Comments on: The World Reacts to Robertson

By: Rollie Kenmore

Rollie Kenmore — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:56 +0000

Is Karl Luck a racist or what?

What is this guy ranting about? Someone tell me. Karl Luck sounds like a Nazi.

Rollie

By: micki

micki — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:04:36 +0000

Every one has the RIGHT to be happy.

By: micki

micki — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:42:41 +0000

that the govt would take care of us, the police would protect us, the politicians would tell us the truth, that we could trust strangers,that if we told the truth and worked hard we`d all be equal and share the American dream..thats how we were brought up. We didnt plan on forigners coming to our country and killing innocent people, we didnt plan on people lying to us or stealing from us. Or having soft Presidents. We pay our taxes and expect someone to have our back. It was set up this way.
They(govt) anticipated all this. do you think if we , the american people were happy we`d have our own like Timothy McVeigh bblowing up federal bldgs?
We(all of us) are on the wrong road.
And please remember one thing. Never, I beg of you, ever use spell check again; you`re prettier that way. ; )

By: micki

micki — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:28:24 +0000

Most of us make mistakes. Most of us have stomachs. Most of us regret.
IMHO, Robertson exposed himself, his johari window so to speak, by allowing us to peek into and see what we all know….about ourselves.

You are telling me SaintChavas is todays modern equiv. to robin hood,huh?

America? We are the power. We will stay that way. That makes us smug AND wrong, but we dont care. We`re rich AND we will ‘get some’ AND we will get even. You folk in Iraq, Afghanistan,Iran,China..et al dont know how lucky you are IF the majority of Americans had their way to deal `wit cha all.You can thank your lucky stars we have a democratic government,` Cuz if we dint, you wouldnt live to write THIS blog AND you wouldnt have a country. Because we anticipated…
Wrong? Yes, but we dont care.
Sad but True…
We(the people) are on the wrong road. Even the people in the US have no means of retribution. Because we anticipated…

By: Travis

Travis — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:02:33 +0000

That’s brilliant, Ben. Now I understand why it is so difficult for me to understand morals or ethics. Perhaps we can come up with a morality ranking system wherein one’s nationality determines one’s ability to discern morality. Americans: wow–too powerful. Can hardly begin to see morality. Someone from, say, Uraguay–not very powerful at all…must have a ferocious ability to determine morality. Maybe we could even come up with some sort of ranking system wherein an exponent can be multiplied to one’s comments and the true value of the statement can be better weighed. Not sure how well that would work, on second thought. How about this, completely abesnt of any “dusting of philosophical phraseology”:

Mass murder: bad. Saying ugly words: not as bad.
Tearing families apart by slaughtering thousands: bad. Poopy talk and hurting someone’s feelings: not as bad.

I realize I’m not in any position to judge moral equivilence with the above, as an American, but I’m trying.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:50:21 +0000

If, as Travis (and most everyone else) recognises, the US is a powerful country, its members are not best placed to judge the moral equivalence of statements and actions. Most applications of the term ‘moral equivalence’ are a re-statement of the ordering of the world from a US perspective with a light dusting of philosophical phraseology.

As for J’s comment about public retraction and regret, it’s hard to see much of that. Perhaps Pat meant ‘take him out for a beer and a chat’? heh

By: Brad Lena

Brad Lena — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:31:38 +0000

Boy, I must admit, I didn’t see that one coming. Are you telling me that he’s saying that governments engage in assassination? Just wait, next he’ll suggest that political, religious or criminal organizations do it to. Is that Robertson a crackpot or what? … heh

By: marek

marek — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:02:27 +0000

Many of these comments seem to me to be missing the point. The issue out here in The Rest of the World is less about Robertson’s significance or otherwise (though many of us here in TROW tend to view former presidential candidates with their own television channels as a tad more influential than average); it is much more about the reaction of the US government. State Department press conference or no, we expect more than “shucks, he’s just some old guy”, and we expect that, in part, because that is the standard the US government has pressed for strongly in other, parallel, contexts.

By: phil jones

phil jones — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:31:40 +0000

The plot thickens : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4188578.stm

By: Miguel (MABB)

Miguel (MABB) — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:33:02 +0000

In my eyes what Robertson said reconfirms the stereotypes the rest of the world has about America. It is “really” bad because it gives America a bad name. As an expat I do not appreciate that. I have enough trying to deal with America’s bad image right now for one senile televangelist to open his mouth and add to the pile in one minute of air time.

By: Lisa Williams

Lisa Williams — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:07:14 +0000

If everybody thinks it’s an overreaction, then why did the US State Department call a press conference and issue a formal statement disavowing Roberts’ actions? Does the State Department “hate America” too?

People who use the tired, worn out “the left hates America” meme are people who want to tear apart America. That’s not patriotic.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:23:33 +0000

Well at least one good thing will come of this, I doubt Mr Robertson can come to the UK anymore, after all if he does I can demand his arrest at the airport. Gloryfication of terrorism after all is now illegal in the UK…

By: phil jones

phil jones — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:28:18 +0000

“Thus they make him seem more important to the rest of the world who tends not to understand the US anyway.”

I wonder if the the rest of the world really understand the US *less* than the US understands the rest of the world.

Are you trying to to say that Bush isn’t highly influenced by what right-wing Christians in the US think. Or that right-wing christians in the US aren’t influenced by people like Robertson?

Sure, Bush won’t try an assassination *because* Robertson thinks its a good idea. But does that mean that the government won’t learn to what extent playing hardball against Chavez makes the Christian constituencey feel good.

BTW What is it Chavez is meant to have done that inspired Robertson’s threats? Or been the cause of what Condi calls “instability”.

This? : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4155936.stm

This? : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4181528.stm

By: Stomaphagus

Stomaphagus — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:13:49 +0000

What’s funny is that a few days ago he did an on-air segment where he made high-protein, low-sugar pancakes, and was completely charming. I think he’s just beyond his level offering national commentary. Pancakes are more at his level. That must be why he didn’t get the Republican endorsement when he ran for President (remember that?).

The _700 Club_’s lead-in world news segment is a hoot. At the end of every story segment they say, “Pat?” and he chimes in with a loosely homespun interpretation, sometimes Biblical, sometimes just his simple-folk homilies, shaking his head at all the “crazy” (he uses that word a lot) things that people nowadays are up to. Then, it’s back to CBN’s Man in the Field in Africa, for a report on food distribution to African Christians. The format is just unbeatable.

By: Farid Pouya

Farid Pouya — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:45:54 +0000

It is not first time that Robertson acts like this. Years ago during
Reagan period he called rebells against Nicaragua’s goverment (Sandenist)army of God…Even I think they (his foundation) supported
it. But let’s face it you can ALWAYS EXPECT ODD things from tele evangelists (Not all of them of course). Do u remember Baker Oral Roberts…