I don't go there often but I'm betting his the hits on his website have doubled or so recently.
Who's tro
Jocche...will you forgive Usama if he says he made a mistake?
He didn't actually kill anyone...he just incited it.
It's funny because I know I've heard Pat Robertson ripping on Charles Manson and saying he should be put to death...
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone either...he just incited it...just like Robertson.
Pat Robertson is a ing tool.
This guy showed his ass and he needs to take it like a man...he gets no excuses for his comments.
i could see if he said it a bar while drinking beer with his friends and didnt know he was being taped
the ressurrected one
havent seen him in a while
he makes whottt look like howard dean
Have to throw this in flash. The problem is not in breaking the Commandments, the problem is in breaking them and not caring that you broke them
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. Matthew 18:21-22
That's not numerically specific, that's just to say as often as needed.
He made a mistake and admitted it, that's all he can do.
ive said some pretty wild, stupid, bull
but if i had a tv show that was pretaped i would watch it before hand and see if it contained anything as stupid as what he said
[QUOTE]Hypothetical and won't happen whottt so I can't honestly answer that.
Robertson incited dialogue, Manson incited murder. Bad parallelHe didn't actually kill anyone...he just incited it.
It's funny because I know I've heard Pat Robertson ripping on Charles Manson and saying he should be put to death...
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone either...he just incited it...just like Robertson.
I agree, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. I haven't defended his statement. I'm glad he retracted it.This guy showed his ass and he needs to take it like a man...he gets no excuses for his comments.
I think people are overreacting to this. Obviously, Christian televangelists shouldn't say such things...but come on guys...if you look deep in your heart, aren't there at least one or two people you'd plug if you had the chance. I would personally have taken out Hitler, Stalin, Edie Amin, and Pol Pot. And I'd have no moral qualms about it whatsoever, so don't try to appeal to my inner Christian.
It's been a long time since I've watched it with any regularity, maybe 15 or so years. Back in the day when he had some man named Ben something on the show with him.
I enjoyed it back then.
[QUOTE=whottt]You're talking extremely rare instances.American Wealth? No...American Weath is gained by being an entrepreneur...
Was Manu Ginobili born into wealth?
And you're saying that being the presidents/vice presidents(depends at which point in time) had nothing to do with his success. Don't you think the investors loved being in bed with the presidents son. I don't believe he would have survived all his youthful indescretions politically, if not for his daddy's name.He made the bulk of his money by leading investment groups where others supplied the capital and he got the group together...
He made most of his money of the Texas Rangers...and the group he put together didn't have a lot to do with his father...
The rest of his money he made in the Government...You should applaud that...that's the Socialist way of doing it.
I am fine with my place in the world, but not everyone is, and that is my problem. The rich horde all the money at the expense of the poor. I have no desire to be rich, and if it happened, I would certainly use it to cause a big change in the lives of as many as possible. Some of you people try to argue jealousy when someone disagrees with your POV.And I am starting to get a clearer picture here....
It's not the concept of the Rich you have a problem with...it's that you don't think you can be one of them...
Tough ...
So all the wealth being in the hands of the few doesn't in any way make the masses more poor, I think otherwise. It's like some people think that there is a limitless supply of money and everyone in the world could all be filthy rich at the same time, and that is just wrong.So in reality it's not that I raise the level of height a human can be...I lower it.
The kind people of several countries including this one, and including myself.Who was it that went and bailed out the ing Tsunami victims while the rest of the world was sitting there witht heir thumbs up their asses?
Good point. A benefit of capatilism is medical progress. Money tends to be a better motivating factor than goodwill. I don't dislike capatilism in theory, but I would prefer a modified capatilism with more social programs.Who has pioneered pharmaceutical and scientiffic development ushering in a technological century in which we advanced more than in all other the other centuries combined...ditto for quality of living?
The Capitalists.
Don't believe it says anything about socialism, but it seems to me that by the teachings of Jesus would lean more towards socialism then capatilism. Again I'm not religious, so I am no authority on the matter.It damn sure doesn't say Socialism is the solution. It just say money isn't the most important thing...a good message...but not one that proclaims Socialism as the guiding light...and Socialism damn sure doesn't embrace religion either.
Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the World...he was a college dropout.
The rich horde all the money at the expense of the poor. I have no desire to be rich, and if it happened, I would certainly use it to cause a big change in the lives of as many as possible. Some of you people try to argue jealousy when someone disagrees with your POV.
Ahh I see...so you advocate stealing what you lack the capability to earn...
That's criminal.
In Socialist countries the government holds all the wealth...the wealth lies in the hands of even fewer people.
And there is zero chance of altering that...and you don't even get the opportunity.
So all the wealth being in the hands of the few doesn't in any way make the masses more poor, I think otherwise. It's like some people think that there is a limitless supply of money and everyone in the world could all be filthy rich at the same time, and that is just wrong.
Hey mother er...you just said you don't mind being poor...
You lack to the motivation to become wealthy...so your solution is to steal from those who don't?
What if someone wants to be ing homeless...you advocate punishing those that don't?
Good point. A benefit of capatilism is medical progress. Money tends to be a better motivating factor than goodwill. I don't dislike capatilism in theory, but I would prefer a modified capatilism with more social programs.
And I'll give this coup Socialism...the emphasis it places on education is a huge positive...but it's nothing that can't be incorporated into a Capitalist system.
Well a lot of people seem to think the bible advocates being des ute...it most certainly does not...Don't believe it says anything about socialism, but it seems to me that by the teachings of Jesus would lean more towards socialism then capatilism. Again I'm not religious, so I am no authority on the matter.
What it says is god helps those that help themselves....
Socialism punishes those that help themselves and it helps those that have no desire to help themselves.
It's not a good system...we aren't ing ants.
Like I said...if you are so in love with Socialism...I seriously reccomend you going to a Socialist Country...
If you want to give up your freedom then do so...but why do you want to steal the freedom, the property, and the intellect of others?
You see...you can't be a Capitalist in a Socialist Society...but you can be a Socialist in a Capitalist Society...you'll just be miserable one.
I'm not miserable, just not entirely satisfied. I don't care about being poor, and I don't know where your confusion with that lies, explain. Also, I never said anything about stealing, please explain how you read that. I was saying that people think that capatilism means that either you are rich or lazy, and that is untrue. I don't have the want to be rich, and I am not lazy. I don't work terribly hard to earn someone else a buck, but that's my perrogative.
He's the leader of the Democratic Party...
He has more political pull and voter backing in that party than any other person.
Anyone who thinks that Michael Moore runs the Democratic Party is deranged and needs to quit listening to right-wing radio for awhile.
Let's examine some of W's business deals before becoming TX Governor:
Arbusto.....bankrupt...W's company, set up by Dad, specialized in digging dry holes.
Harken....bankrupt...another business deal set up by Dad that went wrong, but this time W was able to cash out hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock options a few days before the Harken fall, no SEC investigation was ever launched thanks to daddy.
Texas Rangers...turned a $400,000 investment into a $5+million dollar investment in a matter of months due in large part to the owner of Clear Channel Communications over-paying for the team. No favors involved there, right?
Yes, W was a hard working entrepreneur who turned flailing companies like, well, none, around. In fact, prior to becoming TX Governor, W managed to bankrupt every company he ever worked for and every business deal his Dad set up for him. Yeah, that's not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth though
Let's examine some of W's business deals before becoming TX Governor:
Arbusto.....bankrupt...W's company, set up by Dad, specialized in digging dry holes.
Harken....bankrupt...another business deal set up by Dad that went wrong, but this time W was able to cash out hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock options a few days before the Harken fall, no SEC investigation was ever launched thanks to daddy.
Texas Rangers...turned a $400,000 investment into a $5+million dollar investment in a matter of months due in large part to the owner of Clear Channel Communications over-paying for the team. No favors involved there, right?
Yes, W was a hard working entrepreneur who turned flailing companies like, well, none, around. In fact, prior to becoming TX Governor, W managed to bankrupt every company he ever worked for and every business deal his Dad set up for him. Yeah, that's not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth though
Hey...I already said he was a failed Oil man...
But what he did with the Rangers was legitimate....he took them from being a defacto minor league team to being a legitimate franchise... laid the foundation for the best era in team history and the only era they were truly a winner.
He hired the right people, resigned the big name FA's for the first time in team history, and he marketed the team well. He turned them into a winner and then used fan support to get the taxpayers to build a new stadium and supercharge the value of the franchise.
It's just ignorant to claim his Dad had anything to do with that success story. He pulled that one off on his own. And believe it or not...the Rangers are better off for W having owned them...that still stands as the highmark in team history.
The rest of it he got out of politics....like other politicians.
Anyone who thinks that Michael Moore runs the Democratic Party is deranged and needs to quit listening to right-wing radio for awhile.
I don't listen to right wing radio and to the best of my knowledge the right generally regards him as an extremist...but the fact is that he isn't percieved as an extreme lefty by America...he represents the loudest voice of the Democratic party.
Now maybe he's not saying much anymore...but most of the Democrats I see are saying the exact same things he says....
Dan...you are a ing extremist under most definitions...but you aren't extreme for a Democrat nowdays...you are no longer even the most extreme lefty on this forum. boutons has kicked your ass in the crazy lefty department.
You can say Michael Moore isn't the face of the Democratic Party...but the fact is he took a big piss on your party in this past election and marked it as his territory, and it's up to the Crats to extricate themselves from that perception...I don't think ya'll can do it because I think most of ya'll share his views. And as long as that perception exists, the moderates, which represent most of America, are going to tilt to the right. Then again...Pat Robertson may end up giving the crats a lot of help...but it's ultimately going to be up to who your candidate is.
Look...the American people are not Oil hungry intentionally...they aren't fascists...but they also aren't wacked out lefties either...they'll embrace a good candidate from either party...but the left has to show something better on terrorism than appeasing it, sympathizing with it...and seeing America as the bad guy. No one is going to vote for a candiate that sees America as the bad guy. Figure it out.
"he represents the loudest voice of the Democratic party. "
BS. He made a couple of HUMOUROUS films, so he and his films are famous.
Although it's clear you wish he'd shut the up with his dissent so America would have fewer voices and points of view different from your extreme right, xenophobic, chauvinist radicalism, he's in no way "loud" or in any way officially representing Dem party.
The funniest thing about Micheal Moore is that conservatives care so much more about him than liberals do.
It goes way beyond that. I won't give Robertson the benefit of the doubt for two reasons: (1) his retraction was insincere; and (2) this is not the first time he's said something stupid.So you've never made a statement in your life that you've had to retract or modify? Well let me tell you that if you've ever retracted or modified anything, you actually meant what you originally said and lied after that.
You won't give him the benefit of the doubt why?
I don't think Robertson's retraction was sincere. I deduce that primarily because the retraction you cite was his second shot at it. Initially, rather than own up to the stupidity of his statement, he contended that the media had misinterpreted his comments. Only after the media reported the precise context of Robertson's initial statements, and showed that he was full of crap in trying to pass the buck, did Robertson finally retract the statement and acknowledge that it was both asinine and immoral. And at that, his retraction was far from unconditional. I seriously doubt that Robertson thinks there was anything wrong with what he initially said.
More than that, Robertson repeatedly puts his foot in his mouth by openly advocating for harm to others. The one that strikes closest to home for me is the story about his 2003 "prayer offensive," which essentially prayed for worsening health of three Supreme Court justices (one who is old, one who has cancer, and one who has a heart condition), in the hope that it would cause them to retire from the Bench. Robertson was given sufficient rope to hang himself in that instance, and did it. I truly believe that Robertson is quite cool with harm befalling humans who disagree with his vision of a theocratic American state.
Maybe it's just me, but I find most of what Robertson says and preaches to be repugnant to the basic tenets of Christian religion . . . .
exacty. Grand Mullah Roberston has used his pulpit to spew so much inflammatory, outrageous bile that he way past excusing.
I put him in the same boat at Jean-Marie Le Pen, a right-wing rabble-rouser in France who, among many such comments, belittled the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust as a "small detail of history". Denying the Holocaust France is actually explicitly illegal.
Translation: The funniest thing about Michael Moore is that conservatives care so much more about getting elected than liberals do.
You and Nbadan are full of ...the Democrats tried to ride that film and it's rhetoric into the whitehouse and they failed at it...and now they have to deal with the reprecussions....
Don't even say that the Democrats weren't trying to ride this guy for everything he is worth in the last election...it's just a flat out lie to deny it.
And don't say the Republicans are the reason for this perception...sitting the guy next to an Ex-President at your convention is what is responsible for that appearance...
And not only was it a stupid thing to do imagewise...
But since the Carter era was just about the worst of the last 50 years...it wasn't like Carter conjured up fond memories for Joe Public.
exactly
nobody would ever mention his ass if it wasnt for whottt
I don't blame the Democrats for trying to distance themselves from their mistakes, in fact I think it's the right thing to do...they just aren't doing a very good job of it. Why? Because the good Democrats are the minority...or gone.
And the majority of them now are people that got their knowledge of history from googling left wing blogs.
It's Michael Moore's party now...and you are his peasantry.
Uh, I think comparing Hugo Chavez to Jesus Christ is a bit of a stretch....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
