What Pat Robertson meant, obviously, was
“Someone should take him out to dinner at a nice restaurant.”
It must have been taken out of context.
What Pat Robertson meant, obviously, was
“Someone should take him out to dinner at a nice restaurant.”
It must have been taken out of context.
Oh, my Babel fish must be on the blink again.
I never did master crazy old religious zeolotese.
Other possibilities:
“Take him trout.” —What with all the religious significance of fish, it would be a nice peaceful gesture.
“Take him oat.” — Some healthy food might just soften that mean Venezualian.
“Make him pout.” — Self explanatory.
“Fake him out.” — Fooled you, buddy. Now stop with all that anti-America stuff.
“Talk him out.” — Pat might just be the man for the job.
Dang media always misinterpretin’…!
No, clearly what he meant was “take him out - to the ballgame”. I mean, everyone knows that baseball will soften even the meanest of hearts.
Hmm. I was under the impression that he meant that we should set him up with a blind date. Well, it was that, or he meant that someone should send a high caliber explosive round through his skull, transmogrifying the contents of the brainpan into a fine mist coating his surroundings. But really, I think the blind date thing is more obvious.
Maybe he meant it in the sense that he wanted to go to Venezuela himself and have the guy get into the ring and do a “Rocky” on him.
Now THAT would be a sight to see.
There was a glitch in the teleprompter and part of the script was missing. The original line was: Someone should take him our warmest regards and hope that he someday sees the error of his ways so that he can change the policies of his government.
…or even mean, given Robertson’s misgivings about his statement.
In the 1980s Robertson, apparently looking for a Presidential nomination in 1988, said he hoped that some Supreme Court Justices would pass on so Reagan could appoint new justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Well, I just read on the SDMB about Chief Justice Rehnquist.
I hope for Robertson’s sake that this has ricocheted painfully in his mind…
I don’t know, seeing that Venezuela offered to send oil, money and food to the US in the wake of Katrina, maybe someone did take him out – and he scored!
The only misgiings Robertson had about his statment were that Bush’s handslap might cost him (Pat) a few bucks in donations.
This is the guy who ranted against racial equality in South Africa for years while his investments were supporting (and being repaid by) the apartheid policies of the government.
Robertson makes Paisley look Christian–or, at least, less of a hypocrite.
I don’t know who Paisley is, and I’m getting so I wish I didn’t know who Robertson is.
I wish I’d heard the Justices’ comments (unless they considered comments to be infra dig) on Robertson’s statements in the mid-80s.
Robertson’s race hypocrisy reminds me of an Ashleigh Brilliant quote: “I’ll always be faithful to the current trend.”
Compare Titus 1:6.
That’s a nice thought, but while there’s probably a lot of room for thoughts to ricochet in his head, I doubt it will do so painfully. He can’t be totally sad Rehnquist is dead. He will probably be replaced by a younger conservative who can serve for decades, whereas it’s been obvious for some time that Rehnquist wasn’t going to live much longer. If John Paul Stevens died tomorrow, I think Robertson would say his prayers have been answered.
[sourly] His own prayers.[/sourly]