<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f5TE99sAbwM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f5TE99sAbwM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

How bizarre...

Pat Robertson mentioned that the earthquake is a blessing in disguise and later, says the Haitian people are cursed by God since they made a pact with the devil resulting in the eventual earthquake...

Not bizarre. Typical Robertson comment. Instead of reaching out to help, and using his influence to provide assistance in the situation, he pours salt on the wound, giving Christianity a bad name, and likely earning millions in his own pocketbook off of other people's misery. Dispicable.

Pat Robertson is a dickhead.

I honestly think he is suffering from dementia.

What a terrible man. One way I cope with the fact that such people exist is by pretending that they're really just faking being so messed up to try and whip us all into gear and scare us out of taking things for granted & being like that. Like They're all really a bunch of amazing & selfless people willing to crush any good reputation they have in order to try and shift us towards better ways. May be obviously untrue but it's a nice fantasy at the very least.

The American Taliban is still working.

The mullah of the American Taliban speaks.

Pat Robertson is a dickhead. Agreed.

I honestly think he is suffering from dementia. Agreed.

I understand we did the same thing to escape the British...that's why we have Pat. But seriously folks...

Pat Robertson says Haiti paying for 'pact to the devil'
January 13, 2010 6:58 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- Pat Robertson, the evangelical Christian who once suggested God was punishing Americans with Hurricane Katrina, says a "pact to the devil" brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti.

Officials fear more than 100,000 people have died as a result of Tuesday's 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti.

Robertson, the host of the "700 Club," blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it."

The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "

What a fine caring christian leader........

The sooner this jesus freak croaks, the better. He's gotta be in his 80's by now... What's the hold up? Too bad there's no god, or he'd send this F***er straight to hell.

there's always a .45 or a .38.
this POS needs to see the inside of Gitmo, and a few waterboarding sessions.
I would gladly contribute to the legal defense fund.

Someone find Prune and get him over here to defend the good reverend. This could get rich,

So Pat Robertson was present when they signed this deal? Hmm...

It seems like whenever there is tragedy in the world, someone will claim it was punishment by god. For example in the 2006 tsunamis, someone said the tsunamis happened to Thailand because of the prostitution there. If Pat Robertson wanted to prove that there was a god, making up a story where the Haitians signed a pact with the devil is going to have an adverse effect.

I find it hard to believe *anyone* could take him seriously.

But there'll always be a large number of Americans who surprise me. They never fail me!

Maybe he will join ol' Oral pretty soon.

Someone find Prune and get him over here to defend the good reverend. This could get rich,

Almost as rich as our tolerant Leftists already wishing death and violence on the deranged old coot.

I find what he said to be despicable, he does not speak for the majority.

However, (IMO) calling someone a dick head, a Jesus Freak, saying he needs to Croak and go to hell, or insinuating that someone needs to not wait for him to die and use a 45 or a 38 on him, puts you on the same level as he.

I find what he said to be despicable, he does not speak for the majority.

However, (IMO) calling someone a dick head, a Jesus Freak, saying he needs to Croak and go to hell, or insinuating that someone needs to not wait for him to die and use a 45 or a 38 on him, puts you on the same level as he.

Yes, because badmouthing or wishing ill on one man on a locally-centric message board is exactly the same as that man going in front of a national (or worldwide, even) television audience and making horrible, unfounded, damaging claims about an entire country which is experiencing a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, while claiming to be speaking as representative of his religion.

Shame on you people. Shame. You're no better or different than he.

Yes, because badmouthing or wishing ill on one man on a locally-centric message board is exactly the same as that man going in front of a national (or worldwide, even) television audience and making horrible, unfounded, damaging claims about an entire country which is experiencing a tragedy of unimaginable proportions, while claiming to be speaking as representative of his religion.

Shame on you people. Shame. You're no better or different than he.

If it's wrong, it's wrong.

I'm so frustrated with him and his brand of religion and this is not a slip of the tongue or said in "confidence" with another like minded person.
Granted I should not have said .45 or a .38, it really should be up to the user to decide what to use.

I'm so frustrated with him and his brand of religion and this is not a slip of the tongue or said in "confidence" with another like minded person.
Granted I should not have said .45 or a .38, it really should be up to the user to decide what to use.

I'm a Christian, I don't follow Pat Robinson, never have, and I totally disagree with his statement regarding the people of Haiti. But your condoning or advocating that someone needs to murder him is wrong, didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm so frustrated with him and his brand of religion and this is not a slip of the tongue or said in "confidence" with another like minded person.
Granted I should not have said .45 or a .38, it really should be up to the user to decide what to use.

You act just like him and your brand of religion is just as frustrating. You are just as intolerant and hateful as he is.

I find what he said to be despicable, he does not speak for the majority.

However, (IMO) calling someone a dick head, a Jesus Freak, saying he needs to Croak and go to hell, or insinuating that someone needs to not wait for him to die and use a 45 or a 38 on him, puts you on the same level as he.

I dont really agree. He is the one who first came out with this unsolicited and hateful speech against innocent and poor people. Thats where we differ. I only come back and say bad things after he says them first. He is the initial hater, without his hating none of these other bad comments would be made. I only hate other haters. Maybe its not totally right, but it doesnt put us on the same level.

I dont really agree. He is the one who first came out with this unsolicited and hateful speech against innocent and poor people. Thats where we differ. I only come back and say bad things after he says them first. He is the initial hater, without his hating none of these other bad comments would be made. I only hate other haters. Maybe its not totally right, but it doesnt put us on the same level.

That is saying that two wrongs DO make a right. And I have to agree, it sure puts someone in the same boat. Self defense is one thing. Allowing someone else to set your standards is another.

I'm a Christian, I don't follow Pat Robinson, never have, and I totally disagree with his statement regarding the people of Haiti. But your condoning or advocating that someone needs to murder him is wrong, didn't your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right.

So those who wished for the deaths of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot were just as wicked as those men were. "Love your enemy" is an "ideal" and is SOEtimes of real moral value. How about if I use a religious route and PRAY for an early and painful demise during which the Devil explains to the Rev just why he was on his way to Hell. Hey, I reallly do feel better now.

So those who wished for the deaths of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot were just as wicked as those men were. "Love your enemy" is an "ideal" and is SOEtimes of real moral value. How about if I use a religious route and PRAY for an early and painful demise during which the Devil explains to the Rev just why he was on his way to Hell. Hey, I reallly do feel better now.

In those cases, I really think you're talking self defense or defense of others more than engaging in some sort of two wrongs making a right.

I dont really agree. He is the one who first came out with this unsolicited and hateful speech against innocent and poor people. Thats where we differ. I only come back and say bad things after he says them first. He is the initial hater, without his hating none of these other bad comments would be made. I only hate other haters. Maybe its not totally right, but it doesnt put us on the same level.

I remember doing the "he did it first routine", when I was 7 and my brother was 5. He hit me first, no, he hit me first, well he's looking at me, he looked at me first.

In those cases, I really think you're talking self defense or defense of others more than engaging in some sort of two wrongs making a right.

I appreciate your POV PQ, but its only murder 1st.if thats a person 2.whose innocent.

He says Haitians joined a pack with the devil? How does he know this?!? Is he bff's with the devil?!? Im starting to think so.. Maybe he is the devil........... I'd believe it.

Transcript:
ROBERTSON: "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. Napoleon the Third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, “We will serve you if you get us free from the prince.” True story. And so the devil said, “OK, it’s a deal.” They kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle, on the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island.

They need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now, we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable."

Press Release:
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti (http://www.cbn.com/about/pressrelease_patrobertson_haiti.aspx)
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti


CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 -- On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN

Does anyone here even know anyone who takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore?

I mean besides liberals who just can't help it. Are there any christians or church organizations that actually consider him relevant?

Does anyone here even know anyone who takes Pat Robertson seriously anymore?
I mean besides liberals who just can't help it. Are there any Christians or church organizations that actually consider him relevant?

Just the people that like to bad mouth religion and Republicans.

Pat Robertson, like Oral Roberts, and many many other, are in thier doddering years of decreasing influence. However, millions still watch the 700 club and give him thier money.

What is currently far more frightening is the fundementalist movements in Africa and how US evangelists and politicians are pushing them into extremist positions regarding homosexuality.

Scott Lively, "Abiding Truth Ministries" president and insane homophobe, had a direct impact on Uganda's death penalty for homosexuals legislation. He led a crusade than spoke directly to the Ugandan congress which led directly to this law.

He spoke to them about "not letting the gay agenda polute Uganda like it has the US" then expresses "surprise" when they do pretty well what he told them God wants them to do.

He's just the tip of the Iceberg.

Of course, there's cross polination with the African Fundimentalists bringing thier message back here.

Anybody remember Palin getting the exocism in her church in Wassilla? Thomas Mutha leads litteral witch hunts resulting in near lynchings back at home in Kenya.

I can't wait until this synergy comes to roost around here. Oklahoma tends to be among the first to follow the extreme trends. Coming to a Life Church near you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAWM7E_WMfo

Pat Robertson, like Oral Roberts, and many many other, are in thier doddering years of decreasing influence. However, millions still watch the 700 club and give him thier money.

Last time I checked, Oral was dead.

Yeah, plenty of people give the 700 club money, including my grandmother, but is it because of Pat or in spite of Pat?

Since around '86 - '88 I've not seen/heard anyone quoting him unless they were going to ridicule what he had said. Even back when he was running for office, I don't really remember knowing anyone who was in favor of him..

It just seems kinda silly to me that there's such joy derived from quoting some crazy old man just so you can make fun of what he says.. It's right up there with watching the Special Olympics for all the wrong reasons.

Nutcases aren't just limited to the right wing. Danny Glover's got to be moving up the list of famous kooks.

PACT WITH GAIA | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/)

The sooner this jesus freak croaks, the better. He's gotta be in his 80's by now... What's the hold up? Too bad there's no god, or he'd send this F***er straight to hell.

what a great example of liberal tolerism.....:LolLolLol

what a great example of liberal tolerism.....:LolLolLol

To tolerant a murderer or a terrorist (or someone who incites) or a child molester, someone to be tolerated?

It is one of the great bonehead myths that to be open minded and open hearted as a general disposition, one you must swallow all ideas whole without making any judgement.

Another related stupid concept is that in order to be sincerly tolerant of people's differences, one must give up all discernment.

Yet another is that is one advocates inclusivity rather than labor at the gates of exclusion, one but give up all valuation of competing ideas.

I know a few boneheaded liberals and none of the aspire to any of these things.

I know quite a few reasonable people who truly aspire to judge a person on the content of thier character rather than the color of thier skin, thier national origin, their sexual orientation, thier religion of choice or any of the other things folks like Metro seem to order thier world in a way that makes them feel safe, secure, and sanctified.

I think that is bunk.

The idea that "liberal tolerance" means one must accept bigotry, racism, or any other hatred based on preceived differences between people is mostly an idea spread by those who need rationalizations for thier own.

It is one of the great bonehead myths that to be open minded and open hearted as a general disposition, one you must swallow all ideas whole without making any judgement.

Another related stupid concept is that in order to be sincerly tolerant of people's differences, one must give up all discernment.

Yet another is that is one advocates inclusivity rather than labor at the gates of exclusion, one but give up all valuation of competing ideas.

I know a few boneheaded liberals and none of the aspire to any of these things.

I know quite a few reasonable people who truly aspire to judge a person on the content of thier character rather than the color of thier skin, thier national origin, their sexual orientation, thier religion of choice or any of the other things folks like Metro seem to order thier world in a way that makes them feel safe, secure, and sanctified.

I think that is bunk.

The idea that "liberal tolerance" means one must accept bigotry, racism, or any other hatred based on preceived differences between people is mostly an idea spread by those who need rationalizations for thier own.

EO,
Great post!

The idea that "liberal tolerance" means one must accept bigotry, racism, or any other hatred based on preceived differences between people is mostly an idea spread by those who need rationalizations for thier own.

Nice post. The problem, EO, is that too many liberals equate anything remotely resembling conservatism as bigoted, racist or hateful. To lump all conservatives in a pot just like to lump all liberals in a pot is, in itself, bigoted and hateful.

Overgeneralization is usually selective blindness. That is, being blind to ones own faults while nitpicking others obsesivly. Or, using phrases like "typical liberal."

Seems like I read something about the speck in ones neighbor's eye and the plank in one's own....

Overgeneralization is usually selective blindness. That is, being blind to ones own faults while nitpicking others obsesivly. Or, using phrases like "typical liberal."

Seems like I read something about the speck in ones neighbor's eye and the plank in one's own....

True, and I will admit to being one. But there sometimes is no other way to make a point. When I take exception is when anyone paints all conservatives as "X,Y or Z" which usually are quite vile things.

The fact that it has become acceptible in society today to cast anyone who is not a Democrat in such a horrible light is very troubling. Administration officials publicly call Republicans ***-holes, Al Franken (a freshman Senator) disses Sen. Lieberman by not granting him another minute to finish a point, entertainers routinely villify anyone who is Republican.

The Democrats don't get equal criticizm with the exception of talk radio. But Democrats even villify that (some cases being worthy of criticizm but not the industry). When was the last time David Letterman sat on his show and derided a Democrat for 10 minutes without rebuttal time?

"Sen. Lieberman by not granting him another minute to finish a point."


By John Dickerson
Posted Friday, Dec. 18, 2009, at 6:47 PM ET

Can comity and comedy coexist in the U.S. Senate? This important question presented itself Thursday during the debate over health care. Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Joe Lieberman asked to extend his remarks beyond the 10 minutes he'd been allotted. In a body known for speechmaking, this is like requesting air. It's the kind of request normally acceded to "without objection." But Al Franken, the freshman senator from Minnesota, sitting in as presiding officer of the Senate, told the four-term senator from Connecticut that he could not. "In my capacity as senator from Minnesota, I object," said Franken. Despite his background as a former cast member of Saturday Night Live, Franken was being serious. He did, however, give the universal palms-up gesture, suggesting the matter was out of his hands.
This became a thing.
John McCain, who built a reputation on breaking ranks, was outraged at the breach. "I've been around here 20-some years. First time I've ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks," he said. "I just haven't seen it before myself. And I don't like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute." (McCain, it turns out was forgetting his own effort, in 2002, to do exactly what Franken was doing.)

For liberals, this little episode was wonderful. Many have wanted to do themselves—perhaps with a sock—what Franken did to Lieberman. "Wielding Gavel, Franken Shuts Lieberman Up," read the headline on the Huffington Post.

And in fact one of the particulars in the liberal case against Lieberman was a breach of comity. During the presidential campaign he said that his colleague, Sen. Barack Obama, had not always put his country first. This was not exactly a breach of comity, because he didn't say it on the Senate floor. But it surely was against the spirit of the place.

Pundits also loved the episode, which was quickly elevated to an "altercation." Some heralded Franken for his bold move. Others were more sympathetic to Lieberman.

Comity is the special sauce of the Senate. It's what makes everyone so darn nice to one another in public. Even when they're cursing each other privately, senators show excessive deference in on the Senate floor, referring to all their colleagues as "gentlemen" or "gentlewomen" and constantly asking one another to yield rather than just interrupting. Even off the floor, if speaking publicly, a senator is likely to refer to a colleague as "a friend." I once asked a senator once what he really meant when he called a colleague a "good friend." He answered: "Not a thing."

There have, of course been famous exceptions. Dick Cheney, who as vice president was also president of the Senate, told Patrick Leahy to f--k himself, which qualifies as a breach of comity, to say nothing of biology. In 1902, Benjamin Tillman physically attacked John McClaurin in a dispute over a treaty to annex the Philippines. This caused the Senate to define comity: "No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator," and "No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union."

That Franken (a proud liberal) and Lieberman (a proud vexer of liberals) would have this moment was irresistible fodder for bloggers and cable shows. But it was really just a chance occurrence. Franken wasn't acting on his own—he was just following orders. Majority Leader Harry Reid had requested strict time-keeping by all freshmen(Franken) presiding in the Senate president's chair (a chore all newcomers must perform). Franken was not the only one who denied a senator a chance to extend his remarks Thursday, as Michigan's Carl Levin pointed out. Still, that doesn't mean that Franken's old colleagues at Saturday Night Live won't use the episode to have some fun at his—and Lieberman's—expense. Failing to do so would be a breach of comedy.

That Franken (a proud liberal) and Lieberman (a proud vexer of liberals) would have this moment was irresistible fodder for bloggers and cable shows. But it was really just a chance occurrence. Franken wasn't acting on his own—he was just following orders.

Majority Leader Harry Reid had requested strict time-keeping by all freshmen(Franken) presiding in the Senate president's chair (a chore all newcomers must perform). Franken was not the only one who denied a senator a chance to extend his remarks Thursday, as Michigan's Carl Levin pointed out. Still, that doesn't mean that Franken's old colleagues at Saturday Night Live won't use the episode to have some fun at his—and Lieberman's—expense. Failing to do so would be a breach of comedy.

Yeah, right. Again, Sen. McCain said himself he had never seen such an act before. No doubt Lieberman is a thorn in the side of the Dems since he left the party but it was Al Franken's move to poke Lieberman in the eye. Just another example of US politics turning personal and degrading itself to the class of Singapore or Korea or other countries where fighting in the aisles isn't uncommon. Whether Franken did it on his own accord or he did it under Reid's direction, it was still a classless, unprecedented thing to do.

By the way, I think Cheneys remarks were off the record and said under his breath but picked up by mics. The other examples I used happened in the open an on official record. It doesn't appear it's the Repubs escalating this degradation of manners.

Yeah, right. Again, Sen. McCain said himself he had never seen such an act before. No doubt Lieberman is a thorn in the side of the Dems since he left the party but it was Al Franken's move to poke Lieberman in the eye. Just another example of US politics turning personal and degrading itself to the class of Singapore or Korea or other countries where fighting in the aisles isn't uncommon. Whether Franken did it on his own accord or he did it under Reid's direction, it was still a classless, unprecedented thing to do.

By the way, I think Cheneys remarks were off the record and said under his breath but picked up by mics. The other examples I used happened in the open an on official record. It doesn't appear it's the Repubs escalating this degradation of manners.

""John McCain, who built a reputation on breaking ranks, was outraged at the breach. "I've been around here 20-some years. First time I've ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks," he said. "I just haven't seen it before myself. And I don't like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute." (McCain, it turns out was forgetting his own effort, in 2002, to do exactly what Franken was doing.)""


Now doesnt that suck, when there's a record....

Unfortunately, McCain’s memory is suffering. In fact, McCain has engaged in the very same behavior that he was criticizing Franken for yesterday.

On October 10, 2002 — just ahead of the looming mid-term elections — the Senate rushed a debate on a war authorization giving President Bush the power to use force against Iraq. The resolution ultimately passed the Senate after midnight on an early Friday morning by a vote of 77-23.

During the course of the frenzied floor debate, then-Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) spoke in favor of an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) that would have restricted Bush’s constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq. After a minute and a half, Dayton ran out of time, prompting this exchange:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Byrd stepped in to grant Dayton time to finish his remarks. But just moments later, Byrd asked for more time to speak for himself. Again, McCain objected, prompting Byrd to chide him for doing so. “This shows the patience of a Senator,” Byrd said. “This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator.”

After being publicly shamed, McCain acquiesced to Byrd’s request. But moments later, McCain added this disclaimer: “I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules.”

In other words, he acted just like Franken did yesterday.

Satan's Letter to Pat Robertson:

Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

From: Letter of the day: Haiti suffers, and Robertson sees the hand of Satan | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/81595442.html)

Satan's Letter to Pat Robertson:

Dear Pat Robertson, I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I'm all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I'm no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth -- glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven't you seen "Crossroads"? Or "Damn Yankees"? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there'd be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox -- that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it -- I'm just saying: Not how I roll. You're doing great work, Pat, and I don't want to clip your wings -- just, come on, you're making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That's working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

From: Letter of the day: Haiti suffers, and Robertson sees the hand of Satan | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/81595442.html)

Bunty my friend, you definitely need to get out of the house more often!!

Bunty my friend, you definitely need to get out of the house more often!!

You should feel lucky bunty. Rcjunkie only told you to get out more often rather than calling you a lonely loser and putting you on his prayer list.

The idea that "liberal tolerance" means one must accept bigotry, racism, or any other hatred based on preceived differences between people is mostly an idea spread by those who need rationalizations for thier own.

Nobody said one must accept bigotry, racism, and hatred.... they merely pointed out that the typical "tolerant" Liberal is just as guilty of those things as those they deride. Is it possible to oppose hate, racism, bigotry without being a hateful, racist, bigot? Yes, it is... but not for folks like gm and RonWestboro. The vile hateful vitriol just drips off them. Pat Robertson is more tolerant than they and their ilk.