Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 How does meeting with them make her dangerous? 636030[/snapback] I don't know, ask Jane Fonda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 I don't know, ask Jane Fonda. 636036[/snapback] Caracas Cindy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Caracas Cindy? 636043[/snapback] We have way too much TV and internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Please. Pat Robertson is an idiot. Fortunately, he's also totally harmless...unlike the radical islamic imams who urge the youth to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 I guess I can see how somebody could see Cindy Sheehan as morally repugnant, I haven't paid too much attention to what she does. I am more interested in Robertson simply because he is overtly using a religous platform which I have an academic interest in. By my original question, I was really wondering if anyone understood this as a coherent world-view that many American's share. Is Pat Robertson dangerous? I don't know. I think his world view comes from religious apocalyptism that many Americans share and therefore represents part of an influential block of politics that filters candidates based on this predisposition to see world events from the perspective of a religious revelation that may often go unstated. I tend to be dismissive of Sheehan and just more curious about Pat Robertson and James Dobson, etc. Because it is much more broadbased and public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I guess I can see how somebody could see Cindy Sheehan as morally repugnant, I haven't paid too much attention to what she does. I am more interested in Robertson simply because he is overtly using a religous platform which I have an academic interest in. By my original question, I was really wondering if anyone understood this as a coherent world-view that many American's share. Is Pat Robertson dangerous? I don't know. I think his world view comes from religious apocalyptism that many Americans share and therefore represents part of an influential block of politics that filters candidates based on this predisposition to see world events from the perspective of a religious revelation that may often go unstated. I tend to be dismissive of Sheehan and just more curious about Pat Robertson and James Dobson, etc. Because it is much more broadbased and public. 636210[/snapback] I really think that we, collectively, are the dangerous ones. Mostly, because no one cares about anything unless it hits their life and wallet. For our demographics, it usually doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts