Posted on 08/23/2005 11:54:53 AM PDT by kddid
>Pat Robertson isn't a terrorist - he's an a**hole.<
Pat's getting on up in years. If he's not pushing 80, I'd be really surprised.
Perhaps he's not as, ahem, sharp as he once was. If so, we should give the man a break.
What do you mean "if he said it". Have you been reading any of the threads?
***What do you mean "if he said it".***
When I posted, the story was breaking. At that point I did not know whether it was an accurate quote or not.
The MSM certainly has show it knows how to misrepresent and misquote religious leaders - though it seems in this case they got it right.
Mr. R. was an a**hole twenty years ago. Believe me, he is not a nice man.
Thanks for the note.
On one end of the spectrum there's Jimmah Cartah, and on our end there's Pat
I'll take Pat any day.
Wacko Pat: 0
LOL! Nothing entertains more than a Christofascist preacher like Pat Robertson engaging in a little moral relativism. Pat's ill-advised remarks convert the Ten Commandments into the Ten Suggestions that don't apply to Christofascists when they engage in verbal games as part of an imaginary world-wide war against commie and/or Muslim hordes
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.
Robertson also claims he was assured by Dubya before the Iraq War that the invasion wouldn't cause any casualties, an assurance that didn't turn out so well. Clearly his earlier experience caused Robertson to rethink his views somewhat on the general desirability of invading and occupying medium-sized, oil-rich nations, something more people should do. Of course, it's hard to see what actually assassinating Hugo Chavez can actually accomplish. Nor does it seem wise for the United States to be engaged in removing democratically elected leaders from power, even when they turn out to be apostles of the dread "illiberal democracy." And Robertson's loose talk is going to be a boon to Chavez and, therefore, a fiasco for American interests in South America.
Besides which, advising people to kill other people is an odd thing for a so-called Christian to be doing.
I say we hand Pat a handgun and airdrop him into the Venezuelan capital. Let's see him carry through with his tough talk. Somehow I doubt his big mouth would receive a warm reception.
Particularly when he fancies himself a religious leader.
This continues the common problem of raising the First Amendment. Critics tend to not question somebody's legal right to say something (a genuine First Amendment issue). They tend to criticize by saying that they 'shouldn't' say something: that is, criticizing the substance of what the other person said, or otherwise criticizing their judgment.
When someone says something dumb, inflammatory, or worse, their legal right to say it is not in question. Raising the legal right to say something in response to a criticism of words or judgment is silly.
But I suppose Robertson is okay there, too. He didn't say HE was going to assassinate they guy, only that someone else should.
As far as the first amendment thing goes, of course he can say whatever he wants. But not only does he fancy himself a religious leader, he also has delusions of political power. Any good politician would speak of such matters behind closed doors, then feign ignorance after such a thing occurs.
Hey, Pat? Ever heard of covert operations???? Howsabout you don't give anyone a heads up, just in case?
He is simply a very poor spokesperson.
Hmmm. Yes, interesting. But don't read too much into this.
Mr. Robertson said something stupid - and he knows it.
He is, unrelentingly, an a**hole. Mr. Robertson has a real gift for acting like he's from the planet Zongo.
-----------------------------------
Which explains all those Jesus-sanctioned hits on Romans that are catalogued in the second letter of Paul to the Assassins.
The Tyrannicide and the Catholic Church.
There is nothing improper about the commentaries made by the Evangelical preacher, Pat Robertson, referring to the possible tyrannicide of the Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.
Tyrannicide has been sanctioned as morally compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, based on the social doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. Chavez has reaffirmed his intentions of establishing in Venezuela a genocidal regime following the Cuban model and the commands of Fidel Castro.
What are we going to wait for?, Allow Chavez to surpass Castro’s dreadful record of 20,000 shot by firing squads, and for more than half million of Venezuelans to suffer political imprisonment as the Cubans have suffered in Castro’s dungeons inside the Island prison of Cuba.
Chavez, like Hitler, was elected democratically only to become a dictator later. Castro kept well hidden his aims of establishing a Stalinist regimen in Cuba until he consolidated this power over the Cuban people. But, as Hitler exposed his diabolic plan in “Mein Kamp”, Chavez has no only openly and publicly bragged about his plans of imposing a communist regimen following the Cuban model, but he has put Venezuela under Castro’s control using his thugs and repressive apparatus to keep subjugated the people of Venezuela.
If Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez’s life had been terminated, how many lives would have been saved and how much suffering humanity would have been spared.
In fact, tyrannicide is so justified that His Holiness Pius XII gave his approval for the plot by a group from the German’s army intelligence service planning to kill Hitler.
For St. Thomas Aquinas, tyrannicide is to opt for the lesser of two evils. Pacifism is a morally correct personal option, but is an option that is morally unaceptable for the state. A person might choose not to resist an aggression to the extreme of loosing his life, but a government has the duty to defend his people.
A pacifist might loose his life without offering resistance; but he cannot impassible allow in his presence the murder of an innocent person. Those are basic principles of Catholic teachings that are being ignored in the middle of the assault of the totalitarian correct ideological movement where political correct positions prevail even though they might be morally incorrect options.
-----------------------------------------
I was going to object to this statement but I realized that no adult with any understanding of how the world works (little things like the sovreignty of nations) could have written something so absurd unless it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.