Pat Robertson, "Christian"

[Ghost of BiB]

Looks like a blossoming romance.    

416161[/snapback]

 

 

Hey...she's mine. Don't make me jealous.

[RkFast]

Hey...she's mine. Don't make me jealous.

416202[/snapback]

 

She thinks too much of herself, she really does. I have no beef with her. She posted something and I had the audacity to retort? Man, I must be some kind of stalker or something.

 

Ah but I wasn't dishing anything out to anyone. merely commenting that Robert's comment reflected poorly on the Christian right and that they should be outraged at the idea of him condoning murder.

 

When the Democrats get their looneys under control, then you can talk. Got it, toots? For Chissakes....youve got Howard Dean as your party's chair and Michael Moore as the guest of honor at your convention and youve got the balls to talk about OUR loudmouths being shunned?

 

Chutzpah.

[SilverNRed]

When the Democrats get their looneys under control, then you can talk. Got it, toots? For Chissakes....youve got Howard Dean as your party's chair and Michael Moore as the guest of honor at your convention and youve got the balls to talk about OUR loudmouths being shunned?

 

Chutzpah.

416235[/snapback]

Yeah, but that's different because.....uh......because......

 

...because you're a fascist.

 

NEO-CON!!!

 

HALLIBURTON!!!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

? So assassination is ok as long as you can get away with it 

415726[/snapback]

 

Read the post again.

 

"But I hardly think that we'd ever get away with it. So it'd be better not to do it."

[KD in CA]

Are you basing that on anything other than your personal dislike of the man, Minnie? Can you point to a report by an unbiased source that suggests that any of his election victories were fixed? It's pretty indisputable that Chavez has substantial support among the poor in Venezuala (of which there are a great many). He doesn't need to fix elections.

416055[/snapback]

 

Neither did Bush, but that didn't stop the whiners here from crying about fixed and unfair elections in this country just because of their personal dislike for the man who won.

[chicot]

Read the post again.

 

"But I hardly think that we'd ever get away with it. So it'd be better not to do it."

416315[/snapback]

 

Huh? It seems to me you're still saying that the only problem with assassination is that you wouldn't get away with it. Are you saying that if you could get away with it, it would then be a good idea?

[chicot]

Neither did Bush, but that didn't stop the whiners here from crying about fixed and unfair elections in this country just because of their personal dislike for the man who won.

416318[/snapback]

 

Your point works the other way as well. It's a bit rich to complain about the left casting doubt on Bush's election and then do exactly the same with regards to Chavez.

[Mickey]

Huh? It seems to me you're still saying that the only problem with assassination is that you wouldn't get away with it. Are you saying that if you could get away with it, it would then be a good idea?

416325[/snapback]

Which is why I asked him the following question, one which he hasn't answered:

 

I didn't know what you were trying to say, hence the question. Do you think it is right to call for his assasination?

 

A. Yes

B. NO

C. That depends (explain)

 

The central point of this thread was quite simply that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy. You would think that wasn't a very controversial point yet the responses are of the "Oh yeah but...." variety. JSP's repsponses were typical:

 

"He manipulated that election, of that there is little doubt. And since then he's locked up opposition and used force agianst his own people."

 

"If Chavez was elected in a clean and honest election, then I'm Minnie Pearl."

 

"Did I say that?

Look, I think Chavez is a grade-a-****. Would I like to see him gone? Yes.

But I hardly think that we'd ever get away with it. So it'd be better not to do it."

 

I don't see what is so hard about simply agreeing that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy but instead there are these murky posts that don't quite say, "yeah, lets kill him" but don't exactly join in the condemnation of Robertson either. So that is why I am asking him a direct and simple question so there is no confusion. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I am genuinely confused by his reponses, especially that last one. It seems he disagrees with Robertson but does want the guy to be shot and it would be okay if we did it as long as we weren't caught. That makes his disagreement with Robertson seem like one over tactics.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Which is why I asked him the following question, one which he hasn't answered:

 

I didn't know what you were trying to say, hence the question. Do you think it is right to call for his assasination?

 

A. Yes

B. NO

C. That depends (explain)

 

The central point of this thread was quite simply that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy.  You would think that wasn't a very controversial point yet the responses are of the "Oh yeah but...." variety.  JSP's repsponses were typical:

 

"He manipulated that election, of that there is little doubt.  And since then he's locked up opposition and used force agianst his own people."

 

"If Chavez was elected in a clean and honest election, then I'm Minnie Pearl."

 

"Did I say that?

Look, I think Chavez is a grade-a-****. Would I like to see him gone? Yes.

But I hardly think that we'd ever get away with it. So it'd be better not to do it."

 

I don't see what is so hard about simply agreeing that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy but instead there are these murky posts that don't quite say, "yeah, lets kill him" but don't exactly join in the condemnation of Robertson either.  So that is why I am asking him a direct and simple question so there is no confusion.  I don't want to put words in his mouth but I am genuinely confused by his reponses, especially that last one.  It seems he disagrees with Robertson but does want the guy to be shot and it would be okay if we did it as long as we weren't caught.  That makes his disagreement with Robertson seem like one over tactics.

416369[/snapback]

 

 

Answer: I think Chavez is your typical tinhorn S. American dictator.

 

I don't like Chavez.

 

I wouldn't be heartbroken if he was gone.

 

But NO, I don't think we should assassinate him. Why? for the simple reason that it would cause us too many problems.

 

Not that I'm against the idea in principle, I just don't think it could be done in a way that wouldn't end up harming us in the long run. And Pat Robertson is an idiot for actually calling for it.

[Fan in Chicago]

A well-placed .308 would improve Venezulean politics no end.

415612[/snapback]

 

The same can be said for a majority of countries around the world. The real question I have is - why should anyone continue to pass judgment at the institutions and governments around the world and consider ours the best ? Different countries need different styles of governing based on their economic, social situation. I think a dictatorship and Saddam was correct for Iraq with their highly polarized religious sub-groups, level of literacy etc. (There - I said it). We as a country seem to want to dabble with any country that possesses oil and impose our will, our style of government, our social structure on them.

Don't get me wrong - this is my country and there is no other country I would rather be in. But I do want us to reduce meddling in other countries' affairs. We cannot see every other society in our image. {Disclaimer - this is NOT a Bush bashing post}

[Mickey]

Answer: I think Chavez is your typical tinhorn S. American dictator.

 

I don't like Chavez.

 

I wouldn't be heartbroken if he was gone.

 

But NO, I don't think we should assassinate him. Why? for the simple reason that it would cause us too many problems.

 

Not that I'm against the idea in principle, I just don't think it could be done in a way that wouldn't end up harming us in the long run. And Pat Robertson is an idiot for actually calling for it.

416378[/snapback]

See? Now that is clear, you are not against assassination in principle but take the position in this particular case that all things considered, it would not benefit us. It is a position based on expediency, not principle. Thats fine but now don't complain if someone goes after you for being in favor of assassinations of foreign leaders. None of this, "I never said that" stuff.

 

As for our policy on the assassination of foreign leaders, I am not sure what it presently is but I know Ford signed the first executive order prohibiting it and it was reaffirmed by Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and, I think, Bush II. Maybe it changed after 9-11 but since no foreign leader (President, Prime Minister, Top Banana, etc) was involved, I don't see why it would have been. The order would not have prevented the assassination of Bin Laden for example which Clinton actually tried. The point of this history is that the prohibition against such assassinations has been a bipartisan one.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The point of this history is that the prohibition against such assassinations has been a bipartisan one.

416393[/snapback]

 

That it has, albeit a foolish one.

 

In certain cases, assassination would be preferable to the other options. Imagine if we'd been able to bump off Hitler before WWII started. Imagine if we could have just offed Hussein rather than invading Iraq.

 

There's no room for principles in global power politics.

[RuntheDamnBall]

That it has, albeit a foolish one.

 

In certain cases, assassination would be preferable to the other options. Imagine if we'd been able to bump off Hitler before WWII started. Imagine if we could have just offed Hussein rather than invading Iraq.

 

There's no room for principles in global power politics.

416440[/snapback]

Then what? Descent into chaos, coups, and power struggles? Sounds familiar.

 

If there is no room for principles, what the sh-- are we fighting for?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Then what?  Descent into chaos, coups, and power struggles?  Sounds familiar.

 

If there is no room for principles, what the sh-- are we fighting for?

416450[/snapback]

 

Our survival. This is a death match, not some high-handed bridge game between old ladies.

 

Our culture. Their culture. One wins, the other loses. Darwinism at its finest.

 

EDIT: Note I'm speaking of hostile Middle Eastern leaders here.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Our survival. This is a death match, not some high-handed bridge game between old ladies.

 

Our culture. Their culture. One wins, the other loses. Darwinism at its finest.

 

EDIT: Note I'm speaking of hostile Middle Eastern leaders here.

416456[/snapback]

I guess this is the difference here. I believe that culture is not a static phenomenon but something that grows and changes, and I think there is room in this world for an Islamic culture that eschews violence and becomes a part of the global dialogue. Using the binary opposition of "us and them" is precisely what empowers terrorists to get mainstream Muslims to believe that we are indeed against all Muslims. And that hurts us further.

 

Eradicating the culture is an easy solution to the problem that I am afraid our country has pursued far too often.

[chicot]

Answer: I think Chavez is your typical tinhorn S. American dictator.

 

I don't like Chavez.

 

I wouldn't be heartbroken if he was gone.

 

But NO, I don't think we should assassinate him. Why? for the simple reason that it would cause us too many problems.

 

Not that I'm against the idea in principle, I just don't think it could be done in a way that wouldn't end up harming us in the long run. And Pat Robertson is an idiot for actually calling for it.

416378[/snapback]

 

Hardly typical. If he was a typical South American dictator he'd use the country's wealth to enrich himself and his cronies, while leaving most of the population living in abject poverty. He'd also make sure he gave US multinationals a cut of the action, thus ensuring he kept the US onside. He would not invest massively in social programs such as healthcare, education, etc ... I can understand you not liking Chavez - I think his anti-American rhetoric is over the top myself, though it could well be a reaction to US hostility towards his government. However, I think you just might have a somewhat different opinion of him if you were a Venezuelan peasant.

[John Adams]

Our survival. This is a death match, not some high-handed bridge game between old ladies.

 

Our culture. Their culture. One wins, the other loses. Darwinism at its finest.

 

EDIT: Note I'm speaking of hostile Middle Eastern leaders here.

416456[/snapback]

 

You don't have a culture war, if that's what this is, by giving up the defining aspects of your own culture (like freedom and innocence until proven guilty).

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The same can be said for a majority of countries around the world.

416391[/snapback]

 

Not the US. You'd need more than one.

[blzrul]

She thinks too much of herself, she really does. I have no beef with her. She posted something and I had the audacity to retort? Man, I must be some kind of stalker or something.

When the Democrats get their looneys under control, then you can talk. Got it, toots? For Chissakes....youve got Howard Dean as your party's chair and Michael Moore as the guest of honor at your convention and youve got the balls to talk about OUR loudmouths being shunned?

 

Chutzpah.

416235[/snapback]

When you can point out to me

1) that Howard Dean or Michael Moore called for the assassination of an elected head of state AND

2) that I agreed with or defended either one of them for doing something so stupid

THEN your argument may hold water. Otherwise it's just your usual personal attacks, which I'm used to because that's what you do when you can't logically defend the indefensible.

[John Adams]

She thinks too much of herself, she really does. I have no beef with her. She posted something and I had the audacity to retort? Man, I must be some kind of stalker or something.

 

No. You're some flavor of mouthbreather. But not a stalker. Stalkers generally have to show some intelligence in getting to and following their prey.

 

When the Democrats get their looneys under control, then you can talk. Got it, toots?

416235[/snapback]

 

Actually, you don't get to make the rules. This thread is about Republican lunacy- about a guy who gets 1 million viewers a week, mostly Republican. Bringing up Dem loons is your version of screaming "Haliburton." Funny how you so excellently demonstrate your own hypocrisy, iddn't it?