Talk:Pat Robertson

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This edit,

ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey

(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. RobS 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)


Contents

Disproportionate?

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? MountainDew 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. Learn together 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The man is over 70 years old. There must be more that can be added to his biography!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist (talk)

Liberal smear job

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--Conservateur 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

There should be more biographical information. But I don't see how these quotes, even in context, could be any better. Never letting women learn from men? What are we, in the 14th century? --Pastafarian

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou

I rather enjoy: Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court. --PerpetualAngst

Robertson is a nutjob

Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as Fred Phelps. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.


Fact Removal

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.NSmyth 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)


I removed the line about Robertson running for President in 1992. He did not, as Pat Buchanan was the challenger to George Herbert Walker Bush.

Quote vs. Quotation

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Academichick (talk)

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --BethTalk 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's The Elements of Style for some pointers). --Academichick 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Endorsing Giuliani

Could someone please add to the article the fact that Guiliani supports abortion and gay rights! Why did Robertson endorse a candidate that supports these views when a well known social conservative by the name of Huckabee was also running? Does anyone else find this hypocritical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Creationist (talk)

I would say that during the time Giuliani was a viable candidate, Huckabee was not, and this was when Robertson endorsed the former. As for this article being called a smear job, I think it's very good as it is, with just simple, trustworthy quotations and no judgment on the opinions or thoughts behind those quotations. It seems a completely lost cause to defend this guy... Rockthecasbah 07:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Marijuana

Anyone mind if I add a little bit about his current stance on marijuana? [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MickeyD (talk)

Go ahead, Pat Robinson is a hippie now. --Jpatt 12:09, 8 March 2012 (EST)
Personal tools