Robertson: Hillary Wants to Ban Criticism of Politicians

Hillary Clinton said recently that she would support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling. Pat Robertson argues, bizarrely, that this means if we had a constitutional convention to pass it, she would ban criticism of politicians.

Robertson was referring to Clinton’s comments that she is open to a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to corporate and dark money in elections. Robertson’s warning makes no sense considering that the ruling was delivered in 2010, and political criticism was very lively and legal before then.

“Hillary Clinton actually wants to restrict the First Amendment right of free speech so that they will protect the political class so that people will be prohibited under the Constitution from criticizing politicians,” Robertson said. “It’s appalling, but that’s what she said.”

Nope, that isn’t what she said. It isn’t even close to what she said. You’re lying. As usual.

"How can you seriously write all that hypocritical nonsense and keep face? Essential work? First ..."

The Truth About Margaret Sanger and ..."
"And amazingly, it matches Tucker Carlson's handwriting."

Trump’s Meaningless ‘Shift’ in Afghanistan Policy
"Dave should stop paying taxes then.his god will protect him and his assets from Caesar.Less ..."

‘Coach’ Dave: Paying Taxes is a ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    that isn’t what she said. It isn’t even close to what she said. You’re lying. As usual.

    Well, in Pat’s “defense,” he could actually believe that and, therefore, not be technically be lying. It’s not like he doesn’t have a history of believing weird shit!

  • parasiteboy

    Some what OT. Although the legality may be up in the air Jeb Bush may try to expand the role of a super PAC to support his campaign to skirt donation limitations and disclosures.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/22/why-jeb-bushs-super-pac-plan-is-potentially-illegal/

  • scienceavenger

    News flash, Pat Robertson is out of touch with reality. In other news, the sky is blue, and bears shit in the woods.

    /sarcasm

  • matty1

    Has the time come to put Pat into some kind of residential care?

  • gshelley

    does he think that there will be an exemption for politicians, or that she wants to campaign without criticising her opponents?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    matty1 “Has the time come to put Pat into some kind of residential care?

    He is. The cameras are there. That’s why the show after that is your grandma’s call-in show where she mostly looks at the phone and talks about how her relatives never call, and following that grandpa has a show consisting entirely of a rambling, uncomfortable monologue about Koreans.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    What would Pat R think about an amendment to ban criticism of preachers?

  • Michael Heath

    Ed writes:

    that isn’t what she said. It isn’t even close to what she said. You’re lying. As usual.

    John Pieret responds:

    Well, in Pat’s “defense,” he could actually believe that and, therefore, not be technically be lying. It’s not like he doesn’t have a history of believing weird shit!

    Ed’s correct, Pat Robertson’s lying.

    It’s irrelevant whether Mr. Robertson believes his assertion or not. That’s because Robertson presented this assertion as if it was objectively true where this no evidence it is true.

    The most insidious type of lie, and prevalent among conservative Christians, is the lie based upon one’s beliefs where such believes have been falsified or haven’t been validated as objectively true – and yet are framed as objectively true, i.e., “fact”. It is not at all difficult to validate the factual premises of one’s assertions and then frame such assertions honesty – as either a fact or framed as a belief.

    Imagine the wholesale change of rhetoric in all Christian churches if all Christians stopped lying; including their songs. “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so . . .” would have to change to, “I have blind faith that Jesus existed, is still somehow alive in spite of all the evidence against immortality for people living 2000 years ago, and loves me. That in spite of the Bible’s Jesus character also threatening me with unimaginable suffering for all eternity if I don’t submit to him.”

    Quite a mouthful; the time it would take for a Christian to present their beliefs would go up significantly if they actually framed their assertions honestly. An honest Hell-believing Christian making their case would reveal how absurd their beliefs are if their beliefs were presented honestly. And the promotion of those beliefs would resonate far less with the children they abusively seek to indoctrinate by lying to them.

  • Michael Heath

    Sorry for not turning off the italics at the end of the second to last paragraph. ‘Preview’ is not working for me.

  • brucegee1962

    He was not lying. This was a perfectly true statement in Conservatese.

    people will be prohibited under the Constitution from criticizing politicians

    Translation:

    “people” = “corporations”

    “criticizing” = “spending large amounts of money to defeat”

    See? Perfectly true.

    For the advanced course next week, we will study how statements like “Obamacare is killing people” are also true. Everyone is going to need to become multilingual if we want to continue having dialogue in this country.

  • peterh

    #3 beat me to it in principle; I would merely have said it remains abundantly clear Robertson is bat-shit crazy.