In My Memory Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I think this is an interesting article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050912/kim From that article: In my estimation' date=' Robertson's done us all a service in at least two regards. First, if there is a US plot to assassinate Chavez--as Chavez has long maintained--Robertson's unwittingly scuttled it for the time being. ... The State Department has been criticized for merely noting that Robertson's statement (and not the substance of his proposal) was "inappropriate." Yet they had a point. Robertson was inappropriate, not because his statement was far-fetched, but because he said what no one else will admit. It would have been far more appropriate for him to privately support assassination while feigning horror at such a notion in public, thus preserving the collective amnesia that runs straight through the CIA's clandestine mentality to the US press corps.[/quote'] I fell out of my chair reading that Wait, that piece wasnt meant to be satire was it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him' date=' I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Mr. Robertson said Monday on his show, "The 700 Club." "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Quote from Pat Robertson, a President wanna-be, Christian Coalition founder. Another insane remark to add to his long list.[/quote'] I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, but the above doesn't sound like it was made as a serious comment. However, a case of diarrhea of the mouth complicated by constipation of the brain is not an ailment with which one should be afflicted while speaking on national TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I think this is an interesting article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050912/kim Good article. I doubt there would have been that much outrage had Howard Dean said the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 "The feminist agenda is ... a socialist' date=' anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [kill their children'], practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." If you leave out the Medea bit, I'm not sure I disagree with him; I just don't see what the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted August 28, 2005 Author Share Posted August 28, 2005 I just heard on TV that in 1997, George Stephanopoulos suggested to Clinton that he have saddam hussein assassinated. Not sure if his remark was insane though. If he said it to the public, yes I think that would be insanely stupid. Well, If Clinton would have done it, it would have saved Bush from trying it later and taking us through an expensive, possibly meaningless war. Also, I'm not sure Chavez is in the same league as Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 If you leave out the Medea bit, I'm not sure I disagree with him; I just don't see what the problem is. So, you think the feminist movement encourages woman to practice whitchcraft? I might agree with this statement, "The feminist agenda is a political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands and become lesbians." I'm don't think even that statement is totally true but its funny to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Still scratching my head over the "neo-con" comment above. Pat Robertson is not a neo-conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 He's as neo con as you can get! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 So, you think the feminist movement encourages woman to practice whitchcraft? I might agree with this statement, "The feminist agenda is a political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands and become lesbians." I'm don't think even that statement is totally true but its funny to say. Well, I was raised in one of the monotheist faiths; not a good place for women. All that hierarchical and patriachal foolishness, 'He for God and she for God in him.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 What is neo about Robertson's conservatism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Well perhaps this will be an education for me, then. I've never seen any indication that he's a member of the organizations that lead the neo-conservative movement (PNAC, Heritage, AEI, etc). Perhaps I just missed it? But I guess the purpose of the comment was to suggest that he merely identifies or aligns with neo-cons. In other words, "he's a neocon" just means he's "just like" the neocons, in a more general or ideological sense. Which, as a matter of one's personal opinion, is certainly valid to speculate. I guess what I'm suggesting is that that is not necessarily the case. Certainly in some key areas his politics are very similar to the president's politics, but then I've always questioned whether Bush is actually a neoconservative, or if he instead simply chose men who happened to represent a prevailing viewpoint within the party, and one that was seemed more "progressive" in key areas than the failed policies of his father's administration. Certainly Robertson and the president match up in areas like altruism -- vast contributions to African relief, for example. And of course the extent of influence from the christian religious right. But neither of those things are hallmarks of the neo-conservative movement. Altruism was more of an initial tool -- a means to an end. Something they could use to hold up and say "we're not your father's Republicans". (After all, when's the last time you heard a neo-con talking about the return of welfare in this country? The tax cut was certainly not a hand-out for the lower classes -- at best if helped everyone, and at worst it mainly helped the rich.) And if anything Robertson has been excessively critical of the neo-con-lead party that he helped to put in place. Robertson and the White House have parted ways on a number of subjects, including relations with Israel. The neo-cons are all about "entangling foreign alliances" (as Jefferson would say). Robertson is all about religious/ideological alliances, regardless of convenience or necessity. Perhaps some of that is nothing more than sour grapes, but there is very little that Pat Robertson does that does not have an ideological edge to it (the current mistake we're discussing being a notable exception, at least at first blush). So if Pat Robertson is a neo-conservative, he's certainly not on marching orders from PNAC. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into it. Having given it some more thought, I can understand that initial statement, though. I probably just misread the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jowrose Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 well, i got my impression of pat robertson's insanity through the only news source i trust nowadays: the daily show with jon stewart. Now, it would just be normal crazy if he was just some politician and decided to voice his support of assassination of a national figure on public television. but the fact that it was on a CHRISTIAN show ups the level of crazy to "super wacko" another great idea of his was to pray for another court opening in the Supreme Court. oh god, please kill one of those liberal justices for us so we can put someone in who would help us destroy the terror of separation of church and state... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 ...another great idea of his was to pray for another court opening in the Supreme Court. oh god, please kill one of those liberal justices for us so we can put someone in who would help us destroy the terror of separation of church and state... That is not fair; they are allowed to retire, you know. And don't ever put me in the position of defending that super wacko again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 actually it is fair. while they are allowed to retire, they dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 oh god, please kill one of those liberal justices for us so we can put someone in who would help us destroy the terror of separation of church and state...Sandra Day O'conner retired, I'd be guessing that William Rehnquist will too. No need to assassinate anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted August 30, 2005 Author Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sandra Day O'conner retired, I'd be guessing that William Rehnquist will too. No need to assassinate anyone. That is true, but if one of them died, he would probably think his prayer was answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 That is true, but if one of them died, he would probably think his prayer was answered. Yeah, I think you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I would think that assassination of a Supreme Court justice right *now* is that *last* thing that the extreme left would want.... (chuckle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I would think that assassination of a Supreme Court justice right *now* is that *last* thing that the extreme left would want.... (chuckle)Oh God yeah, if Ruth Bader G bit the dust, the wailing wall would look like Niagra Falls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jowrose Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 out of curiosity, has anyone here read "america the book"? if not, go pick it up... it's hilarious... what is the law with the supreme court? justices can be forced to retire if they develop mind-altering diseases, right? i'm not trying to be insensitive or anything, but there must be some clause about having the abilitity to perform one's job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 They can be impeached. Probably for anything, really, but it would presumably be for misconduct or a criminal act of some kind. I believe that's it. The problem with requiring that they be able to perform their duties is that that requires a judgement call by another human being, who may have a partisan motive. Sufficient check/balance would have to be worked into the mix somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_p Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Actually, the Supreme Court is interesting in this regard; justices can not be impeached for being incapable of fulfilling their duties. Let me look this up ... "America: The Book" should be required reading for every student of American History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now