General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2180163

    US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town


    by dr dij ·

    In this article on Yahoo, Pat Robertsin asked god to strike down a Pennsylvania town, as they had removed a school board that supported intelligent design (bwaahh, I’m going to go get my big brother, God!).

    This is really fascinating to me. Will his minions plant bombs in the town if God does not wipe them out, kind of like Jordan?

    Does this raving lunatic even have any minions? What does it take to have Pat call a ‘godstrike’ called in on your location? If I just go ‘nya-nya Pat Robertsin’ ?

    Should we even be worried about the ‘Al-Robertsin’ terror network? After all, God seemed to listen to him twice in one week, with the Supreme Court justice’s death and the flattening of sin city New Orleans.. [Thanks for that one, Daily Show]

    I’m thinking God should strike Him, Pat Robertson dead for inciting others to violate his ‘thou shalt not kill’ commandment. Tho I’d settle for someone to charge him with inciting murder or riots (or inciting hurricanes? or natural death of someone close to death?)

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3117729

      The irony is….

      by notsochiguy ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      That this self-proclaimed ‘Christian’ is probably doing more to hurt the faith than any car bomber could. If you were someone in search for a spiritual answer, and heard this ‘Christian’ spew such hate-mongering, would you be attracted to that….I think not.

      Jesus had two commandments to be put before all else:

      Love God above all things
      Love others as you love yourself

      I would say that PRob would get a grade of F for that last one!

      • #3117720

        I don’t hold it against the others

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to The irony is….

        I’m just fascinated by the parallels with other terrorists..

        His ‘Fatwa’ against Hugo Chavez of Venezuala, among others..

        I like (or at least don’t hate) everyone who doesn’t spew out horrible vitriolic hate mongering verbal diarrhea 🙂

        Mocking people like this can be an effective way to get people to ignore them. In the late 1800’s, a high ranking NY government official was involved in rampant graft, building a new courthouse and giving to his buddies at 3x the cost.

        Some NJ newspapers made fun of this in cartoons, showing him as a greedy glutton and it spread his infamy enuf to get him canned.

      • #3117543

        Christian Examples

        by bfilmfan ·

        In reply to The irony is….

        I’ve never thought any of the “TV Ministers” were a good example of Christian beliefs.

        It’s rather like watching The Beverly Hillbillies and believing that everyone from the South is a redneck.

        • #3119397

          Add horns

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Christian Examples

          and that Gene Scott fellow would look like the devil

          Pat Robertson may be the devil, fallen angel, 666 from his rantings.

          If his suggestion to kill Hugo Chavez was taken seriously, it might start WWIII (wwI was started by an assasination)

    • #3117544

      My Thoughts

      by bfilmfan ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      Pat Robertson has spent many years saying all manner of foolish things.

      This is just the latest example of his ability to place most of his lower anatomy into his mouth.

    • #3117523

      Oh for Pete’s sake – Give me a break

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      To call Pat Robertson a terrorist is to water-down what a terrorist really is. And neither your “headline” or your account is indicative of what Robertson really said or what was in the article. Do you work for the New York Times? They do the same kinds of things, you know. I wish people would be accurate instead of letting their emotions rule over their judgement. Spewing nonsense — whether it comes from Robertson, himself, or people “reporting” on what Robertson said, it’s still all nonsense

      Your falsehoods:

      No, Robertson is not a “terrorist”.

      No, Robertson did not “ask God to strike down a Pennsylvania town”.

      “Will his minions plant bombs?” What a stupid thing to ask.

      Robertson incited nothing. (What are YOU trying to incite, by the way?)

      What a foolish message you posted. I’d be embarrassed to sign such a thing as my own, it’s so full of silly assertions and falsehoods. That’s a great way to be seen in the exact same light as people see Robertson — a great way to tell everyone you can’t be taken seriously.

      And in case you’re wondering. No, I don’t like Pat Robertson. No, I don’t follow Robertson. No, I’ve never watched the 700 Club. In my opinion, he’s an idiot and an embarrassment to our nation. And I don’t take him seriously — just like I don’t take anyone seriously who spews silly nonsense.

      • #3117500

        Beat me to it

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Oh for Pete’s sake – Give me a break

        It is pathetic to call Roberson a Terrorist.

        Is this meant to show how bad he is, or to downplay the severity of what a terrorist really is?

        If you have a beef with this “man” that is fine.

        Don’t diminish the horror caused by REAL terrorists.

        • #3130766

          Don’t diminish the horror

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Beat me to it

          First, I agree that Pat Robertson has no known affiliation with any terrorist organization, and calling him a terrorist is beyond exaggeration.

          But even if thoughtful people like Max don’t take him seriously, he must have an audience who have some reason for watching him. Some of them must believe his horrible, terrifying, apocalyptic jabber.

          I think it’s more than probable that the United States’ intrusion into other countries and into the finances and personal rights of our own citizens has a lot to do with a certain voting bloc that sees the anti-Christ all around, with the help of the less responsible evangelists.

      • #3119390

        This from the guy

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to Oh for Pete’s sake – Give me a break

        who started a discussion ‘Newsweek kills 16’.
        claiming the ‘liberal media’ was responsible for the riots in another country, and resulting deaths of rioters, based on an ‘inaccurate report’ of torture and abuse in Gitmo.

        So besides the fact that ANY news group is NOT responsible for the effects of telling a story they think is true, it TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE!

        We were torturing those people.
        So by your same logic the US Govt that did the torture is responsible directly for the deaths in Pakistan riots.

        So I suppose I don’t have a problem calling him a terrorist. He’s out to terrorize a town in PA. (and many others as mentioned) What a nutter! If you’re a religous freak you might believe him and be scared. Eat hypocrisy, idiot!

        • #3119357

          not torture

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to This from the guy

          to humiliate people or to make them uncomfortable or to deprive them of sleep to get information from them.

          We did not beat them.
          We did not kill them.
          We did not rip their nails off.
          We did not cut their heads off.

          They are treated better thay we would have been, had the rolls been reversed.

          They are treated better than if they were in Saddams jails back when he was in charge.

          To use words like that, in the manner you do, minimalizes just how truly horiffic they are.

        • #3119348

          The difference between yours and mine

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to This from the guy

          What’s the matter? Can’t you take a little literary criticism? I’m trying to help you here, dude.

          My discussion message (the one you linked to) was intended to be sarcasm and irony. And that was quite obvious to anyone who reads my writings on a regular basis and/or people who have even the slightest capacity to really think.

          Writing good satire is one thing — something I take a stab at from time-to-time, and something at which I’ve been fairly successful. But you actually believe the crap you spew; and therein lies the difference.

          Nonetheless, thank you for pointing out one of my satirical attempts. But I don’t think that particular one was my best attempt. Personally, I think my “Global Warming on Mars” message was much better. Look it up, you might even like it.

          And I can’t believe you attempted to compare your message to mine. That’s like comparing a fine bottle of wine to Kool-Aid.

          Perhaps you should try to put together some intelligible thoughts and transfer them to paper (to keyboard), instead of spewing the emotionally-generated drivel that exposes a mind incapable of reasonable and rational thought. If you have a desire to share your thoughts in a manner that’s somewhat consistent with your thought-process, then take my constructive criticism as a positive and run with it. If what you wrote really was an indication of your true thought-process, heaven help you.

        • #3119283

          So roberson incited nothing?

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to The difference between yours and mine

          by going on TV and declaring that US Seals should ‘take out’ chavez?

          by saying all the stupid things on TV he does?
          a**’s like that deserve to be made fun of. He’s definitely not a ‘hitler’ just a ‘budding’ one.

          you seemed to take it pretty seriously as did the other posters. you didn’t express much humor when you railed against the ‘liberal media’, which appears to be any rag that says something you don’t agree with. when you find out you are wrong you claim it was ‘satire’?

          I read the global warming on mars, not particularly funny, as it seems to indicate your view that global warming is not real, so is simply mis-guided instead.

          might have been funny if in fact most indicators showed that the climate here was not warming.

          when we reach mars we’ll probably spew pollution all over it too. happily there’s nothing on it to kill.

        • #3119278

          Don’t tell Marvin that.

          by mickster269 ·

          In reply to So roberson incited nothing?

          “when we reach mars we’ll probably spew pollution all over it too. happily there’s nothing on it to kill.”

          That will make him very angry.

        • #3119254

          Well, here’s what I said then to somebody who asked about it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So roberson incited nothing?

          On 06-03-05, I said, “You missed the intended irony…..That’s just a ‘headline’, not unlike their very own headlines. The ironic title was intended.”

          And here’s what the guy who asked me about it said in return.

          “Ok, Sorry…..Guess it just went WHOOSHH!! over my head.”


          This is too funny! I guess it STAYED “WHOOSHH!! over YOUR head”.

          That guy was YOU!

          Talk about irony!

        • #3119249

          A bit too much seriousness

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Well, here’s what I said then to somebody who asked about it

          guess I thought you really believed it.

          I was being a bit satirical too. I don’t really think he’s a terrorist, just a bit scared that he might turn into one.

        • #3119253

          Of course you didn’t like my Global Warming on Mars piece

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So roberson incited nothing?

          Satire pokes fun at people who take themselves too seriously over something, like all the global warming nut-bags. So it’s no surprise you didn’t like it.

        • #3119252

          I don’t think Pat Robertson could incite Navy Seals

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So roberson incited nothing?

          … do anything. Besides, I thought you were claiming he was inciting people over this Pennsylvania town flap? Geesh, make up your mind on what you’re talking about, will you?

          (What was that you were saying about certain people “deserving” to be made fun of?)

        • #3119238

          Afraid bush might listen to him..

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to I don’t think Pat Robertson could incite Navy Seals

          he evidently listens to the serious religious people who can’t separate church and state..

          Just wait till those mandatory school prayers turn into forced praying to allah

          and the 10 commandments in a courtroom turn into a diatribe to kill all infidels..

          he did both.. suggested the govt use commandos to take out hugo and suggested a ‘godstrike’ called in on PA town.

          I didn’t ‘dislike’ your mars post, just want my humor irony to be rooted in reality somehow.

          based on a false premise, just not funny

        • #3119228

          You may not think it was funny. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Afraid bush might listen to him..

          …..but a lot of other people did.

          And it wasn’t based on a false premise. It was based on a news story that indicated a climate change on Mars was shrinking that planet’s polar caps.

          Now, just what do you consider the “false premise”?

          And you said that you “want your humor irony to be rooted in reality somehow”, but you then call Pat Robertson a terrorist, then take it back saying you were being sarcastic, then say you want it rooted in reality…..

          Give it up, already. You’re really sounding silly.

        • #3120080

          Not sarcastic, he IS a terrorist

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Afraid bush might listen to him..

          and possibly not even exaggerated.

          he IS a terrorist. not on the same level with Al-quaida but there are all kinds. He, in no unclear terms is purposely trying to stir up people to have them kill someone.

          (actually several people, the gays, PA town, supreme court justices, hugo chavez, probably the list goes further). I think him calling for ‘god’ to strike them down is simply hidden terms for his minions to open season on them.

          Organized directly by him? no, he just gives the tv message like bin-laden. to me that’s terrorism. Just because he doesn’t have the kahunes to do it himself, neither does bin-laden. He sends his minions.

          Is anyone nutso enuf to do what robertson suggests? I don’t know.

          There are people nutso enuf to listen to anti-abortionist preachers (I guess, probably including robertson) call to kill doctors and bomb clinics in an effort to protect the 10th commandment, ‘thou shalt not kill’, becoming killers themselves, and presumably rotting in their own hell of their religion.

        • #3119961

          Okay, Dr Dij – If that kind of speech defines a terrorist. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Afraid bush might listen to him..

          ….then Al Gore, Howard Dean, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, et al are ALSO terrorists for their inflammatory speech that could ALSO incite people to do the same things you described.

          Whatever you say, dude.

        • #3119945

          Only people he disagrees with are terrorists

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Afraid bush might listen to him..

          DR Dij, if you were consistant with your standard, then as Max pointed out half the Democratic party are terrorists.

          But you don’t “consider” THEM terrorists because you agree with what they say?

          Does this make YOU a terrorist?

          If you are going to use floating rules for what terms mean, then it would appear that it HAS floated enough that you have joined that merry group.

          Should I expect to see your face posted in the US post office?

        • #3118149

          Not only that . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Afraid bush might listen to him..

          …..but he grossly misstated what Pat Robertson really said, and then he drew his conclusion based on that misstatement. Incredible!

        • #3120062

          Sorry about the ‘idiot’

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to The difference between yours and mine

          I usually try to avoid vitriolic rhetoric unlike Pat. And I’m sure you’re not an idiot, tho I don’t agree with some of what you say. Even during Apotheon’s heated threads I didn’t call him anything even if I didn’t agree with him.

          So once, at the 257th posting you say it is sarcasm / irony, and that excuses the whole post / thread?

          I saw alot of people appearing to think you were for real, which is why I got ticked off. It makes me think you were simply using that as an excuse once it was shown you were wrong.

          Saying opposite of what you meant is kind of silly, take the ‘ageism’ thread.

          Why don’t you modify the original post and say that you didn’t really mean to blame the media?

          I’m sure you won’t as A) you meant what you said in the post, even tho you now look like a fool as it turned out to be true, B) your rants about ‘liberal media’ mean you think all media that says something that doesn’t support your position is a plot or idiots or bleeding heart liberals?

          and hey, I DO read the NY Times, AND the LA Times. I think the LA Times editorials call for too much govt spending but their news is good.
          US News & World Report is to me very balanced and even somewhat conservative, with well thought thru in-depth articles

          And if you’re a republican, that should make you happy as your choice for president has WAY out-spent clinton and previous admins? Apparently that’s the new ‘in’ thing for republicans. Clinton couldn’t keep his ‘thing in his pants’, republicans now can’t keep their hand out of the taxpayer’s pants.

        • #3131193


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sorry about the ‘idiot’

          Good to see others have eyes and memories too. As for them reaching into the taxpayers pants, just keep your wallet in your back pocket and never the front.

      • #3131194

        Just a brief side note

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Oh for Pete’s sake – Give me a break

        You have clearly accepted that there is a difference between somone with a different agenda and a terrorist by claiming that they would be, at most, a watered down terrorist.

        I have been equated a terrorist by many here, and yet that is seen as an equivalent? Do I strap bombs to myself and run around calling Allah’s name? Of course not, but when I oppose Bush or the US government, if I have ANY form of empathy for the families in Iraq, I am said to be a terrorist, because it doesn’t support someone else’s patriotic beliefs.

        I suppose you can just call whomever whatever you like then and if it doesn’t fit your agenda, you can discount such claims as foolish or watered down in comparisson, when other people make them.

        Why is it that Republicans are so hideously two-faced and yet they deny any form of hipocrisy?

        Oh well, its not worth anyone’s time anyhow. You guys just say and think what suits you for the moment, a definite display of your core values. ‘What s best for you at any given moment is what you defend as your core value?

        Sure, it’s disingenious for me to say that, you don’t know why you even bother responding to my comments, it is unqualified anti-Bush rhetorical BS, I am merely jealous that I chose not to live in America… whatever, it’s also a reality you simply can’t face, which is hard to believe seeing as you so often show two of them.

        Republicans seem to accuse Democrats of doing what they themselves ae guilty of, now THAT’s clever…or as you love so much, disingenious. Most just call it two faed hipocrisy.

    • #3119235

      He does have an audience, but they’re benign

      by av . ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      I don’t think he’s a terrorist. He likes to make controversial statements to boost his TV ratings, like the one he made about assassinating Hugo Chavez recently because Chavez thinks he is already a target.

      I’m sure there are some out there that agree with him, which amazes me, but he is just an old-time televangelist looking to make a buck off religion.

      I still don’t understand why he warrants mainstream TV coverage with his remarks. Hes an idiot and not a good representation of any religious viewpoint.

      • #3120078


        by dr dij ·

        In reply to He does have an audience, but they’re benign

        but that’s what worries me, that he DOES have an audience. Why is he on TV? Is he just on the religious network or other channels?

        That Rudolf fellow was probably ‘benign’ till he listed to some vitriolic rhetoric and bombed people at the olympics and abortion clinics.

        I thought couched death threats were a crime in this country.

        • #3118136

          Only on the religious network

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Maybe

          that he started up.

          He then sold it, but with the agreement that he would retain his time slots, is my understanding.

        • #3118069

          I don’t know how he gets away with the death threats

          by av . ·

          In reply to Maybe

          Maybe because Hugo Chavez isn’t everyone’s favorite person. If it was GWB, it might be different. Robertson should be at least off-the-air for his remarks. I bet instead, ratings are up for his 700 Club program. Oh – and his remarks were carried on every prime time TV station. Good for business.

          It worries me too that he has an audience, but I don’t think someone like Eric Rudolph would be interested in following Pat Robertson. Eric Rudolph is a lone-wolf type person. I think Pat Robertson attracts the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker crowd. Religious people that will support him in the manner that he has become accustomed to. Most of them are just people looking to be saved, healed or they’re buying the stairway to heaven by donating to him.

          I will never cease to be amazed that there are people gullible enough in this country that will listen to and support someone like Pat Robertson. He is a loose cannon for sure.

        • #3117859

          Not sure where the line in the sand is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I don’t know how he gets away with the death threats

          as to the difference between a death threat, an incitement to murder, and someones freedom of speech wishing someone would die.

          For the town mentioned in the article he did none of the above, according to the article.

          For Chavez, wishing the seals or whoever would take him out is going to be clasified as wishful thinking as there is no reasonable expectation that Chavez would fear Roberson doing anything himself, and the Seals are not influinced by him.

          That is how he gets away with it.

          I have heard lunitics on the FAR left say the same about GWB, and unless there is an actual plan and ability, it just all falls under a crazy pipe dream.

          Aren’t you glad that the news was covering this all? I and most of the people here in TR would never have known he said it if wasn’t for them. The liberal media is spreading the word of god? (even if it is a sick and intentionally twisted version they show?) Kind of ironic….

      • #3118138

        That is EXACTLY why he gets coverage

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to He does have an audience, but they’re benign

        because he is not a good representation of religion, so it in turn casts religion in a bad light.

        How better to discredit an organization then to cast them all as little Robertsons that are all nutcases?

        • #3118060

          Thats possible

          by av . ·

          In reply to That is EXACTLY why he gets coverage

          I guess what you’re saying is that the liberal media casts Pat Robertson as the poster boy of the religious right-wing view. I don’t think even they agree with his statements, but it is odd to me for sure that what he thinks should be prime-time fodder, so its highly suspect. He doesn’t deserve primetime coverage.

        • #3118035

          opposite sides of the coin

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Thats possible

          from losers like sharpton, jackson and faracon.

          They all are completely nuts.

          they all think they speak for the masses.

          They all are not worth the powder it would take to blow them away.

          Like the extreamism of the jackson crowd doesn’t speak for the average democrat, neither does Robertson. I have NEVER watched one of his programs. I never will watch one of his programs. I wouldn’t even know he said this if it wasn’t for him BEING the poster child for extremeism in religion in order to discredit it.

        • #3131212

          I agree

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to opposite sides of the coin

          anyone, right, left, middle, libertarian or communist who preaches hate and/or insinuates death of others or violence is bad. that’s basically what I was saying. I picked this guy because he is so vocal and has his own show, and it was on the news at the time.

          I don’t cast all religious people as little ‘pat robertsons’. Sharpton, and especially faracon have said horrible racist things. I guess Jessie does sometimes too.

          We need to pull these people out in the open and ridicule them or they may become little hitlers.

        • #3131207

          But it is only fashionable

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I agree

          to bash White Religious people.

          If you say ANYTHING badly about the three stooges there, then you are a racist and a bigot.

          THAT mentality is as dangerous as what it is they are saying in the first place.

        • #3131616

          They are all opportunists

          by av . ·

          In reply to opposite sides of the coin

          Especially Al Sharpton who will take up any racial cause he can just to keep his name in the news.

          I’ve never seen the 700 club either, and don’t intend to. He’s rich enough to have his own TV show, but he’s too much of a screwball to be quoted on CNN or any other primetime station.

    • #3120034

      Reply To: US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      by kwhite ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      Pat Robertson is an idiot, is he a terrorist? Probably not by strict definition, but he may have violated the law when he asked for a foreign leader to be assinated and he is certainly guilty of trying to intimidate people who do not have his views.
      We cannot ignore him as he is far too popular (look at his ratings). I fully expect thet sooner rather than later Robertson will call on his followers to “smite thine enemies”.

    • #3118075

      Not a Terrorist, but

      by thechas ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      No, Pat Robertson is not a terrorist.

      And like some of the others posted, you need to get the story straight before you comment on it.

      In my opinion, Pat Robertson needs to stop calling himself and his followers Christians.

      Based on his recent publicity stunt pronouncements, Pat Robertson is not preaching the Gospel of our loving caring open armed savior. Pat is preaching the Old Testament of an avenging spiteful God.

      Overall, I suspect the Pat Robertson is seeing his leadership position of the US religious right slip away. Along with any ability to direct the public discourse on moral issues.

      These stunts are his only way of getting noticed by the US media and stretching out his 15 minutes of fame.


      • #3131152

        We Don’t Want Him Either

        by bfilmfan ·

        In reply to Not a Terrorist, but

        The Old Testament subscribing folks, ie Torah Jews, don’t want Pat either…

    • #3131362

      Pat Robertson a terrorist?

      by jck ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      I guess it depends…on what you consider a terrorist.

      I mean, take for instance Osama Bin Laden. As far as it’s known, he hasn’t been on the frontline of a fight since the 1980s when he and his buddies were repelling Soviets with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan with the aid of…the US Central Intelligence Agency. And, he’s never strapped a bomb on himself and blown up a cafe.

      Yet, Osama is considered a “terrorist” because he preaches “jihad” (Muslim holy war) on the American infidels.

      And, Pat Robertson is preaching that God should destroy godless PA, godless New Orleans for harboring those gay heathens, etc. This can only lead the mindless radical Christians to think “If it’s God’s will, then I should do it.”

      Basically…if you consider Osama a terrorist for vocally condoning the destruction of others under guise of the Muslim faith and that it’s the “will of Allah” because of difference in religion, Pat Robertson should be considered a terrorist for promoting the destruction of others under the guise of Christian faith that someone should be blown up because of a difference of religion.

      Either way…despite their motive, they are both inciting the radical part of the faiths they proclaim to represent…to think it’s okay for those who are not keeping their beliefs to be destroyed.

      i.e.- it is enciting the radicals…

      Same smell…different flavor.

      By the way…

      If I remember correctly…some years ago down here in Florida, a radical Right-To-Life advocate shot and killed a doctor who performed abortions name David Gunn. Plus, the late-90s were peppered with abortion clinic bombings.

      here’s a Canadian site with statistics and references:

      Basically…if Osama is a terrorist for being a proponent of blowing up Americans who are “infidels” and don’t meet his religious beliefs, then Pat Robertson should be a terrorist for being a proponent of God blowing up those who don’t meet his Christian values.

      After all…

      Osama is declaring “open season” in the name of Allah.

      Marion…er…I mean, Pat…is declaring it “open season” for God.

      I guess the only difference is…Osama is saying it’s Allah’s will…Pat is saying what God should do now.

      Who’s the bigger heathen to their religion now?

      • #3131349

        You never cease to amaze me

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Pat Robertson a terrorist?

        Osama, raising money, training people, organizing and giving clear marching orders is in the same ball park of Robertson saying it was gods will that N.O. got flooded?

        For saying that future “natural disasters” may occur to the places that have turned away from god (as he sees it) is the same?

        For saying the Seals should take out Chavez, knowing full well that the seals do not take guidance from him?

        That is one of the stupidest things you have posted in a while.

        Both have hijacked their religions for personal gain, this is true.

        Hijacking a religion as well as everything Robertson has said or done does NOT equate to being a terrorist, NOR does it put him on equal footing with Osama. Robertson is NOT responsible for numerous attacks against otehr people and is NOT responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians whose only crime was to work peacefully in the Trade Center.

        Sober up and get a f’en clue.

        • #3131344

          Absolutely incredible how people MAKE UP things

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You never cease to amaze me

          How can people (like jck and others) just make-up this crap? Do they really believe it? Deranged is a word that comes to mind.

        • #3131218

          That same thought comes to mind

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to Absolutely incredible how people MAKE UP things

          when I think of Pat Robertson, is he deranged?

          Are you defending him because you are ultra-religious?

          That wouldn’t make sense but alot of religious people don’t let sense get in the way of what they spout.

          I saw postings by you defending Intelligent Design.

        • #3131206

          The way I see it

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That same thought comes to mind

          It is just a matter of only accusing people of what they have done.

          JCK seems to have imbellished this way out of line of what Robertson has actually done.

          I have not defended Robertson, just that it is not honest to use a word like “Terrorist” to describe him.

          To do so ONLY serves to lessen the extremeness of what a real terrorist is and does.

          This is like the dishonest people that compare Bush to Hitler, knowing full well that Bush will not be hanging a US flag over any nations capital, nor will he be instructing the systematic slaughter of any ethnic groups. It just goes to lessen the HORROR that Hitler unleashed on the world and cheapens the memory of his victoms.

          See Robertson for the nut he is, but don’t use words that don’t fit and don’t think for a second that he is the face and voice of the “religious right”. He is no more than the “honorable Rev. Sharpton” is the face and voice of all Democrats.

        • #3131203

          Didn’t know too much about robertson

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to The way I see it

          so I was worried that with his audience people might go do stuff. probably not. will watch him just the same.

          you’re right about hitler references. even your ‘liberal media’ buddies, like daily show made fun of people calling others ‘hitlers’, as he tried real hard to be a horror.

          never did think he represented most religious right but unhappily he has an audience.

          the death threats tho got me. suggesting ‘anyone’ take out someone can mean that someone else will pick up on it. of course the seals are not in his flock but I knew little of him to guess that there weren’t some followers who might. Probably only ticked off elderly have time to watch his rubbish.

          whether he likes it or not there are serious analogies to terrorists. I think that he just wants to be ‘god’ instead, and boss others around or ‘poof’ vaporize the gays or anyone else he doesn’t like if he became a godlike leader.

        • #3130606

          That is the “problem” with free speech

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Didn’t know too much about robertson

          Even unpopular speech is protected. Even if it comes from a snake-oil salesman named Robertson. He reminds me of the lead character in “Leap of faith” with Steve Martin. It is all a show.

          As for “gays or anyone else he doesn’t like”, you will recall that MOST religions globally do not openly accept gays and in a free world people can’t be forced to give up their hates. Look at race relations in the US. People go on and on about how bad it is here, until we take an honest look at the rest of the world and we see that we are doing much better than many. (yes oz, I give you Canada for being more openly accepting) but the frogs who are suppose to be the “enlightened ones” have had their closet fly open for the world to see. Even in Iraq, where you have three ethinic groups that would likely wipe each other out if left to their own devices?

        • #3131792


          by jck ·

          In reply to The way I see it

          “JCK seems to have imbellished this way out of line of what Robertson has actually done.”

          I quoted articles…embellished nothing.

          BTW, you really need to get a dictionary out and look up “dishonest”. I think it applies more to the Bush Administration’s representations of Saddam’s weapons development to the Senate than it does to my article quotes about Pat and Osama.

          You’re once again flickin your Bic…be nice if you had some fuel in it 😉

        • #3131199

          To answer your questions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That same thought comes to mind

          Am I ultra-religious? No, not at all. Not even close. And to SAY IT AGAIN, I don’t care for Pat Robertson one dang bit. But I don’t have to make up things to justify it. Why do you and/or others make up things? And why do you continue to pigeon-hole me into your silly stereotypes?

          On Intelligent Design. A person can explore the theory of Intelligent Design, or the theory of Incredible Coincidence, or the theory of Something From Nothing, or the Theory of It All Came From the Twilight Zone, ALL without having any basis in religion, regardless of which they prefer. But what does that have to do with this discussion?

        • #3131198

          And NOT ONCE have I “defended” Pat Robertson

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That same thought comes to mind

          I’m just amazed that you people make up things. Why do you claim he said things that he did not say? Can’t you present a valid argument without making stuff up? And when I point out your lies, why do you automatically assume I’m defending the guy? I’m just calling you to task on your lies, no more, no less.

          And not one of you have corrected yourself.

        • #3130474

          Osama fundraising?

          by jck ·

          In reply to You never cease to amaze me

          1) First, Osama Bin Laden is a child in what has been the second wealthiest family in Saudi Arabia only behind the royal family. He is worth hundreds of millions by himself and has been bank rolling much of it himself. He doesn’t do telethons for money. Sorry to disappoint you.

          2) Robertson’s original statement never mentioned seals…you’re wrong there.

          his statement was:
          From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

          ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

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

          Covert operatives, to anyone who knows what the term means, isn’t military insertion of an assassin. Generally, it’s either a governmental operative or an independent hired by an agency like the CIA.

          3) So, he condones the killing of another human being? Thou shalt not kill? Mighty Christian of him. He shouldn’t be apologizing to the audience of his show…he better be praying to God for His forgiveness.

          Robertson’s statement dealing with Dover PA was, (quoted) according to a CNN article online:

          “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city,” Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, “The 700 Club.”

          “And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there,” he said.

          You see…when he goes and puts out part of a statement like “And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin.”, the nutso Christians who are off the deep end will see that as a sign that it is God’s will that problems should come upon those who do not serve God according to Pat. Whether you believe it or not, there are stupid, crazy Christians.

          Innocuous? Perhaps to sane individuals, like myself. I put little faith in a “Christian” like “Pat”, simply because he’s so easy to pop off and condone killing which is condoning the breaking of one of God’s 10 commandments. I see where his real dedication lies, and it doesn’t seem to be in living those rules set forth by God.

          And yes…I do hold “Pat” to a higher standard when he claims to be a religious leader…i.e.- I expect him to lead a more exemplary life in the Christian way than I do.

          However as in Islam, there are ultra-radical Christians. And, some of those ultra-conservative Christian-based Right-to-Lifers have physically attacked, shot, and bombed those involved with practices that do not meet with the approval of their “faith”, most namely- abortion.

          Take in mind, Pat Robertson is also the man who said of Chavez:

          “We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”

          He’s condoning physical violence against another human for what cause?? Because you think he’s a terrorist? So…you become a terrorist to kill a terrorist. Real smart move.

          As for how guilty Osama is for “planning” or “organizing” anything, I think it was his second in command of al Qaeda who did the planning and organizing of September 11th, not Bin Laden. I’ll have to dig to find the details in the report, but I think Bin Laden only gave the “OK” as the head of al Qaeda. He actually did no planning or organizing.

          Strictly speaking from a very logical point of view, Osama has gotten on TV, radio and in print…and preached his venom much like Robertson has done. Osama just has been less chicken to speak his mind. And when “Pat” did pop out what he thought about Chavez…he backed down faster than a car with a bad transmission and no breaks driving up the side of a mountain.

          Oh, and…another little tidbit about “Pat” you might not know.

          Did you know he cut a $8M deal with Charles Taylor, the genocidal dictator in Liberia, for investment in a gold mine?

          So, Saddam was cast by the Bush administration as a terrorist for terrorizing his own people (the Kurds)…Taylor does the same thing, and Robertson’s (being the Christian he is) has no problem with making an investment in a 3rd world country of $8M (and his coincidental backing of Taylor against the Bush administration’s request for Taylor to step down) who kills its own people? U gotta tell ya…it smells of total corruption and hypocracy…but, that must be okay to be if you are a devout Christian like Robertson…so it’s ok for him to essentially bankroll Taylor…a terrorist in his own right.

          Simply put…Robertson gets on TV and spurs Christians to the offensive, and a small portion of those I’m sure have been influenced by his words…including guys like Rudolph. He does incite radicals.

          Osama inspires a small radical part of the Muslim world to become offensively-minded and some of them attack.

          Just because Robertson is a Christian doesn’t exempt him from being a terrorist even in the smallest concept for being a financial source of money for a country whose leader is a known genocidal tyrant.

          Or am I wrong? I guess that’s ok…because Taylor claims to be Baptist?

          And quite honestly…the only real difference I see is…Osama doesn’t meter his words so much because he has to worry about his ties to political organizations.

          Robertson has to watch his step so that he does not fall out of favor of those in the Republican party who help him stay out of trouble with his financial dealings…like when the Commonwealth of Virginia found issues with his operations being “misrepresentative”.

          I’m sure if Robertson was independent and had no political agenda, he’d speak more of his mind. But, he has to follow the party line like Bush to keep the faithful base content.

          And if you take the definition of how the Bush Administration portrays what makes a terrorist, it is someone who participates in, organizes, encites, or helps support the activities of terrorism.

          Robertson spoke out and condoned the taking out of Chavez, not only a terrorist act but condoning the breaking of one of the 10 Commandments set forth by God.

          Robertson gets television and makes enciting statements like that.

          And, Robertson’s $8M investment in a gold mine with the Liberian government means he just gave money to a government who sponsors killing its own people, i.e.- state terrorism.

          For years, Robertson has been willing (in the guise of it being God’s will) these things upon people…like with the hurricanes recently.

          Personally, I think Pat would look quite nice in a turban, don’t you think? I gotta get photoshop out and work on that one. ]:)

          Just remember, jdclyde: because you’re doing 10 miles per hour over the speed limit does not make you any less guilty than someone doing 30 over under the law. Guilt is guilt.

          Robertson, being a leader of the Christian faith, condoning the assassination of another human being makes him no less guilty than Osama saying it.

          Believe it or not, the Muslim faith is not a violent one…just like Christianity is not.

          It is the radical elements who encite, back, organize and participate in these things.

          And in my opinion, Robertson has now moved himself into this category now.

          BTW, what was the topic on today’s 700 Club?? 😀

          BTW, I’d bet you’ve had multiple drinks since I have had one…so, don’t go playing poster child for chastity 😉 (I ran out of beer quite a while ago and haven’t gone shopping or got any brewed.)

      • #3131346

        You said, “Pat Robertson is preaching that God should destroy ……”

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Pat Robertson a terrorist?

        But he didn’t say that. He didn’t even come close to saying that.

        Why did you misstate what he said? And how does that affect the rest of your message?

        • #3131779


          by jck ·

          In reply to You said, “Pat Robertson is preaching that God should destroy ……”

          You’re right, Max…maybe *should* isn’t the right word…*would* is a better one.

          However, it doesn’t change the fact that the guy is preaching that God attacks based on what “Pat” says is wrong…and anyone who knows anything about Christianity is…judgement will not come on this Earth until Judgement Day.

          And so far, I haven’t seen any big lizards with multiple crowns on multiple heads roaming around with a prevalent 666 on their head.

          Seems like Pat doesn’t even know his own religion.

          From his own show in 1998, good ole “Pat” said of Orlando, Florida:

          “If you’re going to have one month dedicated to waving the flag of the homosexuals, it isn’t a very wise thing with the hurricane season coming up to wave a flag under God’s nose.”

          That is, he’s implying God would consider a change to nature to make hurricanes hit them if they acknowledge gays by putting their flag up. He’s basically proposing God might do that. He must be close to God to be reading His mind, eh?

          ok…now…one week later…after tons of media and political pressure, Robertson goes back on his show and says:

          “Ladies and Gentlemen, before we get back to any more stories, I want to point out something that was said on this program on Monday that dealt with Orlando, Florida. The statement I made was relatively simple. It said, `If you’re going to have one month dedicated to waving the flag of the homosexuals, it isn’t a very wise thing with the hurricane season coming up to wave a flag under God’s nose.’ Now that’s what I said, but an ultra-liberal group in Washington … took my statements, chopped them up, took them out of context and then sent it out across the nation that I said that Orlando was going to get hit by hurricanes and a meteor, which just isn’t true. I didn’t say that, and I never intended it … . But I would say this ladies and gentlemen, we in the United States of America are facing severe crises around the world. We are a target. We have been a target. Not only are we seeing violent weather, but we’re seeing violent uprisings of people who are terrorists. And my statement now and my statement shall ever be that we need the protection of God Almighty. And if we continue to slaughter unborn children, if we continue to engage in various types of sexual conduct which is displeasing to God, then this country will not have the defenses we’ve enjoyed for such a long time. I said it then. I say it now. But I did not make those extreme comments.”

          Backed out so fast, he’d have beat Lance Armstrong in a race…

          Kind of funny…I thought God was all-forgiving if you asked for it and placed your true faith and heart in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and all that…or were all those years in church for me a lie?

          I guess God only peels out favor to those who’ve watched “Pat” and followed his guidance?

          And before this in May, he made this statement on This Week with George Stephanopoulous:

          STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, Reverend Robertson, the God you describe is taking a very active, direct role in our lives. One of the earlier clips we showed said you had him saying, “I am removing justices from the Supreme Court,” and I’m just wondering why does a God who is so involved in our daily life, so directly involved, allow something like a tsunami to kill several hundred thousand people in Asia?

          ROBERTSON: I don’t think He [God] reverses the laws of nature. The reason for that tsunami was the shifting of tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean. I don’t think he changes the magma in volcanoes and I don’t think he changes the wind currents to bring about hurricanes. So, I don’t attribute that to God, or his lack, or otherwise. But in terms of human affairs, I do think he answers prayer and I think there have been literally millions of people praying for a change in the Supreme Court. The people of faith in this country feel they’re on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away from them and they’ve been beseeching God, fasting, and praying for years. So, I think he hears and answers their prayers.


          He can’t even decide whether God will control weather or not.

          And, I guess if enough evangelical Christians pray for God to wash away the heathens, he’ll do it? He’ll throw another hurricane at Miami Beach I guess if enough senile old people pray for it, because it’s full of gay men?

          This guy is a NUT. He is willing God to punish those who don’t follow the word of “PAT”…not that of God.

          Anyway you want to put it, this guy is a hate-monger…he is not preaching about giving testament to sinners like Jesus did…he’s preaching about how God is likely to turn hurricanes on people who don’t follow what “Pat” sees as God’s way.

          He’s condoning it…he’s preaching it like he’s inside God’s mind…and he’s preaching hate instead of love…and I believe somewhere it says in the Bible “God is love.”, not hate.

          BTW, I guess any time soon all those Muslims in the Middle East will be getting their hurricanes? And, Atheist organizations will start getting hit by fire and brimstone?

          You pick out one word to try to invalidate my argument. The argument doesn’t change…he’s a loon…he’s casting God as a hate-monger who’ll swoop down hurricane “Pat” on ya and destroy ya when “Pat” says so.

          So…there ya go…quotes from Pat himself…or, at least sources that quoted him.

        • #3131768

          I didn’t pick out one word

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to ok…

          I picked out all the words, and the context in which they were used, and the intention to grossly misstate what was really said.

          If you quote somebody, do it accurately. But don’t do it to spin it your way.

          Did you hear, by the way, that Al Gore is advocating using the military to fight the war on global warming?

        • #3131676

          the pivotal

          by jck ·

          In reply to I didn’t pick out one word

          was a verb…and yes, you were right…it was not the right word to use in the context of the rest of my presentation.

          As for Al Gore, I never backed him…I just saw him as a lot less damaging as what Bush would be…i.e.- the lesser of two evils between the two major parties.

          BTW, I wouldn’t bash Gore too much…you might not look like a Libertarian too much longer if you do…hehehe 😀

        • #3131635

          You missed my entire point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to the pivotal

          But why am I not surprised. One would have to be “informed” to have seen the point I was making, so I should have realized you’d miss it. Whoosh! Right over your head!

          And ding-dong! Anybody home? I say it again, it wasn’t one word, it was your whole message, the whole tone, the whole asertion, your whole perspective. What a loony.

        • #3131499


          by jck ·

          In reply to You missed my entire point

          You make a good Republican…can I expect to see you behind Pat on the platform at his next presidential campaign?

          The whole message is solid…

          He encites Christian conservatives through overblown analogies and typical televangelist scare tactic rhetoric.

          He openly promoted the “taking out” of a political leader.

          He implies that he knows the will of God and what God could do.

          Does that sound familiar? Someone promoting taking out others who are not following their ideology? Taking out “infidels”? Saying what his god thinks and what his god wants?

          Again, I will say:

          God is a forgiving God:

          1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

          God will not bring judgement upon the Earth until Judgement Day, according to the Bible. To profess that God might rain judgement via natural disaster against those who might later confess sin and be absolved goes against the basic teachings of the Bible.

          Deuteronomy 1:17 – Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

          2 Peter 2:9 – The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

          Robertson’s words have proven he thinks otherwise and follows a false path.


          Robertson’s speeling his blamphemous non-sense to encite action by Christian conservatives is no less stupidity than that ilk Osama Bin Laden spouting his crap and blaspheming the Koran and inciting conservative Muslims.

          Whether or not Robertson encites one…a dozen…or a hundred radical idiots to take harmful physical action against others is irrelevant. His enciting people to commit these acts, in any form, is being a motivator to do acts under false grounds…and is proof of his foolishness and stupidity.

          And I still hold…if Robertson’s words have convinced even *one* radical ultra-conservative idiot to harm another human…he is no better than Osama Bin Laden. He has motivated someone, through blurting out untruth and exaggeration, to harm another under the guise of divine calling.

          As for Robertson’s backing down from his statements, I again hold it is him back-peddling because of political pressures. I don’t think he did it because he knew he was wrong.

          I’ll pray for you, Max. Peace be with you…Salem 🙂

        • #3131459

          Does anybody have a spare clue that they can give to jck?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You missed my entire point

          I said, “Did you hear, by the way, that Al Gore is advocating using the military to fight the war on global warming?”

          He didn’t say that. I made it up. It was a grossly embellished comment. (At least I didn’t build an entire argument on it!)

          And what was my point? You figure it out — if your childish mind has the capacity, that is.

          WHOOSH! You are in desperate need of a clue.

        • #3132091


          by jck ·

          In reply to You missed my entire point

          this coming from the self proclaimed Libertarian who says exercising freedom is speech is silly, and quotes stellar astronomers as experts in climatology.

          You’re right…I shouldn’t talk to you.

          You’re not intelligent enough to even rebutt a point. You just jab insults and throw mud…

          just like a good Republican.

          I’m still praying for ya, Max. 🙂

        • #3131987

          You’re descending to jardinier’s level.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You missed my entire point

          “What a loony.”

          You have much better arguments in your repertoire, so why do you resort to name-calling? Are all your economic arguments memorized, or do you have something intelligent to say?

          jck is not that far off: terror is method of indoctrination to every religion. The fact that people accept christianity without coercion by violent terrorism only means that they are brainwashed, as their parents before them, and so on, back to THE INQUISITION. The threat of violence is always the implication of torture in the afterlife, and every other punishment that the superstitious claim to believe is administered “by god.”

        • #3132001

          God isn’t real, but hurricanes are.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to ok…

          “If you’re going to have one month dedicated to waving the flag of the homosexuals, it isn’t a very wise thing with the hurricane season coming up to wave a flag under God’s nose.”

          –Pat Robertson

          Obviously, God, which is a myth, will not punish the f@gs or their hags. A hurricane might, but since God does not exist, a real hurricane is as likely to punish a church full of christians for sitting on a bench as to punish gays for sitting on each others’ faces.

          But there is something real that does target gays for “punishment”. It isn’t God, but it does exist. It’s called EVIL PEOPLE. Calling yourselves “christian” does not change what you really are.

        • #3132000

          Are you saying

          by jck ·

          In reply to God isn’t real, but hurricanes are.

          that evil people will turn the hurricanes on gays and people who don’t allow teaching “intelligent design” in schools? 😀

        • #3131997


          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Are you saying

          Actually, I’m saying that Pat Robertson IS encouraging murder of gays when you warns of “god’s” punishment, because NOBODY sincerely believes that God exists, although some WISH for forgiveness of their sins. Religion is a collective cop-out that allows some sins but not others, and punishes the virtues that are most important on Earth. It is always, without exception, evil to demand self-destructive real behavior with a non-existent entity or realm as the only argument.

          Robertson’s followers know that god is false, and understand his messages of “god’s will” to be instructions of Pat’s will and that of his political allies in the GOP.

          Just because faith is not applied BY zealots does not mean it should not be applied TO them. When a believer says god, it is always a euphemism for something real, meanning not god, just irrational people.

        • #3132257

          Even tho I’m not an Atheist

          by jck ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          I agree with your points, although I think that some people who profess religious alignment are genuine and do their best to follow their creedo.

          However, Robertson uses what could best described as an “allusive directive” when he says things like “…don’t wonder why He [God] hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city.”

          Personally, I think the radical Christians/ulta-conservatives will take that as a directive and to cause problems for those people in PA and make their life hell…all because someone like Robertson said they cast out God and deserve problems.

          And, it would be because of his presumption that he speaks for what God might do, who He might forgive, who He might punish, and who He might allow to die.

          Of course, this also comes from the man who said that feminism encourages women to “…kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

          So, I don’t put much creedence in anything Robertson says…never really have. Although , I’ve listened to hear what he had to say, on occassion.

          We all need a good laugh, at times ]:)

        • #3130874

          Keep thinking, jck, I think there’s still hope for you!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          When you find no amusement in Pat Robertson, or anybody else substituting their emotional flatulence for a moral imperative, you will be an atheist, and probably an Objectivist, too!

          Best wishes.


        • #3117189

          post removed due to doubling

          by jck ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          (hehehe…where’s that delete button, TR guys?)

        • #3117187

          you’ll never see me

          by jck ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          be an Atheist. Just because of a personal experience in my life. But, I’m not going to be a hard-line Christian conservative who goes around living their life worrying and thinking God will punish them for any little tiny thing they do wrong and that I am the moral dictator of the world…like Pat Robertson and his kind think.

          I just find the hypocracy of both sides of the major political party battle to be idiotic…one wants to be morally controlling…the other, socially controlling…but, both profess to give Americans more freedom. Both are full of sh*t.

          As for Objectivist…hehehe…I’m already that…oh no…wait…I’m an Object…er! 😀

          There’s hope for us all yet, Ab…just that some folks will need frontal labotomies to realize that more gets achieved when you work together and not work for self-indulgence. (No, not talking about you…so don’t worry)

        • #3127779

          What kind of objecter do you consider yourself?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          Conscientious? Obnoxious? A first-class bore?


        • #3127690

          At least

          by jck ·

          In reply to EXACTLY

          I know I’m boring…self-awareness…one of the unique qualities of being human. 😉

          As for what kind of objector I am…guess if I had to categorize myself…a scrutinizing objector.

          It never hurts to improve the system…and, it’s even better when you think it over…and determine the best way to do it.

          Any more questions? 😀

    • #3131303

      Not exactly a terrorist, but maybe a bit…

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      …out of there sometimes. I do like almost everything he says and preaches, but there are times when he seems to encourage to violation of the ‘thou shall not kill’ commandment, such as suggesting the assassination of presidents Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. He usually cites a reasonable explanation but it is never enough to justify the violation of thou shall not kill. I just ignore him.

    • #3131191

      To all you double-standard people who make up lies

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town


      The announcer: ?A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn?t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here?s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked].?

      ?What is with all the killing?? Rhodes said, laughing, after the clip aired.

      On her May 10, 2004, Air America program, Rhodes compared Bush to Fredo Corleone, the weak son in the Godfather movies, who was, on his brother Michael?s orders, taken on a fishing trip during which he was murdered with a gunshot to the head. ?They are the Corleones,? Rhodes said of the Bush family. ?The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn?t his father take him, or his brother, one of them, take him out for a little, uh, fishing? You know, let him say some Hail Marys, he loves God so much. Yeah, take him out, you know, ?Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee? ? POW!? Rhodes paused briefly before adding, ?Works for me.?

      Okay all you double-standard Robertson-Haters. If Robertson incites it, so do these leftist wackos. Or do you disagree?

      • #3131190

        Never heard it

        by dr dij ·

        In reply to To all you double-standard people who make up lies

        Perhaps the ‘liberal media’ didn’t think it was worthy to report due to their bias? 🙂

        could it also be that robertson was on TV vs radio, or that he has an actual or perceived larger audience?

        You’re right, this person is also a wacko horror hate monger.

        • #3131187

          You are very correct!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Never heard it

          You said, “Perhaps the ‘liberal media’ didn’t think it was worthy to report due to their bias?”

          I think you were being sarcastic, but that’s okay. I think you are correct regardless of whether or not sarcasm was intended.

          Can you imagine if Rush Limbaugh made such a “joke” about President Clinton or Al Gore? All hell would have broke loose in the media.

          The fact that it didn’t in this case does indeed suggest a liberal bias in the media. What they choose NOT to report and comment on speaks volumes.

        • #3131186

          By the way, have you ever listened to Air America?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Never heard it

          If so, what do you think? If not, give it a listen and then tell us what you think.

          Yes, I have.

        • #3131150

          Air America Whackos

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to By the way, have you ever listened to Air America?

          I find them to be about as off-kilter as the right wing whackos myself.

          Only difference I see is which way they are leaning in the whacko bin. None of them are representing my views.

        • #3131145

          The (radio) whacko bin – I agree

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Air America Whackos

          By the way, could you name some of the people you might consider the right-leaning whacks? And do you listen to them? Actually, I divide my “listening time” about 10 percent Air America, 20 percent conservative talk radio, and the other 70 percent divided between classic country, classic rock and roll, jazz (both modern and 30s 40s style), and this new station I recently discovered that crosses the genre lines, and is hard to describe exactly what it is.

          I do switch to NPR, from time to time, when I want to get a taste of the snobbish and elitist left. But I always get this feeling that I’m about to lose my lunch, so I switch to something more real.

    • #3131598

      Poverty and oppression fuel terrorism, right?

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      Have any demographic studies of Pat’s audience shown them to be poor and oppressed? Has any socioeconomic correlation with the criminal class been measured among any of the trash televangelists’ viewers?

      What does anybody here know about those audiences? Does anybody have any ignorant relatives that wake up just after infomercials to watch the real loons? What kind of people get their mysticism over the airwaves, besides psychopaths who tune in with their fillings?

      Somebody’s quote of Pat Robertson warning a Florida town not to wave a gay flag “under god’s nose” just struck me as extremely crass compared to the reverence that I was required to imitate during my religious upbringing. When I see him on TV, he looks devious and antithetical to honor and integrity. I could never look at his sneering face and feel anything but revulsion. Who calls that a part of a spiritual experience?

      • #3132358


        by thechas ·

        In reply to Poverty and oppression fuel terrorism, right?

        Poverty and oppression fuel riots and revolutions.

        Terrorism on the other hand is fueled by a perceived injustice combined with fanaticism, often religious.

        Check the backgrounds of the terrorist group leaders and most of the suicide bombers. You will find mostly educated people who are at least middle class, often higher. Almost all were leading successful lives (by western standards) before they joined their cause.

        Look at our home grown terror attacks:
        Oklahoma City,
        Atlanta Olympic Park,
        The uni-bomber.

        All of these bombers struck to make a point for what they perceived as the cause of justice.

        Yes, some of the terror group leaders speak out about the poverty of their people. But, this is mainly to generate positive press for themselves.

        While power is part of the equation, most terrorist leaders start down their anti-US path because of the inconsistencies in our spoken ideals and the reality of our foreign policy.

        As long as the US continues to befriend and prop up dictators while not aiding those who wish to replace the dictators with democracies, we will be the target of terrorists.


        • #3132464

          OK, “a perceived injustice combined with fanaticism”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Wrong

          What perceived injustices do Pat’s viewers combine with [b]their[/b] fanaticism?

          Mutually consensual sex between mentally competent adults, among other things, are considered injustice to Christian wackos. The Constitution needs an Amendment that limits crimes to actions that have one or more [b]victims[/b], which would dispense with all the absurd “crimes” whose only basis is the Bible, smuggled into the books under phrases such as the undefinable “community standards”, which even the Supreme Court could not define, but still claimed competent to identify. Of course, without a definition there is no rational hope of consistency in enforcement.

    • #3122339

      Thanks everyone

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      for informative discussion.

      Max – I really knew little about this guy, I’m not the type to watch TBN.

      JCK – thanks for pointing out that these guys seem to be following the path to start religous horror.

      I’ve come away with:
      1) this guy is nutter (my orig opinion)
      2) this guy isn’t as bad as other terrorists, as he is simply blathering but not whipping up hard-core supporters – which I’d guessed but wasn’t sure of
      3) I think this guy ought to be indicited for terrorist threats as he as actually ‘seems’ to have made them
      4) he probably never will
      5) with free speech, others are making same kind of ‘insinuations’ or ‘threats’ in public media
      6) there must be a line somewhere, but is hard to define exactly where and who’s crossed it
      7) these threats are from both sides of issues and left / right / up / down / libertarian / communist, etc. – probably less from libertarians as they want to leave people to do what they want..
      8) in other countries these threats spark riots, wars, etc
      9) you get drunk power when you’re ‘righteous’ or think you are and ‘have god on your side’. would Robertson take the ark of the covenants to PA town and open it, causing destruction?
      10) we apparently can’t all live in peace tho a free society where we can have discussions like this seems to be the best start, and an outlet valve to prevent anything more serious

      • #3122269

        THAT is why

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Thanks everyone

        we are not a truely “free” society, nor should we be.

        For people to live around other people with different beliefs and values, there HAS to be rules to govern bahavior and there HAS to be people to stand up and say something isn’t acceptable even it it hurts someones feelings.

        So we do need values, we do need standards, as we do need to hold people to them and hold everyone accountable for themselves.

        Personal responsability. If more people HAD to think and act for themselves, people like Roberson/Sharpton/Jackson would not have the mindless masses that give them their powerbase they have today.

        • #3043857

          “If more people HAD to think and act for themselves…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to THAT is why

          “If more people HAD to think and act for themselves,” the members of society that believes that the word “responsibility” is spelled with an “a” — that is, “the mindless masses” — would have far less influence than they have now.

        • #3122880


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “If more people HAD to think and act for themselves…”

          if you can’t discredit the idea you can always go for the typos….

          Byte me. ;\

    • #3123469

      The PA town hasn’t been killed

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to US Based Terrorist Pat Robertson asks God to Kill PA Town

      Even God ignores Pat Robertson!

      • #3123355

        And Oral Roberts too…

        by jck ·

        In reply to The PA town hasn’t been killed

        And Oral was saying years ago he’d be called to be with the Lord…if he didn’t raise enough money…

        Now…that is a loony.

Viewing 11 reply threads