Politico: "[B]lessing" by Robertson -- who called for assassination of Hugo Chavez and spoke of Europe's "racial suicide" -- gives Giuliani "momentum"
SUMMARY: Politico.com called Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani a "blessing" and said that it gives Giuliani "momentum." Similarly, the Politico's Mike Allen wrote that, with Robertson's announcement, Giuliani "has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters." However, in claiming that Robertson's endorsement "gives Rudy Giuliani momentum" -- a questionable claim, given that the endorsement had been announced just that morning -- the Politico ignored Robertson's history of controversial statements.
On the morning of November 7, Politico.com released a "Breaking News" email alert announcing that a "[s]urprise blessing from" Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, who also founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, on which he hosts The 700 Club, "gives [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy Giuliani momentum." The email linked to a November 7 Politico article by chief political correspondent Mike Allen, who wrote that Robertson "plans to endorse former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani today," and that, with Robertson's announcement, Giuliani "has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters." In a second November 7 article, Allen and senior political writer Jonathan Martin wrote: "With such a bold-faced name as Robertson now on his side, Giuliani has a ready shield with which to fend off attacks that he will destroy the conservative coalition." Allen and Martin continued: "And even though he's not the power he once was, hundreds if not thousands of GOP political activists across the country got their start with Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign and retain fond memories for those days and admiration for their first candidate." However, in claiming that Robertson's endorsement "gives Rudy Giuliani momentum" -- a questionable claim, given that the endorsement had been announced just that morning -- Allen, Martin, and Politico.com ignored Robertson's history of controversial statements, including his claim that God told him that He would "remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly"; his call for the assassination of a foreign head of state; and his endorsement of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's assertion that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen."
From Allen's November 7 Politico article:
Pat Robertson, one of the nation's most influential Christian leaders, plans to endorse former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani today, the Politico has learned.
Giuliani has struggled to win support of social conservatives because of his moderate views on abortion and gay rights. But now he has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters.
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), meanwhile, plans to announce his surprise endorsement of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president on Wednesday, a campaign official told Politico.
The endorsement is to be announced in Dubuque, Iowa.
Robertson has a history of making controversial remarks, many of which have been documented by Media Matters for America:
- In 1998, Robertson issued a warning to Orlando, Florida, after city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during the annual Gay Days event at Disney World. Robertson stated: "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
- During a September 13, 2001, appearance on The 700 Club, Falwell reportedly said of the 9-11 attacks: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' '' Robertson, as reported by The New York Times, replied: ''Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.'' Robertson later called Falwell's comments "[t]otally inappropriate."
- According to CNN, later on that September 13, 2001, program, Robertson offered the following prayer: "We have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our government, we've stuck our finger in your eye ... The Supreme Court has insulted you over and over again, Lord. They've taken your Bible away from the schools. They've forbidden little children to pray. They've taken the knowledge of God as best they can, and organizations have come into court to take the knowledge of God out of the public square of America."
- On the January 3, 2005, edition of The 700 Club, Robertson claimed that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith." Two months later, Robertson again predicted that "before the end of this year there will be another vacancy" on the Supreme Court.
- On the August 22, 2005, 700 Club, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying: "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. ... We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. 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." Robertson later claimed, falsely, that he "didn't say 'assassinate,' " and then apologized, claiming he "spoke in frustration." He most recently addressed the issue on June 25, 2007, stating that "more and more people are saying to me, 'I think you were right.' "
- On the September 12, 2005, 700 Club, Robertson linked legalized abortion to Hurricane Katrina, which had made landfall just two weeks earlier, saying: "But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way?"
- On the January 5, 2006, 700 Club, Robertson suggested that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was the result of Sharon's policy, which he claimed was "dividing God's land."
- Robertson has described Islam as a "bloody, brutal type of religion" and claimed that "Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination."
all this endorsement did was fully expose robertson's phonyness and marginalize him as a christian leader. conservative christians trust dobson more than robertson for this reason - robertson is all about $, power, and bilking people with his tv show. at least dobson stands on some principle.
F*** YOU ROBERTSON! thanks for showing your true colors you faux christian!! i hope dobson backs ron paul.
I hope Dobson and Robertson both lose their tax exemptions.
THANK YOU for pointing this out !
Any time. :-)
Dobson already has lost his tax exemption. Focus on the Family had to create a separate fund to pay for any political statements. Donations to this fund (Focus on the Family Action) are not tax deductible.
He needs to lose it COMPLETELY. We'd be better off as a country if FoKKKus On The Family was padlocked tomorrow.
Robertson is a whacko, but Politico is probably correct that his endorsement of Giuliani will resonate with the Christian Right,
No MIS-information here.
Of course J, it's just a vehicle to get back to some ole' nostalgic Robertson bashing for some.
Yes, isn't it wonderful? (sigh)
Exactly Tommy. The Christian Right doesn't give a hoot about Robertson's past remarks, they obviously continue to support him. And he holds enough weight with him that his endorsement is important. Personally I see it as bad news because I'm not a Rudy fan...
This is just here to give the natives another chance to call Robertson a few names ;-)
Right on. I have no love lost for either Rudy or Robertson, they deserve each other as far as I am concerned. Their partnership is irrelevant to me as I view them both as opportunists, whose sudden allegience is expedient for both.
Tommy & J2,
Do you think this endorsement makes Robertson a hypocrite because of Rudy's past stances. I am curious as to your thoughts.
Fried,
For me, I have no interest in Robertson, he is a phony and any endorsement or non-endorsement of his means nothing to me. I am not an admirer, a follower, a fan, a devotee, or even a casual observer as to what he does.
But hypocrite wouldn't surprise me.
Tommy and J2,
Thanks for the responses. Rudi was the last guy I thought Robertson would "bless." Maybe this is a way for him to make himself relevant again?
Maybe old Pat (and I mean old, as in one of the original beta testers for dirt) endorsed Rudy because he is the front runner? Going with the leading R candidate in the hopes of getting a few nights in the Lincoln bedroom before he get's whisked off to heaven on a jesus pony?
Fried,
I have no use for either Robertson or Giuliani so one endorsing the other means diddly to me. .
Robertson passing himself off as a man of God makes him a hypocrite.
I agree. There isn't any misinformation there. Robertson's endorsement is a pretty big coup for Giuliani. Just a pretty gratuitous swipe at Robertson. Not that I am complaining.
Well, the MMFA entry wasn't so much about Robertson's *blessing* as it was about Politico claiming that it would give Giuliani "momentum".
news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda
Exactly- the problem is that there are regular posters to this site who have "Why Is This Here" programmed on to their laptops. Push a button, and there it pops. Don't even bother to actually READ the ARTICLE. Nope, too much trouble.
Well, I think it is arguably true. There are a lot of wingnuts out there who march in lockstep with Robertson. They aren't as influential as they were under Reagan, but they are still a force. I don't think Giuliani is going to lose any support from it, but I could be wrong.
Well, he does make it pretty easy for his detractors...
Sorry, Jeter, Robertson is on the fringe of the Christian evangelicals. He is widely viewed as a whack job which he is.
Obvioulsy the "blessing" verbage went to Robertson's religiousity......and there will be "momentum" from some evangelicals who follow Robertson's lead and will perhaps support Giuliani now.
And we all know of Robertson's controversial statements in the past, but nice timely way to get them back here again.
But how important this endorsement is remains to be seen.
I am willing to bet good money (at least $1) Rudy gets the nom.
Maybe someone can photoshop Robertson's face in with this picture of Noun verb 9-11.
You mean NV911....
I don't think the Politico was implying that Robertson's endorsement gave Giuliani momentum among, say, MMfA readers.
That's funny Dex. I appreciate your sense of humour.
Well, outside of maybe Rino Hunter or proudconservative you are probably right.
; )
I think an endorsement from a man who can leg press TWO THOUSAND POUNDS is all you need. Giuliani is gonna win!
The Titanic also had "momentum" - as it headed for the ocean floor....
WZ,
That's a good one!
As for Robertson, I agree that he is an opportunist, my input is that he's as useful to a healthy mind as plaque buildup is to the brain!
Of course, what does that say about the Christian right-wing that this guy still has influence over any of them at all?
As does a Soap Box Racer, just off the starting line.
Robertson is a billionaire. Of course he'll back whoever the pro-Wall St. GOP front runner is.
Of course Robertson is a phony, but I think his endorsement of Giuliani goes more to Rudy's swagger on Iran and his sabre rattling foreign bullying tactics.......Robertson would like nothing better to "temper" Muslim countries by domination. All this trumps the social issues for Robertson, this feels really good to him.
Maybe. But Pat loves his earthly fortunes, he loves power and he loves having pals in government who will disassemble the social safety net and funnel those would-be funds to the office of faith based initiatives.
They're both antisocial, authoritarian punks.
Btw, I suggest using the term "radical cleric" when referring to Robertson.
Not far off the mark.
I prefer using terms that I can't post here at MMFA.
The endorsement will give Giuliani "momentum" due to Robertson's followers --so long as said followers remain misinformed (will the gracious help of misinformating articles like this one on Politico) and/or apathetic, or willfully ignorant (thanks again, Politico) about Robertson's absurd statements such as calling for assassinations.
If Politico HAD provided some of this record of Robertson's past statements to readers, it would certainly make their claims of "momentum" look ridiculous. In fact, one would conclude Robertson's endorsement would have unintended results.
Do you really think Robertson's followers aren't aware of his remarks?
Yes Dave, do you have proof of your allegations or is it just something you made up?
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure if Rudy is running as the 9/11 mayor and Pat says that the reason for 9/11 is:
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
There will be a problem.
I don't see what he said as implying all his followers were unawares, I saw qualifiers - "they are either (a) and/or (b)". He did mention apathetic as well.
Snoopy, thanks.
He called them misinformed, apathetic or misinformed. We are just asking for some backup for those assertions, easy.....
Sorry, ignorant. If Dave has proof of any of them, let him bring it here.
You forgot wilfully ignorant.
Do you honestly need some scientifically proven, peer reviewed disertation to say Dave is right or wrong? Or do you need some qualifier that this is his opinion? Casual observation isn't necessarily rocket science...
His opinion based on what? Seems like he made a blanket accusation against a large group of people that he can't back up......but whatever.
Snoop,
Robertson's followers are aware of his remarks/opinions. They don't need Politico to inform them or set them straight.
Jeter, I'm sure many of them are too. But I don't think dave is implying otherwise. Someone who is wilfully ignorant knows what's going on but chooses to ignore it for whatever reason. I think that's a pretty darn good description when you think about it, don't you?
---"Someone who is wilfully ignorant knows what's going on but chooses to ignore it"--
Precisely, and thank you (again) for defining the obvious difference between ignorant and willfully so.
you are welcome!
I think the same could be said for "apathetic" for the most part. The followers may know of Robertson's remarks, but they just don't care about them.
Or the obvious, they agree. I can take you down the street here in bible thumpville and you can hear for your self people who will gladly proclaim "Yeah, I'm for pulling our boys out of Iraq, so we can bomb them terrorists back to the stone age!"
Well said. This is kind of a throw-away sub-conversation that is being taken way too seriously.
Next time we'll check with you on what we should throw away or take seriously, sorry you weren't here at the outset.
No need to check with me. A sure-fire way to tell if you are in one is when you are there at the outset.
; )
Tommy what's wrong with you? You are allowed to make any and all statement/opinions without one ounce of proof but every one's statements/opinions must have proof for YOU to deem then creditable. What gives?
Snoop,
Robertson's followers are likely ardent followers which means they are well aware of his opinions/remarks & likely agree & endorse them. IF they didn't I'm sure they'd take a hike. Are you suggesting the Christian Right is ignorant? Or am I reading that wrong? Ignorant or not a list of Robertson's remarks by Politico would probably not move them one way or the other.
I'm sure Hillary's followers are aware of her remarks/opinions & agree & endorse them. Heck they might even understand them--I sure don't ;-)
So me listing them isn't going to make one bit of difference.
Robertson or Hillary's followers are not going to have an epiphany seeing it listed. Are they?
"Robertson's followers are likely ardent followers"--jeter2
Do you have proof of your allegations or is it just something you made up?--tommy
; )
Ah very clever Open_Mind ;-)
I'm operating here on common sense. I figure Robertson's flock follows him pretty closely. Watches his show. Sends him their hard earned cash. And agree with his every remark/opinion. Seems to me that if they didn't, they wouldn't be one of his followers. Does that make sense?
I seriously doubt Politico not listing his every word makes no difference to his followers. They've probably memorized them already.
"Are you suggesting the Christian Right is ignorant?"
I would suggest that nearly all religious fundamentalists are ignorant about most things that don't directly pertain to religion. Such as politics.
Heretic! That ain't what it say in the Bible!
; )
Jeter, I think you are misunderstanding what I said. "Wilfully Ignorant" is a term that has been around for quite some time, it basically means you know but choose to ignore. I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, your deliniation appears to mean they tacitly approve anyways while mine just says they couldn't care less. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a combination of both, but rest assured I'm not calling the christian right "ignorant" in the sense you implied.
I think we are saying pretty much the same thing, your deliniation appears to mean they tacitly approve anyways while mine just says they couldn't care less. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a combination of both
Yeah Snoop I agree. But I still don't see how Politico listing Robertson's remarks would have made any difference to Robertson's followers, which seems to be what Dave was implying. Whether his followers agree, accept without question or ignore, it still means a list of Robertson's transgressions wouldn't matter to them.
Politico aside, reports of Robertson's endorsement of Rudy has been followed by a list of his absurd remarks by every other media outlet I've seen/read. So at least the rest of the general public can be reminded of what Robertson represents.
---"Robertson's followers are aware of his remarks/opinions"---
And your proof that they are ALL aware is what?
Reiterating what should be obvious: I said misinformed, willfully ignorant, or apathetic. I didn't say "his followers aren't aware of his remarks", as you falsely claimed I did.
Gee Dave, I think "ignorant" means "aren't aware"......better check your dictionary, or is it like what "is" is?
Since you are starting to nitpick...
will·ful–adjective
1.deliberate, voluntary, or intentional: The coroner ruled the death willful murder.
2.unreasonably stubborn or headstrong; self-willed.
Misinformed? So Dave, a list by Politico will inform them? Inform them of what? They are already AWARE of Robertson's opinions/remarks. Why even suggest they are ignorant or willfully ignorant? Geez I could say the same thing about Hillary's followers. They know her opinions/remarks...but do they understand them? Are they misinformed? Are they being willfully ignorant? Will listing her opinions/remarks cause them to change their mind? Not likely. Well neither will listing Robertson's remarks/opinions for his followers to read make one whit of difference
AGAIN--If one is a follower of Robertson then it stands to reason they are aware of his remarks/opinions.
Common sense.
I asked you for your proof of your statement, "They [Robertson's followers] are already AWARE of Robertson's opinions/remarks" and you haven't provided it.
How do you know they ALL are aware of Robertson's remarks?
Common sense.
Now you cough up your data claiming they don't or they are willfully ignorant.
Oops, can't do that - cough suppresant.
Tecdhnically, Dave used the word "or", which implies he doesn't have an absolute answer. He is just discussing what is possible. It is obvious speculation.
Any request for backup shows a lack of comprehension as to what was written.
---"He [Dave] is just discussing what is possible."---
Thank you.
The point is Dave made allegations about Robertson's followers based solely on his dislike for Robertson, with nothing to back it up with. How many of these "followers" does he know personally, or is he privvy to some study or poll on their awarenesses regarding Robertson. I doubt any.
Yet it's perfectly fine for him to make those unsubstantiated claims here and then when called on it fellow liberals rush to defend him. Or parse or explain it or soften it or something.......bottom line, he has no information to back up what he said.
"he has no information to back up what he said."--tommy
Duh? He was allowing for three possibilities. If you have a fourth possibility he didn't cover, then you can offer it up. Asking him for proof of possibilities is pretty dumb though.
What's pretty dumb is your incessant defense of allowing free flowing accusations to stand, a dozen possibilities it makes no difference, with no backup attached.
But I know, to expect liberals to be held to the same standards as other posters here isn't pretty dumb, that's really dumb.
:)
You are obviously too willfully ignorant, apathetic and/or misinformed to possibly understand. I won't backup such a statement, because I am not sure which of those is most applicable.
; )
I have a feeling that Robertson's cult groupies are, for non-cult matters, fairly intelligent and possibly even well-informed, but they place their cult above all else. I personally can't see them accepting Giuliani because they know he's not part of the cult, even with Robertson's endorsement. Romney would have been a better choice. So why didn't Robertson "bless" Romney ? Did they have a little tiff some time in the past ?
Considering we are a country of overwhelmingly religious people, then I would consider those that are in the small minority of atheists more "cult" like........but that's just me.
Atheists are likely 15% of the US population, hardly the tiny minority you think we are.
Also, atheism is the lack of belief. Hard to make a cult out of the lack of something. I'm sure that people who don't collect stamps don't all get together and talk about not collecting stamps. (Using an analogy that someone else came up with.)
Also, atheism is the lack of belief. Hard to make a cult out of the lack of something. I'm sure that people who don't collect stamps don't all get together and talk about not collecting stamps. (Using an analogy that someone else came up with.)
Sort of like how Tommy and his friends get together and talk about not thinking....
At least the people who don't collect stamps are aware that they aren't collecting them. :)
Tommy -
So majority/minority defines what is or isn't a cult? How do you feel about Jews?
I think a cult is when members try to force others to join their group, or observe their practices against their will. Not all of Christianity is a cult, however, I would argue that theocrats and evangelicals exhibit cult behavior.
I would say that all religions are cults.
Willing participation isn't the distinguishing factor. Remember Koresh's followers were all very faithful to him.
Thanks for showing that you don't know the definition of cult. You and I probably agree that there are atheists that are as certain there are no supernatual beings as Pat is certain there is a benevolent being who deeply loves you and me, but would let a crazed meth addict drunk on a pint of Jack run us down on a sidewalk, because he had free will. I for one, as a self identifying strict agnostic, would gladly believe in supernatural beings if ever confronted with actual evidence.
So if I fit your personal definition of a cultist, so be it. Just curious though as to what you think are the sacred beliefs and ceremonies the atheists adhere to, and who the charismatic leader of the atheist cult is?
It's curious how all you have no problem with defining religious people in this country, which is nearly 90%, as a cult...........but as soon as I breathe a word about atheists, you all go ballistic.
Better tell your Democratic candidates they are cult members as well.......because not a one of them are atheists.
Who is "going ballistic" ? We know you're wrong, certainly isn't the first time, nothing to get upset about
Tommy -
Thanks for the lesson on ballistics. I'll be sure to apply that knowledge when I enlist to fight in the so-called 'War on Christmas'
Oh jeez, thanks for reminding me it's *that* time of year again. (sigh)
Tommy, A) technically all religions are cults, but some cults are based on love and forgiveness, ie most Christians and some cults are based on slavish devotion to a leader. The word cults is generally used as a derogatory description in American culture.
B) I can't remember, and it's time for me to go volunteer at the charter high school for unwed mothers (really).
As allways, I truly enjoy the give and take.
I would believe in supernatural beings too, given any credible evidence. Until then, I lack belief, I am an atheist.
Cult, in its original sense, refers to:
Cult may also refer to:
Cult, a social group sometimes accused of mentally controlling its members.
Destructive cult, a group which exploits and destroys its members or even non-members
Suicide cult, a group which practices mass self-destruction, as occurred at Jonestown
Political cult, where a political party shows cult-like features
Cult of personality, a political leader and his following, voluntary or otherwise
Those who don't believe in something are the ones who are "cult-like"? Wow.
That's an AutoPsychic-esque demonstration of pure idiocy. Thanks for the laugh.
Considering we are a country of overwhelmingly religious people, Tommy
Proof Please?
I was curious about that as well. My only guess is Robertson hates mormons more than he hates flip floppers.
OK, that's it. The Mormon Cult and Robertson's cult are arch enemies. A little complication named "Joseph Smith".
My understanding is that many Christians don't consider Mormons to be "true" Christians because they're pantheistic. It's a minor difference in wording where Catholics, for instance, will believe in the trinity - God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, as one entity, but the Mormons describe them as separate entities. Therefore, they're pantheists.
It's basically a group of people who believe in unprovable stories putting down another group of people who believe in unprovable stories. It doesn't make much sense, but that's where fundamentalism takes you.
That is probably as good a speculation as any. I was thinking the same thing myself.
To underline a point: if Politico had listed the above bulleted items of information (Robertson's statements), their claim of "momentum" for Giuliani would - to put it mildly - look absurd. One therefore has to wonder whether that is the reason Politico omitted the information.
I don't find any of Robertson's past craziness relevant to Politico's point. People follow him either way, and Giuliani's stand on social issues was a major issue with the fundamentalists.
"Momentum" may be a little premature, but it certainly helps. Votes from fundamentalists count, and I'm not sure too many others would abandon their support because of it.
Fallwell ... Robertson ... Dobson.
Know what I think? One down, two to go.
Personally, I hope Dobson does for his own party (as he's stated he would if Rudy gets the nod) and run it in 2008. Nothing would do more to guarentee a Landslide Victory for the Democrats.
And Rudy will not be able to run on "christian values" unless he attempts to go so far to the right (to compensate for three marriages, pro-abortion, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights positions in the past) that he'd alienate every moderate in the country. Getting (that whackjob) Robertson on board won't change that. And eiter way he's in trouble nationally. (And if the dem's can manage to reverse-swiftboat him on the whole 9/11 thing, then he's dead. Dead. Dead. DEAD. Alf Landon dead.)
And BTW - How anyone can follow any of these guys (Fallwell, RObertson, Dobson) and not expect to be branded as a back-woods, ignorant, simple-minded, inbred, bible-humping redneck is beyond me. Fallwell, Robertson and Dobson are the most morally bankrupt pharosees in the country. (OK - aside from Phelps.) If you can't see through these phony shiestsers, then "back-woods, ingorant, simple-minded, inbrd, bible-humping redneck" pretty much sums you up.
Perhaps followers of Dobson, Robertson or the deceased Falwell may or may not be the insulting descriptors you so eloquently detailed, but I rather doubt they wish those they don't like dead, as you do.
Perhaps......
Oh Tommy, really, your reading comprehension can't be THAT bad ! Eddie was referring to career death. I think this pretty much explains why you're a Repooplikan.
Tommy isn't much of a reader or a writer, (he prefers to copy other peoples work). Right Tommy?
Only those of some intelligence....which leaves you out in the cold, sorry.
Pfffffffffahhhhhhhhhhh!
Perhaps followers of Dobson, Robertson or the deceased Falwell may or may not be the insulting descriptors you so eloquently detailed, but I rather doubt they wish those they don't like dead, as you do.
Don't count on it, Tommy. I used to live in Dobson's back yard (Southern Colroado) and phoned in to the local talk shows. Since I was one of the few liberal callers, I used to get called some of the most horrible things imaginable by the other callers, most of whom would say "as a Christian" before they wished the most vile things on me, up to and including death and eternity in hell.
Hear hear! Thank you!
BUT - Actually it's true: I do think the world would be a better place without these people (and a few others) in it. I didn't shed a tear for Fallwell, and I have no respect for anyone who did. Does that make me a "good person"? Probably not. It's a weakness. It's a sin (wrath). I'll admit it. I don't claim to be perfect. (I don't even want to be.)
But I don't "spew my hateful rhetoric" while hding behind the cloth / the bible. I don't say that you have to follow me or go to hell, and then fill my sheep-like followers minds with hatred of their fellow man. In my world - everyone can have an opinion and mine is that these guys are a waste of skin.
But HOW on earth can you can you "they don't wish death on people who disagre" ??? What about the assassination of Hugo Chavez? How about every homosexual, or any other minority group, who was the victim of a hate crime? (Like uh... GETTING KILLED.) You think it's atheists doing this stuff? NEWS FLASH: IT'S CHRISTIANS. (At leats in this country - in the middle east it's the muslims. But you'd be amazed at how much y'all have in common, politcially speaking.) Point is: Religious radicalism is dangerous (and lgets people killed) no matter what name you give your invisible-man-in-the-sky.
So, it's ok to wish death on people you disgree with as long as you don't hide behind the cloth/the bible?
Got it.
No. It's not OK. It's terrible of me to feel that way. But I don't claim moral superiority on this point. (And I don't do nearly the damage ot this country that they do.)
And you are going way too far to suggest that I wish death on those who "disagree with me." After all, YOU disagree with me, and I don't want you dead! ;) If I killed off everyone who disagreed with me then I'd have no one left to argue with and what fun would that be?
But THESE GUYS? Make no mistake they want their opposition silenced. And you don't think they support killing? None of them have come out against the war on terror have they? They have no compunctions about killing. They celebrate it. (9/11, Katrina, AIDS, etc... as being punnishment for US policy?) And to comapre my one post to their long history of hate-speech is beyond ludicrous.
These men go way beyond disagreement. They organize large hordes of brainwashed followers into mindlessly supporting a radical political agenda that seres their fortunes and their personal power. If it takes their deaths to put a stop their movement then I will patiently wait for, and celebrate the day, that God calls them home.
In the meantime, they have the same right to free speech as I do. But I DON'T have to like what they say, and I DON'T have to value them as human beings. (And I never called for them to be killed, BTW. But in the past, ol' Robby has done just that.)
BUT - Actually it's true: I do think the world would be a better place without these people (and a few others) in it. I didn't shed a tear for Fallwell, and I have no respect for anyone who did. Does that make me a "good person"? Probably not. It's a weakness. It's a sin (wrath). I'll admit it. I don't claim to be perfect. (I don't even want to be.)
Eddie, don't feel bad. I too have those thoughts. It's a sin and it's wrong but I still think that the world is a better place without "fake Christianity" and "fake religious leaders".
He didn't wish anyone dead.
Perhaps wish was the incorrect word for liberal word parsers.....how about would gleefully applaud their demise, that is more accurate.
The demise of the cult, honey, not the demise of their physical being.
Read his remarks above Sweety. You keep posting in his defense and you're still wrong. Or do you know more what he meant than he does?
Wow, atheism is like a mind reader now too? Who knew?
I believe the world will be a better place without these men in it. I felt the same way About Saddam and his two mutant sons, even if I didn't support the Iraq War in general. Bin Laden? The world would be better without him it as well. We have this weakness. It's called wrath and it is a human weakness. (One o seven pretty famous ones...) That doens't mean I want them to be killed (well, maybe Bin Laden) but I sure won't shed a tear for any of them.
But gleefully applaud their demise is still an exageration. I didn't go that far.
Eddie, Perhaps I went too far, if I did, I apologize. You have been honest about your feelings and that is fair enough.
Yeah, but I think I might have lost some moral supporters along the way though! :)
LOL. I guess just because I have the right to say something doens't necessarily mean it's advisable. :)
And you were certainly within reason to call me out a little on it.
Robertson fits the false bravado of most repugs, he dodged duty when he should have served in Korea. Now he serves one of those pagans that he so proudly condemned not too long ago. MM does a good job showing once again how the repugs hypocrisy marches on.
First of all, for the Why-Is-This-Here Peanut Gallery...I think this just provides one more reason for us to fear the possibility of a Giuliani presidency. Anyone who has the support of Robertson can't be good for the country.
Second...I can't help but speculate that the reason Robertson endorses Rudy is that he's itching to see Armageddon before he croaks. With all his mindless war-talk, Rudy seems the most likely to get us there.
Third...Dobson is no less dangerous than Robertson; he just doesn't make batsh*t crazy statements like Robertson does.
Nerz, the end times angle is very powerful with many. My co worker is sure the end is near as the bible predicts that those who are alive when Israel is reborn or what ever, ie 1948, will live to see the messiah return and rapture them or what ever. So, her stated logic is that since she is 67 the rapture thingy is very likely to happen in the next 20 years. For all we know jesus2 could be lying in a gutter in Tel Avi right now just waiting for divine inspiration. There is comet visible to the naked eye right now, so , that figures in also.
Comet 17P Holmes is just above the Perseus constellation. Get this, Zeus impregnated his mother while she was entombed underground with a shower of gold, so there, that pretty much seals the deal.
"the bible predicts that those who are alive when Israel is reborn or what ever, ie 1948, will live to see the messiah return and rapture them or what ever."
Yeah, they keep moving the goalposts. This is partly due to the failed prophecy of Jesus, who predicted that he would return before some of those present died. The Christian Apologists have had to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse this unfulfilled prediction. One of the best was the legend of the "wandering Jew", who supposedly has lived since the time of Christ and cannot die until Jesus returns. Mostly, they try to claim that Jesus was speaking to our current generation, a claim for which there is ZERO evidence.
That justice troll is bat-poop crazy, and funny.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACK CHECK:
1. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a vicious anti-democratic tyrrant who richly deserves to be 'taken out'.
EVIL LUNATIC CHAVEZ
2. Most terrorists in the world today claim to be Islamic.
EVIL SICK ISLAMIC TERROR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is really a close call - and I had to think long and hard before making this decision. But on balance I have to side with Robertson against MMFA on this topic.
Gee, what a surprise that is. Who'da thunk you'd post something that you somehow thinks validates Robertsons' call for asassination? I mean, that's what all christian leaders do, right? Wilfully call for the death of fellow humans who they disagree with?
... I had to think long and hard ...
That's the funniest thing JusticeTroll has posted yet!!!!
His links are to CBN !!!! ROFL !!!!
Did you guys ever think that JT might be a robot troll? Check this out:
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACK CHECK:
1. (Statement contradicting MMFA headline)
<link to [link to wackoconservativesite.com><] (baffling logical statement)
<link to [link to wingnutcentral.com><] is really a close call - and I had to think long and hard before making this decision. But on balance I have to side with <subject of MMFA article> against MMFA on this topic.
That literally took about 30 seconds. I could probably program a macro to automate it, if I was really lazy.
Oops, sorry about those link tags, they're bogus. I guess the comments automatically pick it up if you type http : / /
Maybe "just ruth" wrote the macro that coulter uses to "write" books? I think you are on to something here, look into it.
You should have just linked to some random CBN or World Net Daily poopoo, it's all the same !
Who the f__k are you to come here and pretend to be the decider.
This country is only big enough to have one decider and he ain't you.
Perhaps he has access to secret knowledge that manifests in his brain as deep, sartorial voices that only he has been chosen to hear.
There's a rumor going around that JuTru is another manifestation of our beloved Col. Roy Campbell.
Hiya King - I have to admit, I've started to really look forward to Troothyjusty's "calls".
I keep picturing him by a big dry-erase board with pro and con columns for each side, all sorts of complicated equations and reference books, and the magic moment when he is finally able to "call" the issue, invariably in favor of the right wing personality from the MMFA item.
And all backed up by opinions and logical errors identified as facts! Good stuff.
HBL, those reference books are most likely comic books and I am quite sure the dry erase board is in crayon.
At least when he does make his call, it's always a close call.
One of these times he just might come down on the side not approved by wingnut management.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I'm waiting for him to start telling us about how he'd gladly lead his virtual army men of Foxhound into Iran to fight the Revolutionary Guard.
I miss Roy. A lot!
I am actually starting to look forward to JustUs' "Calls of the day".
I don't know if it is intentionally funny, but they usually have me rolling on the floor laughing. I don't know how he does it.
It is so idiotic tht I want to believe he is doing it on purpose just to be funny.
Yeah, it's probably somebody just goofing, but they are funny either way. Even the attention to detail, like writing "FACK" CHECK in his headline.
It's is those authentic nutjob details that really sell it.
Justroll,
You wouldn't happen to be an Umpire in the American League any chance? I know of only a few other people with so great a penchant for blowing calls as you have.
I had to think long and hard
Justice, you obviously did not think long enough. So a so called "Christian" who is suppose to believe in GOD has the right to call for the death of another human being? No wonder I don't get "right-wing religion" it has a separate bible.
YOU are an ignorant hatemongering moron. You wouldnt know truth or justice if they slapped your face. Your ignorance is appalling
Okay, a looney tune supports another looney tune.
WOW!!! America's Mayor teams up with America's Evangelical Wingnut, I feel saver already. The wingnut wants Armageddon, the Mafiosi wants power, the rest of civilization can just reap the rewards.
Before we decide on assassinating Chavez, we need to focus first on persuading his electorate to stop voting for him. Unlike some countries, which are best left unnamed unless I wish to spend 14 paragraphs reciting the various elements of Bungle's theft of our elections in both 2000 and 2004, his (Chavez's) does not seem to be in the business of stealing elections; but rather of holding and honoring those elections.
You are an absolute idiot.
There is ample evidence of threats and intimidation at the polls.
Last election he murdered dozens including several elderly woman who were protesting him.
But...but...but..Keith Olbemann didn't mention it!
Those are pretty strong accusations against Bush. Can you back those up?
You are so moronic I cant believe you can use a keyboard. You must have a five year old type for you. You are also a fool and a liar. The elections were monitered and NO intimdation was reported. I would tell you to seek the help of a professional but you just cant do anything about stupid so you are stuck
I agree with Mr. Robertson. Chavez should be killed.
Just yesterday the fascist pig had his goons open fire on protestors.
If Hitlery wins, we can expsect the same kind of repression
If (as you argue) it is okay to kill Chavez, do you think Chavez has the right to kill our elected leaders?
I hope you don't think that is true, but if you do then you are a hypocrite.
He would if he could. So, I guess that makes me not a hypocrite.
Ya got any evidence this is true of is this another baseless assertion pulled out of your ass?
- The Stranger
"There is ample evidence of threats and intimidation at the polls. Last election he murdered dozens including several elderly woman who were protesting him."
"I agree with Mr. Robertson. Chavez should be killed."
Just pretending what you say is true, you really think America should go about murdering the leaders (good, bad or indifferent) of other nations? Do you also grant the same right to other countries of the world to use against us?
"Just yesterday the fascist pig had his goons open fire on protestors.If Hitlery wins, we can expsect the same kind of repression."
OMFG, you really need to adjust your tinfoil helmet. It appears to be cutting off the circulation to your brain. If you'd like to try describe for us your cognitive basis for that freakishly insane speculation I'm sure we'd love to hear it.
OMFG, you really need to adjust your tinfoil helmet. It appears to be cutting off the circulation to your brain. If you'd like to try describe for us your cognitive basis for that freakishly insane speculation I'm sure we'd love to hear it.
Vince Foster, for one.
The discussion to murder Tim Russert during a campaign strategy conference call is another.
The murder of Kathleen Willey's husband can be tossed in there.
The Stranger, as always, your solid evidence and links to reliable sources are appreciated.
Seriously, assuming you're on the level and not doing an act, where do you get your news from?
You are a liar and a gossipmongering fool. Not a shred of evidence supports any of that. You are a sick lying moron
Why aren't there any black gods ? Didn't human life originate in Africa ?
Well Kali is known as the Black goddess. I dont know if she is actually supposed to be black or not.