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

Hey Marko:

What are 700 Club drones? I am not a fan of Robertson at all but I do know several very independent minded people who do watch his program. Your strereo-typing is only to be exceeded by your ignorance.:eek:
 
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...

My statement was no friend to terrorists. Perhaps that point wasn't clear enough.

I'm suggesting three basic ideas as a criticism of Robertson's ideas:
1.) Politicians are using fear to gain office
2.) Security and freedom are not exclusive to one another
3.) Wage war on the enemy, not their tactics

Terror is real but let's stop letting our politicians use it as a nameless, immaterial enemy they can pull out of their back pocket - like a mother warning her children about the boogyman if they don't get to bed on time. Our enemy has a name - politicians need to start using it.
 
It is very surprising that Pat Robertson, a supposed conservative Christian leader, would support a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate.
Click to expand...

Especially when you consider, according to Pat Robertson anyway, that God allowed 9/11 to happen because the US was too tolerant of abortions and gay rights.

I guess God is down with all that now? Don't know what God thinks, but I know what I think and this whole deal sounds like "The Devil in Mr. Robertson."
 
9mm snoopy

How is Falwell a hypocrite? I have known him for years and he is true blue in both his private and public life. Since you have slandered him in public, cough up and prove he is a hypocrite. Could it be you are projecting your hypocricy on him? I think so.
 
You're kidding me, right?
After all his financial misconduct? I seem to remember something in the Bible about not stealing.
And his brazen flip-flopping about homosexuality?
""I may not agree with the lifestyle, but that has nothing to do with the civil rights of that... part of our constituency," Falwell said. When Carlson countered that conservatives "are always arguing against 'special rights' for gays," Falwell said that equal access to housing and employment are basic rights, not special rights. "Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."- J. Falwell Washington Blade 2005 (which I agree with 100% FTR)

And yet he's consistently villified the gay community as murderous and worse while working steadfastly to combat these very rights.

That's called hypocrisy.
 
All:

It's been awhile since I've posted here, but this thread is a good example of why I came back. An intelligent and civil back and forth on an important issue of the day on the internet! Can you believe it?

Mods, I think everyone here is doing a good job of "raising the bar" as previously instructed. While certain topics like religion and sexual orientation are forbidden, this thread would be meaningless without their tangenital contribution. This participant appreciates your discretion and leeway.

Thanks,

Kowboy
 
After all his financial misconduct? I seem to remember something in the Bible about not stealing
Click to expand...

What financial misconduct on Falwell’s part are you referring to?

I can’t recall him ever being accused of any financial misconduct of any kind. Falwell had such a reputation for integrity on that score that he was the one called in to clean up the mess left behind by Jim and Tammy Baker for example.

And his brazen flip-flopping about homosexuality?
Click to expand...

And how does the statement of Falwell’s that you paraphrased demonstrate hypocrisy? It looks like he was merely explaining his opinion on certain universal civil rights such as open housing vs. redefining marriage to include a new class of people. Falwell always condemned homosexuality as a sin.
 
Last edited:
Well there was that illegal stock deal, when he tried claiming Jimmy Carter was a homosexual in his role working for the Republican party, the time he transferred 6.7 million dollars illegally to political campaigns from his ministry, the illegal forcing of students at Liberty University to follow his church that got him in big trouble, then there was more money he funneled from the old time gospel hour into political candidates, the lies he made about Bill Clinton in office on his tv show, that all turned out to be slander to help his favourite political party. Oh we can't forget his obsession with Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies, his strange contributions from the Moonies and other groups, his signing up voters for George W Bush and preaching to vote for him in the 2000 elections. Of course thats not counting the time he regularly got caught denying he said something and offering money for proof and when proof appears, he throws a fit and it ends up with half a dozen court cases.

The guy was nothing more than a loud mouth political tool that used the church to make money and and to run up voters for the Republican party.
 
Well there was that illegal stock deal, when he tried claiming Jimmy Carter was a homosexual in his role working for the Republican party, the time he transferred 6.7 million dollars illegally to political campaigns from his ministry, the illegal forcing of students at Liberty University to follow his church that got him in big trouble, then there was more money he funneled from the old time gospel hour into political candidates, the lies he made about Bill Clinton in office on his tv show, that all turned out to be slander to help his favourite political party. Oh we can't forget his obsession with Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies, his strange contributions from the Moonies and other groups, his signing up voters for George W Bush and preaching to vote for him in the 2000 elections. Of course thats not counting the time he regularly got caught denying he said something and offering money for proof and when proof appears, he throws a fit and it ends up with half a dozen court cases.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link substantiating any of these allegations? And as always, Noam Chomsky's blog doesn't count as a credible source.

One thing I will refute right off the bat is the false allegation made against Falwell concerning the teletubbies.

A magazine published by Falwell's Liberty University originally merely quoted a few gay-oriented newspapers: "The Advocate" and "The Blade" which, years before had made the comments about one of the teletubbies: Tinky Winky, seeming to incorporate gay imagery, i.e., the purple color, the triangle-shaped antenna, the purse, the Subaru, etc.

Falwell himself never originated the allegation. And in fact, many in the US and UK gay community apparently believe that the Tinky Winky character was deliberately designed to include gay symbols.

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199902/IND19990212a.html

Another gay publication drew a similar conclusion about the children's TV character. The April 17, 1998 edition of The Washington Blade, a newspaper that caters to the gay community in the nation's capital, noted that Tinky Winky "has become something of a Gay icon among British viewers," and quoted Kenn Viselman, president of the company that produces the program, as denying the gay connection with Tinky Winky by saying that "the idea is to break down stereotypes
Click to expand...

And again,

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ma...th-still-think-falwell-wrong-tinky-call-musto

Three comments in defense of Falwell: First, he didn't write the article in question, which appeared unsigned in National Liberty Journal, a magazine he publishes. When asked about the charge, Falwell said he had never seen Teletubbies and didn't know whether Tinky Winky was homosexual or not. The notion of Falwell attacking a cartoon character is too appealing to liberal prejudices to be easily abandoned
Click to expand...
.

You seem to have bought into a great deal of MSM disinformation about Falwell. You seem to accept uncritically the distorted versions presented by shrill leftists like these:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/goldstein

It's an old obsession of the religious right. Remember Jerry Falwell's jihad against Tinky Winky,
Click to expand...

Jihad against Tinky Winky? :rolleyes:

As for your other allegations, I suspect they are similarly groundless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top