pat robertson is a retard!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
he's praying for the removal of three supreme court justices, perhaps he has "insde info" that president bush won't have a second term.



one perspective



another



it's supreme court prayer offensive!
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    his actions are sickening and should be condemned by all church leaders from all faiths, and since churchie boy bush always seems to be injecting religion into his words or laws, he should condemn him as well.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"



    Wow. Praying against someone and mentioning their illnesses in your prayer.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    what an idiot
  • Reply 4 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Why are good christians not denoucing this?
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Wow. Praying against someone and mentioning their illnesses in your prayer.



    i thought that exactly, it's justice ginsberg with cancer although i don't know what her current status is, she had surgery in 1999, but shouldn't he be praying for her health?
  • Reply 6 of 24
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Don't insult the retarded like that.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    maybe satan has possessed him?



    what the devil was he thinking?



    (satan, not pat)
  • Reply 8 of 24
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Robertson has made foolish remarks once again. The problem Robertson has found his way into is becoming too political with his personal views. Instead of "live and let live" Robertson wants to shape politics.



    I am a firm believer in pluralism and I have no desire to affect politics in ways that do not allow for such.



    I believe in the separation of Church and State. I am not so sure Robertson does and that is sad and not going to fly in a pluralistic society.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 10 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    as ?written off in my own mind? an $8 million investment in a Liberian gold mining venture he made four years ago, under an agreement with Taylor's government.





    what the f&ck is a church leader investing 8 million in gold mines for?



    oh that's right, to afford more soup for the soup kitchens.



    re liberia.



    robertson is inches away from being checked into a mental ward.



    hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite



    i smell a tipping point approaching...
  • Reply 11 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    You mean this deficit?



  • Reply 12 of 24
    discocowdiscocow Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Robertson, who has a law degree from Yale University, said rulings such as this were never envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.




    I'm sure the same can be said for suffrage and the emancipation proclamation.
  • Reply 13 of 24
    wait 'til next year when the supreme court removes "under god"

    from the pledge. he shall shit a brick.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,903member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    wait 'til next year when the supreme court removes "under god"

    from the pledge. he shall shit a brick.




    That won't happen. Over 80% of the people oppose doing that, and it would be meaningless anyway, because there's a nasty little obstacle to enforcing it: The First Amendment.



    Anway, Robertson is a bit of a wack job it seems. I actually don't have a problem with him praying for their retirement. If he wants conservative judges, than that's what he wants. It's his other rhetoric that's over the top..and senseless.
  • Reply 15 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    That won't happen. Over 80% of the people oppose doing that, and it would be meaningless anyway, because there's a nasty little obstacle to enforcing it: The First Amendment



    Since when are S.C. desicions decided by polls?



    Which of them thar fancy politoc declarations talks about the separation of church and state?





    I look forward to days when right wing nuts such as patty robertson shît bricks. it tends mean things are going in the "left" direction...
  • Reply 16 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    That won't happen. Over 80% of the people oppose doing that, and it would be meaningless anyway, because there's a nasty little obstacle to enforcing it: The First Amendment.





    the supreme court usually does extensive polling before they make rulings.



    damn minutes late!
  • Reply 17 of 24
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member




    it was TOO easy...
  • Reply 18 of 24
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,903member
    It won't happen. If you don;t think the Supreme Court is political, then why the uproar after Election 2000? Even if it did happen it would have no real relevance.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    exactly, no relevance what so ever. i agree. and they might just let the california decision stand. they've been pretty consistent when it comes to church and state issues.



    i think that the court is above politics 2000 election included.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    [i]Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    i think that the court is above politics 2000 election included.



    Hell, my understanding is that it's involvement in the election marred it and thus forced it to shoot the other way and work to be as removed from politics as possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.