Robertson: "[M]ore and more people are saying to me, 'I think you were right' " to call for assassination of Chavez
On the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, while apparently commenting on prior remarks he made in which he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, host Pat Robertson said that "now we've begun to see the kind of person he is and more and more people are saying to me, 'I think you were right.' " He also said that "[n]obody even knew who Hugo Chavez was" when Robertson first made his call for assassination: "They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page."
As Media Matters for America documented, Robertson first called for the assassination of Chavez on the August 22, 2005, broadcast of The 700 Club. He said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." He added, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Two days later, Robertson falsely claimed that he never called for the assassination of Chavez, saying that his remarks were "misinterpreted." Robertson subsequently issued a press release in which he stated, "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement." Robertson reiterated his call for Chavez's assassination on the February 2, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, as Media Matters has also documented.
From the June 25 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: Well, a couple of years ago I made a comment or two about Mr. Chavez. Nobody even knew who Hugo Chavez was. They thought he was some grape picker from out in California. And all of a sudden my comments put him on the front page, and now we've begun to see the kind of person he is, and more and more people are saying to me, "I think you were right." Now he's talking about war with America. I knew this was going to happen. Before long, he's going to get atomic bombs. He's going to have missiles. He spent three billion, count them, three billion dollars acquiring arms from the Soviet Union, and you ask yourself, "What does a peaceful country at the head of South America, what do they need with three billion dollars' worth of arms?" We're not going to fight them. Are they going to take over Colombia? What's their next target? Are they trying to be the next Cuba? He is a very dangerous man. They call him "El Loco," and it's a well-deserved name.
I can just imagine Jesus reading this and shaking his head.
"What does a peaceful country at the head of South America, what do they need with three billion dollars' worth of arms?"
Yeah, leave that to us peaceful countries in North America!
What is the Yearly military spending budget for the US again?
Not sure, but I'm fairly certain it's a little bit over three billion... a day.
What is the amount that should be spent on our defense?
I think the point was that it was a bit like the pot calling the kettle black for an American to complain about the military expenditures of Venezuela.
Is it my computer, or is this site all funked up today? (loading wrong page, showing 1 comment out of 16)
It is my computer also. MMFA site has been acting weird today.
This site is messed up bad.
Somebody call the Maytag repairman ;-)
He's busy fixing the brakes on my car.
then he is going to give me colostomy and then he will work on your computer. We are on our way to your house now. robertson is listening to his sycophants that are holding ring side seats to the rapture and have prepared fruit baskets for the second coming. robertson is in Timothy Leary land while channeling jerry falwell. robertson is a good reason to adopt forced heavy sedation. I have a name list partially complete. Education is a remedy for robertson
Why would that matter? If the point was that an American was being hypocritical about military spending then the person making that accusation should at least have the temerity to indicate how much we should spend on defense. That was my question. I realized the their point, but I found it to be disingenious.
It's approximately 50% of the WORLD'S military budget.
I believe our military expenditure is 40% of the entire world military budget.
If we continue on this course of trying to overthrow democratically elected leaders because we don't like their policies we may have to increase that amount to even higher levels.
This guy Chavez is far more popular in his own country than our president is here. Haven't we twice tried to install a friendly dictator there and failed? That whole tactic seem to be faltering.
Chavez is a bigger threat to US domination than any problem in the middle east. If he succeeds in defying the US, it could spread to other South American countries. They could start making treaties without us. If only he would try to get WMD's.
The threat of integration and unity in South America scares some longterm US planners.
This guy Chavez is far more popular in his own country than our president is here.
Not to undermine most of what you were saying, but bad breath is more popular than our President is here.
Middle left,
You don't see a threat from Chavez? If not why?
I mentioned what I believe is the major threat
Chavez is a bigger threat to US domination than any problem in the middle east. If he succeeds in defying the US, it could spread to other South American countries. They could start making treaties without us.
Are they going to attack us militarily or are they sponsoring terrorism? There is no doubt he scares multi-national corporations and threatens US. domination over world policies. He supports our enemies, like Castro. What other threats have I missed?
The threat of South American integration is surely the greatest. We have NATO and the middle east to prevent integration of Europe and Asia but we are vulnerable in our own hemisphere. Chavez is the spear point and must be vilified. He is mild compared to the dictators we support ($$$) in the other hemisphere.
Oh, I see. You believe that the bad ol' USA can't run amok in South America with Hugo standing in the way. Therefore he is not the real threat, we are because we want total domination of the world? or South America? Indicating that he is a threat in that he is stopping U.S. world domination paints our country in a rather sinister light don't ya' think.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but just about everything you have said is true. I don't blame republicans, both parties have supported those goals when they were in the white house.
The debate is not "are we trying to dominate the world?" The debate is "should we be trying to dominate the world."
You will never hear that debate on the TV news. It is taken for granted, like the Monroe Doctrine.
I don't blame America. Every world power in history has made the same inevitable decision. Once at the top they must do everything possible to stay there.
My question;... Is it possible for a democratic government to break out of that pattern?
I guess my issue is that I don't see us a being bent on world domination. I don't see us as a sinister nation trying to impose our will on everyone else. Now I will grant you that the Iraq conflict is a viable argument against my supposition. That being said one would have to believe that our invasion of Iraq was for nothing but to advance world domination to adhere to your beliefs. That is a debate which will go on for ages. I view isolationism as detrimental to our national interests. so to answer your question; I can't see us breaking a pattern such as the one you describe without completely isolating ourselves from world affairs. I guess some will always see our involvement in world affairs as sinister, even humanitarian missions. I just see it fdifferent that you.
Sorry if I came off as confrontational with my previous response. I appreciate your measured and reasoned response. I learned something from you. thanks.
it's 10% higher than the rest of the entire world combined. Better safe than sorry?
Snoopy,
Better safe than sorry is precisely what I believe. I will grant you that there is drunken spending at the pentagon but i feel it is necessary to have the best military in the world. WW II taught us that.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I doubt WWII has taught any member of our current administration anything.
Maybe... maybe not. I guess histroy will be the judge of that.
Is SAM the DOG also speaking to you??
I don't worry about what the preacher has to say. I worry about who listens to him..
Monk....imagine how loud the devil is laughing
Call the 700 Club for your bumper sticker:
ASSASSINS FOR JESUS.
Thou shalt not kill ... unless Pat tells thou to.
HONK if you want me to kill Chavez.
My other CHEEK ... is in Venezuela cutting Chavez' throat!
For a small extra charge, make up your OWN message. It's fun, and God approves! Pat says so!
Pro-Life? Not 'til Chavez is dead!
Suicide Bombers for Pat!
To smite or not to smite, that is the question.
I thought Pat Robertson withdrew the assassination comment and apologized for it, but now he seems to be saying that he was right all along. Hey, Pat, look on the bright side. If Chavez is as bad as you say, then surely God will send a killer tsunami to smite Venezuela (like he told you he was going to do to the Pacific Northwest in 2006).
Of course he's hearing more and more people saying it. That's the 1st sign of senility.
and then there's this little gem:
"They thought he was some grape picker from out in California."
So now all mexicans are grape pickers in California? Must be a Pat double header day...
I think he was making a joke about Cesar Chavez.
(Or, rather, about the similarity of their names.)
The reference was to César Chávez - I guaran-damn-tee ya the only people who ever confused the two are old güeros like Robertson...
I feel really stoopid. I thought he was talking about [link to www.feelingretro.com] target="_blank">Hugo, Man of a Thousand Faces
Stupid link that doesn't do what I'm thinking regardless of how I screw up. I meant Hugo, man of a thousand faces.
Yikes! While looking for a picture of that doll, I found the Hugo Chavez Action Man!!
Snoopy...that was the first thing that I noticed, and thought, geez, this should be in bold as well. Thanks for pointing it out!
Clearly, God gets off on f*cking with Pat Robertson's head.
Then again, who doesn't?
Pat,
Friendly advice. Don't put the idol of America's funniest and craziest female, Cindy Sheehan, back in the cross hairs. She may decide to come out of a well deserved retirement. The photo ops alone would hurt your cause, whatever it is.
I don't lose any sleep worrying about a war with Venezuela.
I'm sorry if Pat does & feels the need to pontificate about it to his sheep.
Chavez is no angel, but unless he actually attacks the US, talking about assassinating him is irresponsible from an alleged man of God, or whatever Robertson is supposed to be.
Pat's a 21st century crusader (boy did those guys cause a lot of blood shed in the name of Jesus huh?) kind of sort of, well the violence with these new fangled crusaders is more verbal in nature. In other words they just talk sh-it about killing the enemy on their television and radio shows they really aren't going to pick up the sword.
WOW...this article by mmfa and its ludicrous headline is only suited for the grocery store aisles.
Don't waste your time complaining that I'm supporting Roberts...I am not.
I am pointing out the blatant mind reading, yellow jounalism being practiced by mmfa. Roberts may very well support the assassination of Chavez...it's hard to tell from his conflicting statements...yet mmfa has wildly connected the statement by Roberts, "more and more people think I'm right" with assassination.
He has made many statements and characterizations in the past about Chavez...any of which could be connected to "more and more people think I'm right".
Brock better have a talk with his immature intern staff.
Yeah Yellow journalism to accuratly quote Robertson. We are supposed to ignore what he says unless we are talking to the faithfully brainwashed.
Maybe you're confusing Pat Robertson, televangelist, with Pat Roberts, senator.
He is confusing both Pat Robertson and Pat Roberts. It's OK though, they're both equally despicable.
Wesley,
Are you serious? He apologized for calling for his assassination. What more do you want?
Then turns around and muses that maybe he was right all along. Hmmmm.
Apology void. RingRing...Pat, it's Jerry for ya, says to hurry along and catch up. He says don't bring a jacket, it's plenty warm here.
Robertsons remark is not only against everything Jesus would want, but its immoral and criminal. This is one ugly man (inside). I do not make fun of how people look on the outside.
But for the outside, I have to say pat looks pretty much the same he looked when he stepped off of the troopship bound for korea my daddy was on. Must be nice to have a powerful dad who can get you out of a war...
For once, Robertson is correct (I can't say "right" with a straight face.) Hugo Chavez IS a dangerous man. Particularly for Venezuelans. Let's see: 3 Billion dollars. That is probably less than 1% of the US Budget for arms. Can't even buy a reasonable set of centrifuges for that. You can buy maybe 30 fighter jets but have no money left over for ammo and missles. Not to mention hardware and tools and expertise for maintenance costs. $3 billion ain't much bro. To us. If he continues, he will eventually bankrupt Venezuela trying to catch up with us.
Venezuala isn't gonna go bankrupt as long as they continue to provide 15% of our oil.
Chávez thinks he bought $3 billion in weapons from the Soviet Union? Dude! He got screwed! They went out of business in, like, 1990.
Some Russian mafia dude is, like, laughing all the way to the bank...
Three billion is enough to buy plenty of Kalishnikovs and ammo and other small armaments. That can cause alot of trouble. Heck, look at the difficulty in Iraq our military faces with people using small arms, explosives, and guerilla tactics.
And that would be a problem for us IF we invaded Venezuala. If we dont then who cares how many Kalishnikovs he has. Also since when do we get to tell another country what they can or cant do in the name of self defense? You dont seriously expect them to attack us do you and if you dont what is the problem with them buying such weapons? Certainly THEIR security worries concerning us are a whole lot worse than ours are concerning them.
Solon,
My point is that 3 billion dollars is in fact alot of money on weaponry. To dismiss it as inconsquential becasue the U.S. spends much more is disingenious. I don't recall myself or anyone else calling for invasion of Venezuela, so I am unsure of the apparent disconnect here. The fact that the man is a dictator who certaintly has the potential to de-stabilize South America in conjuction with the fact that we get 15% of our crude oil from him certaitnly gives us a legitimate interest in his actions. Personally, I don't trust anyone who shmoozes with Castro.
Actually three billion is not very much to spend on an entire nations defense. Does Chavez have any history of the kind of destabalization you are talking about? I havent seen that he has. He had a bit of trouble with Columbia a nieghbor that is extremely unstable but have never seen anyone accuse him of making the kind of mischief you are talking about. Now my nieghbor has the POTENTIAL to be a serial killer but I really wouldnt be acting fairly if I treated him as that potential had any real meaning.
Actually their defense spending is far from out of line for the region
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/may-2006/defense-spending-in-latin-america-
I never said that he has destabilized anything. I wrote he has the potential. I have the firm belief that there is a historical precedent for people like Chavez. They tend to grow like a cancer when unchecked. I would point to others dictators throughout recent history as valid comparisons and one can see the similiarties of how they all used divisiveness, rhetoric, and increased military spending to promote what always turns out to to be tyranny, death, and war. Some my disagree with my comparison of Chavez to other dictators in the past but that is my humble opinion.
As for the military spending, sectors of the Brazilian government led by the ex-president (can't remember his name) have expressed serious concern about the 31% increase in Venenzuelan military spending and it's increasing involvement with far left factions in Latin America which routinely call for Revolution. It is unsettling to other democratic nations in South America to see Chavez cozying up to Bolivia and Cuba while espousing a Marxist agenda. While they don't spend as much as Brazil or other neighbors they now surpass all other Latin American countries in buying arms. As a comparison they spend more on arms imports than Pakistan and Iran respectively. To me that is unsettling. To you it is not. Whatever. I see him as a highly potential threat to our interests and stability. Time may prove me wrong and you right. I hope so. I'm only saying that it is good policy to recognize potential threats and deal with them before they grow out of control. WW II taught us that as well.
Chavez was elected President 3 times in Venezuala. Why do you keep calling him a dictator?
LosingFaith,
I call em' like I see em'. Not withstanding the reported widepread fraud in the 2004 recall referendums which would indicate a desire to move toward authoritarianism. Let's look at his actions. He uses "Enabling Acts" which essentially give him the authority to create and enact legislation which have been used for the advancement of a Marxist agenda. Now, the term "enabling acts" should be familiar to you if you paid attendtion in history class when 1930's Germany and Hitler was studied. I also base my opinion of him on his move to control the telecommunications and media outlets in the country. He basically now has control of what the people see and hear. But hey, good ol' Hugo the duly elected President would never take advantage of such power. He only engages in these actions not becasue he is a dictator but because the people want him to rule this way. I guess that is why people were less than happy with his recent move over taking control of the t.v. airwaves. You know, Charles Taylor was elected to.
"enabling acts"
Are those anything like signing statements?
My thoguhts exactly, BitterMarv (aren't signing statements the same thing?). Our government might not like Hugo Chavez, but personally, I think he is a great leader. If voter fraud is important to Agape, maybe s/he should look at the U.S. first - and the last two presidential elections - along with the corruption and fraud with regards to Diebold and voting machines.
As for Chavez' military spending - WHO FREAKIN' CARES? Chavez has never threatened the U.S. with military action. Chavez actually holds the American people in high regard (witness interview with Barbara Walters a few months back) while trying to hold the Bush Administration at bay.
If anyone should feel threatened, it's Venezuela. We buy a huge amount of oil from them (I believe it is much higher than 15% - I've heard it's in the range of 60%). I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush Administration has plans to either invade Venezuela or try to take control of their oil supply.
And if you want to look at authoritarianism, Agape, look at home, here in the good ol' U.S. Authoritarianism is what the Conservative and Neo-Conservative agendas are built upon. Chavez has not set up an authoritarian government in Venezuela. Too bad I cannot say the same thing about my own country.
Pardon me, AChrisPage, I continuously referred to you as Agape during my post. My apologies for getting your nick wrong.
And enabling acts are not the same thing as signing statements.
You're right, they're not the same thing, but they are terribly similar. The difference is that Chavez has been given that authority by the National Assembly - to be used only in certain areas. When Chavez wants to use an 'enabling act', he has to get permission from the National Assembly, just as he did with the re-nationalization of Cantv. President Bush just went off on his own and made up these signing statements without the authority of Congress.
COMMONSENSE,
"I think he is a great leader". There is no point in discussing this man any further with you.
So, because I believe Chavez to be a great leader, you won't have a discussion with me?
What a closed-minded person you are!
Good luck to you.
Point taken. Maybe that was a little harsh. I'll try this again. What makes someone who cozies up to Castro, is an admitted Marxist, uses enabling acts to control the government, and controls the media in his own country make him such a great leader. Not to mention that his increase in defense spending has come at a time when poverty continues to rise in his nation. That is a great leader? He ain't fit to wear real leaders like JFK, FDR, and even Clinton's jock.
It seems easy for you to make these suppositions about Chavez. Actually, the people in Venezuela who are unhappy with Chavez are the WHITE RICH FOLKS who live there. Do some research. Chavez is a champion of the poor. Who cares if he is a Marxist? The populace elected him THREE TIMES. The poor are NOT getting poorer, as you assert. In fact, the poor in Venezuela are better off now than they have ever been. Chavez might be cozying up to Castro. How does that harm ANYONE? If you'll remember correctly, no one has seen Castro in public (or at all, for that matter) in MONTHS - almost a year - and you feel that's a threat?
Here's my point: Just as another poster earlier wrote, Musharaf of Pakistan is a dictator. He is one of the U.S.'s best friends in the Middle East. Musharaf also doesn't pump tons of oil out of the ground. Chavez, on the other hand, is a duly elected leader of Venezuela, who has already thwarted one assasination attempt sponsored by the Bush Administration. Venezuela sits on a TON of oil - enough oil to last the next 200 years. Chavez would rather share that oil - at $50/barrel with neighbors (including the U.S.). But that is unacceptable to the U.S. Chavez has also become close with other Central and South American leaders - much to Bush's irritation.
The bottom line is this: Chavez doesn't do what the Bush administration wants, so automatically he's the enemy. Chavez has been villified throughout the U.S. - because he is popular in his country and defies the U.S. No more, no less. Then Robertson comes along and calls for his assasination. For what reason? Were we ever given a good reason? And is that good reason worthy of death?
And one more thing: As Chavez is in his third (count 'em - three) term as a democratically elected president. Doesn't it seem hypocritical to you that the U.S., the country that is supposed to spread democracy, is against the democratically elected leader of another country - especially since Venezuela presents virtually no military threat to the U.S.? The three billion dollars spent on weaponry (if you were to divide it per capita) comes to $115 per person in Venezuela (based on the July 2007 estimate of Venezuela's population of 26,023,528). That doesn't seem like very much to me. Where's the military threat?
First of all the investigation led by Democratic Senator Chris Dodd showed that the United States has played no role in any assination or coup attempts on Hugo Chavez. Do some research. Secondly, you are right. Economic growth has boomed in Venenzuela in the past ten years. But the fact remains that this growth has been produced by booming oil prices and despite unbeilavable oil revenues the poorest of the poor in his country has grown.
You obviously don't have a problem with this man. That is fine by me. I don't respect men who cozy up to Castro (dictator) and the Iranian President (psycho holocaust denier) who espouse Marxist ideology. the potential for this man to destabilize the entire continent of South America is there as shown by his fnancial support of far left revolutionaries in neighboring countries. So in effect he propogates ongoing guerilla wars. Before he decreed his control of the media the largest paper in Velenzuela indicated he was a man who has ruled by decree who will seek perpetual re-election. He is already trying to change the constitution to serve another term. No doubt this will be done by an enabling act. You don't see the danger in Marxist revolutions in South America, perhaps you hope it will occur here. I have never called for his assasination and I think Robertsons remarks were silly and non productive. Nevertheless, I am willing to recognize that this guy has some serious issues with his currrent movement of concentrating power away from the legislative and judicial branches to himself. That is a recipe for dictatorship and a matter of fact I consider him one now. The man is not a great leader if he unsurps the democratic process in his own country and consolidates his own power. He should be recongnized as a potential threat, he should be aware that destabilizing actions that affect us will be met with consequences. If the people in his country want him to stay in power for ever then fine. If he is contained who cares. I felt the same way about Hussein. But, we have to recognize men like this as what I like to call "line walkers" the could go either way relatively fast. History has shown us that over and over.
Oh my God, Marxist Revolutions could happen in South America! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
There is no evidence of a Marxist Revolution for the South American Continent. Yes, Chavez is leader of the Bolivarian Revolution. So what? If the people of Venezuela (and possibly the people of other countries in South America) want Democratic Socialism through the Bolivarian Revolution, who are WE, as the biggest spreader of Democracy, to question that? Do you not believe that you should be able to vote for whatever type of government you want? If not, then you're not for Democracy, you're for totalitarianism. While you might not respect Chavez, many others more important than you are, do respect him. The same with me. I have no respect for our current president. However, 30% of the country and many others more important than me, do approve of him. Chavez hasn't threatened other nations in South America. In fact, he has befriended them when other Venezuelan leaders in the past wouldn't or couldn't do so. That's hardly a Marxist Revolution.
One more question, though: Why did Bush refuse to buy oil from Venezuela for $50/barrel (which is 33% lower than it is now)? We know that such a price for crude would be beneficial to our economy, no?
And for the record, Chavez' cozying up to Castro isn't only to support a Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez, with Castro, have jointly supported a new medical school with tuition-free education to over 100,000 physicians who pledged to work in South America upon graduation. The point I'm making is that just because the leader of one nation gets all cozy with the dictator of another nation doesn't mean that nothing good can come of it - or that they're "up to no good".
As an aside, I think it's assinine to not have talks with someone because of ideological differences. Whether our country likes it or not, these are leaders of other nations with whom we need to get along.
But the fact remains that this growth has been produced by booming oil prices and despite unbeilavable oil revenues the poorest of the poor in his country has grown. - AChrisPage
I'd like to see you back up that statement. My research tells me that family income among the poorest in Venezuela has risen 150% between 2003 and 2006. So much for your supposition about Venezuela's poor.
And despite your disinformation regarding Chavez' control of Venezuela's most popular television station, Chavez did not close them down. The government refused to re-license the television station because of their alleged coup attempt in 2002. If and once this has been disproven, the license will be granted.
The 2004 referendum elections were closely monitered and found to be fair the only accusations of fraud coming from the opposition leaders. The man is obviously popular in Venezuala. I have serious qualms about him shutting down the TV station. There are several things he has done that make me suspicious of him however he is NOT killing his people wholesale nor is he even accused of destabalizing military actions like say overthrowing neighboring regimes. Until he actually does something I think calls for dealing with him smack of imperialism. It is their country they picked him as their leader we need to respect the freedom of other countries to pick both their own leaders AND make their own choices.
The 2004 recall results were not only questioned by the opposition. Further independent studies showed that even though the results were within statistical probabilities the results were not as overwhelming as originally presented, giving credence to a higher probability that fraudelent activities did occur. Furthermore I agree with you in general. I don't think it is necessary to "take out Chavez" or invade Venenzuela but we must recognize his threat potential. I think he rules like a dicatator. I have shown the similiarities. If that is ludicrous to think so then I guess there has never been a dictator who has been repeatedly elected.
Yes that is pretty much true. There have been authoritarians elected but IF they are putting themselves up for free elections, and the 04 election was closely monitered by more than one monitering team and NONE OF THEM claimed fraud, then he is NOT by definition a dictator usually defined as A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition or a ruler with absolute power and authority. IF he is putting that power to the people in FREE elections it is NOT absolute. Chavez may not be the best guy in the world I am concerned about how he is treating power in HIS country but there has NEVER been any indication he is any threat to us or his nieghbors. There is a lot of propaganda out there bashing him since he has pissed off the oil companies and the powerful people who love them. What I see is a man who gives oil to low income American communities every winter who sent a buttload of free oil to New Orleans. A man who had a coup against him by people we KNOW Bush had ties with. I think he is getting a bad rap and we ought to take the attacks on him from the right, which we both know tends to subservience to big bussiness with a grain of salt
If Bush isn't a Dictator, Chavez isn't a Dictator. I'm not saying you're a Bushie, I'm just saying what describe is Bush too.
Dealing with POTENTIAL threats when no indication they are real is attacking shadows and CREATING threats. It would be like saying since my nieghbor has the potential to be a serial killer I have to deal with him. Its ludicrous to call a man a dictator who keeps getting elected.
Well, if your neighbor starts talking about killing people and you see and hear strange sounds coming from his home then Yeah, it's a potential threat. I would hope you would be ready to react to such a threat so close to your home and interests.
Another strawman argument. Get real.
What strawman genious? It is actually a commentary on Solon's analogy and my own analogy as well. For heaven's sakes stop with the strawman argument rebuttal every time someone makes a opposng point. Solon makes his arguments and I make mine. He and I are hopefully past flamewars. My perception of Solon's analogy is that if Chavez is the neighbor then I think he has certaintly demonstrated actions that would make us and his neighbor nations cautious that he is a potential threat. I see Solon's point of view I just disagree.
The reason is that your neighbor (Pres. Chavez) hasn't talked about killing people, hasn't killed anyone (to our knowledge). Therefore, your argument is logically flawed (strawman)
You don't get it do ya? I never said Chavez talked about killing people (there goes your strawman argument against me). I used the neighbor talking about killing people as an analogy as it relates to solon's to show that Chavez has engaged in actions which would validate that he is dictatorial in nature and as such a highly potential threat to not only American interests but South America as a whole. No strawman there bud. Try again.
And therein lies your logical fallacy. Chavez, who represents your neighbor in your analogy, hasn't talked about killing people. You assert that your neighbor (who is Chavez in this analogy) has been talking about killing people, so you should be concerned. No one is saying that you shouldn't be concerned if your neighbor starts talking about killing people. On the contrary, you should be concerned. However, this neighbor (Chavez) HASN'T talked about killing people. That's the logical fallacy.
BTW, it's genius. And yes, I am ;) J/K
Oh my God, this is like banging your head aginst the wall. There is irony here and it is your screen name. But anyway, I will entertain your unbounded intellectial prowness. Solon made an analogy that actively dealing with a possible threat based on potentiality alone is silly. He stated it would be like saying that since his neighbor has the potential to be a serial killer then he would be needed to be dealt with based on potential alone. I agree that such reasoning is unfair and silly. I replied with my own analogy as it relates to Solon's in terms of Chavez. Look at it this way. My analogy was that if the neighbor talked about killing people it increased the potential. Therefore it would be a viable threat. Now Einstein, in my analogy the neighbor talking about killing people would equal Chavez using enabling acts and taking control of the media, using inflamatory rhetoric, establishing alliances with Castro and Iran, supporting Marxist revolutionaries, etc. Therefore the potential threats are viable based on his actions, just as a neighbor talking about killing people would make him a viable threat. Mensa called and they want their T-shirt back.
I stand by my previous statement. It's a strawman argument. After your further explanation, it becomes moot, as the comparison is apples to oranges. What you would do about your neighbor being a potential serial killer is quite a different thing than the potentiality of a president of a neighboring country being a killer. The basic premise is the same, but adding strawmen and comparing two things that aren't totally alike is logically fallacious. I don't know how many times I can tell you this. Since your argument is fallacious, it is without merit.
It has nothing to do wth anyone being a killer. It is an analogy pertaining to dealing with potential threats as was Solon's. You can backtrack all you want. It has nothing to do with killing. It is an analogy pertaning to dealing with potential threats. I am hoping osmosis will work with you on this.
It appears that you don't have the slightest clue what osmosis is.
Will someone please explain to Mr. Commonsense- what Solon's analogy was. It may help him understand mine. "Apples and Oranges" christ almighty that is good. Admit defeat and move on, lad.
Where your analogy falls apart is that Chavez has done NOTHING to justify he is a threat to us. He hasnt attacked ANYONE, he hasnt threatened anyone. He has shown a more authoritarian side of himself than I like in response to a coup against him, he has bought weapons AFTER high rhetoric from high ranking US officials. NONE of that constitutes a threat to us. Your analogy is flawed even IF I accept your contention because saying he has killed people would itself be reasonably considered a threat and NOTHING Chavez has done can reasonably be considered threatening
And Chavez has threatened to kill us or attack us WHEN?
Pat Robertson put a curse on MMFA.
And you were the only one affected.
Well it shows there are supposed to be 20 posts here, but I only see 5.
I doubt this post will go through, but I'll give it a try.
We need the Easy Button ;-)
[link to www.truemajority.org]
It seems you've found it.
Thanks! I like it.
I admit that when the url was given to me earlier (Colbert Report) I imagined that I would get around to it some day, then dismissed it. Who knows when I would have found it again but for you.
Robertson is a nut. But, he is right about this one.
Robertson is bugsh!t fracking insane, and he is as wrong as wrong can be.
Regardless of whether you think (as I don't) that Chavez is a dangerous dictator, we do not have the right to pick and choose what leaders other people elect in their own countries, and we sure as hell do not have the right to "take [them] oot" as this blood-thirsty madman opined.
Christ, I'm amazed I even have to spell this sh-it out in the 21st century...
Why do people keep referring to Chavez as a dictator? Did I miss something or imagine that he was elected to the Presidency of Venezuala 3 times?
Kinda curious about that myself.
Chavez is a legally elected president of a sovereign nation as verified by several international election monitoring organizations. (The same monitors, by the way, who didn't have too many nice things to say about our last two presidential elections.)
Now, contrast Chavez (who we, as good little citizens are supposed to hate) with our buddy Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Musharraf is, in fact, a military dictator who took power by force in a coup in 1999. He maintains a military rank in addition to his self-declared executive powers and keeps Pakistan under military/martial rule.
But we like Musharraf. His government is never called a "regime" and he is never referred to as a "dictator" on Fox News or any other American media outlet.
Why is that? Can anyone explain?
Look, the man is utilizing dictatorial mannerisms to rule and govern. From enabling acts to asserting governmental i.e. his control of the media. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's usually a duck.
And throughout this thread, you've been missing the point. You're here to condemn Chavez' presidency. The real issue is Pat Roberson's using Christianity to call for the assasination of leaders. Who cares what leader it is? The point is that people who call themselves Christians don't call for the assasination of others. Your posts regarding Chavez' presidency are irrelevant.
If I am missing the point then why did you find it necessary to claim that you think he is a great leader. How is that related to Robertson's statements in a more relevant manner then my postings here. I don't need you to randomly offer your musings that I am off topic. Topics in these forums generally branch out to new discussions. I can't really remember how or why I started dicussing my belief that Chavez is a dictator. It doesn't really matter to anyone but you since others have been willing to discuss the issue away from the original topic. I called you out on your silly remark that you think Chavez is a great leader. Noone else supported you. You were all alone and now you want to start some inane 5th grade argument with me to redirect the attention away from your Marxist leanings. Go away fly, you bother me!
You're over your head. You don't know me, or my beliefs. It doesn't matter that no one came to my aid after I said that I felt that Chavez was a great leader. I've been following his presidency since day one. My university Spanish professor (from Venezuela) turned me on to Chavez. I don't care if I get support from other's here. But, based on the responses to your inaccurate posts (which, by the way, are nothing more than your exercise in condescension), there is at least some support for Chavez on this board.
What you have failed to produce, however, is a good reason why Robertson should say the things he says about Chavez - and whether or not such an undertaking should even be contemplated. Instead, you have turned the conversation into bashing Chavez who has done nothing to the U.S., thereby supporting Robertson and perpetuating lies about leaders of other countries. It reminds me of the Bush Administration.
Your unwillingness to engage in civil conversation without being divisive just shows that you're not as open-minded as you think you are.
Oh please, I don't need a seminar in scholarly debate or civil discourse from someone who is still in college. I was scraping mud off my boots before you were a twinkle in our daddy's eye so I'll ask that you don't preach to me about condescension. Furthermore, where do ge the idea that I need to defend Robertson. Just because I see Chavez as a dictator and viable potential threat doesn't mean I automatically support Robertson's call for assasination. Talk about logical fallacies. run along little boy, the grown ups have work to do.
I left out a Y. It should be "twinkle in YOUR daddy's eye". Twinkle in "our daddy's eye" would be quite scary.
It just goes to show you how much you do know about me. I'm in my 30's - and far from a college student. Stick with the facts and stop pontificating on issues about which you have no idea. If you're so concerned with dictatorships in the world (as you seem to be with Venezuela), maybe you should look at the dictatorship which has been taking shape in this nation for the last 4-5 years - along with other dictatorships in the world which the Bush Administration supports (such as Pakistan). Again, in the hopes of convincing me that I need to change my feelings about Chavez, you've missed the whole point of this article.
I'm not out to change your mind. I just feel that you're wrong - and you're basing your beliefs on incorrect information. You feel that I'm wrong - and I don't care. But you, just like all of the other right-wing/libertarian trolls who post here, will soon realize that you're not going to change anyone's mind, never to return. In short, don't go away mad, just go away.
Outside of your repeated use of "dictator" to refer to him, you keep harping about his "control" of the media. I understood he did not renew a broadcaster's license. I further understood this was a constitutionally mandated role of the president. And finally, I understood the company that was refused the renewal was one that was in cahoots with the coup plotters.
I think it's safe to assume that any other leader would have, imediately after the coup was thwarted, stripped the license from the broadcaster. He did not. He waited until the license came up for renewal (according to law). I fail to see how that is him taking control of the airwaves/media. And compared to the shrub, yeah he's a great leader.
And yes I can smell the sulphur.
OLD BENJAMIN,
You are kididng right? Chavez ordered the siezure of RCTV by the military. As he controls the courts, the supreme court ruled after the seizure that the government must take RCTV's broadcast equipment to ensure a smooth handover to a state channel that will replace RCTV with broadcasts promoting the values of Chavez's socialist revolution. Come on man!!!!! Research the "Media Content" law Chavez is putting into place. Afterward ask yourself is you would allow that law here. Nah, he's no dictator, he's a great leader.
I had not heard about the military involvement - got a link on that?
Now, as to RCTVs support of the coup - you think any other leader would not have kicked them of the air once they were back in power?
You also ignored the fact that the president is the one to grant such license according to the constitution.
Old Benjamin,
Research supports your point of view. You are entirely correct on Chavez' constitutional powers, the refusal to re-license the television station and the possibility of the station's involvement in the 2002 coup attempt. Don't let the disinformers get you down!
Thanks.
Has anyone heard about the military involvement with RCTV? I searched using ALLTHEWEB (cause they don't track you like google) and there is an entry reading [link to news.yahoo.com] class="res">CORRECTED: Venezuela TV station says troops seized equipment - Yahoo! NewsAnd when clicked on - the story is no longer there. I found it later through much digging - but the source was RCTV!
I haven't heard of any military involvement with RCTV, other than their possible involvement in the 2002 coup attempt. The only people who say that Chavez used the military to take control of the media are those who wish to trash Chavez for their own reasons. There are no credible sources (that I have found) which support such disinformation.
Thanks again.
Are you thinking you are up to it Mr Dissent?
Chavez has already thwarted at least one assassination attempt. This is an interesting article/interview from BBC's Greg Palaast:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20837
Well found, JJ!
Well, The Reverend is at it again. Not content with the public and political outcry that resulted from his earlier call to assassinate a foreign leader..... Gee....somewhere in the bowels of federal statutes I'm sure there is a law prohibiting such an inflammatory announcement and if there is... THEN, why is he again making such a statement to now include friends and cohorts affirming his 'death threat' as a rightful course of action.
I just can't seem to remember in my readings of the gospels a situation where the humble carpenter from Gallilee called for the murder of anyone.... But I do remember references to 'praying for your enemies', and something about those that ' live by the sword' SHALL die by the sword.
Chavez is challenging the 'Empire' in ways that the United States understands fully the implications of letting any leader of those 'Latinos' challenge the economic hegemony of Uncle Sam. And this movement across the southern continent is gathering forces and peoples not too content to let the World Bank and the IMF run roughshod over nations and resources as evidenced by the recent treatise authored by John Peters, " Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
But Chavez has friends and evidently a substantial portion of his citizenry is behind him. The economic clout that he wields is considerable. When you consider his country's Oil Reserves which also encompass the 'heavy oil' reserves, Venezuela's share of the 'Texas Tea' in actuality dwarfs those of Saudi Arabia.
As for the Reverend, you might want to take a look at where this sorry excuse for a Christian channels his dollars after fleecing his flock with empty promise of being raptured to heaven. The only heaven that Robertson understand is the casino he operates at the 700 Club. No doubt some his ill-gotten booty or is that mana from heaven is probably feeling the pinch from Chavez's stance......... Count on it.
"...He spent three billion, count them, three billion dollars acquiring arms from the Soviet Union..."
Just wait a cotton-pickin' moment here. Chavez bought arms from the Soviet Union? When, 1988? How old was he then? How did he pay for them, out of his allowance?
Oh, I nearly forgot. This is from Pat Robertson. Reality and rhetoric rarely collide here.
The world will be a better place when this senile old turd is removed from the public airways.
I think that most of us look enthusiastically forward to the day that Pat Robertson can be reunited with his old comrade in harms Jerry Falwell.
Oh, Jesus! Did I say that? It's wrong to wish such a fate on ANYONE!
Then again... Pat Robertson isn't just anyone.
Robertson lives in a bubble Robertson lives in a bubbles of like minded hypocrits. His tremendous ego causes him to think that his commentary is ever regarded as more than just the rantings of a closed minded bigot. A Christian leader calling for an assassination? A propaganda voice who makes up facts to support a doctrine of hate and fear. It's a wonder he cannot understand the concept of shame for he personifies it so well. His record of spiritual insight has always consistently been wrong. Most people just placate him to avoid confrontation because he has a record of threatening to "kill" those he disagrees with strongly. But for him to suggest that anyone takes him seriously is laughable. He just needs constant attention to support his misguided feelings of self importance. The country will progress greatly when it is well rid of him and good riddance. Read more >> Options >>
So is the Lord telling us to liberate another oil rich country?
They call him "El Loco"...uhm, Pat...they were talking about YOU.
Newsflash, Pat...people knew who Chavez was before you suggested offing him. Sorry. Maybe those protein drinks and 2000 pound leg presses that you do are affecting your memory?
Since when did the Soviet Union reunite? I must have been in a coma since December 8, 1991...when did they reunite?
Nutty Pat is using the typical conservative propaganda tool of fear to stir up more hatred and create excuses to push the right-wing agenda of war and division.
I like Venezuela. You can get served tea made from the same plant they make coke out of and I'm not talking cola.