Milla said:Others do as much or more, without their host calling for murder. Put support elsewhere.
Or invade sovereign countries who have not attacked us because of the demands of oil companies while trying to pretend that somehow this country has weapons of mass destruction despite years of failure by the UN to find such weapons? And once there suggest neighboring countries (coincidentally rich in oil reserves) are creating weapons of mass destruction and therefore should be also invaded?Milla said:It wouldn't have avoided full-on war, as it could have done nothing but accelerate the US invasion of Iraq and increase the brutality. I am thinking more of cases like those of rabidly expansionist imperialists, such as Hitler or Napoleon, who move to take over entire landmasses with war, and from whom most of the immediate aggressively imperial impetus of their nation comes.
DuchessDinesOut said:I think the most telling thing is not so much that he called for the assassination, but that when called on it he lied. He didn't even try to spin it or explain himself, he just outright lied as if it wasn't on tape.
That would make me wonder if the money I gave to the 700 club tsunami relief fund really did go there... That is, if I gave any money to the 700 club.
Eldy said:Regardless if he was wrong or right, I find it disgusting that "Christians" would talk about someone that Christ has bought with His blood like this on an open forum where the pagans can see. Kind of like taking a brother to court and humiliating the Body of Christ in the meantime.
Feel how you wish about this man but trashing Him in front of the world is wrong.
outlaw said:Or invade sovereign countries who have not attacked us because of the demands of oil companies while trying to pretend that somehow this country has weapons of mass destruction despite years of failure by the UN to find such weapons? And once there suggest neighboring countries (coincidentally rich in oil reserves) are creating weapons of mass destruction and therefore should be also invaded?
Eldy said:Regardless if he was wrong or right, I find it disgusting that "Christians" would talk about someone that Christ has bought with His blood like this on an open forum where the pagans can see. Kind of like taking a brother to court and humiliating the Body of Christ in the meantime.
Feel how you wish about this man but trashing Him in front of the world is wrong.
freewilly said:He is a public figure and chose to be in the public eye, becuase he is Chriastian does not mean he should get special treatment and keep his stupid remarks or concerns about them hush hush. You see where that attitude led with the child abuse scandal in the Catholic church.
levi501 said:I like how he lied and tried to back pedal when he said people misunderstood him.
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
witness much pat?
DuchessDinesOut said:Honestly, that was the thing that bothered me the most. Of course, people in a public position have a huge responsibility but quite often people are people and they just say stuff. I've told my husband I'm going to kill him several times, which, of course I'm not going to do but sometimes people just say things, stupid as they may be. However, saying "I never used the term assassinate" and "I said 'take him out' which could mean any number of things" when he definately said assassinate is bothersome. To me, the fact that he lied so blatently when everything he said was on tape just shows how comfortable he is with lying. If he had said, "Of course I don't think we should assassinate him. That was irresponsible for me to say on TV, but I didn't mean it literally." I think this whole thing would be done with right now.
freewilly said:I agree about saying stupid things but this was not the case. Although the focus is only on a coulpe of statments I saw the broadcast that night and it was a conclusion he advocated after spouting off reasons he felt Chavez should be assinated. It was indeed a calculated statement and not a momentary lapse in anger or just said on the fly. And yes he only compounded it by lieing about not saying it. The question is did he really think, is he that arrogant that he thought people would not look at his so called apology and see it for what it was.
Did I say to not speak about it? I said that we should not drag the Body of Christ through the mud for the world to see and mock.Milla said:Indeed - moreover, he made his remarks publically - on TV, no less! - so I see no reason to act like this is a matter of privacy for him. When you speak publically you automatically open yourself up for public criticism.
Eldy said:Did I say to not speak about it? I said that we should not drag the Body of Christ through the mud for the world to see and mock.
And you know him some how? I guess I should not expect you to have discernment about the Body of Christ as you are a unitarian but it seems pretty arrogant of you to assume to know this man is arrogant.DuchessDinesOut said:I was unaware that there was any more to it than that one statement. And yes... He is that arrogant.
DuchessDinesOut said:I think the most telling thing is not so much that he called for the assassination, but that when called on it he lied. He didn't even try to spin it or explain himself, he just outright lied as if it wasn't on tape.
That would make me wonder if the money I gave to the 700 club tsunami relief fund really did go there... That is, if I gave any money to the 700 club.
Hey there. Glad to see there is someone else around here that does not condemn people because they make a mistake. God bless ya!newlamb said:Hi, Eldy!
Eldy said:And you know him some how? I guess I should not expect you to have discernment about the Body of Christ as you are a unitarian but it seems pretty arrogant of you to assume to know this man is arrogant.
HEY KETTLE! IT'S ME THE POT! YOU ARE BLACK!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?