| Author |
Message |
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
 Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:37 pm |
|
No one said he couldn't have his opinion. Merely that he needed to be responsible.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:44 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Murder is pretty much wrong for any reason, but I can accept that a person in great power, who has the ability to start a war and if there is evidence that they're going to progress with lethal action, should be assasinated; since it would save lives.
However, publically advocating for murder? Thats a different story. |
Well he was commenting on Chavez' statement. He didn't pull it out of the air. Chavez claimed that America was out to assasinate him. Pat Robertson was expanding on the comment itself. It was his personal opinion and no one has made a convincing argument about why he shouldn't have said that.
| Theresa wrote: | | No one said he couldn't have his opinion. Merely that he needed to be responsible. |
What does this have to do with responsibility? He was saying what he felt on the matter. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Ward Churchill and Michael Moore said crazier comments, yet somehow that is glorified. Strange...
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:46 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Murder is pretty much wrong for any reason, but I can accept that a person in great power, who has the ability to start a war and if there is evidence that they're going to progress with lethal action, should be assasinated; since it would save lives.
However, publically advocating for murder? Thats a different story. |
Well he was commenting on Chavez' statement. He didn't pull it out of the air. Chavez claimed that America was out to assasinate him. Pat Robertson was expanding on the comment itself. It was his personal opinion and no one has made a convincing argument about why he shouldn't have said that. |
Supporting violence has never really gotten people anywhere. I don't see how what he said has anything positive to contribute to society, only negative.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
Yeah, Dan Rather said some stupid stuff, too. Look where he is. Anyway, w/e. Closed minds are wonderful, no? Robertson screwed up. Even his contemporaries say so. Yet because someone happens to agree with him, it's ok? I think what Moore does is wrong. I also think that Pat Robertson was wrong.
Chavez said earlier this year, "If I end up dead, Bush did it." And now we have this. Let's just crucify ourselves now.
Read the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, New York Daily News, Bangor Daily News, and USA Today this morning. Not one of them condoned this behavior. So this naturally includes the AP, and public reaction.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:56 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Murder is pretty much wrong for any reason, but I can accept that a person in great power, who has the ability to start a war and if there is evidence that they're going to progress with lethal action, should be assasinated; since it would save lives.
However, publically advocating for murder? Thats a different story. |
Well he was commenting on Chavez' statement. He didn't pull it out of the air. Chavez claimed that America was out to assasinate him. Pat Robertson was expanding on the comment itself. It was his personal opinion and no one has made a convincing argument about why he shouldn't have said that. |
Supporting violence has never really gotten people anywhere. I don't see how what he said has anything positive to contribute to society, only negative. |
It doesn't really affect society as a whole though. Like I said, I think he was just stating his opinion on the matter. He wasn't actively calling for America to do it at that moment. He said we should. I don't recall him calling Bush and ordering him to do it. If he had done that, then I would agree with you.
This would be a terrifying country if we couldn't say what we wanted to. There are times that I wish I could shove my foot up a Liberal's a**, but I'd rather have him/her say something than not be able to at all.
I think we should assasinate Castro. Am I going to get c**p for that now?
| Theresa wrote: | Yeah, Dan Rather said some stupid stuff, too. Look where he is. Anyway, w/e. Closed minds are wonderful, no? Robertson screwed up. Even his contemporaries say so. Yet because someone happens to agree with him, it's ok? I think what Moore does is wrong. I also think that Pat Robertson was wrong.
Closed minds? This has nothing to do with being close minded. I wish people would stop being so naive. He didn't say that because he hates the man's race. He said it because Chavez is a dictator tyrant. Yes, it is ok. If he said it about a certain person who did not deserve that comment, I would agree. But nothing you all have said has made me "feel sorry for Chavez".
If you think he is wrong that is fine. That is your opinion.
Chavez said earlier this year, "If I end up dead, Bush did it." And now we have this. Let's just crucify ourselves now.
I don't give a s**t what Chavez said. So what? Now we should kiss his ass to prove him wrong?
Read the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, New York Daily News, Bangor Daily News, and USA Today this morning. Not one of them condoned this behavior. So this naturally includes the AP, and public reaction. |
I don't care if any of the Liberal media does not condone his actions. I'm not a tool that follows what everyone said. I judge for myself.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:04 am |
|
Then if you think for yourself, you shouldn't label, "liberal media". The New York Daily News is pretty conservative, actually. And it wasn't even the reporters making the statements, it was Robertson's own friends. So blame them.
And I never said anything about hating a race of people, don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't from any statement of mine... Nor do I want anyone to "feel sorry for" Chavez. If he died tomorrow, would the world be a better place? No doubt. I'm not debating that, either. So it'd be really cool if you stopped replying as if I'd said things I hadn't.
And again, never said kiss his ass. But we also don't need to put ourselves in a position like this. As stupid as politics are, they are necessary. Can you imagine the backlash if someone had assassinated Chavez the day after Robertson's statement? I'm sure you don't care, though.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:07 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Murder is pretty much wrong for any reason, but I can accept that a person in great power, who has the ability to start a war and if there is evidence that they're going to progress with lethal action, should be assasinated; since it would save lives.
However, publically advocating for murder? Thats a different story. |
Well he was commenting on Chavez' statement. He didn't pull it out of the air. Chavez claimed that America was out to assasinate him. Pat Robertson was expanding on the comment itself. It was his personal opinion and no one has made a convincing argument about why he shouldn't have said that. |
Supporting violence has never really gotten people anywhere. I don't see how what he said has anything positive to contribute to society, only negative. |
It doesn't really affect society as a whole though. Like I said, I think he was just stating his opinion on the matter. He wasn't actively calling for America to do it at that moment. He said we should. I don't recall him calling Bush and ordering him to do it. If he had done that, then I would agree with you.
This would be a terrifying country if we couldn't say what we wanted to. There are times that I wish I could shove my foot up a Liberal's a**, but I'd rather have him/her say something than not be able to at all.
I think we should assasinate Castro. Am I going to get c**p for that now? |
Doen't effect society? If we're here arguing about it, when CNN and other mass media news agencies and local news agencies are reporting this and millions of people watch his show.... I'd say its had an effect on society. Maybe not a major one, but its still obviously there.
This isn't about free speech. Its about advocating violence. As I said, if inciting to riot is a crime, I don't see how this is really any different. If I stoop up in front of a few thousand people and said we should all kill the local news anchor, I'd be arrested.
And unless you're Oprah or something, you aren't exactly in front of millions of people supporting violence.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:15 am |
|
| Theresa wrote: | Then if you think for yourself, you shouldn't label, "liberal media". The New York Daily News is pretty conservative, actually. And it wasn't even the reporters making the statements, it was Robertson's own friends. So blame them.
And I never said anything about hating a race of people, don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't from any statement of mine... Nor do I want anyone to "feel sorry for" Chavez. If he died tomorrow, would the world be a better place? No doubt. I'm not debating that, either. So it'd be really cool if you stopped replying as if I'd said things I hadn't.
And again, never said kiss his ass. But we also don't need to put ourselves in a position like this. As stupid as politics are, they are necessary. Can you imagine the backlash if someone had assassinated Chavez the day after Robertson's statement? I'm sure you don't care, though. |
Speaking of "replying as if I'd said things I hadn't". Its obvious you're taking this debate a little too personal. I'm done debating with you.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Doen't effect society? If we're here arguing about it, when CNN and other mass media news agencies and local news agencies are reporting this and millions of people watch his show.... I'd say its had an effect on society. Maybe not a major one, but its still obviously there. |
Talking about it on the net and the media doesn't really qualify as a strong effect. Like you said, "not a major one". I meant, literally affect us. Not "causing us to talk".
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | This isn't about free speech. Its about advocating violence. As I said, if inciting to riot is a crime, I don't see how this is really any different. If I stoop up in front of a few thousand people and said we should all kill the local news anchor, I'd be arrested. |
Stating your opinion and calling for a certain action to literally be done is two different things. Like I said, he said what he thinks we should do. He didn't go as far as hiring hit men to do it.
You standing around in front of masses actually trying to incite a riot is completely different. You are literally trying to start something, rather than saying "I THINK we should do a riot, but thats just my opinion."
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:17 am |
|
LOL
Taking it personally? That was merely my observation from reading your replies thus far,  If you do care, then say so.
But hey, way to go on ignoring everything else, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:31 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Talking about it on the net and the media doesn't really qualify as a strong effect. Like you said, "not a major one". I meant, literally affect us. Not "causing us to talk". |
Well, I don't see how anything can "literally" effect us besides some catastrophic event. And it isn't always something major that has an effect on society. And it clearly isn't just us talking about this, but the rest of America, too.
| Founder wrote: | Stating your opinion and calling for a certain action to literally be done is two different things. Like I said, he said what he thinks we should do. He didn't go as far as hiring hit men to do it.
You standing around in front of masses actually trying to incite a riot is completely different. You are literally trying to start something, rather than saying "I THINK we should do a riot, but thats just my opinion." |
I don't see how saying "I'm going to kill someone" or "I'm thinking of killing someone" are really any different as far as intended violence. In both cases, you have the intent.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:37 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Talking about it on the net and the media doesn't really qualify as a strong effect. Like you said, "not a major one". I meant, literally affect us. Not "causing us to talk". |
Well, I don't see how anything can "literally" effect us besides some catastrophic event. And it isn't always something major that has an effect on society. And it clearly isn't just us talking about this, but the rest of America, too.
I know it isn't just us talking about it. Many are talking about it. My point is that it doesn't have a deep affect on society. Having us all discuss it, isn't much of an effect. This comment was simply blown out of proportion and its become "contreversial".
| Founder wrote: | Stating your opinion and calling for a certain action to literally be done is two different things. Like I said, he said what he thinks we should do. He didn't go as far as hiring hit men to do it.
You standing around in front of masses actually trying to incite a riot is completely different. You are literally trying to start something, rather than saying "I THINK we should do a riot, but thats just my opinion." |
I don't see how saying "I'm going to kill someone" or "I'm thinking of killing someone" are really any different as far as intended violence. In both cases, you have the intent. |
Intent means nothing. Only ACTION means something. He made no action. He simply said what he thought should be done. Something more preferable over a war.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:44 am |
|
I don't see how anything was blown out of proportion. If it was a truly benign statement, I don't think it would be such big news. Especially now that hes apologized.
You just said that inciting to riot should be a crime. But no action is taken to that affect. Intent does have an effect. If a murder is premediated, its Murder 1, thats like an extra 20 years. Clearly, this whole intent thing seems to apply in the law. Not to mention "intent" it sell. You may not have sold it, but if you were going to, you're still going to pay for it.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:48 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | I don't see how anything was blown out of proportion. If it was a truly benign statement, I don't think it would be such big news. Especially now that hes apologized.
You just said that inciting to riot should be a crime. But no action is taken to that affect. Intent does have an effect. If a murder is premediated, its Murder 1, thats like an extra 20 years. Clearly, this whole intent thing seems to apply in the law. Not to mention "intent" it sell. You may not have sold it, but if you were going to, you're still going to pay for it. |
Inciting a riot is not just an intent. It leads to a riot where many people will get hurt. An off hand comment is completely different from standing in front of people and convincing them to riot.
Intent in his case means nothing. Its obvious no one was going to do it. Like you all love to point out, everyone was quick to distance themselves from the comment. Even the administration. His comment had no affect, except to rile people.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:55 am |
|
I think the Reverend was smart to make this statement. His comment really isn't going to change anything, except for sheding light on Hugo Chavez. Now, we all know who he is. Sometimes it takes a controversial statment to bring attention to a problem.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:57 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | I think the Reverend was smart to make this statement. His comment really isn't going to change anything, except for sheding light on Hugo Chavez. Now, we all know who he is. Sometimes it takes a controversial statment to bring attention to a problem. |
The second part of your post I agree with 100%.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:00 am |
|
You can get arrested for inciting even if no riot took or takes place. It wasn't very offhand, he seemed to mean it. "We have the ability, we should make use of it." That doesn't seem offhand.
Its not about the affect, its about whats meant behind it. If you're in the public eye and are going around supporting violence, people do follow you through with it. Like after the matrix movies came out, violence shot up in crimes styled after those movies. There are people out there ignorant enough to do it.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:03 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | I think the Reverend was smart to make this statement. His comment really isn't going to change anything, except for sheding light on Hugo Chavez. Now, we all know who he is. Sometimes it takes a controversial statment to bring attention to a problem. |
I know, exactly. Like that, and Tancredo's Mecca statement. That's the one good thing that's come from all of this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:04 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | You can get arrested for inciting even if no riot took or takes place. It wasn't very offhand, he seemed to mean it.. |
Yes, but in order for the arrest to take place legally, there must be a geographical closeness to the place of riot, and a legitimate danger and ability for it to actually happen.
I can stand on a street corner and shout for people to rise up against the government all day, and legally, if I want to.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:07 am |
|
Yeah, but are you standing on a street corner with millions of people watching? Not exactly. I'm not saying that he should be arrested for inciting to riot, if thats what you got from this. But that his intent was violence, as is that of a riot.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:15 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | You can get arrested for inciting even if no riot took or takes place. |
Again, there is a difference of SHOULD and DOING it. Inciting, even though no riot took place, is DOING something. You were trying to incite a riot. He said we SHOULD do this, but thats it. As I've said before, he didn't hire anyone to go and kill Chavez.
Lets put that quote in FULL context shall we?
"We have the ability, we should make use of it. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
I don't know how many times I have to say, he was commenting on what Chavez said. Rumors were flying around that the US would attack his nation or at least be on alert. Castro and Chavez hold a lot of political power. Granted their nations are not the most powerful, but that doesn't mean they cant still pose a threat. He was trying to say that instead of another Iraq, we should just assasinate him.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Its not about the affect, its about whats meant behind it. If you're in the public eye and are going around supporting violence, people do follow you through with it. Like after the matrix movies came out, violence shot up in crimes styled after those movies. There are people out there ignorant enough to do it. |
People do not always follow you through it. Has anyone assasinated Chavez? Nope.
So what? There are ignorant people in the world. What? Are we supposed to not saying anything that could be potentially harmful now? With that logic, we should ban video games and violent movies. A lot of ignorant people might shoot up schools because of Doom 3 or kill cops because of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. All we can try and do is educate people.
Like LightningBoy wrote, this will shed more light on Chavez.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:14 am |
|
Saw one in the paper veeeery similar to this, and found it amusing. Thought I would share.
Michael Ramirez, California -- The Los Angeles Times
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | Again, there is a difference of SHOULD and DOING it. Inciting, even though no riot took place, is DOING something. You were trying to incite a riot. He said we SHOULD do this, but thats it. As I've said before, he didn't hire anyone to go and kill Chavez.
Lets put that quote in FULL context shall we?
"We have the ability, we should make use of it. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
I don't know how many times I have to say, he was commenting on what Chavez said. Rumors were flying around that the US would attack his nation or at least be on alert. Castro and Chavez hold a lot of political power. Granted their nations are not the most powerful, but that doesn't mean they cant still pose a threat. He was trying to say that instead of another Iraq, we should just assasinate him. |
Exactly. He was supporting murder. I'd rather have him taken out of power justifiably (as with Iraq), than through other, unjustified means.
And if inciting to riot is DOING something, than inciting violence as Robertson did is also DOING something.
| Founder wrote: | People do not always follow you through it. Has anyone assasinated Chavez? Nope.
So what? There are ignorant people in the world. What? Are we supposed to not saying anything that could be potentially harmful now? With that logic, we should ban video games and violent movies. A lot of ignorant people might shoot up schools because of Doom 3 or kill cops because of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. All we can try and do is educate people.
Like LightningBoy wrote, this will shed more light on Chavez. |
Movies and video games aren't real. Making public statements supporting murder is. If people follow through with fake things, they may with real things, too. I'm not saying that people would kill Chavez over this, only that publically going around supporting violence can have violent consequences. If Dr. Phil said that we should murder Bush, would there be a problem with it? Yeah.
And yeah, it will make Chavez more of a public figure in the US. But that doesn't mean that everytime we want to bring someone to public knowledge, we should say that we should kill him/her.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:54 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | Saw one in the paper veeeery similar to this, and found it amusing. Thought I would share.
Michael Ramirez, California -- The Los Angeles Times |
Horrible. Especially after the apology 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:10 pm |
|
Freedom of Speech
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:25 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Freedom of Speech |
Did I say anywhere that it wasn't his right to say that? He did, and okay. It's also my right to say what I said.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
