Robertson again [Archive]

Crossbow

10th October 2003, 08:58 AM

PAT ROBERTSON IS A F*CKING IDIOT!

Pardon my language and volume, but boy this guy really takes the cake.

If the war on terrorism moved to his house you can be sure he would be bellowing how the godless, evil, nasty, pro-choice, liberal government is out to destroy all good Christians.

Of course, I do not expect George W. do anything substantive about the matter either which does not say much for him as well.

Ugh!

Marc

10th October 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Link? Link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html)

Nyarlathotep

10th October 2003, 09:13 AM

:eek: My jaw nearly dropped off of my face when I read that. I don't expect much in the way of human decency from Pat Robertson and his ilk but that comment was a new low. Suggesting on national TV that a nuke should be used in that manner is the height of irresponsibility.

I don't worry so much that any of his followers will get a nuke, I do however worry that some of his slack-jawed puppets will take it as an order and do something like start shooting state department employees. A comment like that is tatamount to calling for armed insurrection. Of course, maybe that's what Pat wants.......

Brown

10th October 2003, 09:45 AM

Just when I think old Pat couldn't be any more dense, he surprises me. What a dipstick. By taking on the name "Christian," he makes all Christians look evil (much like the loudmouthed Muslim "militants" make all Muslims look evil).

If a Muslim had said what Pat said, the Muslim would be a suspected terrorist, wouldn't he? Well, to be fair and nondiscriminatory on the basis of religion, Pat's remark probably ought to qualify Pat as a suspected terrorist.

Nyarlathotep

10th October 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Brown
Just when I think old Pat couldn't be any more dense, he surprises me. What a dipstick. By taking on the name "Christian," he makes all Christians look evil (much like the loudmouthed Muslim "militants" make all Muslims look evil).

If a Muslim had said what Pat said, the Muslim would be a suspected terrorist, wouldn't he? Well, to be fair and nondiscriminatory on the basis of religion, Pat's remark probably ought to qualify Pat as a suspected terrorist.

Very true, though I doubt that a cell in Gitmo is waiting for him anytime soon.

Brown

10th October 2003, 10:07 AM

The remarks, quoted here: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031009/pl_afp/us_diplomacy_threat_031009192152) "When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer'," he [Robertson] said.

"I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson asked. An earlier report said that Robertson was referring to a book by columnist Joel Mowbray, and that the idea for blowing up the State Department was Robertson's, not Mowbray's.

Chad Noles

10th October 2003, 10:21 AM

Although I am by no means a Pat Robertson fan,it would appear that the article leads the reader into a conclusion that is incorrect.As I read the quotes from a Yahoo.com link http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031009/pl_afp/us_diplomacy_threat_031009192152
it seems that Robertson asked Mowbray what his(Mowbray's) opinion was.Notice the difference in the wording....."I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson asked.

In the CNN article we get..."When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer,' and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson said.

I gleam that it is Mowbray who is suggesting the bombing of Foggy Bottom.Later in the CNN article ..... "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said.

While this is more damning,it appear that Pat is agreeing with Newt Gingrich.

These articles seem to be a witch hunt against Pat Robertson,not that he's ever been guilty of the same:rolleyes: .Yet,one should demand the same standards apply to all in a society that values truth and justice.Given enough time,I'm sure that Robertson will find enough feet to stick in his mouth of his own accord.

Upchurch

10th October 2003, 10:29 AM

In a June interview with Mowbray on the "700 Club", Robertson made similar remarks.

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said. The first paragraph is referring to remarks made by Robertson, therefore the "he" in the second paragraph is still referring to Robertson.

Chad Noles

10th October 2003, 10:45 AM

From the Yahoo.com article."I read your book," Robertson said, according to a transcript of the interview posted on his Christian Broadcasting Network's website (www.cbn.com).

"When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer'," he said.

"I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson asked.

Mowbray responded: "It is."

And this "
columnist Joel Mowbray, who has written a book entitled "Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens American Security."

triadboy

10th October 2003, 10:50 AM

I understood the "I think that's the answer" to be Robertsons comments on what the author wrote

Chad Noles

10th October 2003, 11:13 AM

From the way the quotation marks are indicated,the entire phrase... 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer',
is the quote of Mowbray.I could be wrong.

NoZed Avenger

10th October 2003, 11:29 AM

:re:

Marc

10th October 2003, 12:29 PM

Weather it was Robertson or the author who said it, Pat had him on the show to promote his book as they have similar ideologies. Even if he didn't say it himself he is not saying a word of disagreement.

triadboy

10th October 2003, 12:36 PM

The scary thing is - there's some one-eyebrowed fundie, sitting in a shack somewhere, eating a bag of porkrinds - who will do whatever the TV man says.

And of course, Robertson can deny fault if anything were to happen.

CSX2

10th October 2003, 04:48 PM

The scary thing is - there's some one-eyebrowed fundie, sitting in a shack somewhere, eating a bag of porkrinds - who will do whatever the TV man says.

Hey, watch the unibrow bashing. We can't help if if we're hairy!

triadboy

10th October 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by CSX2

Hey, watch the unibrow bashing. We can't help if if we're hairy!

Oh, southern Maryland....sorry. :)

Yahweh

11th October 2003, 12:48 AM

Pat Robertson? Again?

Quick, someone get this man a highschool education! F*dging idiot.

Some Friggin Guy

11th October 2003, 01:47 AM

You know, I bet if we all prayed REALLY hard, we could convince god to have a volcano erupt right underneath Uncle Pat. :rolleyes:

Abdul Alhazred

11th October 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
PAT ROBERTSON IS A F*CKING IDIOT!

Pardon my language and volume, but boy this guy really takes the cake.

...

Ugh!

I do pardon your language, but I must disagree. Pat Robertson is an educated man who inherited a small fortune and turned it into a large fortune by playing to idiots.

Edit your statement as follows:
PAT ROBERTSON PLAYS A F*CKING IDIOT!

His cold reading routine proves he's not a true believer, he knows he's not being honest.

Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! A zillion times ugh!

Pyrrho

11th October 2003, 10:14 AM

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/news/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0501_BC_Robertson-StateDepart&&news&newsflash-national

Robertson also advocated bombing the State Department during a June interview with Mowbray.

"Well, it looks like Congress had better do something, and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," Robertson said.

Oh, those Armageddon blues...

evildave

11th October 2003, 12:35 PM

Yep, if an Muslim guy said this, the state department would be ripping his house apart three seconds after he got home, looking for "Weapons Of Mass Destruction".

"God" help him if he had ever visited one of those "cook your own a-bomb" web sites.

Naturally, the American Christian fundy who wants things nuked in America is A-OK. Just like it was in Oklahoma.

The fact that the nut-ball has a political following is worrisome.

After all, he technically wants that "rapture" thing as much as any American fundy, so naturally setting off nukes would probably help to bring that sooner.

triadboy

11th October 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by evildave

After all, he technically wants that "rapture" thing as much as any American fundy, so naturally setting off nukes would probably help to bring that sooner.

It's good to know that even if he were to become President, our country's nuclear command and control system would prevent him from initiating nuclear joy bombing.

evildave

11th October 2003, 03:23 PM

Wouldn't prevent him from making such a mess of the world situation that he's "allowed" to use it. How long would it take into one term to get the Russians or Chinese shaking mad? Less than a year. Start bombing things with conventional weapons. Send a cruise missle (the president can sneeze and launch one of those) into the Kremlin?

What did it take to get us committed to attacking Iraq?

What if we just start going into every Middle East country? A nice, new crusade?

You don't think nukes would come into play?

Naiive.

triadboy

11th October 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Wouldn't prevent him from making such a mess of the world situation that he's "allowed" to use it. How long would it take into one term to get the Russians or Chinese shaking mad? Less than a year. Start bombing things with conventional weapons. Send a cruise missle (the president can sneeze and launch one of those) into the Kremlin?

What did it take to get us committed to attacking Iraq?

What if we just start going into every Middle East country? A nice, new crusade?

You don't think nukes would come into play?

Naiive.

Whoa, there Scooter! I just said I'm glad we have a nuclear command and control system that would prevent him (if by chance he ever was president - god forbid) from launching nukes willy-nilly.

To call me naive is laughable. I'm the only man in the history of the military to serve on all three legs of the nuclear triad. I was a radioman on a nuke sub, I was a Minuteman III missile launch officer and I was the training officer for a B-52 wing. I worked at the nuclear command and control branch for one of this country's exclusive agencies. I created, produced and directed this country's premier NC2 training video - seen by all nuke crews - in all branches - and required viewing by the President. I'm an acknowledged expert in nuclear command and control.

Now - if Idiot Robertson were president would he be 'allowed' to launch nukes - no. Trust me.

Jabberwock

11th October 2003, 06:09 PM

Another link from a local paper:
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60920&ran=94312

From the article:
``It's {the State Dept} like an entrenched bureaucracy that has their own agenda, and it doesn't comport with the will of the American people. How do we get rid of them?'' he said during the June interview.

He's also upset that the "The Christian nations of Africa are right now under assault by Muslims funded either by Saudi Arabia or Libya. Regrettably, the State Department seems to be indifferent to this emerging tragedy.'' What he doesn't mention is the allegations a few years ago that he was using his Operation Blessing flights to smuggle diamonds from these Christian nations into the US.
An idiot he is definately not. He knows his audience and deliberately plays to it. His devoted followers would be put off by anything he says, those who are determined not to follow wouldn't follow him no matter what he says, but he might get a few on the fence who secretly agree with him. All in all, I think if I said something like this I would be in handcuffs quicker than you can say Patriot Act. ;)

evildave

11th October 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

Whoa, there Scooter! I just said I'm glad we have a nuclear command and control system that would prevent him (if by chance he ever was president - god forbid) from launching nukes willy-nilly.

To call me naive is laughable. I'm the only man in the history of the military to serve on all three legs of the nuclear triad. I was a radioman on a nuke sub, I was a Minuteman III missile launch officer and I was the training officer for a B-52 wing. I worked at the nuclear command and control branch for one of this country's exclusive agencies. I created, produced and directed this country's premier NC2 training video - seen by all nuke crews - in all branches - and required viewing by the President. I'm an acknowledged expert in nuclear command and control.

Now - if Idiot Robertson were president would he be 'allowed' to launch nukes - no. Trust me.

And just how would you refuse lawful orders from the President?

After a year or so of stirring up *****, and the international situation is utterly in the toilet, and it seems likely that everyone else will launch nukes, will anyone "just say no"?

Bull.

Especially after you've been out to sea for six months hearing nothing but how Russia and China are sponsoring "terrorism". You never honestly believed your news wasn't edited by AFRTS, did you?

Besides, it seems Bush Jr. is enough of a retard to pull of the tanked international situation by "accident". We have pretty much no *loyal* allies left. Who'd really want to go down with the U.S. or A. if we decided to attack Iran next? Maybe Saudi Arabia after that? We'd have half the world mobilizing against the U.S.! Plenty of reason to be itchy on the trigger. Would you honestly "make a stand" and NOT launch if given the orders? You'd be a traitor. Your next port had better not be what's left of the U.S.

"Safeguards" my hairy butt!

triadboy

12th October 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Would you honestly "make a stand" and NOT launch if given the orders? You'd be a traitor.

There are certain 'checks and balances' in place to prevent a rogue president from acting on his own. I, of course, can't explain it in this medium (we would need the Cone Of Silence to talk about it). But I do know our NC2 system is very robust. In fact, we are helping the Russians with theirs to make this world safer.

Evildave - you sound just a little paranoid about nuclear weapons. There are crews maintaining and monitoring our Minuteman nuclear missiles 24 hours a day - and they've been doing this since the late 50s! [They're really old now :-)] Right now in the oceans there are ballistic missile submarines on patrol - these boats go on patrol for 2-3 months at a time. Wild imaginations could make up scenarios where a disgruntled commander decides to launch and end it all. But our system is so good, there IS NO opportunity for a rogue person to initiate launch. It is a very good and safe system.

Nuclear weapons are a fact. Yes, it would be lovely if everyone could just disarm and go back to sticks, but that isn't going to happen. We maintain an edge for a reason. We can directly relate the freedoms we have in this country to the men and women on alert in our armed forces.

evildave

12th October 2003, 10:32 PM

Nope. The disgruntled commander in the field could not launch a nuke. Nor could the guy in the silo, nor the guy in the bomber.

A disgruntled commander in chief can start a war that ends up needing nukes easily enough WITHOUT using nukes at all.

Once the missiles are heading in our direction, you don't have anything preventing Mr. Prez from launching. In fact, somebody in the highest echelon will launch them even if the president is killed.

One more retarded, mystifying invasion could get us there. Two at the most. The Russians (Remember them? Not even communist anymore.) are already talking about aggressors and the will to use nukes to defend their interests.

Besides, just why is it that some black kid who has an open web site that someone else posts half-ass bomb recipes on can go to jail for a year, but a prominent white Christian can use his mass media presence to call for terrorist attacks against government buildings? Not even just "Oklahoma" scale terrorist acts. He wants genuine NUKES to be used in his holy war!

Tell a million loyal followers a thing should be done, and some are certain to try it. They aren't good Christians if they don't, after all. Maybe there are a few who work on the inside, after all. The odds are a LOT better than some kid and a web site that a nationwide TV audience will contain the right wackos.

After all, they'll bomb Abortion clinicks and kill people at random. Why wouldn't they bomb a government facility that has been likewise identified as "evil" and "corrupt" and the very heart of Satan, or whatever?

More news links
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/enter...px?storyid=9134
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_artic...p?storyid=48420
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=9&u=/nm/20031010/od_nm/people_robertson_dc

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

12th October 2003, 10:41 PM

It's best to ignore televangelists because they are dumb and *********** annoying. What is beginning to worry traveller is the new group called Avengelists. That's right the Avengelists "Avenging in the Name of God!" they are some brutal mother ****ers who take no prisoners when it comes to religion.

Regnad Kcin

13th October 2003, 10:56 AM

Isn't what Mr. (hardly "reverend") Robertson and/or his guest threatened and/or advocated a crime tantamount to that of discussing (much less carrying out) the assassination of the president and/or other federal office holders?

Oh, and I love the usage of the term "very small nuke," as if that makes the idea all hunky-dory.

Brown

13th October 2003, 11:11 AM

Why do I get the idea that Robertson aspires to have as much control over his followers as bin Laden has over his?

Roadtoad

13th October 2003, 09:49 PM

So, I sit here at my computer and I read this little gem:

Introducing Mowbray on his show, Robertson said that a reader of his book could conclude that the State Department needed a nuclear explosion.

"I read your book," Robertson said. "When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer,' and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson said.

You know, there was time when guys like Robertson would have been hauled off in handcuffs for a flippant remark like that. At a time of war, when we have American troops in harm's way, a bunch of sick@$$ pr***s demanding the death of our nation, and screwballs running loose trying to claim an SOB like Timothy McVeigh was justified in what he did, what Robertson said was completely out of line.

Mowbray's book might prompt such a reaction, but for God's sake, you don't shoot your frigging mouth off and invite that sort of activity! That the FCC hasn't yanked this imbecile's license is completely incomprehensible to me!

Ashcroft ought to be investigating, but I'll bet he's sitting back, grooving on this one. Fumb Duck.

neutrino_cannon

13th October 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Brown
Why do I get the idea that Robertson aspires to have as much control over his followers as bin Laden has over his?

[/taste]
Problem is, Robertson's followers don't kill themselves on a regular basis by suicide bombings and accidents like Bin Laden's do.

[taste]

You know, I bet if we all prayed REALLY hard, we could convince god to have a volcano erupt right underneath Uncle Pat.

Who's to say? Just how hard could it be to punch a hole through several miles of rock (much less than that in some places) and cause a volcano? Couldn't be that hard if we had nukes at our disposal.

If Robertson doesn't believe any of whatever it is he produces in copious amounts and regurgates via mouth, and if the same statement could be applied to many sucessful religious leaders and figures, could it be that evil atheists really do cause most of the world's suffering by inspiring the misguided?

Zep

13th October 2003, 10:10 PM

Master manipulator, fundy moron or something else, it's time for Pat to be "raptured" outa here. Overdue, in fact.

Brown

14th October 2003, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Problem is, Robertson's followers don't kill themselves on a regular basis by suicide bombings and accidents like Bin Laden's do.This seems to be what Robertson aspires to achieve, namely, the power to convince his followers to sacrifice themselves in exchange for what Robertson says is God's favor. Other religions assert this political "pull," and Robertson would very likely desire to assert it as well.

Muslim radicals aren't the only ones who use the concept of "holy war." Some "Christian" groups employ the concept as well, and some of these Christian groups are deemed "mainstream." The basic idea, of course, is to convince people that participation in a "holy war" is a guraranteed ticket to paradise. If you get a lot of followers to buy into that idea, you can wield a very potent force.

Some otherwise rational people have told me with straight faces that, if the Pope declares a holy war, that they will join in the battle without hesitation, because doing so gurarantees entry into Heaven.

UnrepentantSinner

14th October 2003, 07:29 PM

This was quite the topic on Monday's 700 Club. Robertson had Mowbray on so they could chuckle and poo poo their comments and show that it's clearly the liberal media trying to do anything they can to attack Christians.

I'm sorry, but try as I might, I could never be as good a spin doctor as some of the guys are. I just can't delude myself that easily.