Robertson backs Rudy - for all the wrong reason[s]

T

tatera

New member
11/8/07 - Pat Robertson threw his considerable political weight behind, of all condidtates, Rudy Guliani, citing the number one job of the next president is to protect us against terrorist attacks.

As a reminder - "[Those who sacrifice freedom for security will get neither]" - Benjamin Franklin

America must recognize that the paranoia behind Robertson's statement is absolutely not cause to make protecting us from harm job number one for our next president. Job number one, the job for which the oath of the office is sworn, is to protect the U.S. Constitution.

Should we be giving away our prescious freedoms "for our own good"? Is America living in such fear that sentiments likes Robertson's are really accepted as wisdom?
 
It is very surprising that Pat Robertson, a supposed conservative Christian leader, would support a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate. I am not a fan of Robertson at all, and see this endorsement as proof that Robertson does not practice what he preaches.
 
I am not a fan of Robertson at all, and see this endorsement as proof that Robertson does not practice what he preaches.
Click to expand...

I thought that was evident a few years back when he went to the best cancer specialist available for his prostate cancer, instead of relying on faith to heal himself.

Anyhow, Robertson's endorsement is a liability for Giuliani. The drones watching the 700 Club may pull their levers as instructed, but the rest of the Religious Right will have a hard time swallowing a pro-choice candidate, and the moderates on both sides will see Robertson's endorsement as the Mark of Cain. If that nutcase thinks Rudy would make a good President, then that's a good reason for a lot of people not to vote for him.
 
Oil and Water. The contradictions in their works and deeds are stark. Robinson clearly sees Juliani as the likely Republican nominee and a better alternative to any Democrat.
 
When are people going to wake up and realize that the whole terrorism threat is blown ridiculously out of proportion?
 
When are people going to wake up and realize that the whole terrorism threat is blown ridiculously out of proportion?

I wonder if you will still feel this way when one of our cities is a pile of radioactive rubble. It WILL happen if the enemy is not delt with. That being said I despise Rudy and will most certainly not be voting for him.
 
I thought that was evident a few years back when he went to the best cancer specialist available for his prostate cancer, instead of relying on faith to heal himself.
Click to expand...

Nice jab at Christianity. :barf:
 
When are people going to wake up and realize that the whole terrorism threat is blown ridiculously out of proportion?

I wonder if you will still feel this way when one of our cities is a pile of radioactive rubble. It WILL happen if the enemy is not delt with. That being said I despise Rudy and will most certainly not be voting for him.
Click to expand...

It's actually not about either of these points. The point is there is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an enemy. Waging war on inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc.) or abstract concepts (crime, poverty, terror) serves the single purpose of leveraging fear to elect politicians to office without the burden of actually affecting any real change.

History proves that victory in war requires waging war on your enemy. Your enemy will be a people, not an inanimate object or abstract concept. We need a president willing to wage war on enemy (Islamic Extremists?). A few of the candidates already speak to the former "war on terror" in this way. Rudy is not one of them. Nor does his tragic record support any ability to be affective in this regard - he is, after all, the candidate with the worst record in protecting his constituents from attack.

Do not be fooled into thinking security comes at a cost to freedom.
 
On Robertson:
I'm shocked he didn't back Huckabee. Even if he does endorse Rudy, I'm not sure his followers will.

On GWOT:
Most of it has already been covered by tatera, but I'd like to add that our war (such as it is) is against Al Qaeda and it's associated organizations, not "terror". Our tactics thus far have only served to strengthen our enemy and weaken ourselves. Rudy doesn't want to change that.
 
I am not a fan of Robertson at all, and see this endorsement as proof that Robertson does not practice what he preaches.
Click to expand...

It's been apparent for many years that Robertson has a very ethically challenged ministry.

Recall how he sold the cable side of the Christian Broadcast Network to Rupert Murdoch for $1.8 Billion. The CBN had been built with charitable contributions from members. Robertson converted the money to his own use by spinning off the cable side of CBN as a "private entity" owned by him prior to the sale.

If I were Giuliani, I'd reject this endorsement. It's only going to cost him Catholic votes and not garner him much support amongst Christian conservatives, many of whom have a jaded view of the ethically challenged Robertson, and the equally challenged Ralph Reed, Robertson's former assistant.
 
Nice jab at Christianity.
Click to expand...

No, it was a jab at Pat Robertson. You may recall that he was an active faith healer during the 1970s and 1980s, curing people of things like AIDS and cancer through the power of prayer.
 
It's actually not about either of these points. The point is there is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an enemy. Waging war on inanimate objects (guns, drugs, etc.) or abstract concepts (crime, poverty, terror) serves the single purpose of leveraging fear to elect politicians to office without the burden of actually affecting any real change.

History proves that victory in war requires waging war on your enemy. Your enemy will be a people, not an inanimate object or abstract concept. We need a president willing to wage war on enemy (Islamic Extremists?). A few of the candidates already speak to the former "war on terror" in this way. Rudy is not one of them. Nor does his tragic record support any ability to be effective in this regard - he is, after all, the candidate with the worst record in protecting his constituents from attack.

Do not be fooled into thinking security comes at a cost to freedom
Click to expand...

Nail.....hit.....head....squarely...bravo!

It's surely a bizarro world when a Christian leader backs the candidate that is, of ALL the candidates, the most diametrically opposed to that group's traditional ideas. You guys in hell, duck - the snowballs are coming your way.
 
Do not be fooled into thinking security comes at a cost to freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I'm waiting for someone to post a 200 year old quote from a founding father. :rolleyes:

This thread has veered from the supposition that Robertson purportedly supported Rudy for "all the wrong reasons", to one about how the terrorists are really our unappreciated friends who just need some sensitivity and understanding. ;)

Robertson's support of Rudy is an interesting and unexpected shift of support; most would have expected Huckabee or Romney to receive the endorsement. It demonstrates that concerns for national security (or what the OP calls "all the wrong reasons") are compeling to a wide-range of voters (including the religious voters) in the conservative Republican base.
 
This thread has veered from the supposition that Robertson purportedly supported Rudy for "all the wrong reasons", to one about how the terrorists are really our unappreciated friends who just need some sensitivity and understanding.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum. Just because someone doesn't see the need to sacrifice freedoms to have security doesn't mean they want to take warm showers with Abdul al-Jihad.

Let's not argue like we're in high school or something.
 
most would have expected Huckabee or Romney
Click to expand...

Huckabee maybe, but Romney is a Mormon, and Robertson views that as a cult.

It demonstrates that concerns for national security (or what the OP calls "all the wrong reasons") are compeling to a wide-range of voters (including the religious voters) in the conservative Republican base.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so at all. I think it simply means the Robertson is a charlaton who does not practice what he preaches, and is using his personal media to delude his followers. I don't think you will see other Christian leaders follow suit. We will see. I don't think religious conservatives are likely to support Giuliani, even if some of their misguided leadership does. Remember, to a christian conservative, more murders occur daily in abortion clinics than occurred on September 11.

Its a shame that some people are living in such fear from the terrorists that they will compromise their own personal beliefes. I suppose fear reveals someone's true nature. I certainly think that is what has happened with Robertson, and any others who would forfeit liberty for safety.
 
Reductio ad absurdum
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah, and res ispa loquitur. Robertson believes in faith healing, which is vital concerning his views on national security. :D And Rupert Murcoch, he's part of the national security debate, too. But don't worry about al qaeda, the whole war on terror is just made-up.
 
Pat Robertson is nothing more than a political hack, who hides behinds talk of morals and throws in a few religious verses from the bible to satisfy people. It has been pretty evident for decades, that he will support who ever has the greatest chance for a Republican to win, rather than anything a candidate stands for. That guy would support Pol Pot if he was seen to have the best chance of winning.
 
I'm waiting for someone to post a 200 year old quote from a founding father. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
^ says a guy on a gun forum.
Depressing. :(
Who cares about minor things like our Constitutionally protected freedoms when we're faced with a threat almost as dire as that posed by our bathtubs?

It's sad that you're not the only one who thinks this way.
 
And Rupert Murcoch, he's part of the national security debate, too. But don't worry about al qaeda, the whole war on terror is just made-up.
Click to expand...

Robertson's theft of the $1.8 Billion from the sale of CBN's cable operation to Murdoch is pertinent to the original topic of the thread. It speaks to Robertson's lack of credibility and sway with many Christian conservatives.

I never said a word about Giuliani and Al-Qaeda, or a word about the level of threat this nation faces. However, now that you have brought it up, it's hard to see how Giuliani, the person responsible for the decision to locate NYC's emergency command center IN the World Trade Tower, AFTER the first attack, has any credibility on national security issues. He's demonstrated a level of incompetence on that issue that is unmatched by any other Republican candidate save Ron Raul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top