Reply
Mon 22 Aug, 2005 09:02 pm
And someone castigated me here because I called him a nutcase!
Source CNN
maybe he's testing the waters for another run for the presidency.
roger wrote:I should go cruise CNN.
It may not be on the site yet, please post it if it is.
if he *is* running for president, i guess he's writing off the Hispanic vote, as well as any voters with common sense.
Thanks for the paste and links.
He also wrote me off, but hey, nothing changes. He's been the lunatic fringe for years.
"Hugo Chavez calls for the assassination of Pat Robertson"
I can see the screaming right wing nutbars now. Oh if you are one, relax, it's just me winding you up
It's on the news on NPR this morning. Just one question: why is this psychotic allowed to walk the streets? I mean, we used to have asylums for people like that. I know the mental health budget is at an all-time low but surely we could find a safe place for the troubled Robertson. To think that this cretin actually has had presidential aspirations gives one an overwhelming sense of despair.
Why are you concerned about what this radical nutcase has to say?
He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.
woiyo wrote:Why are you concerned about what this radical nutcase has to say?
He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.
What sort of connections does he have? Is he one of the mega-rich? Does he have some sort of media outlet he can use to spray his lunatic ideas through? Does he contribute lots of money to political causes? If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then you might have an answer.
Phoenix32890 wrote:woiyo wrote:He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.
Oh, I disagree. I think that he has a lot of influence, on many people, who hang on to his every word. If he were just anyone, his thoughts would not have been on NPR this morning.
Now if one of his followers, who IS mega-rich and influential, happens to share the same lunatic ideas as his, there just might be trouble.
Yeah, I just heard this on NPR too.
I totally agree with you Phoenix, the Conservative Christian Right has just as much potential to become a terrorist group as any other sector that is under surveilence.
Who's watching them?
woiyo wrote:Why are you concerned about what this radical nutcase has to say?
He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.
Kinda like Ms. Sheehan. Oh wait, but we can't question her because....why was that again? Oh yeah, because the left says so.
EDITED NOTE: I am not a big fan of Mr. Robertson simply because he says things such as this without thinking about what he is saying.
CoastalRat wrote:woiyo wrote:Why are you concerned about what this radical nutcase has to say?
He is in no position of influence and not involved in legislation . He is just a private citizen with an opinion.
Kinda like Ms. Sheehan. Oh wait, but we can't question her because....why was that again? Oh yeah, because the left says so.
I think you'll find that unlike Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Robertson is advocating the murder of a living being.
It doesn't matter if it's an assassination. It is still a pre-meditated act of killing of someone who is alive and can think and feel, which is, a murder.
I get it. So we are talking degrees of statements and actions. Some statements/actions, those deemed worse than others, open an individual to criticism, name-calling, motive questioning and such, while other less offending speech/actions should not be questioned?
So who decides where the line is drawn? I am not attempting to defend what Mr. Robertson said, just trying to understand the hypocrisy of those who believe it is justified to call him names, etc while saying people have no right at all to question the motives of Ms. Sheehan.
Don't worry about it. No one is taking the idiot seriously.
CoastalRat wrote:I get it. So we are talking degrees of statements and actions. Some statements/actions, those deemed worse than others, open an individual to criticism, name-calling, motive questioning and such, while other less offending speech/actions should not be questioned?
So who decides where the line is drawn? I am not attempting to defend what Mr. Robertson said, just trying to understand the hypocrisy of those who believe it is justified to call him names, etc while saying people have no right at all to question the motives of Ms. Sheehan.
Out of curiosity who is saying we have no rights to question the motives of Ms. Sheehan?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace