View Full Version : Pat Robertson proves once and for all that he's really the Anti-Christ
Robertson calls for assassination of Venezuela's Chavez (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html)
A self-proclaimed Christian calling for the assassination of someone. Is that a Christian thing to say? I'm just curious, not being a Christian. Wouldn't premeditated murder make baby Jesus cry? And yet, people "beeeeleeeev!" and send this idiot large amounts of money to keep spouting his insanity.
Ser Clegane
08-23-2005, 10:37
Well ... I have seen pretty much the same statement made on this board some time ago.
Does Robertson have relatives on this board, is he a patron himself? ... curious :thinking:
Oh! Heh, I just tried to imagine Pat Robertson playing MTW. The first time he was invaded by a Muslim nation he'd be off to appear on his TV show calling the guys at CA "tools of the devil" and calling for their assassinations or praying for God to "Take them out" as he did regarding the more liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine him playing the English and getting taken out by the French. That would really chap his ass.
Robertson may be getting senile, but one odd comment certainly does not qualify him as being "the Anti-Christ"
Just one odd comment?
The man keeps a pad of yellow legal-sized paper and writes down the personal messages frm God on it. I've seen him refer to it on his TV show.
Only one odd comment? Let's see.
He has stated that in a meeting with Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq, the president told him there would be no casualties. A claim the White House denies. For once, I believe the White House.
He has stated on the air that activist judges are more of a threat to America than terrorists.
He said on his show that a small nuke at the State Department in Foggy Bottom would shake things up.
He has said that the Quran teaches violence, which is incorrect. Odd coming from a man who openly espouses the killing of foreign leaders, wouldn't you say? I'm reasonably certain the Christian Bible doesn't allow for that kind of thing. Does it?
Calling him the anti-Christ is hyperbole. Yep. But no more than the hyperble he spouts on an almost daily basis. Senile? No. He's been saying crap like this for years. It isn't senility. It's the person.
Adrian II
08-23-2005, 11:27
I don't know any more about your anti-Christ than I do about your God, but Robertson's speech merely shows that religiously inspired terrorism is alive in the U.S. and it is not just islamic.
Ser Clegane
08-23-2005, 11:39
It's actually quite sad that looneys like him draw that much attention and - due to the air-time they get - have an out-of-proportion share in how people perceive religion, while many others - of all kinds of religions - who quietly and selflessly help other people in the name of their religion (and who represent the spirit of their religions in a more truthful way) often disappear as "background noise".
Ser Clegane
08-23-2005, 11:48
Those quiet altruists offset their value to society by promoting ignorant and backwards notions like Intelligent Design.
That might be the case in the US, but quite frankly, I personally don't know any person, no matter of which religion, who actively promoted, e.g., Intelligent Design.
They might believe in it, but that's completely their business not mine.
There would be altruists with or without religion.
Of course there would be, but religions that actually teach and promote altruism are likely to increase the number of altruists.
OTOH, one could argue that somebody like Pat Robertson would very likely be in favour of "taking out" Chavez even if he was an atheist.
Robertson is saying a lot of whacky stuff so i'm not gonna defend him
however i just read the article in full and on this particular point, he is correct:
We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one 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."
it certainly is a lot cheaper to assasinate a leader rather than start a war
in fact the USA tried to use missiles to assasinate Saddam at the start of the War on Iraq. and they called it a "decapitation strike" (how ironic is that ~:eek: ). this shows us that USA does indeed place high value on killing leaders ASAP.
note: this is just an observation. i do not mean to imply that anything needs to be done about the guy Robertson is talking about.
Assassination, for purely political reasons, hardly seems "Christian" to me. Then again, I long ago ceased wondering at the inability of self-proclaimed Christians to make their beliefs and reality match up on a one-to-one basis. ~;)
Ah sterotypical BS about Christianity.
[sarcasm on] Pat Robertson is an idiot most of the time - so then anyone who believes in Christianity is an idiot. [sarcasm off]
The logical of some is just amazing.
Others beside Pat Robertson need some serious :help:
el_slapper
08-23-2005, 16:07
Me follows Redleg. One "christian" telling BS doesn't mean christianism is about telling BS.
Same error than judging islam from Mohammed Atta, or communism from Stalin.
Thou shalt not kill, unless the son of a bitch is a godless communist or Muslim or pisses you off
Thou shalt not kill, unless the son of a bitch is a godless communist or Muslim or pisses you off
Actually it states something a little different and there is some question concerning the English Interpation of the orginal Hebrew Text.
The King James Verision of the Bible does indeed stated - Thou shall not kill.
A Biblical scholar writes
The sixth commandment: You shall not murder
a. Some have wondered how God can approve both capital punishment (Exodus 19:12) and this prohibition of murder. The simple answer is that in Hebrew as well as English, there is a distinction between to kill and to murder
b. Murder is the taking of life without legal justification (execution after due process) or moral justification (killing in defense)
c. Jesus carefully explained the heart of this commandment; it prohibits us from hating another also (Matthew 5:21-26). We can wish someone dead in our hearts, yet never have the "courage" to commit the deed - we aren't to be praised for such a lack of courage, when the heart is filled with hatred!
and then another source that goes back to the Hebrew text of the 10 commandments
6th Commandment; Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill."
The Hebrew word "ratsach" is translated as "kill" in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and some other translations of the Bible. However, it is difficult to apply this in practice. Killing chickens and beef cattle is legal now as it was in biblical times. Nobody today is concerned about pulling vegetables from the garden, even though it kills them. The word "ratsach" is commonly believed to describe the premeditated killing of a human. It requires that the victim be a human being. Many other translations translate "ratsach" as "murder" in this verse.
This Commandment is not absolute. Not all murders are forbidden. Hebrew Scriptures specify many grounds for which this commandment is to be ignored, and a guilty party executed. Persons found guilty of temple prostitution, engaged women who are seduced by a man other than her future husband, women who practice black magic, some women who are raped in urban areas, children who cursed their parents, some non-virgin brides, Jews who collect firewood on Saturday to keep their families from freezing, persons proselytizing in favor of another religion, persons worshiping a deity other than Yahweh, strangers who entered the temple, etc; all were to be executed.
A few centuries ago, it was believed that male sperm contained large numbers of tiny babies which only required a woman's womb to grow and be born. Under that belief system, masturbation could be considered an act of mass murder. We now know that pregnancy requires conception, and that a unique DNA is formed at that time. But society has never reached a consensus on the definition of when human personhood begins. Unfortunately, the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Bible appears to be ambiguous on this matter. Thus, it does not help us decide about when, if ever, abortions are acceptable. If the Bible had defined when the start of personhood occurs, there might not be so much conflict over abortion today.
There are tens of thousands of violations of this commandment yearly in North America. Most are done by criminals who shoot people. A few dozen murders are committed by civil servants, who are employed by the state to kill inmates on death row with premeditation. Soldiers are often called upon to murder other humans, sometimes in self-defense, and other times in order to achieve a military objective. There are other biblical passages and a great deal of theological reasoning which have provided justification for the latter two actions.
Joshua and his army violated this commandment on numerous occasional as they marched through Canaan, apparently with God's approval. They were often ordered by God to commit genocide by killing every Pagan man, woman, youth, child, and newborn who lived in various cities of Canaan.
Some pacifist Christians take this commandment very seriously. They will not violate this commandment, even during times of war. Quakers, Mennonites and others are frequently able to volunteer for alternate service during wartime in order to conform to this commandment.
Historically, many Christian groups interpreted the Commandment as if it read "Thou shalt not murder people inside your group." The Christian Church has committed genocide many times in its history, exterminating such groups as the Cathars and Knights Templar. Starting in the late 15th century and continuing for 300 years, both Protestants and Roman Catholics rounded up heretics. "witches," and suspected Satan worshipers; the church executed many tens of thousands of them -- often by burning them alive. The Crusades against the Muslims are another indication of the misuse of this Commandment. Defenseless Jews and Muslims were massacred by the invading armies. In recent times, Serbian Orthodox Christians organized a major religiously-motivated genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, largely against Muslims.
The Westminster Larger Catechism extends this commandment to include the "immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling," etc. It is not clear how they expanded the meaning of this verse to such an extreme.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm
Pat Robertson is completely wrong on this.
Attacking Christianity because of one individual knucklehead's comments because he has confused his religion with his politics is also sterotypical nonsense
Some of you are committing the same fallacies as Pat Robertson in your logic.
Its really rather amusing - should I attack some liberial idealog in such a way - many of you would scream that that idealog does not represent all liberal thought - and you would be correct. But when it comes to Christianity - many of you lose your ability to reason.
Ah passion is nice - but sterotypical attacks well are just that.
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 16:31
My favorite part was the reasoning:
“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it,” Robertson said. “It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.”
Translation: morally, the doctrine of assassination is indefensible in Christianity, but Chavez has a whole lot of oil, so I'll not just look the other way, I'll encourage it.
Jesus would be proud Pat, I'm sure.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 16:32
A self-proclaimed Christian calling for the assassination of someone. Is that a Christian thing to say? I'm just curious, not being a Christian. Wouldn't premeditated murder make baby Jesus cry?
We have the death penalty here andI believe most govenors who sign these are Christains. Being a christain doesnt make you better or more morale than anybody else. Theres all kinds of christains.
I'm reasonably certain the Christian Bible doesn't allow for that kind of thing. Does it?
The old testament certainly does.
He has stated on the air that activist judges are more of a threat to America than terrorists.
He may be correct.
He said on his show that a small nuke at the State Department in Foggy Bottom would shake things up.
You dont think it would? ~D
He has said that the Quran teaches violence, which is incorrect.
No its not.
Assasination should be a last resort. If wars were that easy, the army would be out of a job.
So you may agree with him but not yet?
in fact the USA tried to use missiles to assasinate Saddam at the start of the War on Iraq. and they called it a "decapitation strike" (how ironic is that ). this shows us that USA does indeed place high value on killing leaders ASAP.
In fact we assasinated his two children.
Look Robertson is a bit of a kook . It doesnt matter what his religion is he woud still feel the same. IF Chavez was really a threat to the US or if he were murdering people like Saddam in his own country I would support assasinating him. Right now he is just a pain in the butt.
Well, now that the local helmeted smacktards have come out to play; we can pretty much assume this thread is over.
Well, now that the local helmeted smacktards have come out to play; we can pretty much assume this thread is over.
Again look who is playing at being an child and claiming to be an adult.
So you want to attack others belief systems - but want yours to be left alone. LOL - very sterotypical behavior on your part.
Steppe Merc
08-23-2005, 17:12
It's quite easy to take insults... that way, it's more fair to throw insults. :bow:
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 17:12
I think perhaps a more interesting question is, "Is there any room in Christian theology for assassination for political/economic reasons?"
I would contend there is not. One could perhaps try to get some mileage by taking quotes from the NT out of context or pointing to the OT, but to me, it is absolutely clear that Jesus would have abhorred such things. I'm not a Christian, but I know that Jesus was a man of peace, and I also know that Robertson's words violate the spirit of Jesus' teachings.
Spetulhu
08-23-2005, 17:45
He has stated that in a meeting with Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq, the president told him there would be no casualties. A claim the White House denies. For once, I believe the White House.
Is the White House denying that the meeting took place? Or did this lunatic actually get to meet the President? ~:eek:
Shaka_Khan
08-23-2005, 18:19
Is the White House denying that the meeting took place? Or did this lunatic actually get to meet the President? ~:eek:
That's scary.
KafirChobee
08-23-2005, 18:19
I think perhaps a more interesting question is, "Is there any room in Christian theology for assassination for political/economic reasons?"
I would contend there is not. One could perhaps try to get some mileage by taking quotes from the NT out of context or pointing to the OT, but to me, it is absolutely clear that Jesus would have abhorred such things. I'm not a Christian, but I know that Jesus was a man of peace, and I also know that Robertson's words violate the spirit of Jesus' teachings.
And, that in fact is the point.
I really don't see anyone slamming Christianity - so much as questioning how those identifying with Christian dogma can support a Jihadist like Roberts. A person, regardless of faith that uses "scripture" (or their own standing in a religious community) to insite the racism and prejudices of other like minded people is a terrorist, and should be treated as such.
Were Roberts words to have come out of the mouth of a Moslum jihadist, he would certainly be on a watch list. Maybe he is - doubt it though, people that meet with "W" are generally considered like minded and bullet proof to the rules of law.
:balloon2:
Red Harvest
08-23-2005, 18:20
It is wrong for someone claiming to be a spiritual leader to be calling for assassination of legitimate heads of state. It's no better than if he was Mullah Robertson. Of course, Robertson's brand of religious fanatacism is what McCain spoke out against and took a drubbing for from the GOP voters.
Chavez is a bit nuts, and I don't like his politics (despite wanting to see reform), but unless he does some things that clearly put him out in former Qaddafi/Saddam territory, calling for his assassination is going a bit far.
And, that in fact is the point.
I really don't see anyone slamming Christianity - so much as questioning how those identifying with Christian dogma can support a Jihadist like Roberts. A person, regardless of faith that uses "scripture" (or their own standing in a religious community) to insite the racism and prejudices of other like minded people is a terrorist, and should be treated as such.
Roberts doesn't even follow Christian teachings - he preaches his own dogma. I sat down and watched his program for all of 5 minutes before I realized exactly what he was and what he was doing - and immediately turned the channel to MTV. And this was way back in the 1980's.
Were Roberts words to have come out of the mouth of a Moslum jihadist, he would certainly be on a watch list. Maybe he is - doubt it though, people that meet with "W" are generally considered like minded and bullet proof to the rules of law.
:balloon2:
Yes Roberts deserves to be on the watch list - plus several other religious fanatics in this country.
LOL - now that last sentence is funny. How idealog of you.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 18:38
I think perhaps a more interesting question is, "Is there any room in Christian theology for assassination for political/economic reasons?"
Many a Pope had people assasinated for just such reasons. Is there any room in Christian theology for war?
so much as questioning how those identifying with Christian dogma can support a Jihadist like Roberts
I saw nothing from him that says he wants Chavez killed for religous reasons. In this case his relgion has nothing to do with it.
Let me add this. I would prefer that national leaders be assasinated over war. The politicains start the wars let them be the ones who die for their ideals.
Spetulhu
08-23-2005, 19:11
Let me add this. I would prefer that national leaders be assasinated over war. The politicains start the wars let them be the ones who die for their ideals.
Too bad GW didn't accept Saddam's offer of a duel between the two leaders to settle matters.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 19:13
Too bad GW didn't accept Saddam's offer of a duel between the two leaders to settle matters.
Im fine with that. Their probably both pretty good shots. ~:)
Shaka_Khan
08-23-2005, 19:15
A wresting match would be good. ~D
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 19:23
Many a Pope had people assasinated for just such reasons.
True, but are you saying they were right to do so?
Is there any room in Christian theology for war?
I think there is space for a just war, at least in Catholic doctrine.
Augustine supported the wars of the Roman state to some extent, although he would have disagreed with the idea of promising Christians spiritual rewards for fighting (he would not have sanctioned crusades, I don't think).
The central point is that Jesus viewed war as something of this world, something Christians should generally avoid. He depicted it as an affliction they should suffer, not impose on others. The meek shall inherit the earth. The closest modern political analogue I believe would be Ghandi, with his philosophy of non-violent resistance. While wordsmiths might assert that assassination technically may not violate the letter of the few admonitions Jesus' left for us, assassination certainly violates their spirit.
Red Harvest
08-23-2005, 19:34
Im fine with that. Their probably both pretty good shots. ~:)
If Dubya's public hunting history is any measure he would have been in trouble...probably would have killed a U.N. observer or something. Doesn't help to be a good shot, if you can't identify your target properly. ~;)
(For those who are unaware, while Dubya was running for governor of Texas he accidentally shot a protected bird during a staged hunting event...then turned to gloat to the press about it, whereupon the stunned reporters informed him that he had shot the wrong bird.)
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 19:45
I think there is space for a just war, at least in Catholic doctrine.
So then do you think it would have benn more un christian to assasinate Hitler an end WW2 earlier or to fight it as was done? Does the end justify the means?
True, but are you saying they were right to do so?
I have no idea . You would have to go an a case by case basis.
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 20:01
So then do you think it would have benn more un christian to assasinate Hitler an end WW2 earlier or to fight it as was done? Does the end justify the means?
According to Christian doctrine? Augustine accepted that a war could occur to prevent a greater evil, including a heresy; whether Jesus would have agreed is debatable. Later Christian theorists developed a just war ideology that placed considerable limits on the use of force. There has to be some prior offense (causa) for a war to be legitimate. No one knew the future back in 1933.
Note, however, that the papacy refused to accept the Iraq war as a just war. There is little basis in Catholic doctrine for the notion of preemptive war.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 20:05
According to Christian doctrine? Augustine accepted that a war could occur to prevent a greater evil,
Then I would imagine he would support assasination also if it also was done to prevent a greater evil. Hes as bad as Robertson ~;)
Del Arroyo
08-23-2005, 20:17
Assassination ultimately creates instability which will only kill MORE commoners.
Assassination is only acceptable against targets which are TRULY illegitimate, who can successfully be written off as usurpers and rabble without any true civic support. Guerrilla leaders and mob bosses are good examples. Chavez is probably too legitimate, though.
DA
Gawain of Orkeny
08-23-2005, 20:34
Assassination is only acceptable against targets which are TRULY illegitimate, who can successfully be written off as usurpers and rabble without any true civic support.
I agree. I mean you cant just go bumping off anyone who dissagrees with you. Besides Don Cordelone is busy in Alaska right now ~D
But Im afraid some may take that as it being acceptable to assasinate GWB under those conditions after the 2000 election ~;)
PanzerJaeger
08-23-2005, 21:02
Huh, I said a while ago that it would be in the US's best interest to have him killed. Its dangerous to have an extreme socialist in control of any country, especially one as strategically important as Venezuela.
Its probably not a good thing for Robertson to be saying though, those type of things are better said in private meetings... but who really takes him seriously anyway?
I love it when leftists try and portray people like Robertson as the "Face of Christianity". ~D
some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-23-2005, 21:08
Wow, so many issues and themes -- quite a rich little thread.
On the Bible as a source:
In addition to the inevitable problems associated with translation (Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, Greek to divers others), we also have a dispute as to which sacred writings are worth of inclusion as canon. I, as a Catholic, acknowledge Tobit to be a part of the Bible whereas numerous others do not. The synod that originally codified the first version dispensed with numerous gospels, epistles, etc.
What is contained in the modern Bible, notably the King James version, represents the physical (if not spiritual) authorship of dozens of individuals written over a period of at least 14 centuries. There are numerous internal contradictions if one looks at the text on a line-by-line basis. Levitican proscriptions dominate orthodox Judaism to this day but have been doctrinally superceded by New Testament faiths, who nevertheless include Leviticus in the sacred text.
The larger purpose of the Bible as a whole is to bring us closer to God. It fulfills this purpose well. Individuals have tried to use it for milennia to justify their own pet theories and actions, and the inherent equivocality and varied style of the text mean that almost anyone can find a quotation or two to support nearly anything. Slavery, Witch-burning, Un-equal treatment for women have all been justified though biblical verse, yet today Western Society finds such beliefs immoral -- using the same book.
On Violence and Christianity
The New Testament takes a far more pacifistic tone than did the Old Testament. Jesus rarely resorted to violence, and what violence he did was largely against things as opposed to people. Christianity is not, however, the status of living a life in the manner of Christ. That is its perfect object, the unattainable goal to which we poor sinners strive -- but never quite attain.
Was Robertson's backhanded call for the assassination of Chavez appropriate? Of course not. Does that invalidate any of the good the Robertson may have done by bringing some people closer to their faith? Of course not. He has a "bully pulpit," but we can reject, agree with, or be influenced by what he says to the extent we wish. Ultimately, he only speaks for himself.
On US Policy
The US has discarded the use of Assassination as a tool of policy. Such a practice is, in the long run, self-defeating, since others can play the same game and then all political leaders are in jeopardy and paranoia and chaos take charge.
During open conflict, US doctrine calls for the decapitation of the enemy as a means of shortening the conflict and minimizing casualties on both sides. Had Saddam been killed in the first moments of the air campaign preceding Gulf 1, it is unlikely that any ground action would have been required -- saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis. When the enemy commander goes down your chances for a quick rout and fewer casualties tend to go up (unless your name is Pez' and you mercilessly hunt the routers to extinction anyway ~;) ).
Seamus
PanzerJaeger
08-23-2005, 21:18
some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?
Yes, I saw the same episode.
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 21:40
The US has discarded the use of Assassination as a tool of policy. Such a practice is, in the long run, self-defeating, since others can play the same game and then all political leaders are in jeopardy and paranoia and chaos take charge.
I agree with almost all of your post, except for this point. There was considerable debate about changing the prohibition on assassinations just recently; I'm not exactly sure how it all worked out. Nor do I trust the Bush administration to adhere to any reasonable definition of assassinations. They more or less defined 'torture' out of existence, and they're trying to do the same with 'genocide'. I see no reason why they won't do the same with 'assassination'.
I agree with almost all of your post, except for this point. There was considerable debate about changing the prohibition on assassinations just recently; I'm not exactly sure how it all worked out. Nor do I trust the Bush administration to adhere to any reasonable definition of assassinations. They more or less defined 'torture' out of existence, and they're trying to do the same with 'genocide'. I see no reason why they won't do the same with 'assassination'.
Where as the adminstration was able to play around with the term what constitutes torture. The adminstration is limited by the actual executive order that prohibits assassination as a method of foreign policy.
And if the adminstration ever changes that policy (The assassination policy) - I will be one of the first ones in Texas holding a sign next to Cindy Sheehan at the Crawford Ranch asking the President to explain himself.
Hurin_Rules
08-23-2005, 22:54
Where as the adminstration was able to play around with the term what constitutes torture. The adminstration is limited by the actual executive order that prohibits assassination as a method of foreign policy.
And if the adminstration ever changes that policy (The assassination policy) - I will be one of the first ones in Texas holding a sign next to Cindy Sheehan at the Crawford Ranch asking the President to explain himself.
Fair enough Redleg. I stand corrected. But there was a debate on it recently, right? I believe the Bush administration was involved.
Fair enough Redleg. I stand corrected. But there was a debate on it recently, right? I believe the Bush administration was involved.
Sorry for the emotional outburst - the concept of state sponsored assassination is one that the United States needs to stay away from. Its one thing to on purpose target political leaders in a nation which you are conducting a war against - its part of the conflict - but to kill national leaders outside of a war - is just well - wrong.
The law as written and cited in the following link.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf
On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333 on
“United States Intelligence Activities.” Section 2.11 of the order provides: “Prohibition on
Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government
shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 of the order prohibits
indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: “Indirect participation.
No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to
undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” E.O. 12333 is still in force.
It seems that some were questioning if the assassination ban applies to targeting terrorists.
But your right it has been discussed by many it seems as the way to conduct business in fighting terrorists..
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/columns/fl.dean.war.ce.0930/
http://www.peacenowar.net/Sep%2016%2001--CIA.htm
However when searching Executive Orders - I find no executive order or links to any order that rescinds EO 12333.
Red Harvest
08-23-2005, 23:20
Executive orders can be reversed by the present executive if memory serves. In fact, wasn't there something like this (executive order reversal) not that long ago...can't remember what it was.
Red Harvest
08-23-2005, 23:31
some time ago i saw some nutjub tele-evangelist on the daily-show actually praying for more seats to open up in the supreme court(i.e. praying for people to die simply because they disagree with his lunatic viewpoint....how christian of him)
.....we talking about the same nutjub here?
Same one. He ran for President in the GOP primaries in 1988. He had quite a few supporters, but the self destruction of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker about the same time certainly didn't help him.
Robertson is a nutjob, but with a large following.
Goofball
08-24-2005, 00:34
My favorite Pat quote:
The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
What century are you living in, Pat? I mean, witchcraft, for the love of Pete...
:dizzy2:
My favorite Pat quote:
What century are you living in, Pat? I mean, witchcraft, for the love of Pete...
:dizzy2:
actually on that particular quote, Robertson is correct. many witchcraft cults go hand in hand with feminism as does all the other stuff he mentioned (except maybe capitalism)
Seamus Fermanagh
08-24-2005, 03:14
actually on that particular quote, Robertson is correct. many witchcraft cults go hand in hand with feminism as does all the other stuff he mentioned (except maybe capitalism)
Actually, in the USA, some chapters of NOW have broken with the National HQ over this.
Too often of late, NOW has supported a left-wing political agenda to the exclusion of the promotion of women's issues -- didn't sit well with all of the membership.
I have nothing against witchcraft, it's fairly benign, and I suspect lesbianism is "hardwired," so it vexes me very little. Hopping on the anti-republican bandwagon, as opposed to hammering on equal pay for equal work, workplaces that accomodate a women's role as a mother, etc. has "back-burnered" women's issues, and it doesn't fit their stated mission.
Seamus
Too bad GW didn't accept Saddam's offer of a duel between the two leaders to settle matters.
Now that would have been cool!
I wonder if Vegas would have had a betting line?
And it definately would have been broadcast on pay-per-view, damn I woulda paid like $29
and the ads (read in overdramatic boxing ad promotion voice)
Saddam 'the butcher' Hussein vs George 'W' Bush
Smack - Down in Iraq -Town
This time, its for the oil!
with a lightwieght undercard
Pat 'Nutjob' Robertson v Hugo 'Lefty' Chavez
Hurin_Rules
08-24-2005, 04:40
Just say to them:
Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.
(Not sure if anyone will be old enough to get that one ~;) )
Just say to them:
Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.
(Not sure if anyone will be old enough to get that one ~;) )
Unfortunely I am more then old enough to get that one. ~:eek:
Papewaio
08-24-2005, 04:52
The average age of the Org is about 30 so plenty will get it...
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 05:01
Fundamentalism in USA?!!!!! ~:eek: ~;) . Wow. This really shocks me, if in the land of the brave and of the free exist such people that think like that,mmmm...
I ask just one question (that means a lot more than that of course): If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 05:29
: If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?
Not directly. ~D
Lets pray this dosent happen as socialism never works and Cuba is a great example. Again why would anyone want to emulate them? ~:confused:
PanzerJaeger
08-24-2005, 05:30
I ask just one question (that means a lot more than that of course): If Venezuela turns into a pure socialist state. Will USA invade them?
Yes.
Aurelian
08-24-2005, 06:12
The first thing I thought when I saw Robertson's comment was that Chavez must have stepped on one of Pat's little "investments".
It's worth remembering that Pat Robertson has long been the primary defender of former Liberian President Charles Taylor... an incredibly corrupt character who is hiding out in Nigeria to escape international prosecution for war crimes. Robertson lobbied hard to get the US government to lay off Taylor when the State Department was trying to get Taylor to leave Liberia. At the time, Robertson said:
"So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.'"
Well, it turns out that Robertson had a $8 million investment in Liberian gold mining that he had negotiated with Taylor. He stood to lose a lot if his crooked friend was removed from power. That's why he seemed to think at the time that the US didn't have the right to remove the "duly elected president of another country" (even though Taylor was widely seen as having stolen his election).
Of course, when Pat doesn't have an $8 million investment on the line it's apparently okay for the US to actually KILL duly elected presidents of other countries.
By the way, there isn't any doubt that Chavez various elections have been legitimate. Venezuela was crawling with election monitors during the last couple of elections, and the last polls I read showed he enjoyed a 70% approval rating.
As for Chavez's stance against US imperialism in Latin America... it's justified. Let's not forget that the Bush administration immediately recognized the leaders of the coup that tried to oust him in 2002. There are decades worth of examples throughout the region of US-backed coups that overthrew reform-oriented governments and installed corporate-friendly regimes.
Anyway, Pat Robertson really is a creepy little freak with a bad case of situational ethics. It's too bad that so many people take him seriously.
Wikipedia link on Hugo Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez)
Wikipedia on Pat Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson)
Wikipedia on Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor)
Article on Robertson & Taylor's Relationship (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_rob_taylor.htm)
Aurelian
08-24-2005, 06:19
Let's also not forget that Pat and Jerry Falwell went on the air after 9/11 and proceeded to lay out their theory that the attacks on America were the vengeance of God brought on us by their usual culture-war villains. Here's what they said:
JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters - the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats--what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time--calling upon God.
PAT ROBERTSON: Amen LINK (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770_1.html)
Of course, they both had to apologize profusely after that exchange, but it just shows how sick and twisted their version of reality is, and how they'll use anything (even 9/11) to further their little culture war.
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 06:30
Yes.
Well we've a real politician here. But i will talk like a politician too. If you invade Venezuela then Argentina and all South America will turn over you (probably the rest of the world too).
Now talking like some one that hates "witchhunters", i will stay as militia (because i don't have any military training) and when i cross you on the field i will take you and torture you we backstreet boys music until you ask for mercy.
Some people in USA still asks why they are hated. Well you have gived the fundamentalist groups and the terrorist the best proof that they could ever find.
And Gawain of Orkeny: Care to find information about the "Commune of Paris" or the speech of Trotski about potencial communism on England. That one thing never worked it's not suffient prove to say that it will never work, tough it worked.
Guess what is the other thing that never worked...Democracy.
Anyway that doesn't give you the right, in actual times, to just invade the country and make what you want, even if Chavez is killing a bunch of people.
VAE VICTUS
08-24-2005, 06:32
~:confused: ok im a christian and i KNOW this guy is LOONEY! ~D (besides dumb stupid, oh maybe INSANE?)
do we have any proof of anything he is doing wrong?
dont know why people wacth tele-evangelists. :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:
maybe nietzche was right,"there was only one true evangel..."(reffering to jesus)
and i would that hes to dumb to be anti christ.
PanzerJaeger
08-24-2005, 06:38
Well we've a real politician here. But i will talk like a politician too. If you invade Venezuela then Argentina and all South America will turn over you (probably the rest of the world too).
Now talking like some one that hates "witchhunters", i will stay as militia (because i don't have any military training) and when i cross you on the field i will take you and torture you we backstreet boys music until you ask for mercy.
Some people in USA still asks why they are hated. Well you have gived the fundamentalist groups and the terrorist the best proof that they could ever find.
A stupid question required a stupid answer. I apologize if you took that seriously, it was just in fun.
A stupid question required a stupid answer. I apologize if you took that seriously, it was just in fun.
Ah but you have to see the question from a South American perspective - The United States has indeed meddled heavily in many countries in the America's - to the point that much hostility is present.
Notice Soulforged use of the term Yankee - a term of dis-respect toward North Americans from the United States, without being insulting. There is a worse term - that is an actual insult - but Yankee is an indication of the passion ie emotional level raising on the issue.
PanzerJaeger
08-24-2005, 06:53
Indeed. A smiley was in order to avoid confusion.
You know, maybe the reason everyone apparently hates Americans is because they dont get our humor. :idea:
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 07:11
Indeed. A smiley was in order to avoid confusion.
You know, maybe the reason everyone apparently hates Americans is because they dont get our humor. :idea:
Don't apolagize maybe you're the only honest. But the question was not to be answered it was just for ironic porposes, maybe was you who didn't understand my joke.
The next time that you want to make a joke then put things like ~;) ~D ~:) . So i understand your "humor". It's so easy to make jokes about things that will not happen to you.
Back on fun: I understand your humor, but it's sooooo bad :rtwno:.
Kaiser of Arabia
08-24-2005, 07:30
Well ... I have seen pretty much the same statement made on this board some time ago.
Does Robertson have relatives on this board, is he a patron himself? ... curious :thinking:
I confess, I think he had a good idea here. ~:grouphug: (i.e. takes cover behind 4 other patrons)
Del Arroyo
08-24-2005, 07:37
Americans do use alot more sarcasm and subtlety than, well, at least Mexicans. I know that whever I speak to Mexicans (educated or not) I have to turn sarcasm off and say what I mean.
The Mexican sense of humor is more geared toward word play and penis jokes. I suspect this may be largely true of the rest of the Latin world.
DA
Soulforged
08-24-2005, 08:08
Americans do use alot more sarcasm and subtlety than, well, at least Mexicans. I know that whever I speak to Mexicans (educated or not) I have to turn sarcasm off and say what I mean.
The Mexican sense of humor is more geared toward word play and penis jokes. I suspect this may be largely true of the rest of the Latin world.
DA
Or you're sadly right!! But it's real good, what makes more fun than sexuality. ~D
Productivity
08-24-2005, 08:44
Just say to them:
Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.
(Not sure if anyone will be old enough to get that one ~;) )
I am not old enough to get that - yet I do :help:
Americans do use alot more sarcasm and subtlety than, well, at least Mexicans. I know that whever I speak to Mexicans (educated or not) I have to turn sarcasm off and say what I mean.
The Mexican sense of humor is more geared toward word play and penis jokes. I suspect this may be largely true of the rest of the Latin world.
DA
I feel exactly the same talking to Americans...
Adrian II
08-24-2005, 12:08
Just say to them:
Relax, don't do it
When you want to go to it.Relax, don't do it
When you want to come
Oh yes ~:cool:
Shambles
08-24-2005, 12:23
Thought it was
Relax. Go to it...
When you want to do it.
It was a song about homosexual sex.
R O F L M F A O
Well ... I have seen pretty much the same statement made on this board some time ago.
Does Robertson have relatives on this board, is he a patron himself? ... curious :thinking:
Hurin_Rules
08-24-2005, 17:30
I thought Relax was about masturbation.
But I was also referring to the video: some people had been asking whether it would be a good idea for W. and Saddam to have had a duel to decide things. In Frankie Goes to Hollywood's video, Reagan and the Russian leader (its not Gorbachev, is it? Can't remember) have a big fight, so I thought the reference was appropriate.
Anyway, one more thing about Robertson's insane rant has struck me. He says Chavez is turning his land into a haven for communism and Muslim extremism. Communism AND Muslim extremism? Now that would be quite a feat. Last I checked, there weren't a lot of Muslims in Venezuela, and communism and Muslim extremism are not natural allies. The Soviets and Communist Chinese are not big fans of radical Islam, let me tell you. How exactly were Muslims supposed to flourish in a state that is officially atheist and denies the existence of God? Or was Robertson just speaking out of complete ignorance, as I suspect is more likely the case.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
08-24-2005, 18:58
Christianity seems to be doing ok in China.
And elements of the European left and the nutjob section of Islam seem to be getting on just fine.
Red Harvest
08-24-2005, 18:59
Anyway, one more thing about Robertson's insane rant has struck me. He says Chavez is turning his land into a haven for communism and Muslim extremism. Communism AND Muslim extremism? Now that would be quite a feat. Last I checked, there weren't a lot of Muslims in Venezuela, and communism and Muslim extremism are not natural allies. The Soviets and Communist Chinese are not big fans of radical Islam, let me tell you. How exactly were Muslims supposed to flourish in a state that is officially atheist and denies the existence of God? Or was Robertson just speaking out of complete ignorance, as I suspect is more likely the case.
Yep, I was chuckling over that too. Of course he was speaking out of complete ignorance. He wanted to dismantle the Dept. of Education when he was running for President, LOL.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-24-2005, 19:03
Yep, I was chuckling over that too
Shows you what a nut job this guy is when he has me agreeing with Hurin and Red Harvest. ~D How many have been converted to Islam since Chavez took over?
It's all a plot, you see. Chavez and Castro are actually members of the Trilateral Commission and good buddies with Henry Kissinger. They're just hoping that their rhetoric will get them accepted as novices in the Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich; so they've cleverly enlisted the aid Islamist extremists and the spirit of Lenin to create a situation designed to make poor Pat Robertson look bad and delay the Epoxyclypse. But, Pat Robertson, bolstered by the support of a Christian Army raised with money from Superglue and Elmers will struggle on to bring about the Epoxyclypse anyway. Closely followed by the Rupture, which is when the army discovers that carrying the load of the future of humankind is rather wearying and they all suddenly develop herniated discs and limp about proclaiming "Oh! Oh! I think I Ruptured something!"
That's my basic understanding of it all anyway.
Hurin_Rules
08-24-2005, 21:09
And when push comes to shove, we see Robertson's true character. Man enough to admit responsibility and apologize? Not at all. Apparently, all the reporting was just part of a left wing conspiracy to discredit him:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html
The problem is, of course, that his remarks are now part of the public record, and we have both the text and the context. I quote:
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.
Hurin_Rules
08-24-2005, 22:12
Looks like he has changed his tune now though:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/
Red Harvest
08-24-2005, 22:31
Looks like he has changed his tune now though:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/
Still hard to tell what he is saying...he said earlier today that he didn't say "assassinate." Now he is saying he did. Wanna make a bet that a year from now it will be spun as if he never said it, and it was all just a fabrication?
It is very much like his prayer for openings in the Supreme Court. Everyone knows what he said, but that is not the story you will hear later.
men like Robertson who do not have the cojones to stick by their statements and thusly cower once the "public outcry" becomes too harsh, are hypocrites who give Christianity a bad name
Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.
Pretty much sums this episode up. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians who represent the antithesis of Jesus' teachings. Wouldn't know "love thy neighbor as thyself" from "relax, don't do it."
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.