Someone should propose legislation on stupidity. Here’s Pat Robertson asking the question everyone has been dying to ask in regards to the hate crimes bill recently passed by the House.
Will the hate crimes bill protect someone who “likes to have sex with ducks” or “little boys?”
Here’s a worthy reply to Robertson’s idiocy.
And here’s Robertson’s entire pile of nonsense.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe
While the religious right certainly helped George Bush get elected, they have now become an albatross weighing down the republican party. Their intolerance makes the party less hospitable to middle of the road Americans.
Gee Pat, you have some interesting friends. Sex with Ducks, Pat? LMAO.
Pat speaks at about the 1:30 mark in the 2nd video.
Just can’t imagine how anyone’s mind, in a discussion on a hate crimes bill, would go to sex with ducks. Perhaps that would happen if the topic was dear to that person’s heart.
Not that difficult to figure out, Roberto. This is the ‘right’ we’re talking about. Spewing nonsense is what they do. And they do it well.
Wake up call guys! The issue of Same Sex Marriage and the Hate Crimes Bill are totally unrelated. The concept of the video is cute and barely humorous. Comes across a little flat if you ask me. But Robertson’s remarks were related to the Hate Crimes Bill, not Same sex marriage. That would render the video off point.
As far as his point on the Hate Crimes Bill, if it is worded “Sexual Orientation” that is vague. Even though we all THINK we know the intent, a good lawyer is going to have a field day with that.
With that said, I find the hate crimes bill unnecessary and dangerously vague myself. I mean, if you assault someone or murder someone, you sure aren’t doing it because you love them. I believe if you think it through carefully, something our congressmen and ladies are wont to do on ANY subject, I think you would find potential for misapplication to be unacceptable.
He used a poor example of a “Sexual Orientation” to make a point. He wasn’t equating. At least I don’t THINK he was. Sure hope not!
“(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” –Pat Robertson”
“”I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.” –Pat Robertson
“”[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers.” –The 700 Club, January 18, 1995
“”Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together.” –The 700 Club, January 21, 1993
The man has said so many stupid things, if collected the volume would exceed the pages of War and Peace.
I have no use for him.
I AM NOT AGREEING WITH OR DEFENDING THESE REMARKS.
Okay. I know you guys don’t like to do this, but I’m just trying to get you to look at another view point, THEN reject it rather than just categorically reject.
First, I am assuming Robertson is a very religious man and believes in the teachings of the Bible as the word of God.
That would make remarks 2, 3 and 4 at least loosely in keeping with the teachings of the Bible. Like it or not. Believe it or not. Practice it or not.
As for the “Feminist Agenda” (Kinda like the “Bush Doctrine”. I’m not sure me OR Sarah Palin know exactly what it is.) it has enough problems. But I would be willing to bet it does not include practicing witchcraft, killing your children or destroying capitalism.
Some pretty outrageous remarks. Can you source them reliably or did they come from hatepatrobertsondotcom?
“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
“If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people.” (Leviticus 20:18)
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
“…do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)
“They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.” (Leviticus 11:11)
Does he firmly follow all in the bible? Or, just pick the parts he wants?
If he hates the gays, he hates the gays. Don’t be using the bible to justify it.
I am not a religious person. But for those that are, the Bible is not ambiguous concerning homosexuals or a woman’s place. Don’t ask ME to explain it.
The Bible specifically damns homosexuals.
Aside from that, are you saying there is something awry with what these verses state??
they had to take it to duck tales! ooh woo hoo