Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

[rhino 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/23/national/main791483.shtml

Not a very Christian thing to do.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

this guy is a certified wack job...the scary thing is the millions who happily follow him.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/23/national/main791483.shtml

Not a very Christian thing to do.

So what. Thats what many Liberals were saying we should have done instead of invading Iraq.

[juanesky 0]

Who Chavez or Robertson? Both are wacked jobs. Most likely Chavez needs to be eliminated, and avoid the cubanization of Venezuela..

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[wmw999 2,589]

Dang. I was wondering about the liberals that Gravitymaster said were wanting to "take out" Chavez (the ones I know think Chavez is an asshat, but that's a different story).

Then I see this:

Quote

Most likely Chavez needs to be eliminated,

So tell me, GM -- is juanesky one of the liberals you were talking about?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tkhayes 348]

and that's just ONE of the things I love about the Christian right-wing. God Bless 'em all.......

TK
(extreme sarcasm)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Dang. I was wondering about the liberals that Gravitymaster said were wanting to "take out" Chavez (the ones I know think Chavez is an asshat, but that's a different story).

First of all, I never said any Liberals wanted to take out Chavez. I said they wanted to take out Saddam. You deny this?


Then I see this:

Quote

Most likely Chavez needs to be eliminated,

[wmw999 2,589]

It was impossible to determine that you were referring to Saddam rather than Chavez -- your post simply said "So what. Thats what many Liberals were saying we should have done instead of invading Iraq." in response to the Pat Robertson talking about taking out Chavez thread. No mention of Saddam, just Iraq. Since most of the liberals I know (and I'll bet I am close friends with more liberals than you are) didn't see Iraq as the be-all and end-all of US policy, doing SOMETHING there was not the only possible path.

It would be reaching to infer more than you had in the post -- I thought you were referring to the article, the reference to which you quoted.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

I see. The reference to Iraq made it hard to understand I was talking about Saddam and not Chavez.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

If the US decides to take out Chavez, then there really is no more validity to nay argument that uses the spread of democracy when it comes to US foreign policy.

Chavez was elected in a deomcratic process. It is becoming pretty clear that the US cares about oil production and availability. If Chavez is going to hinder the export of oil, then I think the US will intervene and "free the people of Venezuela" aka secure oil exports.

The US's posturing around Venezuela most certainly makes one re-think the argument that the invasion of Iraq had to do with the establishment of better living conditions for Iraqis, or whatever the latest justification is.

[wmw999 2,589]

If I say "Iraq" I don't immediately think "Saddam" or "invade." Really. Why would I? I'd figured if it wasn't in the sentence, it wasn't included.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,589]

I can't imagine we'd invade Venezuela. Chavez is an idiot, no doubt there. But he's their freely-elected idiot. He got there by promising stuff to disenfranchised poor people who see him as a shot of hope for them.

If we do invade Venezuela I'll be really pissed. Not that anyone in the government gives a shit what the voters think.

Our job as a country should not be the short-term assurance of our perceived needs. It should be the assurance of a world condition that can satisfy most countries' needs. That's the most stable long-term configuration.

Wendy W.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I don't think the US would be foolish enough to openly do something in Venezuela. If Chavez starts to stand in the way of oil exports to the US, all of a sudden his enemies will have much easier access to arms. All of a sudden there will be much more unrest and fighting in the streets, people will start to rise up and next thing you know, some colonel is running the country.

[juanesky 0]

We missed he opportunity when they were inside Saddam's car cruising downtown Baghdad....

Check one story here or another one in here

The real issue is that this guy is a known murderer. Gives the Colombian radicals a safe haven, and is involved in the drug trade.....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

wow those pictures look very similar to this one..maybe this guy should be assassinated as well....

[Gravitymaster 0]

So you thought we should assassinate Chavez instead of invading Iraq? Or are you saying we should have invaded Venenzuela instead of assassinating Saddam?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I don't know much about this Chavez guy so I will reserve comments on him. But Pat Robertson is a nut case and hopefully comments like this ("feminism encourages women to kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" ) will expose him as such.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I don't know much about this Chavez guy so I will reserve comments on him. But Pat Robertson is a nut case and hopefully comments like this ("feminism encourages women to kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" ) will expose him as such.

Yes but his ideas on foreign policy agree with what the Liberals wanted to do with Saddam instead of invading Iraq.

[juanesky 0]

Apparently you have an understandable lack of knowledge of what this Chavez has done so far.....of course I am used to discuss things with you when you actually have no knowledge of the facts.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I know Chavez is an idiot, but he is a democratically elected idiot...a concept you should be quite familiar with since you are actively and very vocally supporting one.

Quote

Apparently you have an understandable lack of knowledge of what this Chavez has done so far

What is the difference between an "understandable lack of knowledge" and just a "lack of knowledge"? Just trying to understand your insult a bit better.

[juanesky 0]

You lack of knowledge is understandable for me, since I do the local history, news, and been following this idiot's life over 13 years.

He should have never been elected as the constitution at the time did not allowed convicted felons to be president. He has rigged a referendum vote where he controlled all the vote counting officials, despite the clear majority of the population who is against him in public protest.

And has killed in numerous occasions.

You should not be bitter as I do understand it is difficult to google up last minute information about this idiot, and used these new knowledge in a discussion with a person who has first hand experience......

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You lack of knowledge is understandable for me, since I do the local history, news, and been following this idiot's life over 13 years.

If it is understandable, then why say it in a way such as to allude to the idea that you think I am an idiot. That would preclude the understandable part....

Quote

He should have never been elected as the constitution at the time did not allowed convicted felons to be president.

Now is that the same constitution that your beloved leader Bush basically told him to ignore when he advised him to call for early elections?

See here

Quote

You should not be bitter as I do understand it is difficult to google

Indeed

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

this guy is a certified wack job...the scary thing is the millions who happily follow him.....

ahhh, another Bush basher, sigh. The subject is Pat Robertson. Please stay on topic.

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

ahhh, another Bush basher, sigh. The subject is Pat Robertson. Please stay on topic.

Uhmm, I was talking about Pat Robertson....

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

I see. The reference to Iraq made it hard to understand I was talking about Saddam and not Chavez.

I find you quite simple to understand.

Liberals = BAD

Right-wing, jack-booted, neo-con thugs = GOOD

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".