PDA

View Full Version : Politics & Religion gone mad ......


LGW Vulture
23rd Aug 2005, 18:16
Good grief, the septics sometimes have a LOT to answer for !!! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4177664.stm) :uhoh:

frostbite
23rd Aug 2005, 18:22
There's usually religion involved in any trouble in the World.

It's only superstition by another name.

BenThere
23rd Aug 2005, 18:35
Why do we (Septics, as you so graciously refer to us as) have to answer for this individual? Do you answer for Ken Livingstone or George Galloway?

LGW Vulture
23rd Aug 2005, 18:44
No need to answer for them as they don't advocate murder...... next ! :cool:

Caslance
23rd Aug 2005, 19:37
No, BenThere has made a fair point.

Let's hope he bears it in mind in the future....

Interesting though that, despite making his remarks on a programme broadcast by a "Christian" TV network, self-professed Christian Mr Robertson seems to have forgotten one of the basic tenets of his oft and loudly-proclaimed faith as laid down directly by his avowed Saviour. (Matthew 5:39, in case you were wondering.......)

It must have slipped his mind. :hmm:

OneWorld22
23rd Aug 2005, 19:55
Cas, he's just another cherry-picking far right "Christisn" lunatic.

They pick what they wanbt from the Bible and ignore the rest, all to suit their agenda.

I would imagine ar*eholes like him are a gross insult to real "Christians"

BenThere
23rd Aug 2005, 19:58
Thank you, Caslance. A tip o' the hat to you.

Now, as to Pat Robertson. What he said was out of line and very un-Christianlike.

But he invokes a dilemma. If Chavez is destined to wreak havoc and misery by fomenting another populist socialist regime not only on his country, which should be prosperous, but on his neighbors in the hemisphere, would the moral position be to eliminate him for the greater good, or to let events take their course to his inevitable denoument?

Is Robertson implying that it would have been better, all things considered, to have taken out Hussein with an assassination before removing him necessitated an invasion?

I realize to make such decisions requires something of an arrogant belief that what I want is, by definition, good for the world, but how else will peaceful freedom again be realized? If my motives are pure are the means more important?

At some point we can moralize our methods away to where we cannot resist the onslaught of those with none of the scruples limiting us. And what good is thus achieved? That we lost righteously?

Send Clowns
23rd Aug 2005, 20:03
Errrrm, they do, LGW. At least Galloway does directly, and Livingston has expressed support for murderers.

But back to the issue at hand. No-one actually said about answering for them advocating murder; do you have to answer for their other ridiculous views? You still haven't answered as to why Americans should answer for a single US celebrity. Are you a politician, completely ignoring the question and ducking behind a side issue?

flapsforty
23rd Aug 2005, 20:14
Whenever one feels overcome by the need to generalise about the United States of America and its inhabitants, try to keep in mind that for example about half of the voters did not vote for the current government. Or for another example, that there is more to the USA than the bible belt. :rolleyes:

Sweeping generelisations say more about the person making them than about the subject he/she is commenting on.

From the JB ROE:

____________________________________________

Aviation is an international endeavour par exellence; bigotry has no place on this bulletin board.

_____________________________________________

airship
23rd Aug 2005, 20:25
Why do we (Septics, as you so graciously refer to us as) have to answer for this individual? Do you answer for Ken Livingstone or George Galloway? Ben There, blame your own State Dept., they were the ones who deemed it necessary to respond with: The US State Department said the comments were "inappropriate" and did not reflect the policy of the US. ;)

con-pilot
23rd Aug 2005, 20:27
Hey, it’s a free country. Any idiot can express their views, just as Jane Fonda can say what she wants so can Pat Robertson.

Personally I think they are both nuts and neither one of them reflect the views of the majority of Americans and/or the government.

While I do watch the ‘new great socialist experiment’ being promoted by Chavez in Venezuela with great interest I don’t see any reason to be alarmed by a style of government that has failed in every country that has tried the so called pure socialist/communist system. Except Cuban, if one cares to call that a success.

I think that Pat Robertson, like Jane Fonda is just trying to get another 15 minutes of fame. Both of them just need to go away and write their memoirs.

For those of you that are unaware of this, Chavez has now become Castro’s sugar daddy now that former Soviet Union has gone bust. Venezuela is supplying Cuba with oil for exchange for free medical care and medical training to Venezuelans students wishing to become doctors. There are also many hotels in Cuba catering to Venezuelans that are supported by Chavez and Venezuela financially.

Which is not all that bad, I guess. :cool:

BenThere
23rd Aug 2005, 20:48
The State Department was under no obligation to answer for Robertson either as he has no position, authority, or affiliation with the US government.

I think they reacted with a statement to prevent anyone from claiming or believing that Robertson spoke in any official capacity for the United States government.

No one in any quarter is sticking up for Robertson on this one and his statement has aroused a hearty round of criticism all along the political spectrum.

airship
23rd Aug 2005, 20:58
Hey c-p, I wish I could be someone's* sugar-daddy...!

* preferably aged 18-25 (smallish breasts), the rest I leave to your imagination... ;)

con-pilot
23rd Aug 2005, 21:05
Yeah Airship, for me I really wanted to find a 'sugar-mommy' for years, but alas now I'm more on the line to become a sugar-daddy.:(

But Mrs. C-P won't let me!:{

chuks
23rd Aug 2005, 21:30
Mr Robertson has a big mouth but he passed on his best chance to really go kill Commies for Christ when he pulled some strings to avoid being sent to Korea. If he had been born a bit later then he would probably have served in the Texas Air National Guard.

The last time he was thinking out loud he claimed to have diverted a hurricane using the power of prayer. His grateful parishioners were as nothing compared to the p1ssed-off recipients of one redirected hurricane!

What you non-Septics have to understand is that many of us believe that is our oil, all of it, that just happens to be located under various other countries. If someone like Chavez doesn't want to hand it over for a fair price then he should expect to be dealt with severely. This attitude passes for reasonable with many on the far right of the US scene and I, for one, do not propose to argue with them since many are armed and dangerous, plus usually being fairly immune to logic.

So rage on, you heathens!

Earthmover
23rd Aug 2005, 23:40
BenThere, we have people who call themselves Brits who not only call for murder but actually blow up tube trains and buses in the name of religion. And we let'em stay here. Before jabbing at another nation, I feel some of us could perhaps take counsel from the phrase "physician, heal thyself" Ho-Hum. :confused:

Pilgrim101
23rd Aug 2005, 23:45
Airship,

Can it be, like me that you are a derriere fan ?;) Gallic blood line perhaps ?

fmgc
23rd Aug 2005, 23:55
plus usually being fairly immune to logic.

I think that what you meant to say was "not hindered by logic"!

AntiCrash
24th Aug 2005, 02:53
The man in question is without a doubt a looney. Unfortunately there are many that will agree with him because they saw him on the television.

I seems that there are three things at work here.

a. Mr. or Rev. Pat Robertson advocated the murder of a foreign head of state.

b. Mr. or Rev. Pat Robertson has used the public airways to advocate the murder of a foreign head of state.

c. Mr. or Rev Pat Robertson's TV ministry, the one that he used to advocate the murder of a foreign head of state, enjoys a tax-free status as a ("religious") institution.

At the very least the FCC should fine the bejeezus out of him for his transgression and the IRS should remove any and all tax-exempt status he or his phony ministry may enjoy.

Somehow, I'm sure the administration will do nothing.

BenThere
24th Aug 2005, 03:05
You're right, AntiCrash.



Somehow, I'm sure the administration will do nothing.

It's that damn First Amendment.

pigboat
24th Aug 2005, 03:29
AC, he returns favours pretty fast though. :D He had a DHC-4 go through here on a ferry to one of his ..ahem..charities in Africa. They'd blown the janitrol heater and my guys repaired it for them, then they aborted the next leg of the ferry with a blown carbon pile voltage regulator. We used parts we had in stock to get them going again, and they replaced our parts overnight via Fedex.

Interesting note, the right engine was leaking so much oil they'd rigged up two 55 gal barrels of 100W in the cabin, with a pump out to the oil tank in the nacelle so they could refill in flight. :ooh:

Huck
24th Aug 2005, 03:33
I'm sitting in the very buckle of the Bible Belt, and I can assure you that Pat Robertson is about as popular here as light blue Volvos. He is indeed in Virginia, but that is not near far south enough for most of us.

To the unchurched, all Christian preachers are carbon copies of the guy on the Simpsons. Robertson's a flake - he lost me when he ran for President. I'll say this, though - I've flown with a few exiled Venezuelans, and it sounds like another Zimbabwe in the making down there....

tony draper
24th Aug 2005, 08:35
His suggestion has merit,why is it concidered morally ok to send thousands of your young men into danger and the possibility death in a war,yet its abhorant to use one Hellfire missile to scrag some bastard of a Dictator to prevent one?
Just think of the lives one single bullet would have saved in 1939 had it been placed in the right head.
:cool:

SASless
24th Aug 2005, 09:44
Knock it off Drapes.....killing off the British Prime Minister in '39 would not have prevented the war....Hitler was intent upon war no matter he signed two "peace" accords! Granted if Churchill had been in office the war might have been prevented if a strong front had been presented in opposition to his plainly aggressive plans for conquest. :E

airship
24th Aug 2005, 12:43
Pilgrim, Can it be, like me that you are a derriere fan... All I will admit to in these forums, is having taken a long and admiring look at this photo (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2050123&highlight=Wharrabout#post2050123) of a Volvo bonnet graciously posted by Parapunter recently... ;)

Sorry folks, posting that link here was prolly very politically incorrect and somewhat unreligious... :(

BenThere
24th Aug 2005, 12:49
SAS, you must be tongue-in-cheekily saying Chaimberlain was in need of a bullet. He was only the 'useful idiot' 'in his time'.

Does anyone miss the undercover assassination assets CIA used to have? They did a lot to clean up the post-WWII world until we eliminated them and most of the HUMINT corps in the 60s.

Problem now is there is no Wild Bill Donovan around to say what's what, and the left-leaning careerists running the senior levels at CIA now would as likely be after the guys who are actually on our side, ie. Do Pinochet OK, but leave Chavez alone.

frostbite
24th Aug 2005, 12:55
"Mr. or Rev. Pat Robertson has used the public airways to advocate the murder of a foreign head of state."



Erm, Airwaves, surely? There is a difference, especially on here.

airship
24th Aug 2005, 13:15
BenThere, whilst I'm not entirely against the idea of Heads of State being knocked off per se, the conduct of the USA in such matters until quite recently, brings no honour to a civilised nation. If GWB really considers it vital to the national interests to be rid of Chavez, the matter is easily resolved. He merely needs to challenge Chavez to a duel. According to tradition, Chavez would have the choice of weapon. The event would take place around dawn upon a quiet pasture in some neutral place. With their backs turned to each other, they would each take 12 paces forward before turning...?! :O

Quite frankly, doing it anyway else would be an admission that one was chicken... :ok:

Huck
24th Aug 2005, 14:20
Thanks for the tip re. Light Blue Volvos Huck


After the succcess of the "Survivor" genre on TV, an idea was floated called "Redneck Survivor": contestants had to drive light blue Volvos from New Orleans to Nashville bearing signs that said, "EARNHART WAS A FAG."

(Dale Earnhart was a stock car driver killed at the Daytona 500.)

Solid Rust Twotter
24th Aug 2005, 16:07
I can hear the banjos right now.....



"Squeal like a hawg, sonny!":E