The Vice President of Venezuela made a good point though. If Robertson was a Muslim cleric calling for the assassination of George W. he would be in Guantanamo right now. The US isn't above kidnapping/taking out Muslim clerics who say things like this about Western Countries (see CIA debacle in Italy currently ongoing), and it really is hypocritical not to do at least something to Robertson, like make a move to fine the 700 Club or something.

If US Policy against terrorism includes 'taking out' those that make threatening statements about heads of state or governments then Robertson should be considered a terrorist. Otherwise, drop the whole terrorism charade and just call it a war on people who hate us.

Hillariously, if a Muslim Cleric made those comments the American Left would come to his aid.

I think he was being sarcastic...not to mention some could argue that the wars we've had ever since WW2 have been for anything but our defense.

Any american should. Honestly, there's this thing called "free speech" that we all seem to believe in. If the American Right doesn't...well that's not very American now is it?

But what he said was taking him out through other than conventional warfare means was better than a $200 billion dollar war. If you disagree and think a massive invasion would be better then that's fine but his opinion is not without merrit although the Bush administration has stated that's not how it does things.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Any american should. Honestly, there's this thing called "free speech" that we all seem to believe in. If the American Right doesn't...well that's not very American now is it?[/QUOTE]

The right champions free speach. Still, some liberals would defend the right of a radical foreign muslim calling for the assassination of Bush and then condemn Robertson for prefering Chavez be taken out in a way other than conventional warfare. Robertson's hypocritical? So are anti-Christian left-wingers.

Dude, don't even start with me on involving religion into politics. And criticizing someone for something and stopping someone from saying something completely or taking him out because he said something are two VERY different things.

Hmmm... :p

What's 'speach'?

You know, as much as I hate to half agree with the man, sometimes a good old fashioned coup de ta is just what the doctor ordered.

First of all, you are basing your argument are pure hypothetical assumptions. You don't know how the anti-christian left would react to such a situation, so you can't make assumptions and act like they already happened. Also, I like how you say muslim cleric calls for "the assassination of bush" and roberton "prefers Chavez to be taken out in a way other then conventional warfare". just say it what it is...you are twisting language..man I'm sorry but your arguments are always so deluded with bias and it clearly shows in the way you construct them.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]First of all, you are basing your argument are pure hypothetical assumptions. You don't know how the anti-christian left would react to such a situation, so you can't make assumptions and act like they already happened. [/QUOTE]

Is there actually such as thing as the anti-christian left? If there is, it's probably a small, small minority (+80% wouldn't allow a non-christian to be president I think, and to label the other 20% as "anti-christian left" is pretty insane). I myself am simply anti-christianity, not anti-christian.

Anyway, prosecution complex - nothing new. Moving on....

"Yeah, I'm a hypocrite, but so are some other people, so that's okay!!"

But anyway, trying to justify the violent overthrow of Hugo Chávez is absurd. Chavez has provided changes desperately needed in Latin America, providing poverty relief to an otherwise absurdly empoverished area and providing stability and unity with the rest of Latin America, otherwise governed by petty feuds and coups.
Chavez has provided national health care and subsidised food costs for the Venezuelan poor, who make up something like 60% of the population. Despite privately owned media fervently opposing him and there being numerous attempted coups, Chavez still has remarkable popularity with the Venezuelan people, winning elections and referendums (which have all been considered fair by international observers) with 70% popularity. He really is a success story for democratic socialism. ('Taking out' a democratically elected leader was never a problem for the CIA before, but it probably isn't the 'done thing' anymore. 'Political correctness' gone mad, I tell you!)

He has distanced himself from the US, which he considers responsible for the exploitation of Venezuela, and has strengthed economic ties with Argentina, India, Cuba and China, renegociating oil contracts for the benefit of Venezuela.

But then again, his name does contain 'Chav', so perhaps a bullet in the head is necessary.

Seems like another tale from the book of burgerboys

But, Mort, he doesn't want the DEA snooping around in his country! We can't let another country create their own policies!

...I like how you generalize the left as Anti-American and Anti-Christian, Terrorist lovers, and then go on to say that it's okay for Pat Robertson to call for taking out Chavez through means other than "conventional warfare" because it would cost less money.

Chavez was democratically elected and the elections were certified by the Carter Foundation. He has also done nothing to warrant an invasion other than snubbing America and looking to do what he can by himself.

Since you like to deal with non-issues, strawmen, and hypothetical situations, let me pose this one to you:

American Muslim Cleric calls for the "taking out" of the Canadian Prime Minister.

Please make your reply in a coherent, rational sentence, devoid of the terms "anti-christian," "unpatriotic," "leftist (or anything referring to liberals)," or anything pertaining to Canada not being a real country.

The right governing freedom of expression for peaches.

As declared by the Presidents of the USA, 28th amendment:
'Millions of peaches peaches for me
Millions of peaches peaches for free'

Since most of you argueing pro-Chavez obviously don't understand the situation there I can't really refute your statements. The situation is beyond your comprehension.



First, I always make replies that are coherent and rational and I rarely if ever use the word unpatriotic and only use characterizations such as right, left, or anti-christian when they are appropriate. Also, your hypothetical lacks any context. Do you care to put one to it or do you want me to address all of the most likely contexts I can conjure? And (I almost forgot) I'm not the one that brought up the Muslim Cleric scenario. Whoever quoted the VP of Ven. did and the gentlemans comparison is highly flawed.


And a couple minor responses:

Freelancer, you should be that last to criticize a misspelling.

My characterization of Robertson's comments is accurate. Rather than quote his speech I summed up his possition that he prefers non-conventional means to a large and expensive conventional war.

Oh, of course. Why didn't we think of that before? :p

I don't believe that burning the flag is speech. I'm opposed to the ammendment for reasons other than that that I have articulated here before.

I'm all for assassination over war. But why the hell was Chavez targetted? What about Kim Jong Ill or Pauly Shore?

Cause he's a goldang commie red!

Hahaha. "You disagree with me, therefore I can't argue with you!"

No. You either don't understand the problems his policies are causing in his country and neighboring countries or you think these problems are good things or you are ignorant of the facts. If any of those three are true then I can't debate with someone that applies to.

Right. He meant that the United States should take Chavez out...




...on a date.

Some would say the same thing about our president, and your undying support for him.

er since when


i'm not even going to bring up "free speech zones" among other things. oh whoops, too late.

Nice praeteritio... Cicero would've been proud.

Hehe... I said praeteritio.

Care to enlighten us? With links and everything. Because right now it looks like only you know the problems his policies are causing.

I can tell you the problems that Robertson's statements are causing. In fact, it's only giving Chavez more political capital because he's been saying for a while now that America wants to take him out and even had a hand in the coup attempt against him in 2002, which if proven harkens back to America's stronghand in Latin American politics, which I don't agree with 99% of the time.

I don't because if anyone really cares they can research it on their own. I do actually have an advantage over most here because my wife and, therefore, her family are from the region and have a far deeper understanding than those of us who would normally only view the situation through the fog of rhetoric while living in vastly different cultures thousands of miles away. I will tell you that if Mort likes Chavez then that is certainly a big indicator of how bad he is!

One thing I find very interesting here, although certainly not surprising, is that the majority criticizing Robertson are those who routinely demean Christian views.

I've thought it strange that many die hard Christians seem to support the death penalty when their god clearly wouldn't approve. On the other hand the Bible implies it just to kill their enemies, although the same book also speaks strongly against it. Go figure.

Somewhat off topic.

Care to provide any quotes or anything that indicate I have "undying support" for our president? Can anyone even show anything [pertaining to a serious debate] that I ever post that doesn't relate specifically to ideals and the topic of discussion [except when I was posting as a mock-liberal]? I don't even think many if any examples can be shown of me standing behind the views of another rather than articulate mine or opine on the person's in question. How did our president even come to mind in this discussion? And, what is it they would say the same thing about his and my support again?

edit - couple minor edits in brackets above

I for one am very interested in what horrible acts he has committed. I googled for "atrocities of hugo chavez" which yielded nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

The Venezuelan media mainly opposes him, and he lets them, so I doubt he's a ruthless dictator. He's anti-US, I believe that's what gets to you, unless you or your wife know something none of us do.

So I'm unable to find the information backing your views on Chávez, but I do care, so I wouldn't mind if you cared to enlighten me.

Dude, you really only have a black-white understanding of things, no?

MORT AND CHAVEZ SITTING IN A TREE. K-I-S-S-I-N-G. *giggle* CHAVEZ IS *BAD*.

Etnocentrism, religious martyr syndrome (argumentum ad misericordiam), fallacy of anecdotal evidence, unsupported assertion, argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad hominem. All in one post.

You're wookie06, aren't you?

Not the search terms I would use but you sure did go through the 27,800 links quickly. Did they all really yield nothing? Just curious. Also, I like wikipedia but, do you really consider that a good source for political information? Don't get me wrong, it is a source, but I wouldn't personally base opinions on certain topics by what I read there as it is really only as good as the material submitted.

I may look for some suitable links later. I'm generally very careful about the ones I post as I try to find mainstream links that can't be so easilly discredited for bias.

Sorry, you have to use smaller words but I see most things as black and white although solutions are generally grey. And the Mort comment was a joke. Of course good humor always has an element of truth.

Just out of curiousity, seriously, what would make you doubt whether I'm wookie06?

As a test I looked up the wiki entries for Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, yielding the following results:




It even mentions Saddam's atrocities. I'd say if Chavez had committed any, they'd be mentioned.

No. I also used the terms "Hugo Chavez has" where I expected to find something akin to "Hugo Chavez has killed a lot of innocent people, for he is evil". I don't have the kind of patience to skim through 27,800 pages for information on what he has done really wrong when it seems difficult to find such information.



Thank you.

Oh wait, 17 people were killed in a coup attempt. Nevermind, send in the troops.