<p>You are right…I wasn’t thinking about the other, legal stuff…</p>
<p>Not to sound flip, but I guess he would have had to flash a nipple to get people upset or said the word breast</p>
<p>“Because we are supposed to be better than that, thats why…”</p>
<p>We are? I thought we were supposed to be a pluralistic society with many voices and innumerable judgements on morality (that’s certainly true if the posts here on CC are any indication). “Better” is true of some of us and not true of others of us. And everyone’s accessment of “better” is subjective.</p>
<p>So you are admitting that you find the words of Pat Robertson more concerning than the rhetoric of Al Queda? Interesting… I still maintain that the weight of your ire is somewhat unbalanced. Yes, Pat Robertson has a “national TV audience”, but that audience, relative to the overall population (even the Christian population) is very small, and in my opinion, is no more a threat to America than the audience of say, Michael Moore. The wonderful thing about our country is that you have the right to say just about anything, no matter how absurd, and somehow, our democracy still holds! The Aryan Nation, or some such racist/Nazi organization has come to our area to rally for the last two years in a row. Of course, as a black woman, I find them and their message indefensibly repugnant. But I’m not going to count them more of a threat to me than Al Qaeda—at least not until they start blowing up buildings or sending out suicide bombers to annihilate me and my sort… </p>
<p>Sure Robertson has “met with the President”, and I’m sure the Rebublican party has been more than happy to accept his sizable campaign contributions. Politicians have never been known to be finicky about where the money comes from. But I’ve not noticed the President offering Robertson or Falwell a cabinet position, or any other relevant national decision-making position for that matter. </p>
<p>“But does their behavious negate Robertson.”</p>
<p>No one’s behavior negates ANYONE elses. I didn’t say that. I just question whose behavior is ultimately more threatening to American life and limb, whose words are more powerful.</p>
<p>“Janet Jackson showed a nipple and the world almost collapsed, Robertson talks about assasinating a world leader, and we are to say, ah well?”</p>
<p>For the record, I found the Janet Jackson debacle rather amusing, and the national brouhaha surrounding it, rather bemusing. Yep, Robertson has “met with the President”. So have Mickey Mouse, and Cindy Sheehan (at least once), and The Boy Scouts of America, and Lance Armstrong, and Ted Kennedy. But that fact alone hasn’t necessarily conferred upon any of them any special power or influence. Yes, I believe we can just say, “ah well”. I believe we can consider the source and realistically access that it is powerless to determine foreign policy OR change the laws prohibiting political assassinations. We can call Pat Robertson the blithering fool that he is and IGNORE HIM!</p>
<p>Even imagining that Pat Roberson speaks for Christians in general is like saying Andrea Dworkin speaks (spoke: rest in peace) for feminists and lesbians in general.</p>
<p>Some on the left thank Chance every day, that Chance in its wisdom would provide them with the likes of P Robertson and Pentecostalism in general .</p>
<p>In the same way, many on the right thank a higher power for the likes of Dworkin and NARAL in general.</p>
<p>It feeds the hate.</p>
<p>Eat up Yall![but try not to be a glutton]</p>
<p>…GREAT post, Poetsheart [love the SN]</p>
<p>And Naral is relevant how? And, I support NARAL…wow</p>
<p>I didn;t remember that the ABC Family Channel, formerlly the Family Channel was owned by Fox, before it was sold to DIsney and became the ABC Family Channel. When they bought the channel, they had to guarantee to show the 700 Club- which has an audience of about 1million people</p>
<p>Why did Bush meet with him? If he is so “out there” was that meeting’s purpose?</p>
<p>“Even imagining that Pat Roberson speaks for Christians in general is like saying Andrea Dworkin speaks (spoke: rest in peace) for feminists and lesbians in general.”</p>
<p>So it’s interesting that FF refuses to repudiate his comments. What does that make him?</p>
<p>“So, Poetsheart - I ask you exactly the same question. Name one, just ONE, Ayatollah who went on national television of his home country and called for the assassination of the leader of another. Date. Place, and Statement, please. If it is so common as you suggest, that shouldn’t be so very hard to come up with.”</p>
<p>Oh come on now, Mini—you know as well as I do that such a tit-for-tat comparison is irrelevent to the point I was attempting to make. Whether or not your audience is a “national television” audience is irrelevent. Whether or not you have sufficient INFLUENCE to dictate national policy or inspire actual physical self-sacrifice in your country is another matter altogether. I wouldn’t think it necessary to point out the obvious: that ours is a nation fundamentally different from most muslim nations. Ours is secular, pluralistic and for the most part, democratic. We can withstand the televised opinions of our religious nutcases, and denounce and dismiss the source of them. </p>
<p>But many Middle Eastern nations are absolutely RULED by their religious leaders. Their words carry infinitely more weight within their respective populations than the words of ANY of our so-called religious leaders. Furthermore, when their leaders are extremists, their words wield immeasurably more global consequence. They don’t need to televise a call for political assassinations. They merely need to declare the “will of Allah” in their mosques and from their governmental seats, and dare anyone to contradict that will. </p>
<p>“If it is so common as you suggest, that shouldn’t be so very hard to come up with.” </p>
<p>I NEVER suggested that it was “common” for any religious leader to call for political assassinations, though given the incidence of bonafide political assassination being carried out in Iraq lately, SOME may indeed be calling for such action. If you insist on a tit-for-tat comparison, I admit Mini, that I can’t give you specific data. As far as I know, Osama has never gone on television to call for the assassination of George W. Bush (more’s the pity in your opinion, I’m sure). But Al Qaeda, along with a number of other terrorist organizations, HAVE produced vidoes calling for continued terrorist attacks upon Americans and American interests, videos which HAVE been televised by Al Jazeera, as well as every major AMERICAN television network.</p>
<p>“So it’s interesting that FF refuses to repudiate his comments. What does that make him?”</p>
<p>As dangerous as Al Qaeda?</p>
<p>Whom they said should be assassinated?
Date?
Place
Actual statement, please.</p>
<p>Not on the fringe, but a liberal nonetheless:</p>
<p>Stephanopolous admits there are practical problems that create the strongest argument against assassination. Legal barriers dont bother him; that could be got around, he assures us. Moral difficulties he does not even raise as an issue.</p>
<p>Gary Wills
<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v114/ai_20175652[/url]”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n36_v114/ai_20175652</a></p>
<p>The first Sunday after the attacks, ABC’s This Week aired an entire show without one Arab face, or one Middle East specialist. But we did get to hear George Stephanopoulos advocate assassination because “maybe in this case that might be the most effective response, not only, perhaps, for Saddam Hussein but for some of the other terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden.” </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Fall_In_Line.html[/url]”>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Fall_In_Line.html</a></p>
<p>“So it’s interesting that FF refuses to repudiate his comments. What does that make him?”</p>
<p>As dangerous as Al Qaeda?</p>
<p>Sorry for the double post. My bad—LOL!</p>
<p>The first Sunday after the attacks, ABC’s This Week aired an entire show without one Arab face, or one Middle East specialist. But we did get to hear George Stephanopoulos advocate assassination because “maybe in this case that might be the most effective response, not only, perhaps, for Saddam Hussein but for some of the other terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden.”</p>
<p>Well, I suppose if Stephanopoulos advocated for it, it’s OK after all…</p>
<p>This is all I can say:</p>
<p>“Who Will Jesus Assassinate?”</p>
<p>Was George S in office then…I dont think so, and I think it was wrong for him to say it…</p>
<p>So does that make Robertson okay…nope</p>
<p>SO George S was no longer in the administration, it was his own opinions and I think it was wrong for him to say it…as it was for Evanglical Robertson- founder of the Christian Coalition and friend of Ashcroft</p>
<p>Pat Robertson was NEVER in the administration, it was his own opinion…</p>
<p>Remember Ari Fleischer suggested, in a momentary loss of control during a WH press breifing, before the start of the war that (paraphrasing) a single bullet would be cheaper than a war…or we could solve this problem with a single bullet (something like that). He did apologize for his motormouthing behavior shortly thereafter. but the off the cuff incitement to violence is familiar to White House denizens and they may not orchestrate a response for some time. The thing that makes Robertsons remarks a litttle dicey is that his audience may have element that takes his message too literallly…ie “Will no one rid us of this troublesome priest!” and the remarks only reinforce the internal politics of Chavez’s supporters.</p>
<p>Can we name the great “idiots” of the 20th Century.</p>
<p>I love the fake outrage being directed at Pat Robertson. This is obviously only a story because of the fabulous double standard of our mainstream media. </p>
<p>Mini, cgmom, et al - you asked the question. Who on the left has ever said such a thing? Well, you got your answer. Where were the editorials and opinion pieces in the mainstream media denouncing George Stephanopoulos when he made his comments in Newsweek regarding assasination of foreign leaders? That’s right, there weren’t any. Interesting too that he made his comments in the mainstream media - that same media that is so disappointed in Robertson’s comments now but didn’t utter a peep before.</p>
<p>Many of you have very short memories here. Prior to last year’s election a write in the Guardian (a paper that many here like to quote from) wrote “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Jr. – where are you now that we need you?” I remember reading lots of threads here posted by our liberal friends expressing outrage. Ooops, my mistake, no I don’t.</p>
<p>I’m sure that many of you were equally disgusted by Randi Rhodes knee slapping skit on Air America this past spring in which gun shots rang out that were clearly intended for President Bush. I saw lots of threads and comments on that one. Oh, sorry, I’m mistaken again - actually I didn’t see any.</p>
<p>Those of you who decry Robertson’s comments will only be taken seriously when your supposed outrage, disgust, etc. are directed at others besides your right wing straw men. Until then…</p>
<p>A leftist, please, not someone who participated in the Clinton murder of half a million children. (I’ll settle for an Ayatollah on his national tv station.)</p>