Posted on 08/23/2005 5:08:09 PM PDT by wagglebee
RUSH: There is a network today that is obsessed with Pat Robertson. This network has called me no less than three times asking me when I'm going to talk about it so they can record it. This network hasn't cared one whit about any of the outrageous assassination threats that George Bush gets from members of the left. They don't care. It's so patently obvious. I knew they're going to be listening, that's why I keep saying, "The mainstream media does not set the agenda of this show!"
If you want to find out what I think, report what I think, not what you care about what I think on your interest, but if you want to report on this program, actually report what happens here. But don't think you can call here and set up a premise where I'm going to fall into your trap to help you try to condemn the entire conservative movement. The jig's up! It ain't going to happen anymore -- and if I did say something about it, it would just be to tweak them, where they wouldn't understand it and they'd report it and it would be cast as the absolute worst thing in the world that had ever been said. (ahem)
In fact, I'll tell you what it is in this context. I was talking to guys around here, and I was telling everybody, three different inquiries, and they all want to know what I was going to say about Pat Robertson. I said, "You know what it is ?" In fact before this even happened I got an e-mail from friend today who said, "This Robertson stuff is just unfortunate because you know the mainstream press is going to try to link you with it."
I'm not kidding: five minutes after I get his e-mail is when I get the first inquiry about this! So, H.R. down here today and Snerdley in there, and I said, "You know what would be fun to say?"
They said, "Don't say it! Don't say it! Even if you put it in total context, it will be misreported and they won't report your context, and they'll report as though you actually said it."
I said, "Well, I will have actually said it but in the guise of tweaking them." You think I should say it or not? Snerdley thinks (interruption) Now you think I should? Okay. Here's what I was toying with, because I knew -- and it still may happen. Let's see if it happens. Let's see if what I'm about to say to you ends up being reported as, "and Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the Pat Robertson controversy yesterday by saying," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, let me say at the outset, I am not weighing in on the Pat Robertson controversy. That's not what this is about. I am tweaking the mainstream press, desperately hoping I criticize Robertson so that they can lump me with him and all of us with him to try to discredit the whole of the conservative movement and so what I would say that we were toying around with here:
Well, Pat, why did you not include Castro?
because castro isn't sitting on massive oil wealth to fund insurgencies throughout south america.
Rush pretty much nailed this one. No Leftists ever got in a snit whenever a whackjob Leftist (I know...redundant) or an Islamofascist Imam (redundant again) issued a death threat against anyone. But one idjit named Pat Robertson goes off and *BAM*...front page spews!
One of the reasons Chavez is so dangerous is oil reserves
they have in Venezuela .
How's that? ;-)
Someone please explain this to me: Pat Robertson, who has absolutely no standing in our government, official or otherwise, says we should 'take out' Chavez and reporters ask Secretary Rumsfeld if we are going to do just that. WTFO?????
The Jihadis want to enslave the world. Roberts wants to free Venezuala from a communist.
None, religious morons trying to justify their interpretation of God!
Both using their mantel of a "man from God" to preach death and violence, however.
I can't say I disagree with him. Careful what you wish for Hugo my friend.
Cindy Sheeehan, who has never been in the military OR Iraq, speaks for all of the families of deceased soldiers. Do the math.
That's pretty good! But you mean "right-wing extremist web site Free Republic" :-)
A Muslim imam orders his armed terrorist followers to kill innocent civilians, and they do it.
I would say this is a huge difference.
It's interesting that Robertson has no followup statement on his website.
I still see absolutely no difference between Robertson and his comments and an inman's with his. Both use religion for their own perverted disgusting ends of violence and death.
Let's see.....Pat is calling for the death of ONE MAN who happens to be a Communist and will eventually have to be dealt with and the other [Jihad] is calling for the systemic killing of all men, women and children of any faith including non-Jihadist Muslims, with the ULTIMATE GOAL being the complete annihilation of all Christians & Jews on the face of the earth, and the complete obliteration of WESTERN CIVILISATION.
Let's see I would guess the MSM would think that to be about a wash, with only a slight edge of outrageousness given to Pat's statement.
The followers of the Inman will take him serious and strap on a suicide vest and go out and kill some innocent people (we have evidence of this occurring). I doubt if any follower of Robertson will do the same, but then you knew that.
Also, if you have not done so, read the statement in the context it was made.
Have you ever seen Pat Robertson preach?
So that lessens the crime? Hey, its just one scumbag, he won't be missed ...
How do you think the jihadis rationalize their actions?
EXACTLY the SAME WAY!
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.