I think Robertson is the one who should watch out for holy wrath. He has been distorting god’s words for so long.
Maybe you should set up a new category that separates out social cons/ Republicans from conservatives /classical liberals. Just so I don’t have to see “crazy conservatives” and then read about Robertson. Please? For me?
Maybe you should set up a new category that separates out social cons/ Republicans from conservatives /classical liberals. Just so I don’t have to see “crazy conservatives” and then read about Robertson. Please? For me? Well, we liberals have our crosses to bear, too! I couldn’t resist–the devil made me do it! 😉 OK, I’ll stop!
Yeah, how about something for us “just kinda silly sometimes” conservatives. For the record I think Robertson is certifiable. I also think if the CIA were worth a shit they would have bombarded Venezuela with Pat Robertson masks the night before Halloween.^^ And I think you should give wildlife a chance…….. to marinate mwahahahahahaha
…to be sure us lefty-types have some folks on our side who we’d druther just STFU. But we don’t have anything like anbody in Preacher Robertson’s league. Hello, Conservatarians: These are your peeps. Is a reduction in the capital gains tax worth this? cheers, DD
(musical note) “I’ve got the brains.. you’ve got the hordes of people easily frightened by change.. let’s make lots of secret detention camps!” (musical note)
I could point out that Fred Phelps is a major d’Emocrat fundraiser and an invited guest to both of Clinton’s inaugurations, but that would be kind of cheap wouldn’t it?
…there are folks on the left who will, from time to time, say something I find distasteful (Iraqi “freedom fighters” comes to mind.) That said, the wingnuts can see us and raise us, every time: Moreover…the “free-minds/free markets” types on the right (some of whom I count as friends)have made common cause with the Robertsons and Falwells and Dobsons. I hope they’re cozy. Can’t elaborate just now: Work, etc. cheers, DD
I could also point out that the environmental movement has been undermined by Pagan and Wiccan philosophies, that, while interesting and usually well-intentioned, are not science. And that many in this community who scoff at Intelligent Design as a Christian explanation for the past heartily advocate a human-guided Intelligent Design philosophy to supercede evolution in the future. Both parties have their crosses to bear.
Jeff, it’s your word. If Robertson’s brand of “conservative” is drawing too much fire, you take care of it. Toss him out, shut him up, chop him up and use him for shark chum — I don’t care. He’s not my problem. He’s your problem.
Correction: Pat Robertson is everyone’s problem. Yes, but which party is defering to the likes of him and Dobson? You have a serious problem when the Administration consults with someone like Dobson on a Supreme Court nominee instead of with Democratic senators, who actually have a vote on the issue.
If you are talking about Miers, Harry Reid and others were consulted and she was on their list of acceptables. If the Rethugs are expected to somehow kick Robertson out, when are the d’Emos going to kick out Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps? And how the hell do you kick someone out of a political party? The point I am trying to make is it is cheap and disingenuous to use someone like Pat R. to attack an entire party. Both sides have their loons, and it is telling that the left is less willing to acknowledge that.
Both sides have their loons, and it is telling that the left is less willing to acknowledge that. Not to mention, the left wing appoints one of them as DNC chair.
The point I am trying to make is it is cheap and disingenuous to use someone like Pat R. to attack an entire party. Both sides have their loons, and it is telling that the left is less willing to acknowledge that. First sentence: a good and fair point. Second sentence: illustrating how cheap and disingenuous it is to try to score debating points with an unfair generalization. Not to mention, the left wing appoints one of them as DNC chair. Your opinion, Sparky. Just because you don’t like Dean, that doesn’t mean he’s a loon. It means you think he’s a loon–not the same thing.
Second sentence: illustrating how cheap and disingenuous it is to try to score debating points with an unfair generalization. Every “conservative” on this thread has condemned Robertson,yet even with my repeated hinting no one else has condemned Phelps. Your point would have carried more weight if you had been brave enough to be the first. Your opinion, Sparky. Just because you don’t like Dean, that doesn’t mean he’s a loon. It means you think he’s a loon–not the same thing. Well where do we go to have him tested, because I personally would like to know for sure.
If you are talking about Miers, Harry Reid and others were consulted and she was on their list of acceptables. But Dobson was given information the senators weren’t privy to. And *that* is a problem. And I realize both sides have their loons, but the least I expect is that the sane members of the party denounce statements like the ones Robertson has made.
yet even with my repeated hinting no one else has condemned Phelps. Hinting is one thing, citations are another. Links, please.
Party affiliations are objective and, in this country, are not revocable by central authority. No Democrat can make Phelps or Zell Miller stop being a Democrat, and no Republican can make Lincoln Chaffee stop being a Republican. When I told Jeff that Robertson is his problem, I specifically referenced the term “conservative.” Nobody thinks Phelps is a liberal. Nobody thinks Miller is a liberal. Everybody thinks that Robertson is a conservative. The only way to change that, short of killing him, is to shout loud and long about how he’s no conservative and he’s betrayed the ideology and you’re not with him, until the MSM will not call him “conservative” without qualification.
If the Rethugs are expected to somehow kick Robertson out, when are the d’Emos going to kick out Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps? And how the hell do you kick someone out of a political party? The difference, of course, is that Fred Phelps really isn’t considered a mouthpiece for a good chunk of the Democratic Party’s base. I think we can all agree that Phelps is batshit crazy — crazier, even, than Robertson — but he doesn’t have much political power. Robertson does.
In the link you provide, he’s picketing Al Gore’s father’s funeral–and the article mentions that he picketed Bill Clinton’s mother’s funeral. Not exactly a party shill, is he? Of course queer and queer-friendly progressives condemn Phelps. I’ve never seen him interviewed on a liberal radio or TV program, and that can’t be said of Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell. He doesn’t have the same following–his “church” is essentially made up of his extended family.
As a queer, I’m not at all offended by the Democrats taking Phelps’s money. They don’t seem to feel any obligation to formulate policy on his behalf because of it.
The difference, of course, is that Fred Phelps really isn’t considered a mouthpiece for a good chunk of the Democratic Party’s base. Whereas, Michael Moore (“he of brave Iraqi minutemen” fame) didn’t sit in Jimmy Carter’s box at the Democratic National Convention? Terry McAuliffe and significant Democratic senators didn’t attend the premiere of F 9-11? The DNCC didn’t intimate that the Bush Administration was tipped to 9-11 by the Saudis and did nothing about it? Both sides play this argument about extremism and wacky elements, and to some extent it’s very true, but prior to the Schiavo mess, at least the GOP kept their extremists disciplined and under wraps. In contrast, the Dems let a portion of the extremist base leach up to the top. Into the actual political leadership.
Nobody thinks Phelps is a liberal. Nobody thinks Miller is a liberal. Everybody thinks that Robertson is a conservative. Substitute “all my friends” for everybody, and maybe we can start to have a discussion. I don’t honestly know wtf liberal and conservative mean anymore, but I don’t consider Robertson any kind of political conservative. He advocates a theocracy that has no respect for individual rights, how can you consider that a conservative ideology? The only way to change that, short of killing him, is to shout loud and long about how he’s no conservative and he’s betrayed the ideology and you’re not with him, until the MSM will not call him “conservative” without qualification. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I think we can all agree that Phelps is batshit crazy — crazier, even, than Robertson — but he doesn’t have much political power. Robertson does. I don’t have an insider’s feel to the Republican power structure, I honest to God am a life long Democrat who only recently has been disaffected enough to mildly flirt with the Reps. I will say I don’t think Robertson has nearly the power most lefties give him credit for. He may well have under Reagan, but the between the Neo-con movement of the party leftward and the defection of quite a few moderate Dems I think Robertson’s influence is way over-rated.
prior to the Schiavo mess, at least the GOP kept their extremists disciplined and under wraps. Oh, so they endorsed Robertson’s statements that it was the queers, abortionists and pagans who caused 9/11?
I don’t have an insider’s feel to the Republican power structure, I honest to God am a life long Democrat who only recently has been disaffected enough to mildly flirt with the Reps. I will say I don’t think Robertson has nearly the power most lefties give him credit for. He may well have under Reagan, but the between the Neo-con movement of the party leftward and the defection of quite a few moderate Dems I think Robertson’s influence is way over-rated. But can we agree that it’s much smaller than “a church of approximately fifty people in a smallish town in Kansas, plus enough money to run around protesting gay funerals?” Have you ever seen Phelps interviewed on FNC? I haven’t.
Bill, are you seriously comparing Michael Moore, whose only offense is being a dishonest and manipulative documentarian, to Phelps? One could argue that Moore’s counterpart is Limbaugh, as over-the-top propogandists. He’s not even as nutty as Coulter. Phelps is two standard deviations from that.
Why is it these always degenerate into whose side of the families weird uncle is the weirdest? And did anyone notice the parallels between this post and the infamous Jill post about Saudi domestic violence?
Every “conservative” on this thread has condemned Robertson,yet even with my repeated hinting no one else has condemned Phelps. Your point would have carried more weight if you had been brave enough to be the first. Ah, I see. So the game is to name someone who’s nuts and whom you who consider to somehow represent the other side’s philosophy. Then you get to question the bravery of anyone who doesn’t immediately challenge that silly notion! Oh, wow! OK, well, that’s not cheap and disingenuous at all! I guess you really showed me!
There is no fucking game. We started out joking about Robertson, then came a couple of snark attacks insinuating that Robertson was a major player and all conservatives were responsible for him. I responded, initially playfully, that the left have their religious wackos too and another dangerously unbalanced minister had been a guest of the Clintons, as in we all have our crazy uncles show up at the picnic sometimes. I was a little surprised by the silence and remarked on it. When Jill made the thread about the Saudi culture of misogyny and abuse in marriage, some of us were a little taken aback by her “of course we have those problems too” statement about the US, feeling that it was not fair, necessary or appropriate to make such a comparison. It is interesting to see the identical reaction now that the shoe is on the other foot. Although it is disturbing to me that it is alright to concede the US has problems compared to other countries, but out of line to compare Democratic problems to Republican.
What is Robertson’s power, exactly? Here’s a parallel: Dobson supported Miers. Fuck lot of good it did her, yes? I think a lot of you don’t understand that a good portion of the new conservative movement are South Parkers and libertarians. We don’t find common cause with Robertson. But we don’t control where he tells his flock to cast their votes, either.
There is no fucking game. We started out joking about Robertson, then came a couple of snark attacks insinuating that Robertson was a major player and all conservatives were responsible for him. I responded, initially playfully, that the left have their religious wackos too and another dangerously unbalanced minister had been a guest of the Clintons, as in we all have our crazy uncles show up at the picnic sometimes. I was a little surprised by the silence and remarked on it. But you mentioned someone who’s on the fringe of the fringe. Phelps isn’t equivalent to Robertson, who has his own TV show. He’s equivalent to a Short Creek patriarch, except with even less influence. He has no power, and he wouldn’t have any notoriety at all if he didn’t engage in public displays as ghastly to most people, progressive and conservative, as the last scene of Flamingoes. Phelps does not have a flock. Even homophobes distance themselves from him. He doesn’t represent the opinions of any group of Democrats. If you want people to stop reading you as disingenuous, you need to stop comparing Robertson to someone who had to father his congregation.
What is Robertson’s power, exactly? Here’s a parallel: Dobson supported Miers. Fuck lot of good it did her, yes? What Supreme Court nominee would Phelps support? Is he satisfied with Alito? What about, say, Reverend Cecil Williams? What were his endorsements? Has he always been a solid Democrat? Has he ever gone Green? What about the Metropolitan Community Church leadership? Can you think of any prominent left-leaning religious leaders you’re familiar with, anyone who seems to get a great deal of media attention?
If you want people to stop reading you as disingenuous, you need to stop comparing Robertson to someone who had to father his congregation. LOL! Okay, you nailed me, but I thought the bell had sounded.^^ I brought up Phelps to make a point, I went a bit absurdist I will admit, but I didn’t realize you folks take Robertson alot more serious than I do. I know he has a following with a bit of political clout, but to me it is miniscule and not significant to the party platform. I mean how far would the Reps have to go to lose Robertson to the Dems? I know and work with an assload of Republicans, and none of them give a rat’s ass what Pat Robertson thinks except for the humor value. I thought the point you made about the Democrats not formulating policy because of Phelps was spot on, and I think the same of Robertson. Robertson does not represent all Christians either. I gotta learn to play you guys better, I was really hoping to get a good discussion on the Robertson masks in Venzuala going, that or the Wiccan/Pagan/Enviromental thing.
And I really have to stop getting all snappish about this stuff. Suffice it to say that there are real, reasonable human beings on both “sides”, and we might even find we agree on some things! I personally think Robertson has more power than you give him credit for, but my getting nasty about him doesn’t solve anything. I come here at least in part because the vast majority of the comments are intelligent and well thought out. (I also happen to be nuts about cats, but that’s another novel…)
B Moe, remember, Clinton’s last inaugural was in 19 fucking 96. OK? Robertson just said his shit a few days ago, and hasn’t been repudiated by the conservative majority yet. Here’s a parallel: Dobson supported Miers. Fuck lot of good it did her, yes? Dobson was still CONSULTED by the PRESIDENT, giving him information that the senate DID NOT GET. That Bushie didn’t realize that he didn’t have enough political capital left to get away with that doesn’t change the fact that he gave information to a religious leader that he didn’t give to the Senate, who are the ones who are supposed to advise and consent on this. And Bill Frist appeared at Justice Sunday. You know, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate? By the way, have any mainstream conservatives condemned the Robertson “gays/abortionists/pagans/feminists are responsible for 9/11”? Or condemned Ann Coulter for her assertions thatt New Yorkers would capitulate to terrorists?
Oh, and one thing about Roberston and the 700 Club: On ABC Family, the show that leads into the 700 Club, at least on my cable system in Godless Heathen New York, is “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” Which, honestly, is not really the most family -friendly thing ever.
Robertson just said his shit a few days ago, and hasn’t been repudiated by the conservative majority yet. As I stated earlier, I doubt that they are aware that they need to yet, most of them don’t pay any attention to Pat. That Bushie didn’t realize that he didn’t have enough political capital left to get away with that doesn’t change the fact that he gave information to a religious leader that he didn’t give to the Senate, who are the ones who are supposed to advise and consent on this. The point about Miers is it didn’t matter who Bush talked to (the Christian Right) or ignored (Senate) the nomination got shot down by a sector he didn’t count in the equation: the misfit malcontent reThuglican black sheep. Miers was pre-approved by the Senate, had Reed’s blessing, the meeting with Dobson was to sell her to the Christian Fringe. What shot the deal down wasn’t the Christians or the hard right base, it was the nebulous “they” of the Republican Party, a good portion of which are registered as independants or Democrats, that didn’t want a Bible thumping political hack interpreting the Constitution. By the way, have any mainstream conservatives condemned the Robertson “gays/abortionists/pagans/feminists are responsible for 9/11″? Honestly, I am not sure. Have any mainstream Democrats condemned Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney, or Howard Dean for blaming it on the Jews? On ABC Family, the show that leads into the 700 Club, at least on my cable system in Godless Heathen New York, is “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” Which, honestly, is not really the most family -friendly thing ever. So now you are complaining that they aren’t uptight enough? You lost me on this one, but just out of curiousity is it the Brit version or the Drew Carey one? I can kind of understand you being pissed if you got stuck with Drew.
On ABC Family, the show that leads into the 700 Club, at least on my cable system in Godless Heathen New York, is “Whose Line Is It Anyway?” Which, honestly, is not really the most family -friendly thing ever. When Robertson sold the Family Channel a few years ago, one of the terms of sale was that the buyer had to continue running the 700 Club in perpetuity.
Bill, are you seriously comparing Michael Moore, whose only offense is being a dishonest and manipulative documentarian, to Phelps? One could argue that Moore’s counterpart is Limbaugh, as over-the-top propogandists. He’s not even as nutty as Coulter. Phelps is two standard deviations from that. Er, why would you draw THAT parallel? Phelps is technically a Dem (though I certainly don’t view him as representative of anything except insanity), as many have pointed out. No one compares to Phelps. Moore is easily worse than Robertson, which would be the relevant comparable association on this thread. Why? Because as nutty as Pat is, most people laugh at him and dismiss him. He makes America look bad in the world’s eyes, yes, but at least that’s not his aim. Michael Moore makes a living off of it, through dishonest, batshit methodology, and is in no small measure successful. Go look up quotes from many of his overseas speeches, the popularity of his movies, his books. He’s an anathema to people like me, and the Dems – from Terry McAuliffe to Jimmy Carter to Wesley Clarke – seem clueless to how disgusting it is to a significant portion of the electorate that they chose his association. Actively.
PS – And as you can see from my comment, I think the idea that Moore’s “only offense is being a dishonest and manipulative documentarian” is total bs. He’s a malicious propagandist.
Oh, so they endorsed Robertson’s statements that it was the queers, abortionists and pagans who caused 9/11? Even better: they CONDEMNED them.
PSS – Thomas – now I see why you would draw that parallel – it was implied by my response to Jill’s statement in the earlier comment. But I would not draw a direct comparison to Phelps. I meant a direct comparison to someone like Roberts, who Jill claims is “different” because he wields so much political power. Phelps is so full of hate, no one associates with him, and I don’t associate him with any political party (though it’s amusing how often he’s assumed to be a Republican).
it didn’t matter who Bush talked to (the Christian Right) or ignored (Senate) Why wouldn’t it matter that Bush gave information to the Christian Right, who has no vote in the confirmation proces, versus the Senate, who has a Constitutional duty to advise and consent? Who condemned Roberston, Bill? And I’m also interested how, say, Bill Frist’s participation in Justice Sunday constituted discipline and containment of the wingnuts. (Not necessarily from you, Bill, I believe it was B Moe who made the claim). And I’d also like a cite to ANYONE on the left’s linking 9/11 to “the Jews.” Israel doesn’t count. I’m particularly interested in how Howard Dean, who’s married to a Jew, would blame the Jews.
Why wouldn’t it matter that Bush gave information to the Christian Right, who has no vote in the confirmation proces, versus the Senate, who has a Constitutional duty to advise and consent? Because they have no vote in the confirmation process. And since Miers never made it to the Senate, we can’t really establish what the Senate would or would not have been told now, can we. And I’m also interested how, say, Bill Frist’s participation in Justice Sunday constituted discipline and containment of the wingnuts. (Not necessarily from you, Bill, I believe it was B Moe who made the claim). Sorry, I have no clue what this refers too. And I’d also like a cite to ANYONE on the left’s linking 9/11 to “the Jews.” Israel doesn’t count. McKinney was an error of sorts on my part, she accused Bush of being involved while taking money from the Saudi’s who accused the-middle-eastern-country-that-doesn’t-count. I got confused because at the time her father, a GA state representative, was blaming the “jews, J-E-W-S” for her 2002 defeat. And Dean said he couldn’t discount the theory that the Saudi’s had warned Bush because he had been hearing alot of people say that, or something along those lines, so he didn’t directly link the jews either, just another indirect shot at the-middle-eastern-country-that-doesn’t-count. As far as Farrakhan, who while maybe not strictly a d’Emocrat, has campaigned repeatedly for McKinney, well if you don’t know how he feels about jews this is probably a pointless discussion. I’m particularly interested in how Howard Dean, who’s married to a Jew, would blame the Jews. Dunno, the same way so many guys married to women can be misogynists I guess.
And Dean said he couldn’t discount the theory that the Saudi’s had warned Bush because he had been hearing alot of people say that, or something along those lines, so he didn’t directly link the jews either, just another indirect shot at the-middle-eastern-country-that-doesn’t-count. That’s laughable. You’re really stretching. The Bushes are personal friends and business associates of the House of Saud. Most of the highjackers were Saudis. How does that get us to “Howard Dean blames the Jews?” Even Sean Hannity admitted that he misstated Dean’s comments What Dean actually said: “When Rehm asked Dean in a Dec. 1 interview why he thought Bush wasn’t more forthcoming with the commission investigating the terrorist attacks, Dean replied, ‘The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far — which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved — is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.'” Oh, and Israel /= all Jews.
Who condemned Roberston, Bill? Well, much of the right-wing blogosphere, for starters. As a recent example, look around at the reactions to his latest idiocy on libertarian/right wing blogs (including mine). Mockery, where he’s not ingnored. You won’t find many (any?) feting his random ramblings, that’s for sure. In contrast, Kos recommends Howard Dean for DNCC after his crazy soundbites about blacks, Republicans and Osama bin Laden. There is a difference.
Only if they’re Communion wafers. Then it’s blasphemy, and we’ll have no choice but to string you up, you [insert anti-Jew slur here]. Necco or Nilla wafers, no worries. Mmmm, nilla wafers and a bowl of banana pudding. Trash cuisine heaven.
That’s laughable. You’re really stretching. That is my response to most of Dean’s comments, including the one about the Saudi warning being an “interesting theory”. The fact that he left himself wiggle room makes it more insidious in my eyes. And I understand the difference between Israel and Jews, but how much of Dean and McKinney’s target audience does? And still no response to this: When Jill made the thread about the Saudi culture of misogyny and abuse in marriage, some of us were a little taken aback by her “of course we have those problems too” statement about the US, feeling that it was not fair, necessary or appropriate to make such a comparison. It is interesting to see the identical reaction now that the shoe is on the other foot. Although it is disturbing to me that it is alright to concede the US has problems compared to other countries, but out of line to compare Democratic problems to Republican. An off-topic aside, but does anybody know if Dean is still wearing that old belt of his brother? Or was that just a moldy old campaign prop, like Theresa’s last name?
You still haven’t explained how a comment directed to a question about Bush’s candor with the 9/11 commission somehow makes Dean an anti-semite.
Christ, why are you all responding to this troll? He’s got strawmen all over the place—Phelps was invited to the DNC or whatever—and he’s just trying to defend his boys.
Defend what boys? I’m through here, if all anybody wants to do is nitpick details trying to win cheap debate points, I have better things to do.