Thread: DANNY GLOVER AS BAD AS PAT ROBERTSON

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Hey, you're the one who just told me in the Kick-Ass thread that you like to eat barbequed monkey (clearly implying that you were going to kill and then cannibalize me).

never said anything about you. you just assumed that.
besides how does one cannibalize a monkey(cannibals eat humans not monkeys) now who lost the grip?
also see above post about cadillacs

"The Left" and "the Right"? Are you actually claiming Pat Robertson as yours, now? Is an attack on him an attack on you? Cause let me tell you, at our soopah seekrit "Leftist God hating commie devil lover" meetings (Bi annual, held at The Meadows, invitation only), Danny Glover isn't even allowed in the door.

The guy is obviously delusional. He doesn't know what he's talking about. So how on earth does that reflect on "The Left"? Any more than Pat Robertson reflects on "The Right"?

We have two fruitcake statements, caddy, well done. Except, oh yeah, Pat Robertson has millions of people who hang on his every word, and he claims to be speaking for God...that's a minor difference that might need addressing.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

never said anything about you. you just assumed that.
besides how does one cannibalize a monkey(cannibals eat humans not monkeys) now who lost the grip?
also see above post about cadillacs

I don't think I'll dignify that with a response.

Instead I will refer you to JimR's post just above me, which I enjoyed.

Give Mr. Glover a break! He can't help it that he doesn't fit Harry Reid's criteria for skin tone and dialect.

Otherwise I'm sure everything he says would be just fine.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

I don't think I'll dignify that with a response.

Instead I will refer you to JimR's post just above me, which I enjoyed.

if you are scared, just say you are scared, no biggie

Originally Posted by honedright

Give Mr. Glover a break! He can't help it that he doesn't fit Harry Reid's criteria for skin tone and dialect.

Otherwise I'm sure everything he says would be just fine.

Well done! Thank you! Now, class, is this an example of the "Ignoration Elenchi", "Red Herring" or "Package Deal" fallacy? My personal vote is Red HErring, as there is a certain element of malice I believe.

Any other votes?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

he and pat robertson may both do good for many people....they both are also terribly wrong in their assessment of the tragedy

Possibly. I try to be fair and balanced so I would like to know the context of that quote.

Sen Patsie implied that the earthquake was a direct action from God.
Danny could have meant that it was a direct consequence of global warming, OR he could have meant that if global warming is not handled timely, we will see carnage one the same scale as this earthquake.

Based on the context, it could go either way, which is still tasteless.
If he thinks it is a direct result, he is a nutter. If he doesn't, then he is just using the earthquake to get attention for his cause.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Danny could have meant that it was a direct consequence of global warming, OR he could have meant that if global warming is not handled timely, we will see carnage one the same scale as this earthquake.

Crap, I read the whole thread just to find someone beat me to the punch on the very last post.

It's odd - in the rush to point out what an ignorant thing it is to think climate change causes earthquakes, everyone is misquoting him. Listen to the audio. He didn't say "When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen". It was more like "When we will (read?) back through we did... what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen". There's definitely a "will" in there, so it's reasonable to think he was saying we could see similar disasters in the future. On the other hand, I completely understand why his stammered-over-the-phone delivery confused people.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Based on the context, it could go either way, which is still tasteless.
If he thinks it is a direct result, he is a nutter. If he doesn't, then he is just using the earthquake to get attention for his cause.

True, although I don't see any meaningful comparison with Pat Robertson if the latter is the case. Both may have a cause, but I suspect the motivation and emotions behind them are quite different.

On another note, from everything I've read, what "we" did at the climate summit was get torpedoed by the Chinese. Most of the rest of the world isn't to blame for the lack of substantial results.

Another whack job (right up there with Pat Robinson). I suggest we lock them both in a small closet where they can enjoy each others company.

Let me clarify my previous statement...

Mr. Glover seems to be confused that an earthquake can be caused by global warming. However, he is aware that global warming can cause global disasters. His confusion is about what "act of 'god' " causes which global disasters and loss of human life.

Global warming will kill people and already has killed people. Mr. Glover recognizes this and is using the Haiti disaster as a platform for it, which is misguided.

I hope this clears things up for those who were confused.