two completely separate issues (making a statement and acting on it).

As far as saying he is comparable to Islam extremists, I do not believe that. There is an important difference between them. Extremists act on their extreme views, I do not believe that Pat Robertson will. No matter how terrible what he said is, he has the right to say it.

Of course Pat Robertson won't act on his extremist views, but his followers might. Pat Robertson's followers reach all the way to the White House.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

KidRocks said:
And why am I not surprised to hear you defend Pat Robertson's right to free speech all of a sudden? What a hoot, you defending Pat Robertson's speech advocating terrorism under the guise of his right to "free speech".

I'm guessing that "terrorism" is ok as long as it's against percieved left wingers, right cnredd?

If your mind is too inadequate to get the understanding of my post, please let the adults talk and go back to the kiddy table and play with your peas....

Hey!!!!....I said "PEAS!"....Put that away!!!
 
Last edited:
alex said:
Pat Robertson has the right to say what he wishes. If he acts on that statement, he will be punished. Those are two completely separate issues (making a statement and acting on it).

As far as saying he is comparable to Islam extremists, I do not believe that. There is an important difference between them. Extremists act on their extreme views, I do not believe that Pat Robertson will. No matter how terrible what he said is, he has the right to say it.

Wonderful post....and just as equally, our opinions of him should not be squelched...an idiot is an idiot whether or not they have the "free speech" blanket wrapped around them...
 
Ok the problem here, at least how I see it, is not the right of this idoit to say what he wants. Instead I wonder how much responsibility is actualy his when one of his fundementalist followers takes his comments as the word of god and acts on them.
Fundamentalists cover a good portion of lower inteligent people and mr. robertson knows this. This statement of his is the equvilant of sticking a gun in a small boys hand and saying "Go get him." He would then disavow any responsibility for the actions of his followers.

Freedom of speach is his by the constitution . Responsibility for the fruits of his speach should be his as well.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

cnredd said:
So are you ARGREEING that there should be limitations on free speech??????

Be careful how you answer....there are those on the left that will attack you for it....

But then they'll see your "donkeys" and give you a free pass....
I am a member of the left and even I realize that there are limitations on free speech. I can't run around yelling fire or saying I am going to kill the president. As with any rule cnredd, there are exceptions, and this I believe is one of them.

And with that being said-it is his right, the idiot, to say what he wants and may he burn in hell.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

ShamMol said:
I am a member of the left and even I realize that there are limitations on free speech. I can't run around yelling fire or saying I am going to kill the president. As with any rule cnredd, there are exceptions, and this I believe is one of them.

And with that being said-it is his right, the idiot, to say what he wants and may he burn in hell.

Exactly...I'll go one step further...The reactions to the initial position also fall under the same rules(or exception to them)....

Anyone who says they want to kill Pat Robertson because of what he said should get the seat in hell next to Pat....
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

As far as saying he is comparable to Islam extremists, I do not believe that. There is an important difference between them. Extremists act on their extreme views, I do not believe that Pat Robertson will. No matter how terrible what he said is, he has the right to say it.

I'm sure there are tons of Imams in the Mid-east who preach out random hateful actions (like Pat Robertson did), while impressionable muslim boys end up following those words. In that sense, Islamic extremism is not much different from this guy's extremism.

Secondly, I keep hearing in debates (out of this forum) that Hugo Chavez is creating a springboard for Islamo-fascism in the continent... I really don't understand how that is possible.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

cnredd said:
Exactly...I'll go one step further...The reactions to the initial position also fall under the same rules(or exception to them)....

Anyone who says they want to kill Pat Robertson because of what he said should get the seat in hell next to Pat....
Oh burn at me. But notice I didn't say I wanted to kill him. Oh no, I realize the evil in his heart and if there is a god, he will not allow a soul like that into his heaven and instead send him straight to hell.

Glad we agree on this one. And for the record in case this appears on a goverment watchlist or anything, I don't want to kill the president and have no plans to do nor have I ever thought of doing so.
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

ShamMol said:
Oh burn at me. But notice I didn't say I wanted to kill him. Oh no, I realize the evil in his heart and if there is a god, he will not allow a soul like that into his heaven and instead send him straight to hell.
?????

ShamMol said:
Glad we agree on this one. And for the record in case this appears on a goverment watchlist or anything, I don't want to kill the president and have no plans to do nor have I ever thought of doing so.
Nice save:lol:
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

gordontravels said:
QUOTES in Black are courtesy of epr64 - Must be a private joke. Sorry, didn't understand one word of it.

It's ok I didn't expect you to. But if you ever saw John Kleese in Fawlty Towers on the BBC then you saw that time he spanked himself and said, "You're a bad boy!" I just did that but, sruprisingly, it didn't hurt much. Still, don't want to be too hard on myself.

Didn't see it. Will try to find it, for that matter. I just loved the MPs.

Chavez changed the constitution so that every elected representative can be challenged at the half of his mandate. The opposition tried very hard to have him ousted at mid-term, but they miserably failed, as Chavez is REALLY supported by the vast majority of his country. Those like him, "Indio y nero", vote for him. Those not like him (the tiny ultra-rich minority, wanting to restore a dictature for some years, as they clearly say) fight one of the most vicious fights seen lately in South America.

And what other things did Chavez do to the political process. I'm not so naive to think that this speck you cite is all. He also made it harder for potential candidates to qualify for the ballot. Just one of the little things to spice up that sauce. He also made it possible for the sitting government to declare a particular political party inelligible for elections for "questions" that "could" lead to a prosecution. This was very broad and can be trotted out within days of an election. Some good stuff he's done here, don't you agree?

Didn't hear 'bout it. I will have a look in that matter (a very good friend of mine is part of a solidarity network with Latin America, and is regularly in Venezuela). If you have a bit more info on this, I'd be glad to have it. Otherwise, I'll look by myself. But let's not forget that the opposition did a coup in 2002, and can nevertheless present candidates during elections. If Nader did a coup in the US ( :rofl ), would Bush still allow him to present himself to the next elections?

Please, gt, read a bit on Venezuela and the bolivarian revolution. You'll see there's a lot left aside in the US press.

If you had read half the history I have.... My uncle spent nearly 15 years in Venezuela since it was our country that helped them develope their oil fields and I visited once to that country for 3 weeks and spent time in Trinidad as well. I have some insight into Venezuela from the people's side. Granted this was years ago but just recently Presidente Chavez has traveled to Cuba where he declared that there is no Communist Dictatorship but rather a country run by the people. Did you miss that? Even MSNBC reported that this morning. Thank goodness for a liberal press that doesn't figure it out til it's too late sometimes.

And what was that insight view like 15 years ago? I am interested in seeing the evolution of the people's point of view (by that, I mean all the people, whites AND indios). As for his declarations 'bout Cuba, I'll leave it to him and you, as I'm certainly not a great fan of Castro's hard-hand against opposition (eventhough it seems he's now too old to understand the traps that are laid for him to fall in), but I certainly appreceiate some of the efforts he does in the fields of education and health care. And so the Venezuelians, who finally have health care in zones where no doc passed before.

The Bolivarian revolution definitely helped the poor in Venezuela (and that's why Chavez was so easily re-elected at every elections). The reforms are totally socialistic in nature (not communist, BTW..), and help the people live a better life than what the oligarchy that led the country before allowed them to live.

We'll never know, as he prefers sending others to die, like OBL. Oh wait, OBL fought in Afganistan against the Russians, when he was financed by the US. So, OBL is better than Robertson, I suppose. :rofl

OBL murdered nearly 3,000 of our fellow citizens in New York so I won't argue the point and just let you decide how bad or better he is. I've seen you using Hitler before so I'm not surprised you would pony up OBL for a good argument. Still, your posts are at least stimulating. Now it's lunch time. :duel :cool:

I don't know if hate speech can be measured by the amount of people already killed at one moment in time. Hate speech it is, and as such, it should be condemned.

And be sure that talking with you is also stimulating.

Salmon is great. "Bon appétit"..

CU
Y
 
Re: Will you condemn this?

GunsGodGlory said:
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator, It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." - Pat Robertson

Sounds like good logic to me.
Isn't this a bit the same as saying : "kill all those thiefs on the spot, trials are too expensive"?

Once again, you condone murder.

I think it would be a lot more efficient for this planet to kill Bush than to wait him out.

Same kind of crazy and unacceptable logic.

Y
 
Back
Top Bottom