Religious nutjob Pat Robertson "apologizes" for Chavez assassination comment

DreamThrall

Newbie
Joined
Oct 14, 2003
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
0
the only irritating thing about this is that 1. people are taking him seriously and 2. people are expecting bush come out against him. absolutely ridiculous that they want the president to lambast a private citizen.
 
I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.'

Semantics, Pat. They pretty much mean the same thing. But let's drop the bullshit. I have the quote right here.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, then we really oughta go ahead and do it."

Come on, Pat. I got this right off of the ****ing Daily Show. Who are you trying to kid?
 
Lets be fair now. When Robertson said that special forces should "take him out" , he obviously meant dinner and a movie.
I think he should be given credit for his attempt at diplomacy, its the liberal media that are trying to spin this into something sinister.
 
Pesmerga said:
Well, he is right.

You gotta give him that.
lol true but saying someone should be assassinated is not exactly something you should say on daytime television... :rolleyes:
 
It's advocating terrorism, now isn't it?
 
DEATH eVADER said:
Assasination is silent, whereas "Take Him Out" in the USA means any way necessary (Collateral Damage)
The point I was making that was that it sounds like we're making him dead either way.
 
Perhaps he meant they should take him out for a meal. Explain the position of America over a nice curry and he may be more friendly towards the US.
 
Pesmerga said:
Well, he is right.

You gotta give him that.


You seem so sure of yourself maybe you'd like to explain why you believe chavez should be assassinated?

btw ...it is against US law for american agents to assassinate foreign heads of state.

gh0st said:
the only irritating thing about this is that 1. people are taking him seriously



what the hell are you talking about? why wouldnt people take his seriously? even when he apologised for his remarks he still said he supported the idea. He's the head of the most powerful religious group in america, he has influence

gh0st said:
and 2. people are expecting bush come out against him. absolutely ridiculous that they want the president to lambast a private citizen.

why shouldnt the government speak out agianst him (they have btw)? Had it been a muslim cleric calling for the assassination of Tony Blair he'd be sitting in a cell by now waiting for the guys in smocks and white gloves to take him to another room for "questioning"
 
i bet if a terrorist said 'kill chavez' , you lot wouldnt say nothing.
 
gh0st said:
the only irritating thing about this is that 1. people are taking him seriously and 2. people are expecting bush come out against him. absolutely ridiculous that they want the president to lambast a private citizen.
Yeah, why should Bush come out and say that Robertson is an idiot? I mean Robertson is only his biggest supporter and pretty much got him elected. No need to distance yourself from that even if it means America's image will get flushed a little further down the toilet. Besides, I really think Bush would agree with what Robertson said as he seems to think the same way the far right idiots on freerepublic think.
 
KoreBolteR said:
i bet if a terrorist said 'kill chavez' , you lot wouldnt say nothing.

That's a different bag of beans. I expect such a thing from a terrorist. I'm much more shocked when I see a rich white fundie call for another man's assassination.
 
Absinthe said:
That's a different bag of beans. I expect such a thing from a terrorist. I'm much more shocked when I see a rich white fundie call for another man's assassination.


that kind of attitude is how rich white fundie is percieved worse than terrorists. because the media only broadcasts the news if it was a white ruch guy from america saying it, terrorists get away with everything.
 
"terrorists get away with everything"






no ...no, just a big resounding NOO






I dont believe I'm having this conversation
 
honestly, terrorists kill 100s of iraqis, but whos fault is it? people always blame the coalition. :/
 
KoreBolteR said:
that kind of attitude is how rich white fundie is percieved worse than terrorists. because the media only broadcasts the news if it was a white ruch guy from america saying it, terrorists get away with everything.

What the **** are you talking about?

I said I am more shocked by a rich white fundie's call for assassination than a terrorist's because the former is something unexpected and the latter is so common.

"Terrorists get away with everything"... You're a crackpot.
 
KoreBolteR said:
honestly, terrorists kill 100s of iraqis, but whos fault is it? people always blame the coalition. :/
People? What people?
 
The_Monkey said:
People? What people?

media. which then informs bullshit to the people, who take it all in.

absinthe, america is always blamed for the stuff terrorists do in iraq.
 
Well before the war there were no real terrorist attacks in Iraq at all. Even if the US isn't killing everyone, pretty much every death there has been the result of US action. They opened the floodgates.

In any case, the guy was wrong and it was obviously serious. This half-assed apology isn't going to fix anything either.

Maybe, just maybe, the best strategy in the war on terrorism is to stop doing the blatantly stupid shit that makes them so angry in the first place.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Maybe, just maybe, the best strategy in the war on terrorism is to stop doing the blatantly stupid shit that makes them so angry in the first place.

But then the terrorists win!
 
Back
Top