It’s the debate equivalent of throwing sand in your face while trying to kick you in the nuts.
I don’t know if you want to count “endless amounts of desert” as a natural disaster, but it sure ain’t a free pass.
More like 5 or 6 tornados, and I belive 4 dead. None of whom were gay as far as I know.
Er, … that People article you refer to relies almost exclusively on McCloskey, a Holocaust denier whom you claimed was “irrelevant”.
Also, I didn’t realize that a gossip magazine from the 80s was considered a reliable source.
Finally, I have to say there’s something really sad about a man in his 40s resorting to insults like “ass monkey.”
No, the People article cites the court records, moron.
I don’t know. Weren’t the deserts initially placed there when the planet was created?
It would only be a “punishment” if the desert appeared after the folks settled there.
But God knows the future as well as the past. It’s pre-punishment.
I agree. “Butt Baboon” is much more erudite.
Wikihas a couple cites (but no Internet link to the actual articles, so it’s far from ironclad) for a couple sentences that suggest some credibility to the story:
There’s a bit on the suit on Time.com, which refers to a second person to bring a similar accusation. Again, it can be read equivocally.
Tempering the insinuation that settling is tantamount to an admission, note that at the time Robertson was running for the Republican nomination {{shudder}} and the trial date overlapped with Super Tuesday. Further, Robertson’s payment of fees was mandated by the judge. Per the LA Times:
It’s an interestingly murky situation, one that I would have assumed would have had easier to find documentary evidence and information. I’m a bit surprised that McCloskey is being defined by his (potentially?) antisemitic comments (I put the ‘potentially’ in there not because believing the worst of it wouldn’t be antisemitic, but because the situation is also a bit murkey).
Anyway, the tit-for-tat got me a bit interested, and I learned something today.
That even if you wholly discount the combat veteran affair, there are still scores of reasons to Pit Robertson. The man is vile.
I’ll go one farther, even if the “combat veteran” story is 100% accurate it would be way, way down on the list of reasons to despise him.
I remember many Republicans making claims about Al Gore getting special treatment in Vietnam and I didn’t care then and don’t care now even if the stories were true(again not making judgements on whether they’re true or not).
What you are doing here Ibn Warraq, is discounting everything McCloskey has to say about anything, because he has stepped over the line of something (entirely unrelated) that you find objectionable.
McCloskey’s claims about Robertson’s military service should stand and fall on the FACTS, and should not be dependent on an unrelated speech he may have made to a holocaust denier organization. I realize that this is a cause dear to your heart, but you’re not making sense here.
Of course, I once jaywalked, so anything I say now is probably incorrect.
Um… Holocaust Deniers are people who are aggressively in denial of reality and, as a rule, shouldn’t be relied on.
So yes, before taking the word of a Holocaust Denier I’d want to see some fairly compelling evidence to back it up.
As I said before, I don’t have strong feelings one way or another on this whole combat veteran issue and don’t understand why so many here seem so obsessed with it.
Even if 100% true I don’t think it would make my top ten list of why I despise Pat Robertson.
I have to warn you, I’m probably going to plagiarize this, in some context where crediting it to “cartoon character on a message board” would puzzle the audience.
That’s not the part that was wrong. Iowa has tons of tornados and tornado-related carnage.
Of course, it’s not like this is a new phenomenon because we dun let them thar gays marry, an’ such.
If you notice, Iowa is listed in both the “gay marriage” and “no gay marriage” categories in the Little Nemo’s quote. We’re so conflicted!
I’ll concede my thesis may lack rigor. But I think the evidence overall indicates there is a causal relationship between natural disasters and opposition to gay marriage.
And remember to cite my research properly. Not this. Or this. This.
UMM, most people don’t have the pull to get away with doing that! :rolleyes:
Both of you, to read the cited posts, appear to have access to the People magazine article in question (cf. your confident assertions regarding the sourcing of the allegations); and yet neither of you has the ability to post a link to the article. Apparently you both spend a lot of time in the waiting room of the same dentist.
Dio posted a link in post 33.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,20098476,00.html
Frankly I think it’s a silly issue and don’t understand the obsessing over such a murky subject that we won’t know the answer to.
Even if true, I’d certainly look like a moron if I condemned Robertson since I not only voted but campaigned for Bill Clinton who clearly attempted to pull strings to avoid service in Vietnam while preserving his “political viability”.
I knew young men who volunteered to go, and young men who would have done just about anything not to. I can’t judge either, just for myself, I don’t see how a man honors his country or fulfills a duty by helping his country do something it ought not to. So a pass on that, no blame.
But his perversion of Jesus into a mean-spirited bigot…nope.
Pat Robertson. If there was a God, Pat would be the form the anti-Christ would take. The smiling face of hate and evil.
I know I am biased, I grew up in Pat’s part of the world and I have learned over the past 40 years to hate this guy. Back when there were only 4 TV stations to choose from (the 60s and 70s), Pat was already begging for money on air on local TV. Sure, we had a few good laughs at the goofy and hateful things he said way back then. We thought others could see the evil. Sadly, we were wrong.
My favorite Pat moment was when I happened to pass his show just after 9/11. He had a beautiful wall sized relief map of Iraq up in the studio so I innocently stopped to have a look. Really, I don’t normally tune into Pat’s show. He was pointing out where we should drop the nukes to take out the terrorist. That’s right, nukes! Pat’s opinion was that we should obliterate the Gomorrah of Iraq with thermonuclear weapons and he was helpfully showing the viewers where the best targets were.
That neither challenges the argument quoted, nor adds any information that all involved didn’t already know. What’s your point?