Pat Robertson=what a crackpot!

[Lumberg]

I saw him getting interviewed by Katie Couric this morning and WOW!

He was saying that the logic used by the supreme court in the Lawrence case (saying that sodomy is OK) leads to the legalization og prostitution, gay marriages, and incest.

Then she interviewed a Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar named Ogletree and he was very perceptive. Apparently Robertson accused the justices of being "too political" and advocated making the position an Elected position. What an idiot.

I was very impressed at Katie Couric's insightful questions.

http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/supremecourt.asp

 

[WODIN]

God should have taken him when he had him held hostage in his tower back in the mid 80's!

 

[the nature boy]

he was also the same fool that said 9-11 was caused by our own wickedness.

 

[big4life]

Pat Robertson is just another in a long line of nuts.

 

[Spruceman]

"Pat Robertson is just another in a long line of nuts."

Never confuse EVILNESS with CRAZINESS! Too many people thought Hitler was crazy until it was too late. Robertson is just plain evil; and if he had the power of life and death over all of us, the number of dead people would exceed the casualty count of 1,000 hydrogen bombs. His 700 Club should be renamed the 666 Klub!

 

[Lumberg]

God should have taken him when he had him held hostage in his tower back in the mid 80's!

To what do you refer?

 

[Scarlett33]

To what do you refer?

Maybe he was thinking of that time that Jimmy Swaggert said God was going to take him if he didn't raise a million dollars or something. This could be wrong too as I am not very familiar with all the televangalists. They all suck. Especially that Dolly Partin wannabe with pink hair. She and her freaky looking husband actually sit in thrones on their show. I used to get high and watch them sometimes.

 

[makedah]

It was Oral Roberts who said in 1987 that God would "call him home" if he didn't raise $4.5 mil by the end of the month.

 

[john937]

It was Oral Roberts who said in 1987 that God would "call him home" if he didn't raise $4.5 mil by the end of the month.

Nailed it.

 

[Lumberg]

a-ha. Is he still alive? Did he get the money?

 

[big4life]

Nailed it.

No, that would be Jimmy Swaggart, who got caught "nailing" it.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

it is amazing what people will believe inthe name of religion.

 

[WODIN]

LMAO!!!

I'm fuzzy on my religous zealotry.

 

[Ffactor]

Isn't he supposed to be a good christian?

 

[Lumberg]

Yeah I'm sure Jim Jones' followers thought he was a good Christian or whatever the fuck he was too.

 

[p0ink]

He was saying that the logic used by the supreme court in the Lawrence case (saying that sodomy is OK) leads to the legalization og prostitution, gay marriages, and incest.

Then she interviewed a Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar named Ogletree and he was very perceptive. Apparently Robertson accused the justices of being "too political" and advocated making the position an Elected position. What an idiot.

um, he's right about it leading the legalization of the following. if sex (regardless of homo or hetero) is between two consenting adults, should it be legal? the supreme court thinks so. so why would it matter if the two consenting adults were brother and sister, if they were both up to it and of legal age in the privacy of their own home? what about a lady who consents to selling sex to a man willing to pay, in the privacy of their own home, etc. etc.?

even gay groups admit this ruling opened the door to gay marriage. what am i missing?

regardless of how you feel about the issues, i think it is safe to say the following statements are correct.

oh my god! he didnt just say that we should actually elect people to the supreme court, rather than have them sit on the bench for their LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, thus allowing them to dictate law without having to worry about ther retributions of their actions. oh my, the humanity.

katie couric asking insightful questions....

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Re: Re: Pat Robertson=what a crackpot!

um, he's right about it leading the legalization of the following. if sex (regardless of homo or hetero) is between two consenting adults, should it be legal? the supreme court thinks so. so why would it matter if the two consenting adults were brother and sister, if they were both up to it and of legal age in the privacy of their own home? what about a lady who consents to selling sex to a man willing to pay, in the privacy of their own home, etc. etc.?

even gay groups admit this ruling opened the door to gay marriage. what am i missing?

regardless of how you feel about the issues, i think it is safe to say the following statements are correct.

oh my god! he didnt just say that we should actually elect people to the supreme court, rather than have them sit on the bench for their LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, thus allowing them to dictate law without having to worry about ther retributions of their actions. oh my, the humanity.

katie couric asking insightful questions....

Consenting adults (in private) should not have state imposed bans on their sexuality. If an adult brother and sister want to get it on, that's their business. it is disgusting, but it;stheir business.

*(BTW this was rampant until a few hundred years ago)

As for prostitution....legalize. I take a girl out to dinner and a few drinks, it's $300. Myabe she comes home with me....I basically paid for it. Let's take the restaurant out of the equation.

Electing supreme court justices is a bad idea. It would only lead them to be more politicized if they had to stand for election regularly. The idea of appontment was to depoliticize them, because the founders knew that judicial activism was sure to follow.

Look how much posturing Bush and other elected leaders do. We don't want that to happen to the judiciary.

 

[Lumberg]

hey i didn't say Katie WROTE the questions dumbass

 

[p0ink]

Re: Re: Re: Pat Robertson=what a crackpot!

Consenting adults (in private) should not have state imposed bans on their sexuality. If an adult brother and sister want to get it on, that's their business. it is disgusting, but it;stheir business.

*(BTW this was rampant until a few hundred years ago)

As for prostitution....legalize. I take a girl out to dinner and a few drinks, it's $300. Myabe she comes home with me....I basically paid for it. Let's take the restaurant out of the equation.

Electing supreme court justices is a bad idea. It would only lead them to be more politicized if they had to stand for election regularly. The idea of appontment was to depoliticize them, because the founders knew that judicial activism was sure to follow.

Look how much posturing Bush and other elected leaders do. We don't want that to happen to the judiciary.

oh, dont get me wrong, in no way am i condoning the state regulating what happens in one's own bedroom, i am just saying that this case helped break down those walls currently in place.

you dont have a problem with some of the activist judges circumventing congress and dictating law without the possibility of them being held accountable for their decisions?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pat Robertson=what a crackpot!

you dont have a problem with some of the activist judges circumventing congress and dictating law without the possibility of them being held accountable for their decisions?

I have a problem with it, but the answer is NOT calling for elections. Maybe something like a single, 10 year appointed term might work.

The other solution is congressional narrowing of what the court's powers really are.

legislation is always a step or two behind the legal system.

 

[p0ink]

i just get scared whenever the supreme court is in session, because they are the 'law of the land'....feels like our personal freedoms are sometimes up for grabs.

especially in the wake of their recent decisions, i find it really stupid that some people are taking a 2nd amendment issue before the supreme court (the case where the 9th circuit court of appeals said citizens do not have the right to own firearms).

they already took a shit on the 14th amendment, so why would they just stop there?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

it is a problem.

COngress needs to curtial the reach of the court to very narrow situations.

 

[Monkey Pox]

The Supreme Court has actually been far more moderate and intelligent in their rulings than any elected officials ever have, that's for sure. The great balance that has been on the court since I've been kickin has assured that nothing too off the wall has come down the pike.

And what elected officials were going to desegregate back then, seems like it would never have happened by people who were beholden to elections, as opposed to common sense who were making the final decision. I can think of very few decisions they have made that have been insane and amazing other that the presidential election debacle a few years back and even that wasn't really insane just too hurried and tilted toward one person. At least they didn't appoint Lyndon LaRouche or something. Some of the people in the congress would be pulling stuff like that on a regular basis if they could, bunch of crackpots.

I'm really surprised Pat Robertson hasn't been elected to something since there is bound to be enough lemmings who would vote for him if he told them God wanted them too or they would be smited.

 

[The_Eviscerator]

Re: Re: Pat Robertson=what a crackpot!

katie couric asking insightful questions....

That stupid bitch is so slanted to the left she walks with a limp. Her and that jackoff with the bad haircut... Matt Lauer.