Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition continues to be one of the more effective lobbying organizations in Washington. Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda continues to be one of the more effective terrorist organizations in the world.

They may be individuals with seriously warped views of the world, but they're influential individuals with seriously warped views of the world.

Agreed. See: Chris Matthews re: Bin Laden / Michael Moore.

:confused:

no, actually he said he disliked bin laden less than another poster, and disliked robertson/falwell more than the other poster. He never said who of the three he disliked least.

and, just for the record, i already feel safe to scorn and vilify mr. bigglesworth. :)

You really expect a political argument to be factual?:p

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition

Sure, he founded it nearly 2 decades ago, but I'm pretty sure he has very little influence there any more. It is much more political than he is.

That's speculation. Does Pat Robertson have some influence with one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC?


Link

I love it. A convention four years ago where he spoke on spiritual matters. Classic.

Does Pat Robertson have some influence with one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC?

Hehehe. I love it how when cornered, you tried to change from a statement of it being "his" group (implying pretty much complete control) to "some influence." Too funny. :)

Hehehe, and I love it how you don't bother to defend your initial comment, which was:


Fact is, neither of us know how much influence Pat Robertson still has with the Christian Coalition, but I think that since 1) they've recently listed him first in a list of speakers for an important conference and 2) I think we can safely assume many CC members & contributors are also viewers of his show, it's quite possible that he has somewhat more than "very little influence".

But maybe you have other information.

That was not my initial comment, but hey, I am fully aware that a liberal point of view requires a bit of a depature from things like "facts," so I'll let ya slide on that one as I head out the door.

I've laid out my reasoning in detail and you've evaded the question and nitpicked. Yep, seems like a fair trade.

Let's go back to the original comment, shall we?


In fact, in this sense Pat Robertson and bin Laden are probably more alike than not. Both founded quite influential organizations but both (apparently) are not greatly involved in those organizations' day-to-day activities anymore, though they continue to have great influence, whether directly or indirectly, over them.

In this sense the Christian Coalition is very much "Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition" in a similar way that Al-Qaeda is "Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda."

I think the point is valid, but if you'd rather not address the point, and nitpick at the semantics instead, be my guest.

As far as who do I think is a worse influence on America and my way of life, I have already said that it would be Christian fundamentalism, of which Falwell and Robertson are a part, which is what I think flere was referring to. By that criteria I guess I would say I dislike Robertson/Falwell more. That's not to say that they are worse people, just that they are more likely to have a negative effect on me.

And I realize that that opinion is just screaming to be attacked, because everyone's visceral reaction is hate the person that attacked us, but like I said before, I would rather live with a minuscule threat of terrorism than live in a country with rules set by Robertson and Falwell. As Patrick Henry would say, give me liberty or give me death. That does NOT mean that I want Osama to go free or that I want him to 'win' or that I am on his side. Every criminal should be brought to trial, whether it be OBL or Bush.

Thanks. I'm not going to attack you, at least not right now. :) I was just curious as to your opinion.

Bin Laden is connected to terror. Saddam is connected to terror. Good luck squirming you're way out of that one.

So is the IRA. So was Timothy McVeigh. So are eight billion different factions in Africa. "Terror" is a action, not an organization.

And al Qaeda and the Baath Party were two such organizations that directly influenced the death of Americans and threatened our interests and economic stability.

I am indeed way out of that one.

I fail to see how this info supports your contention that 'my political crowd' was cheering for Saddam, and I fail to see how it supports bringing Saddam up in a discussion about religious fundamentalists. And if you use the same criteria you used for Saddam, Bush is connected to terror (outsourcing torture, torture camps in Eastern Europe, missile attacks on Pakistan, kidnapping citizens on foreign soil, etc.).

NOTE: The above does not mean to say that Bush is as bad as Saddam. Saddam was a bad guy! Everyone knows that, and nobody disputes it. He just was not heavily into terrorism, despite what the Bush administration et al would like you to believe.

I'm brown. Saddamn was brown - therefore I am a terrorist. Got more along this line of "logical" reasoning ? Saddamn was a bastard, a point that no one disputes - but he was, for the most part, a fairly secular bastard, as military men in the Muslim world (see Turkey, see Pakistan) tend to lean, with some exceptions. Does Iraq now not help prove that Saddamn keep a lid on some of the Islamist and Ethnic tensions (by sheer fear) ?

If you can say I'm 'cheering' for the death of Iraqi's during the removal of Saddam Hussein, then right back at'cha.


Nobody has ever said that. With your strong belief that this is my "logic" then you are misinterpreting way too much information.


What is your statute of limitations on mass murder? When does somebody go from being responsible for mass genocide to being simply a "bastard that kept the lid on opponents."

The man was a mass murderer, not simply "a bastard". And he didn't keep the lid on extremists. He funded them. He paid for almost all suicide bombers in Israel for instance. The list above shows that he himself was a terrorist. He ruled by terror.

How some of you chose not see a link between Saddam Hussein and Terror is the most close-minded thinking I've ever seen.

Jesus Christ, I've stated ad nauseum that Saddam was a murderous bastard - but so was Mobotu, so was Pinochet - key American allies during the Cold War. I think (and thought) that getting rid of Saddamn was a reasonable idea, especially if he did have WMD's (you remember this part ? The crux of the arguement laid out by this administration ?).

The Americans are responsible for much of the weaponry in Afghanistan today - they armed those men with Stingers to take out Russians, they supplied them with guns, and funding. Does funding that make them terrorists ? Donald Rumsfield is seen shaking hands with Saddamn for god sakes - what is that all about? America supported Iraq in its war with Iran - did you give a flying fuck about him being a mass murderer then ? Hell, they sold him weapons! Did the statue of limitations not apply when he gassed the Iranians ? Genuine questions - this isn't about morality - that has never been a part of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

How you choose to view this as anything else astounds me - its willfull ignorance. I supported the removal of Saddamn - but I'm honest enough to admit it was based on on an alignment of interests, not because of revisionist horseshit that it was about terror, or that Saddam paid for 9-11 (do you know that something like 40% of Americans believe this ?). Humanitarian concerns are now and were not then the reason - have the courage of your convictions. Post-hoc reasoning is the mark of a poor arguement .

In what alternate reality can you make up a statement and attribute it to your opponent to score points in an argument? I said that Robertson and Falwell supported and cheered on the Iraq War.

Source? Your ass doesn't count.

Actually, Dutch is somewhat accurate on this one . Sadamm awarded money after the fact to the families of suicide bombers - he's been quoted on it.

But if we invaded every country where the ruling powers awarded money to suicide bombers - that'd be every county in the Mideast, including our "allies," so that's a dog that doesn't hunt.

Forget politics and terrorism. Hussein was a genocide practicing dictator and it's a shame we didn't go in sooner to clear him out.

-Anxiety

Is that what he meant? He made it sounds like Saddam was funding the entire terrorist movement in Isreal.

So, when do we go after the twenty-five other dictators who are practicing their own forms of crimes against humanity? What made Hussien such a priority instead of say - Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? Or the other random African country no one gives a fuck about?

We can't save the world by occupying it.

I do thank you for your service. What unit were you in?

This piece of crap test does not even calculate correctly. All of the questions had two choices. A - Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or B - Osama

On several of mine, I got it wrong and it the correction displayed:

America is polluting the whole world.
Your answer: Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

How the heck did I get that wrong, Pat Robertson alone was not a choice? Your liberal test cheats!

As I've said ad nauseum, that is the not the point I'm arguing. I supported the invasion on the moral pretext (my interests aligned with theirs), but also because I thought he had WMD"s. The US government's entire plank was based on WMD's - and people like Dutch are engaged in an elaborate game of ass covering about the pretext - which is what bothers me.

Um... that means you got it right. LOL!

I like how you put that out as though 'lobbying' and 'terrorism' are on an equal moral plane. I've yet to see one liberal on this board come out and condemn this approach to scoring cheap points on Falwell/Robertson - neither one of whom, to my knowledge, has called for an overthrow of the constitution, as has been implied by more than one post here.

The intellectual bankruptcy of America's Left has never been quite so apparent to me.

I love this argument. Unless you've served in the military, you can never express support for military action.

By the same token, because I've never been a police officer, I can never root for law enforcement to make an arrest. And let's not even begin to apply this logic to sports. :rolleyes:

Spare me the over-the-top rhetoric. And by the way:

People compare them because they have close philosophies. They are all in favor of theocratic fascism, and it is clear in their writings. Is it your position that one or two of them are not theocratic fascists?

No - it is my position that one has murdered many, many people, more than enough for me to assume that whatever philosophy he subscribes to is base and perverse, and is unwelcome in pretty much every place on Earth. It is not necessary to compare Falwell and Robertson to bin Laden to make them look foolish, especially when doing so turns the stomach of typical Americans, thus sabotaging what you're trying to do.

I do not see where I have made that argument, as it is a stupid argument. I was for the Iraq war in the beginning (when I thought that the Bush administration knew what they were doing), I've never served. Anxiety was gung-ho about 'we' going in and taking out a dictator who posed no threat to us. By his tough-guy tone and inclusionary pronouns, I assume that he risked his life to do that, and wasn't just talking tough and risking someone else's life to do it. I think you should give him more credit than the latter, Cam.

If the "typical American" gets their stomach turned by this, then I really do fear for the future of our country.

The only stomachs that are getting turned by this are those so caught up in the rhetoric they can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't get your point at all. You just admitted that you think they have the same ideology, yet you think it is wrong to show that they have the same ideology, and doing so exposes the "intellectual bankruptcy of the left"? And in this same thread Dutch accused the entire left of cheering for Saddam and you said nothing? If you are trying to show the danger of an ideology, I think it is perfectly valid to show others with that same ideology.

I made no moral judgments.

Both lobbying and terrorism are vehicles of influence. End of story. You're putting meanings into my arguments that simply don't exist.

I love this counter-argument, because it totally misses the point.

What unit are you in? :rolleyes:

And before you fire back, I served six years in the Air Force. I was stationed at 16 AMXS in Hurlburt Fld, FL and 352 AMXS in Tinker AFB, OK.

I thank you for your service. Maybe read the whole thread though.

I was just making a point that neither side should be trying to shut down one opinion simply because they didn't serve in the military. Assuming that everyone in this thread has paid their taxes, they have an equal say of what our fighting men and women should be doing right now.

Did you work with or know my uncle, Lt. Col. Tye? He was a squadron commander at both of those places, as well as at Kadena and Kirtland. And I'm pretty certain he was AMXS.

If we started with the worst ones (The ones killing the most) and then worked our way down the list, I'd be quite happy.


-Anxiety

I would argue that my mercilessly killing off multitudes of his own people, he was posing a threat to us. I define us primarily as humanity, not as Americans. You wouldn't expect someone to stand by and watch as a neighbor killed his kids one by one, saying "It's not affecting me and my family." Why you don't apply the same ethic to an international standing must take serious manipulation of your own ethical framework.

Why you think I must be in error to not have twisted my own framework thusly boggles the imagination.


-Anxiety

His name doesn't ring a bell. What years was he commander? I was at Hurlburt from June 1998 to June 2001 and Tinker August 2001 to January 2004.

The rhetoric is the same. Basically it'd be like if I said that Charlie Chaplin and Hitler had similar mustaches, and then someone tried to shoot down that theory because Hitler killed more people than Chaplin. I think it's valid to point out the similarities, while recognizing there are differences.