Robertson apologizes - He was misunderstood. Any takers on this one?
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-08-25
In Reply to:
See link.
LINK/URL: Talk left
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
McKinney apologizes for scuffle with officer..sm
We've heard a lot about this story, and I think Cynthia was in the wrong. She should have gone through the check point and not around it, and explained who she was, and most importantly had her ID on. Maybe she thought since she had been in congress since 1992 they would recognize her by now. Maybe it was a reflex hit. Who knows? Either way she should not have swung on the officer.
Surely republicans with their forgiving hearts and *everyone makes mistakes* attitude will accept her apology and move on. NOT. See link.
No takers.
nm
no takers? why? now with all that being
I would rather have Joe Biden up there any day than Obama.
What? No takers? No surprise there.
nm
I doubt you would get very many takers if you secluded them! nm
x
Pat Robertson
Like I told gt below I don't echo Pat Robertson. However, Cindy Sheehan has said as much about our president but in much more vulgar verbage. Don't lump us into all being Pat Robertson followers, because it just ain't so.
You must have Pat Robertson
running through your veins. You're totally whacked.
Get some help.
Robertson, Falwell, et al. are the very same
people who publicly claim that they and their followers are the only people who are good enough to go to heaven. It's easy for Americans to just dismiss these snake oil salesmen and their followers as whackos, just laugh at them and brush them off as having no importance.
You're right. The inmates are going to be running the asylum if Harriet Miers becomes a Supreme Court Justice, and America will continue its downward 5-year spiral backwards time. I already wrote to Senator Harry Reid a couple days ago, basically asking what he was thinking when he was hoodwinked by Bush and Miers. I've also written to many of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee. I obviously don't live in all of their states, but at the federal level, I feel my voice is just as important in such a serious matter as this. I do live in Senator Specter's state, and he will probably be tired of hearing from me before it's all said and done.
I hope those who have strong concerns about precisely the things described in the article you posted do the same and write to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee...unless you're okay with the Bible replacing the Constitution and the inmates running the asylum.
As far as God's actual involvement in all this, I'm starting to wonder if God is getting fed up with the inherent evil of this White House and all the lies and corruption that accompany it. Maybe it's actually God's love and pursuit of the truth that will result in Bush's house of cards toppling over in the next few weeks as, one by one his scandals, are revealed to the world and hopefully many indictments will be handed out. 
Like Pat Robertson calling for
of Chavez? Or telling the people of Dover not to pray to God 'cause God won't answer? Must be nice to have such a straight line to the Lord God. Yeah, that's REAL Christianity alright.
Too bad Robertson doesn't look in the mirror.
We have our own Taliban right here in the U.S...so-called Christians calling for people's assassinations, etc. And the darling of the right, Coulter, *joking* that Justice Stevens should be poisoned? Makes me wonder who is really *satanic* and *crazed fanatics*? Apparently my copy of the New Testament is different than theirs. Robertson in his infinite wisdom comparing Mohammed to a politician?
From the March 13 broadcast of CBN's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: Imagine one cartoon, one cartoon showing Mohammad with a turban with a missile out of it. I mean, we have stuff like that, that is vastly worse against our politicians all the time. It's part of free expression. The fact that this elicited this incredible outpouring of rage just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power; it is satanic; and it's time we recognize what we are dealing with. But, political correctness will not face one religious ideology with the strength of another because they don't have the strength of another. And, so, they're caving in before this vicious assault, and the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. These people are saying it over there in Europe -- world domination. We're going to take over Europe. We're going to take over England. We're going to take over Denmark. We're going to take over France. That's their goal! And, why don't we wake up to the fact of who we're dealing with? And, by the way, Islam is not a religion of peace.
I didn't agree with Pat Robertson either. sm
However, I doubt Chavez offer came free of strings. I am glad we did not accept his help. He has shown himself for what he is.
You must mean Falwell, Robertson and Hagee, who also
Here's a few more points you may want to mull over:
The idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe (who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator) blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.
The phrases "anti-American" and "America-haters" are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never, because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. Do Obama haters believe that those individuals are anti-American radicals and that people who allow their children to belong to their churches are exercising grave errors of judgment?
To subscribe to this paradox is wildly understating the magnitude of the association between "anti-American" white evangelicals and Republican leaders. By all accounts, George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters as weighty as whether to invade Iraq. Isn't that a big scandal, that the President is consulting with an American-hating minister, someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country, about vital foreign policy decisions? No, it wasn't controversial at all.
John Hagee privately visits with the highest level Middle East officials in the White House and afterwards pronounces that they're in agreement. John McCain shares a stage with Hagee and lavishes him with praise, as Rudy Giuliani did with Pat Robertson. James Inhofe remains a member in good standing in the GOP Senate Caucus. The Republican Party has tied itself at the hip to a whole slew of "anti-American extremists"…people who believe that the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attacks because God wants to punish us for the evil, wicked nation we've become…and yet there is virtual silence about these associations.
Nor have the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers," received a fraction of the attention generated by Wright. As both David Corn and Alan Colmes, among others, have documented, Parsley espouses views at least as extreme and radical as Wright, including his proclamation that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed." Unlike Wright and Obama, for whom the former's controversial views are found nowhere near the latter's public or private conduct , both George Bush and John McCain's Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent.
The Republican Party long ago adopted as a central strategy aligning itself with, and granting great influence to, the most radical, "America-hating" white evangelical Christian ministers in the country. They're given a complete pass on that because political orthodoxy mandates that white evangelical Christian ministers are inherently worthy of respect, no matter how extreme and noxious are their views. That orthodoxy stands in stark contrast to the universally enraged reaction to a few selected snippets from the angry rantings of a black Christian Minister. What accounts for that glaring disparity?
WH refuses to condemn Robertson's statement.
It's just amazing that our own President won't stand up and condemn this kind of terrorism - using the US airwaves to threaten assasination of foreign leaders, by a religious leader no less. Tough on terrorism? OK, so...when?
I tell you, I didn't know that Pat Robertson tried to get on the republican ticket in 1988...sm
and I was enjoying the 700 club last year. They have some good Christian stories on there and motivational things that I actually liked. That was until one day Pat started talking politics and throwing his opinions around as if they were God's. That show hasn't gotten a rating point from me since then. He's definitely a radical in my book.
Robertson to build theme park in Israel; Jews unwilling to convert
Plans for Holy Land theme park on Galilee shore where Jesus fed the 5,000
· Evangelical groups and Israel on brink of deal
· Some Israelis fear motives of US Christian right Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
Wednesday January 4, 2006
Guardian The Israeli government is planning to give up a large slice of land to American Christian evangelicals to build a biblical theme park by the Sea of Galilee where Jesus is said to have walked on water and fed 5,000 with five loaves and two fish.
A consortium of Christian groups, led by the television evangelist Pat Robertson, is in negotiation with the Israeli ministry of tourism and a deal is expected in the coming months. The project is expected to bring up to 1 million extra tourists a year but an undeclared benefit will be the cementing of a political alliance between the Israeli rightwing and the American Christian right.
However, the alliance has not been welcomed by all Israelis, including some who fear the ultimate aim of the evangelicals is the conversion of the Jews to Christianity rather than support for Israel.
Jonathan Pulik, a spokesman for the Israeli ministry of tourism, said the Christian market was very important for Israel's tourism industry. We would like to give them more of a reason to come here. We would be willing to lease the land to them free of charge and they would finance the construction.
The site of the centre, covering nearly 50 hectares (125 acres) and provisionally called the Galilee World Heritage Park, would be north-east of the Mount of the Beatitudes where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and Capernaum which was described as the town of Jesus in the Bible. It would feature a garden and nature park, an auditorium, a Holy Land exhibition, outdoor amphitheatres, information centre and a media studio.
The ministry of tourism estimates the total cost would be $48m (£28m). Mr Pulik also pointed out that the project would bring large numbers of jobs to the area. Mr Robertson said in a statement that he was fully cooperating with the project but no deal had been formalised. He said he was thrilled that there will be a place in the Galilee where evangelical Christians from all over the world can come to celebrate the actual place where Jesus Christ lived and taught.
The Sea of Galilee is more reminiscent of the Scottish Highlands than the Middle East, particularly in winter and spring when the hills are green. The existing Christian sites are picturesque and understated oases of calm and there is even a Church of Scotland hotel and church in Tiberias, the main town in the area.
A major part of the shore of the Sea of Galilee was Syrian until it was conquered by Israel in 1967. Syria and Israel are still officially in a state of war and Syria insists the return of the Golan Heights and the Galilee shore is a prerequisite for peace.
Uri Dagul, the project coordinator, said the land issues would be concluded within a few weeks and then the final details would be agreed between the Israeli government and the Christian communities which are primarily American evangelical churches.
The American Christian right, best known for television evangelism and its stars such as Mr Robertson and Jerry Falwell, has been among the strongest supporters of Israel in the US.
The primary reason is that according to the Old Testament, Israel was given to the Jews by God. Fundamentalist Christians believe that in order for Jesus to return, two preconditions are Jewish control of the land of Israel and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity.
Yossi Sarid, a former government minister and member of the Knesset, said he was wary of the friendship of the American Christian right and projects such as the Galilee centre. He said: I am not enthusiastic about this cooperation because I have no desire to be cannon fodder for the evangelists.
As a Jew, they believe I have to vanish before Jesus can make his second appearance. As I have no plans to convert, as an Israeli and a Jew, I find this a provocation. There is something sinister about their embrace.
Avraham Hirschson, the Israeli tourism minister, said: I'm not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists, and they're friends of Israel.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
I believe you misunderstood
By scholarly articles I meant:
--characterized by careful evaluation and judgment; a critical reading; a critical dissertation. --
The comment was not meant to be disdainful at all. Scholarly articles would mean from a university or from experts or those who have studied their topic deeply rather than a blog, forum, editorial, cafe conversation, etc., although those sources do not rule out that they could as well be scholarly. I meet periodically at the local cafe with a retired university professor whose life-long passion it the middle east, having lived there and speaks it fluently. I consider his knowledge to be scholarly.
you misunderstood........
I am truly anti-McCain and completely Pro-Obama..........the "black" was not in reference to what I saw as in race............I don't know what the f it was! Child's imagination? Could very well be...........my parent's had race horses and most of the grooms were African-American.........my father, raised in a rich family, saw firsthand the horrors racism imposed on these hard-working men who were his good friends.......I was raised different than a lot of people. My parents were very active in civil rights during the late 50s through the 60s. My father's grooms were jailed just for having nice cars!!! (they were paid WELL, not USED).
you have misunderstood
and taken my post in the wrong way. Sometimes I DO think. That has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
maybe i misunderstood
said above it's a felony??
you misunderstood me
pa percentage based on income. Meaning if I make $30,000 a year, and pay 10% in taxes, then I would pay $3,000 in taxes. If I make $100,000, then I would pay $10,000 in taxes.
I think you misunderstood me...
Your mind is evil, if you think tht O should stop campaigning.
I think you misunderstood not only
what Obama said, but also my post.
You misunderstood......
It's past time for the rich to pay their fair share. I see this country becoming unlivable and chaotic due to the current economic crisis which I do not see being healed by a patched up stimulus package. I think the rich should pay their fair share and the only way to hurt them is in the wallet. Now....if I could find a coherent plan to do just that - I would. I already boycott Wal-Mart because of their business practices. As a matter of fact, I routinely boycott most department stores and resort to the Salvation Army or Goodwill for household goods (such as casserole dishes, wine glasses, housewares, etc.). I figure, with my current personal economic crisis, it is the only way I can give back to the community.
Well perhaps we are simply misunderstood
like this:
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you. —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005
Wow! Brazil is big. —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil,
If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging people to return at this moment of history. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2005
The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere. —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
I can only speak to myself. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
After all, Europe is America's closest ally. —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. —George W. Bush, ABC's 20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005
I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your sacrifice. —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla.
Bush is just misunderstood.
The subject was troops, not coups. The events surrounding the Diem coup are to this day murky at best. Kennedy’s original support of South Vietnamese troops was an attempt bolster their ability to resist invasion from the north. He was not responsible South Vietnamese policy or goals the officers or some govt officials had against Diem. Kennedy and his advisors acknowledged the possibility of coup since Diem was notoriously unpopular with his own people. The South Vietnamese and their military openly promoted their coup (not Kennedy’s). Kennedy inherited Viet Nam policy from Eisenhower who had already sent some soldiers there. He sent an additional 15,000 or so. He did not support direct involvement of US troops in Vietnam, despite the declarations he made in his inauguration speech. If he had, he would have sent many, many more than he did.
Reference was made to Clinton’s Somalia and Kosovo policy. Now it’s Iraq. Clinton’s regime change ideas showed up after the Gulf War, which some felt had not gone far enough. US engaged with the Saudis in response to invasion of Kuwait by Saddam. HW Bush also used the WMD argument to justify US involvement in reference to the chemical and biological agents Saddam used against the Kurds and Iranians. Clinton and Clarke did not invent these issues and regime change was a policy which democrat and republican leaders before him had carried out, and one that he did not pursue. What he did do was spend most of his presidency supporting the UN weapons inspections to confirm suspicions, accusations and speculation. No conclusive proof was found, then or now. Clinton did not invent proof, nor did he disregard the findings of the UN inspectors. Bush did.
Democrats were the ones who organized the protests against the war and were endlessly critical of LBJ as they were of Nixon. Republicans jumped onboard in time. Demonization from all sides and plenty of it to go around.
The question of Bush’s lies are explored in depth in the pages of those books. No need to say too much on that, but it will be interesting to see how the forged letter thing plays out. The list simply represents the other side of these issues and is provided for those who may be interested in those ideas. There are mountains of evidence of lies to be found. It would be more fair to consider that as well. No real purpose can be served by personal attacks on the authors. Of course they are partisan. Aren’t we all? Books sell. Authors make money. That does not mean that they are motivated only by that. It is the ideas on the pages that need the attention.
The congressional approval was under republican majority, based on grossly inaccurate information. Over 100,000 deaths, the carnage and a budget surplus of 559 billion dollars replaced by a deficit 482 billion dollars (net loss of more than a trillion dollars) behind a war over invisible WMDs and fictitious ties to Al-Quaeda is not rational. Without this lunacy, our economy would not be in the shape it is in today and there would not be countless hundreds of thousands of family members left behind grieving the loss of their loved ones, soldiers and civilians alike. With all these consequences to pay, there is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to tell the truth when war is waged and there is no shame in searching for it until it is found. The republican congress approved what Bush and Cheney asked for. The buck stops at the top.
I must have misunderstood your post . . .
When you wrote "That's when the letter was dated. It could have been written the day he released it." I thought you were implying that something more underhanded was happening, and they were lying about when the letter was written.
I guess I missed your point entirely.
You misunderstood my answer, but no need to....
further beat that dead horse.
A tanning bed is not wasteful. Because she is a governor she can't have a tanning bed? She should forego anything personal in the house she is going to live in for 2 years? Geez, look what the Clintons carried OUT of the White House...lol. Let's have a little perspective here.
If something said about her is justified or there is not another side to the story I do not post. But so far, it has just been malicious attacks with no substance, and yes, I do defend her in those. Just like your side defends Obama or Biden.
Look, when I compare all four of these people, the good and the bad, for me it is a no brainer. I don't want redistribution of wealth socialism, government controlled health care socialism, a man with a personal agenda he wants to use the White House to further. I want someone who is there for me. Putting country first above ANY agenda be it party or personal. And that is why I am voting for McCain.
Most of the time when I respond to a post it is not whether the post is "right" or "wrong." Most of the posts don't have the whole story and assume something that is not the case. I don't do those kinds of posts and if I do am proven wrong, I say so. That is why I never posted anything about Obama being a Muslim...because I don't know if he is or not, and no one has proven to me that he is. So I don't post things like that if there is nothing to back it up. I didn't post the lipstick on a pig thing because I am not convinced that he was talking about Palin when he said it...though the people listening to him obviously thought he was. I didn't post anything about the brother in Kenya because who knows what is true about that and what does it have to do with him running for President?
That is what I mean, and that is what I try to do, just like supporters of the other ticket do, that is when they are not attacking me personally...which, by the way...has nothing to do with either ticket running for the Presidency.
Have a good day, Maxie!
i think you misunderstood my point entirely
duh
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
I think that the McCain campaign is currently on a suicide mission and have been trying to get some sort of response on that issue...ANY response that does not include hate speech. So far, I've only gotten one bite and the rest is, well.....hate speech. Are you in Ohio? Our early voting starts next Monday and I will be there with bells on.
You misunderstood. Gourpainter was...
condemning people on this board who she said incited those skinheads to plot to assassinate Obama. And I said to her, how many skinheads do you think are on this board? What I was saying is that I don't think anyone on this board was responsible for inciting skinheads. I said the Jeremiah Wright sermons were probably much more responsible for inciting skinheads than this board could ever be. So why are you attacking me? Do YOU think people on this board incited skinheads to assassinate Obama???
hope i was not misunderstood
my response was to Amanda saying GM should have had an on-call system instead of paying people for being there and not working. I was simply saying they would be paying them anyway for being on call. I was not responding in any way to the post about DHL. It sounds like what DHL did was totally unconscienable. I do not know what the situation was, but it sounds completely horrible.
But I have to tell you, I do take offense to the "snotsdale" comment. I have a daughter and son-in-law (and grandchild) in scottsdale, who are very hard working and decent people and not at all "snots" as you would put it. Those types of generalizations you are making are unfair and unwarranted and hurt people such as my daughter and her family. It's just a whole other set of prejudices. Please judge people as individuals, not based on their zip code or any other random criteria.
No one said that at all, not "die" - you misunderstood
poster did not say that!
You misunderstood...it was not a sob story.....
I am so grateful my granddaughter "flew" in under the radar. Who knows if my daughter would have had an abortion? I am so eternally grateful that she didn't.BUT, you still didn't change my mind. I still stand by my original statement that women should have the right to choose, whether WE/YOU/I like it or not.
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.
I, and most of the people I know, don't think that government should be involved in our lives on a day-to-day basis. We think that government should only do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--deal with foreign entities, defend our borders, create laws, maintain our infrastructure.
Government gets away with all they do because we do not hold them accountable. We are too busy attacking each other instead, which is not productive of anything and the way those in government like it. Just because I think we will need to work together to do what is best for our country does not mean I expect government to cater to my every need. In point of fact, it has been my experience that the more the government gets involved, the more screwed up things become.
I misunderstood your post and re-read it
You are right. When I first read it I thought what does one have to do with the other. I did not see the point you were making.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just misunderstood your point.
All I say is the DC crowd sure has a bunch of "winners" and they are falling on both sides.
I'll tell you what....why don't we have a total wipeout of every person in congress. Everyone go home. Let's wipe the slate clean. Every senator needs to be recalled and a whole new vote take place (not talking bout the "big guy" just the sleezeballs in congress). Then have another election. I guarantee there would be some new faces to DC.
You misunderstood - I'll speak slower
I never said, 'What's in it for me?'
My point was that you can't single out a section of the economic participants and think it will be perceived as equitable.
You can't say, 'let's help home owners' without disenfranchising non-home owners. You can't take cash from one group (taxpayers who rent) and throw it at another group (taxpayers who own houses) and pretend that it's fair.
Across-the-board or nothing at all. Surely even you can grasp that simple concept, no?
Michele Bachmann the misunderstood" A trap was
Apologizing afer her democratic Minnesota 6th district opponent received nearly $1 million in contributions in the aftermath of her HUAC statement, delivered with heated fervor. Might be more convincing if she weren’t trying to blame the guy who asked the question. Republican National Congressional Finance Committee is pulling her ads and running for the hills. Meanwhile, Tinklenberg ads will blanket the land after receiving additional backing from the Democratic National Congressional Finance Committee. She stepped into something all right, but it doesn't smell much like a trap, an impressive maneuver considering she had her foot in her mouth.
Another republican congressional seat bites the dust. That anti-American campaign rhetoric is working real well for them.
Okay...I think most of you have misunderstood the question (excluding Shelly) (sm)
I am not saying anything about christianity, christians, the Bible, Muslims or any other faith. What I am doing is pointing out the ridiculous idea that the republican party would paint someone as a Muslim while at the same time claiming he is a member of a Christian church. That's it. I'm questioning negative attacks that have been directed at Obama and have been repeated here on this board. Personally, as most of you know, I am an athiest, so I really don't care what religion the man is. I'm more interested in his ability to govern (which I happen to think will improve this country). However, as recent as TODAY (after the election) there are still people on this board going on about his religion. I don't think I can be any more clear that that.
|
