Redstate

One thing that won't happen is folks threatening folks here at RedState. Period. I'm leaving your diary as-is with this comment attached, so we're clear.

Robertson may need to be humiliated, may even need to have any shred of credibility stripped from him - but despite his statements - threats, even off-handed ones - are off limits.

My use of the phrase "taken out" was a deliberate play on the very words used by Pat Robertson, but I thought it was clear that he should be "taken out" of the Republican Party; ostracized, not assassinated as he suggested for Hugo Chavez.

Given the poster's past behavior and throwing around "Mullah" at the least s/he ought to be put on notice that this is the one warning if not banned out right with this pathetic excuse for a diary entry deleted.

I've thought things along the same lines as Pat Robertson when it comes to the Venezuelan dictator.

Do I think he's sometimes been an embarrassment to the GOP?  Yes.  Is this the thing to run him out on a rail over?  Given Hugo Chavezs track record, I'll say he got it right.

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the Holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth above all the kingdom of men, and giveth the authority to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Sometimes, good men get authority.  Sometimes, men like Pat Robertson get authority.  What matters is how we respond.  In this case, I suggest pointing and laughing.

...with a dull ostracizer.

He thinks the North Vietnamese were great big cuddlies. It's fun to see that sort of lunacy still around after all this time.

 I guess that it brings new meaning to the term of "praise the Lord, pass the ammunition!" The more this man speaks the more shame he brings onto religious people in this country

Is that they tend to attract others.  

Those of us who get aggravated at reading leftist junk, and come here for an oasis, might get sick of all these people kept around for laughs, and just leave.

I'd like to see another "purge," personally.

He may only be saying what a lot of folks following what Chavez is saying are thinking.

We ignored what Hitler was saying in the 1920s and 1930s, and thought Mein Kampf and "Today we rule Germany; Tomorrow, the world" was BS.  Just one problem: Hitler and the Nazis were not BSing.  We found that out when we liberated the concentration camps.

We ignored a pattern of conduct by Japan (including the sinking of USS Panay) - and thought that overblown rhetoric like Yamamoto's boast that if war came he'd dictate peace terms in the White House was BS.  Just one problem: Japan was not BSing.  We found that out when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

We ignored Osama's attacks.  We ignored numerous attacks (Khobar Towers, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole).  We his declaration of war against the United States was BS. Just one problem: Osama was not BSing.  We found that out the hard way on 9/11.

Is Chavez BSing?  I don't know, but it might be a good idea to make sure we are ready in case he isn't.

I'm worried that too many on our side are spending too much time defeating the arguments of fools (e.g. Cindy Sheehan, the latest troll, Kos, etc.) that we may get so used to defeating the easy arguments that it makes us "soft" when it comes time to dealing with someone who may actually construct a logical argument.

If you think responding to the thoughts of people who may not agree with everything you say might make you lazy, then silencing the voice of anyone who disagrees with you will really give you a false sense of security.

By the way, we are always telling Muslims that, if they want to be a part of the civilized world, they have to take responsibility to police themselves; to speak out against the violent jihaddists and terrorists, and help us bring them to justice.  Given that, doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to defend Pat Robertson when he calls for the assassination of a democratically elected president?  Is that how we should the promote democracy and freedom our President so often talks about?

We're calling him out and we're calling you out.  Your appeal to violence is no more condonable than his.  As you can see 80% of RedStaters this Buchanan is insane.  You'd probably do a bit better, maybe only 70%.

And the "poll" was more of a referendum on a series of alleged "quotes" at least one of which was douwdified and others of which may be questionable depending on their context.

I'm far from a Pat Robertson fan but I won't participate in a smearing either.

screed lost any remaining respect I had for him (which wasn't much).

There is an anti-American left who blames us first for all problems.  Robertson is part of the anti-American right who blames us first for all problems, but he limits his blame to homosexuals, abortionists, women's rights, and other aspects of the country he doesn't like.  

The CNN announcer first mentioned that this content could be found on Redstate.

Then, read your [maberlin] diary title and first paragraph of the diary. CNN also showed the quote on the screen as well.

See above.

Although the first time he said it, it could have been taking out of context, he did bother to re-iterate the same position.  So I would argue the sentiment behind it is correct.

"I read your book," Robertson said. "When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer,' and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson said.

"It is," Mowbray said, although his book never suggests that the State Department should be blown up with a nuclear device.

Foggy Bottom is the nickname for the State Department's Washington headquarters.

In a June interview with Mowbray on the "700 Club", Robertson made similar remarks.

"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/09/robertson.state/index.html