Haiti

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
yo guyz I herd praying aint working[/quote]

Neither is spell check. Never the less, how many atheist organizations running out there to help? None? Don’t worry, we’ll get it.[/quote]

There are a lot of secular organizations engaged in aid relief, and most of them will be in Haiti. A prime example, the Red Cross, which despite its name is not a “Christian” organization, is indeed running out there to help. What’s your point–that atheists like to see people suffer? If that is your point, you are just plain wrong.[/quote]

Red cross is not secular.

I am just saying as a general rule they claim to do no harm in the world, but they don’t do any good either.
This is just my observation. I don’t have quatifiable facts to back it up and don’t give enough of a fuck to look it up. There is certainly no love your neighbor mantra flowing from any atheist organizations. I am not talking secular, I am talking atheist. That is not the same thing.[/quote]

The reason you hear about charities being religiously based is because the religious ones feel the need to brag about it instead of focusing on just helping.

Atheism isn’t a fucking group like Christians or Hindus or Muslims, get that into your thick skull. Instead of parroting of the shit that you hear from conservatives who don’t know the world outside of the USA try actually finding out for yourself.

In other news, if any of the others reading are thinking of donating money, I’ll throw the following link into the mix:

Medecins Sans Frontieres was created in 1971 by a small group of French doctors in the aftermath of the Biafra secession, who believed that all people have the right to medical care regardless of race, religion, creed or political affiliation, and that the needs of these people supersede respect for national borders.

63

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Pat Robertson’s comments:

White House calls Robertson’s Haiti comment ‘stupid’
Pat Robertson (file image)
Mr Robertson made the comments on his programme

The White House has dismissed as “stupid” comments by evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson suggesting that quake-struck Haiti was cursed.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was amazed by the remarks.

During a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr Robertson suggested the Haiti’s earthquake was divine retribution.

He said Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil when it freed itself from French colonial rule.

[u]The White House said the comments were completely inappropriate.

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Mr Gibbs said.

“But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.” [/u]

[/quote]

Why do people watch this idiot?

[/quote]

I don’t watch this idiot, but he is not saying what people are accusing him of either. They damn sure seem cursed, I tell you that. No I am not saying they deserve anything either, I am saying the opposite, they deserve a break from tragedy.
He is not saying this is divine retribution, but that if you make a pact with the devil then the devil is in control. Whether or not you believe in such a thing doesn’t matter. He is not saying that these people deserve or brought upon themselves this misery. He is saying the devil is in control of this place and is responsible for their misery.

In his reference to this being a “blessing in disguise”, that a new prosperous nation may rise from the ashes of this tragedy. That is not a bad sentiment either.

In both cases these are consistent with evangelical view points. You make a deal with the devil, he will bring misery and destruction. Further, there is no senseless suffering, that no matter what the suffering will lead to a greater good. These are not purposefully mean statements.

Robert Gibbs really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because he has said some stupid shit himeself. He is not the orator his boss is. He has the eloquence of rusty bucket. Second, he should have chose to just not comment, it’s really not important enough to draw the attention of the white house. [/quote]

How does anything this idiot is saying helping the situation?

Stop defending thundercunts like this. I suppose acceptance of homosexuality is what really caused the Boxing Day tsunamis, right? Fucking asshole.

64

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
<<< Why does the tragedy of someone else imply some sort of moral obligation on the part of another? >>>[/quote]

I see no obligation, which would remove the virtue from caring for others. Private uncoerced aid for the relief of the suffering of others is no vice. Tax dollars forcibly confiscated and distributed is another matter.

Unselfishness with other people’s resources is evil. Unselfishness with your own is not. If we weren’t already squandering trillions on self destructive domestic social crap, I wouldn’t mind sending some help to 3rd world shitholes in times like this.

65

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
<<< Why does the tragedy of someone else imply some sort of moral obligation on the part of another? >>>[/quote]

I see no obligation, which would remove the virtue from caring for others. Private uncoerced aid for the relief of the suffering of others is no vice. Tax dollars forcibly confiscated and distributed is another matter.

Unselfishness with other people’s resources is evil. Unselfishness with your own is not. If we weren’t already squandering trillions on self destructive domestic social crap, I wouldn’t mind sending some help to 3rd world shitholes in times like this. [/quote]

A good and fitting statement for your 8000th post. Well done.

66

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=haiti+violence&emb=0&aq=2&oq=haiti+v#

Haiti has been a hellhole for a long time. Any aid sent will only prolong the misery, since the authorities are no longer in charge, the gangs are.

Summary for all politically correct A-holes: it’s a wonderful island nation with peaceful people, any natural disasters/food shortage riots and even lack of infrastructure items are the white man’s fault.

67

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
yo guyz I herd praying aint working[/quote]

Neither is spell check. Never the less, how many atheist organizations running out there to help? None? Don’t worry, we’ll get it.[/quote]

There are a lot of secular organizations engaged in aid relief, and most of them will be in Haiti. A prime example, the Red Cross, which despite its name is not a “Christian” organization, is indeed running out there to help. What’s your point–that atheists like to see people suffer? If that is your point, you are just plain wrong.[/quote]

Red cross is not secular.

I am just saying as a general rule they claim to do no harm in the world, but they don’t do any good either.
This is just my observation. I don’t have quatifiable facts to back it up and don’t give enough of a fuck to look it up. There is certainly no love your neighbor mantra flowing from any atheist organizations. I am not talking secular, I am talking atheist. That is not the same thing.[/quote]

The Red Cross is not a religious organization either. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it is not secular. Secular is the opposite of religious–since the Red Cross is not religious, it is therefore, secular.

Good point about atheist organizations, but there is no need for them. What would they do? Gather around each week and talk about what they don’t believe? I’m just trying to emphasize that you don’t have to be a religious organization to do good things. Belief in God is not necessary to feel moved to relieve human suffering.

68

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
yo guyz I herd praying aint working[/quote]

Neither is spell check. Never the less, how many atheist organizations running out there to help? None? Don’t worry, we’ll get it.[/quote]

There are a lot of secular organizations engaged in aid relief, and most of them will be in Haiti. A prime example, the Red Cross, which despite its name is not a “Christian” organization, is indeed running out there to help. What’s your point–that atheists like to see people suffer? If that is your point, you are just plain wrong.[/quote]

Red cross is not secular.

I am just saying as a general rule they claim to do no harm in the world, but they don’t do any good either.
This is just my observation. I don’t have quatifiable facts to back it up and don’t give enough of a fuck to look it up. There is certainly no love your neighbor mantra flowing from any atheist organizations. I am not talking secular, I am talking atheist. That is not the same thing.[/quote]

Well, it is kind of hard to organize a charity in the name of no god.

It just does not make for a good rallying cry.

[/quote]

Surely you are not implying every charity is organized in the name of a god? The suffering of other humans is sufficient rallying cry, in my opinion.

69

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Pat Robertson’s comments:

White House calls Robertson’s Haiti comment ‘stupid’
Pat Robertson (file image)
Mr Robertson made the comments on his programme

The White House has dismissed as “stupid” comments by evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson suggesting that quake-struck Haiti was cursed.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was amazed by the remarks.

During a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr Robertson suggested the Haiti’s earthquake was divine retribution.

He said Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil when it freed itself from French colonial rule.

[u]The White House said the comments were completely inappropriate.

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Mr Gibbs said.

“But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.” [/u]

[/quote]

Why do people watch this idiot?

[/quote]

I don’t watch this idiot, but he is not saying what people are accusing him of either. They damn sure seem cursed, I tell you that. No I am not saying they deserve anything either, I am saying the opposite, they deserve a break from tragedy.
He is not saying this is divine retribution, but that if you make a pact with the devil then the devil is in control. Whether or not you believe in such a thing doesn’t matter. He is not saying that these people deserve or brought upon themselves this misery. He is saying the devil is in control of this place and is responsible for their misery.

In his reference to this being a “blessing in disguise”, that a new prosperous nation may rise from the ashes of this tragedy. That is not a bad sentiment either.

In both cases these are consistent with evangelical view points. You make a deal with the devil, he will bring misery and destruction. Further, there is no senseless suffering, that no matter what the suffering will lead to a greater good. These are not purposefully mean statements.

Robert Gibbs really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because he has said some stupid shit himeself. He is not the orator his boss is. He has the eloquence of rusty bucket. Second, he should have chose to just not comment, it’s really not important enough to draw the attention of the white house. [/quote]

Supposing the devil does exist, how can one prove that the Haitians made a pact with him?[/quote]

Worse. How can one assert that the entire nation made such a pact? Painting with a broad brush never results in a pretty picture.

70

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Pat Robertson’s comments:

White House calls Robertson’s Haiti comment ‘stupid’
Pat Robertson (file image)
Mr Robertson made the comments on his programme

The White House has dismissed as “stupid” comments by evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson suggesting that quake-struck Haiti was cursed.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was amazed by the remarks.

During a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr Robertson suggested the Haiti’s earthquake was divine retribution.

He said Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil when it freed itself from French colonial rule.

[u]The White House said the comments were completely inappropriate.

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Mr Gibbs said.

“But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.” [/u]

[/quote]

Why do people watch this idiot?

[/quote]

I don’t watch this idiot, but he is not saying what people are accusing him of either. They damn sure seem cursed, I tell you that. No I am not saying they deserve anything either, I am saying the opposite, they deserve a break from tragedy.
He is not saying this is divine retribution, but that if you make a pact with the devil then the devil is in control. Whether or not you believe in such a thing doesn’t matter. He is not saying that these people deserve or brought upon themselves this misery. He is saying the devil is in control of this place and is responsible for their misery.

In his reference to this being a “blessing in disguise”, that a new prosperous nation may rise from the ashes of this tragedy. That is not a bad sentiment either.

In both cases these are consistent with evangelical view points. You make a deal with the devil, he will bring misery and destruction. Further, there is no senseless suffering, that no matter what the suffering will lead to a greater good. These are not purposefully mean statements.

Robert Gibbs really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because he has said some stupid shit himeself. He is not the orator his boss is. He has the eloquence of rusty bucket. Second, he should have chose to just not comment, it’s really not important enough to draw the attention of the white house. [/quote]

Supposing the devil does exist, how can one prove that the Haitians made a pact with him?[/quote]

I’d also like to know how Pat Robertson knows what the devil said to the Haitians in return for their pact. According to him in this clip, the devil said in return “Okay, it’s a deal.”

Sounds like they didn’t need the devil’s help anyway, since it was the Haitians themselves who revolted against the French.

To buy into Robertson’s premise, you must also by into the logic that the earthquake it God’s punishment (or perhaps its a “blessing in disguise”).

The USGS report does not mention God as a cause, but rather that the “Haiti earthquake occurred in the boundary region separating the Caribbean plate and the North America plate. This plate boundary is dominated by left-lateral strike slip motion and compression, and accommodates about 20 mm/y slip, with the Caribbean plate moving eastward with respect to the North America plate.”

I did hear an interesting comment today. The 1989 Loma Linda earthquake in the San Francisco area was also a 7.0, but only 63 people died. The earthquake alone did not kill everyone in Haiti, it was poverty.

71

[quote]tme wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is telling people NOT to donate to the Haiti relief efforts… see, you already donated to Haiti because any foreign aid we make as a nation is included as part of your federal taxes.

Wow.

Look, don’t contribute to the relief efforts if you don’t want to, that’s an individual choice. But for Rush to use his media platform to tell millions of people that they already contributed to Haiti, so don’t bother making any donations to the Red Cross in the middle of a crisis… that’s fucking sick.

[/quote]

Here is a link that expands on Rush’s comments, now I don’t like the guy by any means and think he is a blowhard. But the comment was prompted by a caller who was asking why the Prez wanted people to go through whitehouse.org in order to donate? I have to agree with the statement why go through the white house to donate (as in be a part of the government donation, which he is correct you already are doing that). I would much prefer to go through a private charity or the Red Cross.[/quote]

Here’s what’s on the whitehouse.org: information on contributing via text message, a link to rhe Red Cross and a link to USAID’s Center for International Disaster Information. That’s it. And it didn’t even take much effort to find that out, so you or the fat druggie could probably have done the same thing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquake_embed

[quote]On January 12, 2010, a massive earthquake struck the nation of Haiti, causing catastrophic damage inside and around the capital city of Port-au-Prince. President Obama has promised the people of Haiti that “you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten.” The United States Government has mobilized resources and manpower to aid in the relief effort. Here are some ways that you can get involved.
Donate
Financial Donations
Donate $10 to the American Red Cross â?? charged to your cell phone bill â?? by texting “HAITI” to “90999.”
Contribute online to the Red Cross
Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.[/quote]

[/quote]

Besides, apparently Rush hasn’t figured out that he can write-off his donation and pay less in taxes (his primary concern apparently).

72

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
yo guyz I herd praying aint working[/quote]

Neither is spell check. Never the less, how many atheist organizations running out there to help? None? Don’t worry, we’ll get it.[/quote]

There are a lot of secular organizations engaged in aid relief, and most of them will be in Haiti. A prime example, the Red Cross, which despite its name is not a “Christian” organization, is indeed running out there to help. What’s your point–that atheists like to see people suffer? If that is your point, you are just plain wrong.[/quote]

Red cross is not secular.

I am just saying as a general rule they claim to do no harm in the world, but they don’t do any good either.
This is just my observation. I don’t have quatifiable facts to back it up and don’t give enough of a fuck to look it up. There is certainly no love your neighbor mantra flowing from any atheist organizations. I am not talking secular, I am talking atheist. That is not the same thing.[/quote]

The Red Cross is not a religious organization either. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it is not secular. Secular is the opposite of religious–since the Red Cross is not religious, it is therefore, secular.

Good point about atheist organizations, but there is no need for them. What would they do? Gather around each week and talk about what they don’t believe? I’m just trying to emphasize that you don’t have to be a religious organization to do good things. Belief in God is not necessary to feel moved to relieve human suffering.[/quote]

Actually I’m not sure you know what religious means either, either meaning the Red Cross aswell. Bad Fail.

73

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]tme wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is telling people NOT to donate to the Haiti relief efforts… see, you already donated to Haiti because any foreign aid we make as a nation is included as part of your federal taxes.

Wow.

Look, don’t contribute to the relief efforts if you don’t want to, that’s an individual choice. But for Rush to use his media platform to tell millions of people that they already contributed to Haiti, so don’t bother making any donations to the Red Cross in the middle of a crisis… that’s fucking sick.

[/quote]

Here is a link that expands on Rush’s comments, now I don’t like the guy by any means and think he is a blowhard. But the comment was prompted by a caller who was asking why the Prez wanted people to go through whitehouse.org in order to donate? I have to agree with the statement why go through the white house to donate (as in be a part of the government donation, which he is correct you already are doing that). I would much prefer to go through a private charity or the Red Cross.[/quote]

Here’s what’s on the whitehouse.org: information on contributing via text message, a link to rhe Red Cross and a link to USAID’s Center for International Disaster Information. That’s it. And it didn’t even take much effort to find that out, so you or the fat druggie could probably have done the same thing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquake_embed

[quote]On January 12, 2010, a massive earthquake struck the nation of Haiti, causing catastrophic damage inside and around the capital city of Port-au-Prince. President Obama has promised the people of Haiti that “you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten.” The United States Government has mobilized resources and manpower to aid in the relief effort. Here are some ways that you can get involved.
Donate
Financial Donations
Donate $10 to the American Red Cross Ã?¢?? charged to your cell phone bill Ã?¢?? by texting “HAITI” to “90999.”
Contribute online to the Red Cross
Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.[/quote]

[/quote]

Besides, apparently Rush hasn’t figured out that he can write-off his donation and pay less in taxes (his primary concern apparently).[/quote]

Well since I presume he has more money than you, I am sure he knows this.

74

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
<<< Why does the tragedy of someone else imply some sort of moral obligation on the part of another? >>>[/quote]

I see no obligation, which would remove the virtue from caring for others. Private uncoerced aid for the relief of the suffering of others is no vice. Tax dollars forcibly confiscated and distributed is another matter.

Unselfishness with other people’s resources is evil. Unselfishness with your own is not. If we weren’t already squandering trillions on self destructive domestic social crap, I wouldn’t mind sending some help to 3rd world shitholes in times like this. [/quote]

A good and fitting statement for your 8000th post. Well done.
[/quote]

Agreed. Each person is free to send or not send their own resources. To do so is called BENEVOLENCE, a concept with which I very much agree.

75

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Pat Robertson’s comments:

White House calls Robertson’s Haiti comment ‘stupid’
Pat Robertson (file image)
Mr Robertson made the comments on his programme

The White House has dismissed as “stupid” comments by evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson suggesting that quake-struck Haiti was cursed.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was amazed by the remarks.

During a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr Robertson suggested the Haiti’s earthquake was divine retribution.

He said Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil when it freed itself from French colonial rule.

[u]The White House said the comments were completely inappropriate.

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Mr Gibbs said.

“But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.” [/u]

[/quote]

Why do people watch this idiot?

[/quote]

I don’t watch this idiot, but he is not saying what people are accusing him of either. They damn sure seem cursed, I tell you that. No I am not saying they deserve anything either, I am saying the opposite, they deserve a break from tragedy.
He is not saying this is divine retribution, but that if you make a pact with the devil then the devil is in control. Whether or not you believe in such a thing doesn’t matter. He is not saying that these people deserve or brought upon themselves this misery. He is saying the devil is in control of this place and is responsible for their misery.

In his reference to this being a “blessing in disguise”, that a new prosperous nation may rise from the ashes of this tragedy. That is not a bad sentiment either.

In both cases these are consistent with evangelical view points. You make a deal with the devil, he will bring misery and destruction. Further, there is no senseless suffering, that no matter what the suffering will lead to a greater good. These are not purposefully mean statements.

Robert Gibbs really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because he has said some stupid shit himeself. He is not the orator his boss is. He has the eloquence of rusty bucket. Second, he should have chose to just not comment, it’s really not important enough to draw the attention of the white house. [/quote]

Supposing the devil does exist, how can one prove that the Haitians made a pact with him?[/quote]

Hell if I know, Wiki?

76

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

The Red Cross is not a religious organization either. I’m not sure what you mean when you say it is not secular. Secular is the opposite of religious–since the Red Cross is not religious, it is therefore, secular.

Good point about atheist organizations, but there is no need for them. What would they do? Gather around each week and talk about what they don’t believe? I’m just trying to emphasize that you don’t have to be a religious organization to do good things. Belief in God is not necessary to feel moved to relieve human suffering.[/quote]

I used to work near a Red Cross Worship and Mission center. There purpose in life is not be or spread religion, it is there to help. And they do a damn good job. They are grounded in religion, but religion isn’t their job. I think that’s the best way to describe them. Maybe we should get off our asses and volunteer. I am doing some soul searching on the matter, but being a family man the logistics are a bit more difficult, especially when the spouse doesn’t want you to.

77

[quote]Makavali wrote:

How does anything this idiot is saying helping the situation?
[/quote]
It doesn’t but neither does whining about him on a forum.

[quote]
Stop defending thundercunts like this. I suppose acceptance of homosexuality is what really caused the Boxing Day tsunamis, right? Fucking asshole.[/quote]

You didn’t listen to what he said and apparently what I wrote. He was being misinterpreted because dumbass people do not know how to listen to plain english. I don’t agree with what he said, but he wasn’t being the big meany that people are asserting.

78

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]tme wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is telling people NOT to donate to the Haiti relief efforts… see, you already donated to Haiti because any foreign aid we make as a nation is included as part of your federal taxes.

Wow.

Look, don’t contribute to the relief efforts if you don’t want to, that’s an individual choice. But for Rush to use his media platform to tell millions of people that they already contributed to Haiti, so don’t bother making any donations to the Red Cross in the middle of a crisis… that’s fucking sick.

[/quote]

Here is a link that expands on Rush’s comments, now I don’t like the guy by any means and think he is a blowhard. But the comment was prompted by a caller who was asking why the Prez wanted people to go through whitehouse.org in order to donate? I have to agree with the statement why go through the white house to donate (as in be a part of the government donation, which he is correct you already are doing that). I would much prefer to go through a private charity or the Red Cross.[/quote]

Here’s what’s on the whitehouse.org: information on contributing via text message, a link to rhe Red Cross and a link to USAID’s Center for International Disaster Information. That’s it. And it didn’t even take much effort to find that out, so you or the fat druggie could probably have done the same thing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquake_embed

[quote]On January 12, 2010, a massive earthquake struck the nation of Haiti, causing catastrophic damage inside and around the capital city of Port-au-Prince. President Obama has promised the people of Haiti that “you will not be forsaken; you will not be forgotten.” The United States Government has mobilized resources and manpower to aid in the relief effort. Here are some ways that you can get involved.
Donate
Financial Donations
Donate $10 to the American Red Cross Ã??Ã?¢?? charged to your cell phone bill Ã??Ã?¢?? by texting “HAITI” to “90999.”
Contribute online to the Red Cross
Find more ways to help through the Center for International Disaster Information.[/quote]

[/quote]

Besides, apparently Rush hasn’t figured out that he can write-off his donation and pay less in taxes (his primary concern apparently).[/quote]

Or you can read what he actually says instead of taking somebody who hates his gut’s, word for it. This shit isn’t hard. You can hate Rush all you want, but inventing shit that is easily dispelled does not help your cause; what ever that may be.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011510/content/01125106.guest.html

79

[quote]davidcox1 wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Pat Robertson’s comments:

White House calls Robertson’s Haiti comment ‘stupid’
Pat Robertson (file image)
Mr Robertson made the comments on his programme

The White House has dismissed as “stupid” comments by evangelist broadcaster Pat Robertson suggesting that quake-struck Haiti was cursed.

Spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was amazed by the remarks.

During a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr Robertson suggested the Haiti’s earthquake was divine retribution.

He said Haiti had sworn a pact with the devil when it freed itself from French colonial rule.

[u]The White House said the comments were completely inappropriate.

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Mr Gibbs said.

“But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.” [/u]

[/quote]

Why do people watch this idiot?

[/quote]

I don’t watch this idiot, but he is not saying what people are accusing him of either. They damn sure seem cursed, I tell you that. No I am not saying they deserve anything either, I am saying the opposite, they deserve a break from tragedy.
He is not saying this is divine retribution, but that if you make a pact with the devil then the devil is in control. Whether or not you believe in such a thing doesn’t matter. He is not saying that these people deserve or brought upon themselves this misery. He is saying the devil is in control of this place and is responsible for their misery.

In his reference to this being a “blessing in disguise”, that a new prosperous nation may rise from the ashes of this tragedy. That is not a bad sentiment either.

In both cases these are consistent with evangelical view points. You make a deal with the devil, he will bring misery and destruction. Further, there is no senseless suffering, that no matter what the suffering will lead to a greater good. These are not purposefully mean statements.

Robert Gibbs really doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because he has said some stupid shit himeself. He is not the orator his boss is. He has the eloquence of rusty bucket. Second, he should have chose to just not comment, it’s really not important enough to draw the attention of the white house. [/quote]

Supposing the devil does exist, how can one prove that the Haitians made a pact with him?[/quote]

Worse. How can one assert that the entire nation made such a pact? Painting with a broad brush never results in a pretty picture.[/quote]

Robertson is Christian Fundie who derives “facts” from the Bible and his pea-sized brain.

He lives in an alternate reality.