Shock: Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson favors marijuana legalization

[someotherguy]

lol, i can't believe all you liberal fools are still in here jerking each other off!

and AladdinSane, don't waste your breath, as it were, you have zero chance that the majority of these nitwits will get what you are saying, best to just ignore them.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

someotherguy, stop jerking AlladinSane off! You'll probably never get the fact that Pat's a bigot, justifying disaster on entire demographics of the population. That said, we've also recognized that Pat may be a catalyst with religious conservatives on reform.

If religious conservatives didn't regular remind us they're better, war over religious differences and reject other religions, religion could be truly benevolent.

You're defending a religious conservative that thinks he's better than others because he believes in a god. Reminds me of Pat. If I was religious, I'd hammer the virtues and accept the fact that some religious leaders (humans) lend a bad impression.

 

[ddrew]

lol, i can't believe all you liberal fools are still in here jerking each other off!

and AladdinSane, don't waste your breath, as it were, you have zero chance that the majority of these nitwits will get what you are saying, best to just ignore them.

Why are you still here?
Shouldn't you be out protesting for creationism to be taught in public school?
Or having books you find objectionable removed from libraries?

The imaginary friend crew are the fools.
I just wish they would quit trying to force their imaginary bullshit on the rest of us.

 

[Hydrosun]

You're defending a religious conservative that thinks he's better than others because he believes in a god. Reminds me of Pat. If I was religious, I'd hammer the virtues and accept the fact that some religious leaders (humans) lend a bad impression.

I thought he was religious because you get a hotter wife and fatter bank account?

And any one who doesn't understand the difference between and INDIVIDUALIST and the left right debate of the brainless, is probably a member of later.

For what it is worth an INDIVIDUALIST believes in his and EVERYONE'S HUMAN RIGHTS. Not just one slice or other that fits on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post.

So spend your money on Jesus, Whores, Guns, Casinos, Drink, or Drugs. That doesn't bother me one bit. So long as you don't violate the HUMAN RIGHTS of your neighbor you should be able to do what ever the fuck you want.

Too bad both "Religious Conservatives" and "PC Leftists" are too blind to see their own hypocrisy.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I thought he was religious because you get a hotter wife and fatter bank account?

Is that less absurd? I'm agnostic because I've got two Ferraris in the garage. Who cares? We know two Ferraris in the garage has nothing to do with being agnostic.

And any one who doesn't understand the difference between and INDIVIDUALIST and the left right debate of the brainless, is probably a member of later.

First off, I learned the golden rule (in church) as a toddler. Everybody knows that individualists lack a mutual nature to human relationships. They care more of self freedom than collective or societal freedom. There are some individualists that we as a society shun their individualism when it's incompatible with civilization.

There are many religious peeps on the left. And I'm sure there are religious conservatives that reject Pat's bigoted comments. The left right debate you're attempting is politics. Are you rolling this into a bigger burrito than necessary?

For what it is worth an INDIVIDUALIST believes in his and EVERYONE'S HUMAN RIGHTS. Not just one slice or other that fits on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post.

Sounds like an oxi-moron. The individualist cares no more for other humans than a foregone conclusion that others will do as they do so long as the individualist does as they wish.

An individualist enters into society to further his or her own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his or her own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration (an individualist need not be an egoist). The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

Here's another example. Substitute "I" for "you"

So spend your money on Jesus, Whores, Guns, Casinos, Drink, or Drugs. That doesn't bother me one bit. So long as you don't violate the HUMAN RIGHTS of your neighbor you should be able to do what ever the fuck you want.

Translation... So long as you don't bother me, I'll do whatever I want. Are we limited to the vices listed above? Does a married gay or lesbian couple living next door to you violate your HUMAN RIGHTS?

Too bad both "Religious Conservatives" and "PC Leftists" are too blind to see their own hypocrisy.

Ooh, how exclusive. Care to make an example?

First off, nobody rolled Pat's bigoted comments over religious conservatism. We commented on bigoted statements that just so happened to come from a religious conservative.

In addition, we mentioned the perception that many political conservatives typically shun reform. Pat's comment on reform is a stunning moment that may only be momentary.

I know religious conservatives who are actually environmentally and economically conservative. And they don't attempt to preach to those they know and respect as non-religious. They don't make generalizations that they and their religious piers are better than others.

 

[Hydrosun]

First off, I learned the golden rule (in church) as a toddler. Everybody knows that individualists lack a mutual nature to human relationships. They care more of self freedom than collective or societal freedom. There are some individualists that we as a society shun their individualism when it's incompatible with civilization.

Wow, that is some scary shit right there.

So if someone doesn't go to Jesus camp when young they can't understand the moral axioms of HUMAN RIGHTS or MANS METAPHYSICS?


"Evergbody knows" Really? Everyone knows that anyone self identified as an INDIVIDUALIST is incapable of human relationships? How does EVERYBODY know this?

There is no fucking thing as "collective or societal freedom"! What the fuck is that Orwellian Double Speak?

How can WE collectively be free if WE lock YOU or I in a cage? Collective rights implies that if you and enough buddies get together you have MORE HUMAN RIGHTS than a single man on an island.

Please tell me HOW any person or group was ENDOWED or EARNED greater rights?

Which INDIVIDUALISTS do WE as a SOCIETY shun? I remember your example about rape verses a personal choice of being gay; SOCIETY may shun gays or not, but I as an individualist have NO concern about a persons sexuality or orientation.

Criminals (those who violate the human rights of others) are not tolerated by natural law or Individualists; unfortunately criminals are tolerated by society at large and even promoted to positions of great power.

Now show me the facts to back up your assertions, it seems I am not the only one who plays talk show host on ICmag.

 

[compost]

I won't support or even listen to ANYONE who professes GOD is why something has happened or they speak for him. Conservative, liberal, progressive, tea party, or even libertarian should be able to see this guy is a fake. I am tired of the 3 sects of the moses trying to dominate what I think.

To go off topic just a second if you believe in one of the three sects of moses then technically you believe the other 2 sects are wrong. So basically if there really is a god of moses(the god of abraham) then only one of the sects is right and the others face damnation.

To get back on topic one day we will have a society that guides there laws based on only logic, common sense, and kharma(or the bible version). IE if something you do affects people negatively then you would be subject to legal problems. If you smoke weed and live a good life no problem if you are a idiot with problems that hurts other people you would lose some of your freedoms because you are not mature or smart enough to handle them. Freedom is a great gift that many of us take for granted.

 

[someotherguy]

Why are you still here?
Shouldn't you be out protesting for creationism to be taught in public school?
Or having books you find objectionable removed from libraries?

The imaginary friend crew are the fools.
I just wish they would quit trying to force their imaginary bullshit on the rest of us.

lol, hoosierdaddy! ...just call me hoosierdaddy!

 

[Madrus Rose]

To go off topic just a second if you believe in one of the three sects of moses then technically you believe the other 2 sects are wrong. So basically if there really is a god of moses(the god of abraham) then only one of the sects is right and the others face damnation.

To get back on topic one day we will have a society that guides there laws based on only logic, common sense, and kharma(or the bible version).

rarely digress onto the subject of religion....

Always found it a glaring oversite of Moses & his followers & later the Christians that right after he recieves the "Ten Commandments " of God ( there were really 100's of them ) and the first one being "thou shalt not kill or murder" etc . One of the very first commands Moses gives to his brother Joshua is to go over & kill all the peoples of the city of Jericho down to the last man .

And Moses also goes on to say to his warrior holy brethren that its OK to keep the young women & rape them for themselves . Have always thought this was a bit of a paradox since the first commandment God had just given him on the mountain top was not to kill or commit adultery ..but rape & murder for the "cause" was justified.

The funny thing too is, that Moses never actually "sees" God because that would be too blinding for any mere mortal . But it says in the Old Tetstement that God does at least let Moses see his rear end as he's leaving the mountain top .

So if God would only reveal his backside to Moses far back then
just think of how little he/she revealed to a pee brain
like Pat Robertson ?



PS: The name "Jesus" is a direct derivative of the name "Joshua" the brother to Moses & great genocidal hero of the old testement . 2000yrs ago almost every village of that time had many youths named Jesus in honor of that legendary old testemnt charactor. The Romans of that time crucified as many as 500 Jews that bore the name of Jesus ....

 

[Classy@Home]

Flow chart for debating w/ a xtian

Flow chart for debating w/ a xtian

http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wow, that is some scary shit right there.

So if someone doesn't go to Jesus camp when young they can't understand the moral axioms of HUMAN RIGHTS or MANS METAPHYSICS?

Empathy isn't religious, it's universal. Whether and/or how one applies it is relative. I'm not as concerned with your verbiage as I'm concerned with what one wants vs how one takes it. Don't take that personal.

"Evergbody knows" Really? Everyone knows that anyone self identified as an INDIVIDUALIST is incapable of human relationships? How does EVERYBODY know this?

Yeah, everybody knows when they run into this...(it's not often verbalized but it's still familiar)

"I'll get what I want and you'll get what you get." - where "I" assumes "you" may get more than deserved.

This person thinks that society's gain is their loss. Nobody said they can't relate, it's just noticeable.

Hydrosun, does the hypothetical, married, LGBT couple living next door impinge on your freedom?

There is no fucking thing as "collective or societal freedom"! What the fuck is that Orwellian Double Speak?

Sure there is. It says gays can serve openly in the military, women can vote, no more slavery, (how much time ya got?) It might involve order but we sacrifice for the benefit of all.

There's no such thing as a Libertarian utopia. If you have a hard time answering the married LGBT neighbor question, you demonstrate what I'm talking about. When you have 308+ million residents, you have to have a reasonable amount of order.

Let's not forget what GB said on the old time Glen Beck tv hour yesterday:

"When people lose hope, their morals go out the window."

I have to admit, Glen was right.... gulp.

Our country is rife with those who've lost hope. We could have a severe moral crisis, something the religious right fears. We're rife with greed. We could have economic decay, something the left (religious or not) fears.

How can WE collectively be free if WE lock YOU or I in a cage?

If one of us deserves to be locked in a cage, the other's freedom is less marginalized.

"Deserved" is relative. There's no one outlook. The world where you think you can do exactly what you want, along with everybody else doing exactly what they want doesn't exist. It's why law was created in the first place. Order trumps havoc, sacrificing the individual freedom to impinge on others.

Of course you're not impinging on your brother's freedom. There's just a law that says you can't do (for whatever reason.) I'd like to be able to grow a plant w/o going to jail but there are lots of animals doing horrible things with proceeds from weed sales. Such is life. Some things change and some things stay the same.

Nobody said you did it. Law says you can't.

Collective rights implies that if you and enough buddies get together you have MORE HUMAN RIGHTS than a single man on an island.

Sounds like the jungle.

"You can have anything you want,
But you better not take it from me."

Or, it sounds like a democracy. If the individual impinges on the group, that individual chooses not to embrace the collective. Like I said, I don't care what one's human philosophy is, I care whether one goes against the collective grain.

Grain is relative. I may no more than choose to avoid an individual that sees gain at my expense as a consideration. I may also approve of the death penalty for an individual that justifies his human right to take another life for personal gain.

Again, don't take it personal. There are lots of nuts that would exploit the right-wing zenith of freedom. Might be a dream but not very practical.

Please tell me HOW any person or group was ENDOWED or EARNED greater rights?

Google democracy.

Which INDIVIDUALISTS do WE as a SOCIETY shun?

Criminals. There aren't too many people who commit crimes for others' personal gain. Unless they're a slave.

Don't take this personal. Only some individualists are criminal.

I remember your example about rape verses a personal choice of being gay; SOCIETY may shun gays or not, but I as an individualist have NO concern about a persons sexuality or orientation.

My comment was an example of moral policing. A poster said there was no difference in right/left moral judgment of others. My comment opines differently.

Criminals (those who violate the human rights of others) are not tolerated by natural law or Individualists; unfortunately criminals are tolerated by society at large and even promoted to positions of great power.

I never said a group of people violate or tolerate. I said the individualist values elements of self over society. You wouldn't feel very free when others have the freedom to eat your lunch.

Now show me the facts to back up your assertions, it seems I am not the only one who plays talk show host on ICmag.

Practice what you preach. I bring fact or objective opinion if I quote anything. I don't just look for something that agrees with my opinion. Did you ignore the "individualism" attachment in one of my previous posts?

facts are facts, they're objective.

Opinion is subjective. It can be factually oriented yet unable to predict elements of the future with certainty. So to a degree, every opinion is subjective if dealing future aspects. On the other hand, objective opinion of historical aspects trumps the purely subjective.

It's also subjective when one values gut reaction to objective fact.

 

[Hydrosun]

"I'll get what I want and you'll get what you get." - where "I" assumes "you" may get more than deserved.

This person thinks that society's gain is their loss. Nobody said they can't relate, it's just noticeable.

Hydrosun, does the hypothetical, married, LGBT couple living next door impinge on your freedom?

Sure there is. It says gays can serve openly in the military, women can vote, no more slavery, (how much time ya got?) It might involve order but we sacrifice for the benefit of all.

There's no such thing as a Libertarian utopia.

The way you make your posts makes it harder for the less technicaly inclined to respond by quoting you.

However What is wrong with "I'll get what I get you get what you get" IF neither YOU or I are violating the HUMAN RIGHTS of anyone else? Your statement that "I" may get more than "I" deserve, presupposes I will violate the rights of others OR YOU will violate my rights and DETERMINE what I DESERVE. How very Christian of you.

I don't know about "This Person", but I do know that I as an INDIVIDUAL could care less about "Society's gains or losses". I don't believe there is a such thing as NATURAL collective rights or benefits. I can't remember the last "Societal Gain" or the last "Societal Loss". Since I am part of this great society should I understand / feel / notice when society gains or losses? And since I can't recognize these "Societal Gains." I can't possibly score them as a loss for me.

The people living as my neighbors do not impinge on my freedom NO MATTER their sexuality or marital status. I would prefer to have happy non-violent neighbors and given my druthers NONE of them would be married (that is the biggest crock of shit religious / government control scam ever).

Doesn't matter if my neighbors are gay, straight, black, white, American citizens, or ILLEGAL ALIENS. And can I say that in MY INDIVIDUALISTIC view there is no such things as ILLEGAL ALIENS. The war on those humans is as bad as the war on drugs and all of us.

How did YOU or I sacrifice for this lame as shit "Don't ask Don't tell" US Military policy? How did the 7 year old boy who was born after "DADT" sacrifice? I know I didn't do SHIT to create DADT or Womens Suffrage or the abolishment of slavery. Many of these circumstances occurred before my birth and ALL of them occurred WITHOUT my input or involvement.

Again WE don't sacrifice for the benefit of ALL, YOU may do that but I do not. Please again tell me how YOU sacrificed for a benefit YOU now claim is bestowed upon ME because of YOUR grace / sacrifice / or effort.



PS. A libertarian utopia may not exist, but one should NEVER sacrifice principals or ideals just because they aren't practical at the moment. If you look back into history you will see that women's suffrage and abolishing slavery were both IMPRACTICAL; but after centuries idealism trumped COLLECTIVE IMMORALITY.

 

[Guest3498]

It's pretty sad that people actually listen to Pat Robertson, I guess this is a good thing though.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The way you make your posts makes it harder for the less technicaly inclined to respond by quoting you.

Copy and paste the post into the editor.

However What is wrong with "I'll get what I get you get what you get" IF neither YOU or I are violating the HUMAN RIGHTS of anyone else? Your statement that "I" may get more than "I" deserve, presupposes I will violate the rights of others OR YOU will violate my rights and DETERMINE what I DESERVE. How very Christian of you.

I'm not religious. Did you see the word's don't - take - this - personally?

I don't know about "This Person", but I do know that I as an INDIVIDUAL could care less about "Society's gains or losses".

my whole point - thank you.

 

[Greensub]

It's really quite promising to see a fundamentalist religious figure struggling with a something foreign to their experience... Logic & Critical Thinking. As we can see by his walk-back though he's still unwilling to change his beliefs in the face of his own logic, hardly a surprise.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Keep this in mind. Even when it's not about the money, its about the money. Not to be a naysayer, but he has something to gain, he bought land to get in on the action. Same, as Phillip Morris, bought land in the emerald triangle in case prop 19 passed. All the while contributing to another to campaign to keep it cannabis illegal.

LOL frigged up, but pretty clever

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hedging bets is smart business strategy but we can't have winners w/o losers. When big business hedges all bets, the only people left to lose are the little guys.

 

[Oliver Pantsoff]

Fuck yea Pat Robertson////I never thought I would see the day>>>

OP

 

[ijim]

I wouldn't get my hopes up. I walked in on Ted Kennedy and John junior doing bongs by the pool at Ethel Kennedy's house in the mid 70s. I was thrilled here was one of the most influential men in Washington getting high. I was sure it would only be a few more years before legalization. But he never had the balls to be honest and advocate the legal use of Cannabis.

 

[Maj.Cottonmouth]

I honestly don't think it can or will happen under a Democratic President. A Republican could get away with doing it for economic reasons.