He's now a dictator?He's the democratically elected president of his country. "Dictator" must be the new euphamism for "sitting on a pot of oil that Halliburton and Bushco wants".
Hamas feeds the hungry and cares for the sick, too. Shall we therefore excuse their calls to exterminate the Israelis?
Are you even familiar with the full measure of Robertson's political beliefs? You may like his charity work, but believe me, he is no friend to American democracy.
I take it back. I don't know if Pat Robertson will ultimately end in , but as a Christian, I do not understand his comments on killing Chavez.
And I hate Chavez myself.
The line between a dictatorship and what's going on in Venezuela is extremelky blurry. I think Chavez fits the definition of a dictator.He's now a dictator?
Its the sad story of Latin America. After years of democraticaly elected governments who do to increase the standard of living of the general public, and on top are corrupt as , along comes a guy like Chavez, a military man, who wins an election, mainly because the people are tired of the politicians. Then the guy starts governing the country in a totalitarian way. Truly sad.
There is a poster from Venezuela, we can ask him what he thinks of Chavez. I know my Venezuelan friends here in NY would love to see the er dead.
That's because Robertson is a senile old man. His comments are only feeding Chavez's paranoid delusions that the US is out to get him. Chavez needs to worry about the millions of people who voted to recall him out of office & demonstrated against him.
Last edited by SWC Bonfire; 08-23-2005 at 08:51 AM.
The Spanish model isn't particularly effective with regard to developing stable democracies. The only reason Spain has held on for the past 30 years is because of the influence of the EU.
Neither is the Italian model. Neither is the German model. They only finally settle on democracy after having their entire country blown to twice in thirty years.
So I guess it's no surprise that the Latin American countries have such trouble. It's a shame, really, in the case of Argentina in particular. Given their human and natural resources, they ought to be a world power along the lines of a France or a Germany, if only they could get their together. But they never can. Brazil is more powerful than they are. Chile is more powerful AND more stable despite having less to work with.
We Americans are fortunate that our political culture is founded on the British model, and enhanced by a few transcendant Virginians. Look at the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand... prosperous and stable countries all.
But then again the Brits have been working on this "representative government" idea since 1215, so they had a pretty good headstart or everybody else in modern times.
I wonder what the left says about amensty international's comments on venezuela...
At least 14 people died and as many as 200 were wounded during the demonstrations in cir stances that have yet to be clarified. Members of the security forces detained several people who were not involved in criminal acts and subsequently tortured them.
· Carlos Eduardo Izcaray, a cellist with the Venezuela Symphony Orchestra and music teacher, reportedly was a bystander during violent clashes between opposition demonstrators and the Guardia Nacional (GN), the National Guard. Members of the GN detained him and reportedly beat him on the head with their batons (rolos y peinillas) and fists and dragged him by the hair as he tried to leave the area. GN officers then forcibly took him to their barracks where one GN official reportedly applied electric shocks to the back of his neck and hands and threatened to kill him.
· 23-year-old student Deivis Jordan Meneses de Freitas was walking home from work when he reportedly witnessed violent clashes between the GN and protestors. Advancing GN forces beat him with batons and helmets and threw tear gas powder on his face and back. One GN official reportedly shot him twice in the body with rubber bullets at close range and another beat him repeatedly on his bare buttocks and legs with sticks and metal bars.
Subsequent investigations to establish the facts around these alleged abuses have been slow and inadequate, underscoring concerns about the commitment of key ins utions—including the police, National Guard, Attorney General's Office, Judiciary and Human Rights Ombudsman's Office—to investigate and prevent human rights abuses impartially.
Failure to ensure that these ins utions carry out their duties effectively and impartially will weaken the fragile rule of law and fuel Venezuela's unresolved political crisis. It is vital that the government, the opposition and their respective supporters do not encourage human rights abuses or undermine the rule of law. All must restrict themselves to their right to peaceful demonstrations and assembly.
###
For a full copy of the report, "Venezuela: Human rights under threat," please see: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/do ...256E8C004200F9
yeah I want to see the left defend that... this guy should go..
call in the MIC teams..
Oh, and if Robertson ever got his way, all 800 years of progress in our democratic development would be thrown out in one fell swoop. Only registered Christians would retain citizenship, the right to vote and hold office, the right to own land and capital, etc.
While the Cons ution would be retained, it would be emasculated, as a judicial system much like what the Iranians have would insure that all jurisprudential interpretation is done in light of the fundamentalist reading of the Bible.
And, oh yeah, our foreign policy would become considerably more aggressive, as we can see by Robertson's own words.
But his kind make up, what, five or ten percent, tops? They can only get in power by revolution, and I don't care how Christian they say they are, I'd sign up to kill them all if they tried.
Here is an interesting article about redistribution of land in South America:
http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_beyond_eminent_domain/
If I'm gonna make it down to see the big ranches in Venezuela I'd better hurry!
and pat robertson was elected when?
and who exactly does he speak for?
and pat robertson has to power to do what?
should pat robertson have the freedom to say what he wants?
I think President Bush should trump up some reasons to support invasion and stick with the Iraqi precedent.
Venezuela, here we come!!
"I wonder what the left says about amensty international's comments on venezuela..."
DOS, typical tactic. We aren't talking about civil rights, we are talking about a democratically elected head of state's "right to life".
So, DOS, civil liberties violations in Venezuela has you defending mullah Robertson's call to murder Chavez?
Robertson can speak his mind. In fact, it's better that way. There's no way to tell how kooky his ideas are unless he is free to express them. People might think he and those who support him were just mainstream conservative Christians if he couldn't go on TV and call for people to be murdered.
Typical extremist thinking:
1) Robertson identifies with Christians, so it would be disloyal for a fellow believer to allow infidels to criticize him without rebuttal, no matter how ridiculous Robertson's comments might be.
2) Criticizing the idea that Chavez should be assassinated is equivalent to assent to all of Chavez's policies and actions.
3) There is no inconsistency in using Amnesty International's criticisms of a foreign country, while dismissing their criticisms of the U.S. as blind leftist anti-Americanism.
And here's one that would have been coming soon:
4) If a person criticizes the idea of killing Chavez, he must also believe that assassinating Hitler in 1933 would have been bad too, and therefore implicitly supports the Nazi cause and the Holocaust.
Wingnut theocrats are actually quite similar to dingbat lefties in the way they think.
As well as crack head righties.
What a big uproar over nothing! Pat Robertson was only stating HIS OPINION, on HIS OWN SHOW, on HIS NETWORK! Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? He's not saying everybody should agree with him, nor is he giving policy advice to the Bush Administration.
Cindy Sheehan calls the President the world's biggest terrorist and accuses him of the premeditated murder of her son and the media gives her a pass; yet, Pat Robertson says something controversial and everyone is all in a tizzy. Doesn't make sense to me!
At least he's not camping outside of his house.
Sure, he can say it. But the joy of Free Speech doesn't interfere when the consequences of your speech come back on you. Pat Robertson's comments are offensive, IMO. For that, he deserves to be criticized. Just as so many chose to criticize Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand, the Dixie Chicks and whoever else has publicly criticized Bush Administration policies.
Cindy Sheehan has been all over the media, and has been roundly criticized by right-wing talkers (I'm still not sure why a talker with a radio or TV show doesn't count as "media," but whatever). Pat Robertson's comments are also all over the media and he's being criticized by those who disagree with him. Where's the problem?
Really? No big deal? So if Al Sharpton went on TV and said that Vicente Fox ought to be assassinated, that wouldn't be newsworthy? Right-wing pundits on FOX wouldn't be crying out how this proves how unhinged the left has become?
And where do you get the idea that "freedom of speech" = "freedom from criticism?"
No "tizzy" over Cindy Sheehan? Really? So nobody's been talking about her? Where have you been? Seems to me that dumb Sheehan got plenty of criticism.
This is the same old crap from the theocrats. Robertson or that Inhofe dude from Oklahoma will make some fascist-sounding crack, get called onto the carpet for it, and all the little drones will start crying, "Wah! Wah! Why is the media always picking on us! We Christians are so persecuted! Wah! Wah!" Then when there are real cultural issues to deal with, traditionalists lose a lot of credibility because of all the energy that's been expended defending the helmet-haired charlatans on the Heresy Channel.
Now I'm going to wait and watch for the idiot cracker monkey "Christians" to come out of the woodwork thinking I'm a liberal or something.
SO I take it your all for torture and violating peoples civil rights..."I wonder what the left says about amensty international's comments on venezuela..."
DOS, typical tactic. We aren't talking about civil rights, we are talking about a democratically elected head of state's "right to life".
So, DOS, civil liberties violations in Venezuela has you defending mullah Robertson's call to murder Chavez?
robertson doesn't speak for me, but he can say whatever he wants, unless you want
to take that right away too...
It seems to me that Pat Robertson is far more interested in telling me how to think and what to say than I am in trying to deny him his right to speak and prove that he's a total fool.
if robertson wants to make a ass of himself.. then he has that right.. right?
Certainly. I fully support both his right to make an ass of himself and my right to call him an ass.
How do you know its a "created" idea?
Yes, it hit the Argentine newspapers.
This guy makes Christians in general look bad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
