>> You seem to have the idea that everything is beyond analysis, and nothing should be written about a person that's not a direct quote.
> No. I just have this strange idea (that seems to be rare in your corner) that when you speak of someone or something you should speak to the facts, not make up your own.
So I can't say that Ted Kennedy is liberal, or Robertson is conservative, or the sun is hot, because those are invalid subjective interpretations?
>> Your college papers must be fascinating.
> As a matter of fact, I am 4 months away from a Masters Degree and am carrying a 4.0. Thank you. And 75% of the work is writing. I do fine.
That's nice. It would also be nice if you'd put in a little more effort here, and not just attack me. Actual facts would be welcome.
> Of course you weren't quoting him. You were misrepresenting what he said. That was what I called you out on.
Can you back that up with any facts? Or is everything I say just one long stream of misguided misrepresentation?
>> There are reams of data that show Robertson's involvement with conservative politics and conservative causes.
> And this makes him a pariah to you, right? You say that as if it is a fundamental fault to be conservative. Once again, you have problems with anyone who disagrees with your politics or views around spirituality.
No, but it makes his standing as a religious leader suspect. His idea (really, I can back this up) is to reform the United States into a Christian nation. He would happily dispense with the idea of separation between church and state, and Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation. He takes the idea of America as a Christian nation rather literally.
>> Are you unaware, or are you gratuitously giving me a hard time?
> I am not an idiot. Nor do I particularly want to keep having these discussions with you.
I didn't say and I don't think that you are an idiot. But you seem not to be well informed on current events and politics, or you are acting like you're not to give me a hard time. What do you do to keep up?
> But I feel it is my civic duty to call you out when it is needed. No thanks needed...it's my job folks.
It would be so much nicer if you would dazzle me with facts rather than just contradict me. Come on, I know you can do it.
>> Was it really that hard to interpret the statement that you quoted? Do you know what Sharon has been doing, and how it has been viewed politically in Israel and the U.S.?
> Well, I would think it would be really easy to interpret it. But apparently you are having difficulty doing so.
> If you knew anything about Robertson and his belief system, you would know that he has a very high view of Israel and it's people. He believes that they are God's chosen people.
I wonder what he thinks they were chosen for. Suffering, I guess.
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would understand the role that Robertson sees Israel playing in the second coming. Jews are wonderful, as long as they convert to Christianity before the Apocalypse. If they don't, they go to hell. Robertson's main goal, though, is to see things unwind in the Middle East to keep things on track for the Apocalypse.
Israeli Jews have an issue with Robertson. They like his strong political support in the U.S. for Israel, but they don't like the idea that he thinks they will all be doomed to hell, and they understand that his support is based less on his love for Jews than for the part that Israel is destined to play according to his interpretation of Revelations.
> His problems with Sharon are with his actions, not his beliefs. It's an unacceptable stretch for you to state otherwise.
You are really parsing words here. Sharon has certain beliefs on how to achieve peace for the country that he (until recently) led. He put those beliefs into action. I'd say that Robertson has an issue with both.
On top of that, Sharon has never converted to Christianity, and apparently won't before he dies. He will burn in hell, I suppose, along with everyone else who doesn't believe what Robertson believes. Now without calling me a name or using profanity, what part of that statement do you disagree with, and why? By the way, our own president believes that people who don't accept Christ will go to hell. (Yes, I can back this up. Bush discussed religion much more freely in his Texas political races. It also seems that his mother disagrees with him on that issue.)
>> You agree that Robertson thinks he speaks for God, and that he thinks he knows God's mind. Obviously, he thinks that God's politics are congruent with his own.
> No, I don't agree with that. I can't know that about him and neither can you unless...
He has stated that God speaks to him. Have you seen him on the 700 Club? He often speaks of what God tells him. I'm not sure that God told him that Hugo Chavez needs to be assassinated, but God tells him a lot of stuff.
Did you know that today, the White House released a statement that said, roughly, that Robertson should STFU about Sharon?
>> By the way, Ralph Reed will likely get indicted. Are you up on the Jack Abramoff affair? It's bye bye to Tom DeLay and a lot of his congressional brethren in the Pat Robertson wing as well.
> You are trying to bait me, aren't you?
Do you understand why I mentioned Ralph Reed? You know who he is and his connection to to Pat Roberson, right? Do you know what the Christian Coalition was? And Reed's connection to Abramoff? You know who Abramoff is, right?
