Leafs Suck Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson....avez/index.html What a friggin wacko. He's as bad as the terrorists. I don't know why the CIA doesn't arrest him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 So the CIA should arrest a man just for saying something? If he has hiring people to take Chavez out, that's one thing. And not that I'm defending him or anything, ( I don't know much of anything about him even) but calling him a terrorist is preposterous. I haven't heard about him killing innocent civilians to spread panic or anything like that. [Edited on 8-24-05 by Fanpuck33] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 i dont necessarily think that robertson is a terrorist, but I am having more difficulty separating him from the mullahs. He shouldnt be arrested, but technically if someone now goes and assasinates Chavez, he ought be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 So if someone says they wish somebody would die and that person dies, the person who made that wish should be punished? That sounds pretty silly to me. Now if Chavez is assasinated and they find out who's behind it, by all means, let that person fry. Though in my opinion, rotting in jail for a lifetime would be worse than a quick death. I noticed a portion of the article mentioning religious fundamentalism as an evil thing. There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism. It is the fundamentalist extremists, of any religion, that cause problems. Hell, extremists of any kind are rarely a good thing. [Edited on 8-24-05 by Fanpuck33] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 wishing for a man to die and calling for a man's assasination are different things. The problem with fundamentalism of any sort (including left-wing fundamentalism) is that it tends to get in the way of non-prejudicial analysis of fact. [Edited on 8/24/2005 by simonus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I'm a Christian also and when I hear that, it saddens me, especially if the report is accurate. Yet, I figure that, on the one hand, there may very well be a media slant to this as there is in much of what is presented to us as 'truth'. So I step back and watch. If it happens to be true, then Mr. Robertson has done himself a lot of damage to his credibility. It hurts the broader Christian community, especially those who are in his group. Nevertheless, the average person who is informed about stuff like this and, for that matter, anything that is presented us by the newsmedia would do well to look beyond the surface of the headlines and 'facts' given to us. Ideally, the media are supposed to present to us information in a way that is objective, that is not coloured by their worldview or politics. They say that they do that but it isn't relly that way. If you look closely, you will see that they do editorialize the information they give us with more or less subtle comments placed into that information and/or just by the very way in which they present this information to us. Bottom line, I suggest that you keep in mind that, because of the ratings and advertising dollars competition, the information media (news, etc) is very much showbiz. There's an awful lots of eye, ear and brain candy in there to attract us to them (their specific newspaper, their TV network, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 shortcat, of course much media coverage is to some degree biased (not always the way that everybody seems to think) but I saw the clip of robertson speaking, and I got a pretty long, uncut version. He does not say "I am calling on all christians to assasinate Chavez" but he does say that chavez needs to be removed, that assasination would be a good and moral way to do it, that chavez is bad for christians and that oil shipments wouldnt stop in the event of his assasination. He goads, he cajols, and he threatens. If it is not an invocation to action, it is an incredibly crude, simplistic, and rediculously stupid statement that should damage his credibility almost as much as the malevolence that I saw in his speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 i'll weigh in and say he should be investigated if not outright arrested for making a clear threat and arguably instructing/ordering his followers to murder a statesman visiting the usa, which does seem to fit the constantly expanding definition of 'terrorism' But he's a buddy of and brought a lot of votes to bush and bush and his regime are hypocrites, so don't expect old pat to be picked up anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by Fanpuck33And not that I'm defending him or anything, ( I don't know much of anything about him even) but calling him a terrorist is preposterous. Anyone who advoates the murder of someone else in my books is a terrorist. If some left-wing communist like Michael Moore said this about Bush, I can imagine the reaction from Faux News and the rest of the right-wing propoganda machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by JeanLucPilonBut he's a buddy of and brought a lot of votes to bush and bush and his regime are hypocrites, so don't expect old pat to be picked up anytime soon. It's ironic. Remember this next time you hear Robertson whining about abortion. Of course he did adovcate the death of several Supreme Court judges. It amazes me that some actually defend him. LIke I said, if a lefty said this about Bush, you can imagine the outcry from the wrong-wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by Leafs SuckAnyone who advoates the murder of someone else in my books is a terrorist. So anyone who says publicly that Saddam Hussein should have been assasinated during the first Gulf War is a terrorist? Anyone who wanted to assasinate Hitler was a terrorist? I'm not saying what he did was right, but it certainly wasn't terrorism. Now if he were to keep preaching this attitude and tries to do something about it, then it is terrorism. At the same time, Robertson is in no position to be preaching such things, as he has nothing to do with it. Let the US government do its job, Pat. Now, if his accusations about Chavez being a collaborator to terrorists, then I have no problem with removing him from power. Now, that doesn't have to be assasination, but if he is giving any sort of aid to terrorists, he is an enemy of the US and should be taken out of power. And do you honestly think nobody in a foreign media has said that Bush should be assasinated? I'm sure it's happened more than once. Again, saying something is one thing, but doing something about it is another. And you are right, if someone like Michael Moore called for the assasination of Bush I would call for his arrest. I would do the same if Bill O'Reilly would have called for the assasination of Clinton. In both cases, the individual has made a threat against National Security. Also, if Pat had said the same thing about Bush, what would the left wing have done? Would they bash him or defend his right to say it? Btw, Fox News ran the same exact article as the other media outlets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 As far as I know (i could be ignorant in this regard), Chavez's relationship to terror is only in that it is in his interest to maintain higher oil prices and on this front perhaps he collaborates or is of like mind as certain leaders with terrorist ties. I imagine the real complaint against chavez is he is not pro-US and runs a independently wealthy leftist state. I for one dont like anybody calling for the assasination of anybody. I dont like praying for the death of sitting judges (especially in light of some recent violence against judges). Robertson is more tasteless and offensive than he is criminal, but american based imams (see WTC bombing #1) and white-supremecists (see "the order" and Timothy McVeigh) have been deemed responsible for similar, but more egregious, speech as robertson. As for FoxNews and other conservative outlets, it could be expedient (and correct) to dissavow Robertson as his actions have become more public and offensive. One does not want to be included in the company of such figures. This does not necesarily make foxnews opportunistic, just observant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by simonusAs for FoxNews and other conservative outlets, it could be expedient (and correct) to dissavow Robertson as his actions have become more public and offensive. One does not want to be included in the company of such figures. This does not necesarily make foxnews opportunistic, just observant. I was simply pointing out an example of Fox News not slanting an event to support conservative views, as many say they always do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by Fanpuck33And do you honestly think nobody in a foreign media has said that Bush should be assasinated? Can you back that up? I never heard anything. And I am sure it would make international headlines. Their are idiots are all sides, including conservatives. However, none of them have their own TV shows. None of them ask people for money. None of them are avocating murder all in the name of the lord. So their is a huge difference. Plus none of them are old buddies of the current President and someone who ran for the Presidency as a Republican (but lost the nomination). I have a hard time understanding your logic. You say if Moore did this you'd want him arrested, but you've never advocated Robertson being arrested? Could it be that this guy isn't an American president so it's okay? Does Chavez have a stock pile of WMD's? No. Does he have a nuclear bomb? No. Seriously, what is so bad about him? Robertson think this is 1965 and that we're all scared of communism. Well I seriously don't see how Chavez is a danger. Yet again Roberston probably subscribes to the same theory that Castro is still a danger to the US. You claim you're not defending him but it sure seems you are cuz anyone, who calls him out, you question why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted August 25, 2005 Author Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by Fanpuck33Fox News not slanting an event to support conservative views, as many say they always do. You're kidding right? You honestly think Fox is unbiased and doesn't posion the world with their right-wing propoganda? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by Leafs SuckI have a hard time understanding your logic. You say if Moore did this you'd want him arrested, but you've never advocated Robertson being arrested? I never said that. I said if Moore called for Bush to be assasinated, I would arrest him. If Moore called for Chavez's assasination, I would take the same stance I am on Robertson. Well I seriously don't see how Chavez is a danger. Yet again Roberston probably subscribes to the same theory that Castro is still a danger to the US. As I said above, I don't either. I agree it sounds like Robertson sounds like he's still in Cold War mode. At the same time, some of the allegations are that Chavez and his government quietly support terrorism. I don't know if it's true or not, but if it is, then getting Chavez out of power would, indeed, be a necessary action. That doesn't have to be an assasination though. You honestly think Fox is unbiased and doesn't posion the world with their right-wing propoganda? No more than many other media outlets poison the world with left wing propaganda. (i.e. Dan Rather trying to sabotage the last election with his unsubstantiated story.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted August 26, 2005 Author Share Posted August 26, 2005 So it's okay for an American to advocate the murder of another world leader but not okay someone from another country to advocate the death of an American president? Shouldn't killing anyone be wrong regardless of what their nationality is? As far as Rather goes, Bush never denied the story, all he ever did was find a way of making Rather look like an idiot and people would focus more on that then the story. But hey thats Carl "If you work for the CIA you better kiss my butt or I'll leak your name" Rove for yah. [Edited on 2005/8/26 by Leafs Suck] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted August 26, 2005 Share Posted August 26, 2005 Placing a threat on the life of your country's president is treason and a threat to national security. Saying something about another country's leader is neither of those things. I see them as very different issues. And no, killing somebody is not always wrong. Now, murder is another story. There are plenty of instances of killing which are not murder. For example, I do not think that killing a threat the national security is murder. Whether or not Chavez is a threat is something for the government to decide. Robertson doesn't have any say on whether we go after him. His opinion is rather meaningless I think. I seriously doubt you'll see members of the 700 Club going down there to take out Chavez just because Robertson thinks it's the right thing to do. And as for the Rather story, why would Bush have to deny the story when everyone found out it was all a farce and Rather had to admit it himself? Why take the time to deny a story that everyone already new was fake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafs Suck Posted November 14, 2005 Author Share Posted November 14, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4427144.stm good ol' pat is back at it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 What is so wrong about introducing an alternative theory? There are millions of believe who believe that God created the universe. Bringing the theory up does not promote any particular religion, so what is so bad? Personally, I believe in a combination of the theories. The "big-bang" just doesn't make any sense to me. However, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve story, as most non-fundmentalists do not. I think that evolution exists, but there was something more than a big-bang behind the universe. If everything was born out of the bang, what could have possibly caused it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 are we really gonna have another theological debate? Can't we all agree that you shouldn't go around calling God's wrath on people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33_ Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Originally posted by simonusare we really gonna have another theological debate? Can't we all agree that you shouldn't go around calling God's wrath on people? Well, yeah, that part is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Originally posted by Fanpuck33... a big-bang behind the universe. If everything was born out of the bang, what could have possibly caused it? hmm... Boom-Boom Geoffrion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonus Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Originally posted by JeanLucPilon Originally posted by Fanpuck33... a big-bang behind the universe. If everything was born out of the bang, what could have possibly caused it? hmm... Boom-Boom Geoffrion? Jean Luc, why do you always have to go for the easy joke? It's obviously the Mighty Atom, Aurel Joliet! [Edited on 11/14/2005 by simonus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 Originally posted by simonus Originally posted by JeanLucPilon Originally posted by Fanpuck33... a big-bang behind the universe. If everything was born out of the bang, what could have possibly caused it? hmm... Boom-Boom Geoffrion? Jean Luc, why do you always have to go for the easy joke? It's obviously the Mighty Atom, Aurel Joliet! Gosh you're right I forgot my history -- the Atom came In The Beginning of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.