"Terrific Danger"

August 22, 2005 8:51 PM

Pat Robertson calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
posted by billysumday (300 comments total)

Ah, what a good Christian. Who needs that pesky Sixth Commandment, anyway?
posted by cerebus19 at 8:55 PM on August 22, 2005

WWJA?
posted by ColdChef at 8:56 PM on August 22, 2005

Batshit insane.

Batshit is one word, isn't it?
posted by Relay at 8:59 PM on August 22, 2005

Not the best of ideas, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it happened.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:00 PM on August 22, 2005

I'll speak to the Chef about cutting down on the mercury in his salads.
posted by trondant at 9:01 PM on August 22, 2005

Do onto others..
posted by stbalbach at 9:03 PM on August 22, 2005

Flag and move on.
posted by wakko at 9:05 PM on August 22, 2005

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Also, please share your vengeful death-ray of love with Hugo Chavez and one of the lefty supreme court justices. TIA.
posted by mosch at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2005

Not the best of ideas, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it happened.

PP,

From what I can tell, there isn't much that would cause you to stir.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2005

mighty Christian of him.

Here's another choice remark of his: "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition," said his Web site letter. "Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

He's just overflowing with love and kindness, no?
posted by amberglow at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2005

Probably has to do with the fact that Chavez just said he'd supply surplus oil to Ecuador during their (oh, just resolved) labor lockout. But, ParisParamus, do you really consider Chavez a dictator? Or just bad for U.S. Interests? I love the "Communist/Muslim-extremist" in the same sentence. . .
Didn't the U.S. already try to assasinate this guy?
posted by punkbitch at 9:08 PM on August 22, 2005

Nice cheap response there, mr.curmudgeon. What kind of script did you activate to make that comment?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:09 PM on August 22, 2005

Not a snark, Monsieur Paris, but what do you have against Chavez? Seriously.
posted by John of Michigan at 9:09 PM on August 22, 2005

Then again, some wouldn't miss PP or PR either, (See how childish and evil it sounds PP? that's what you sound like right now, a heartless ass) talking about your morality and the lacking of others morality THEN coming out with a comment like that.. sad but I expected no less....

John of Michigan, its simple his handlers tell him who to hate, and who to attack. no reason, just cause they say to.
posted by Elim at 9:14 PM on August 22, 2005

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States.

So, PP, I suppose this is why you'd sleep through the assasination of a democratically elected official?
posted by maryh at 9:14 PM on August 22, 2005

I don't wish for his death, but he is getting to the point of being a Castro with oil. Too tired to go into more detail.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:14 PM on August 22, 2005

I dont give to shits about Pat Robertson or Jesus or any of these other minor deities. What I want to know is WWTFSMD?????
posted by H. Roark at 9:15 PM on August 22, 2005

make that "two shits"
posted by H. Roark at 9:16 PM on August 22, 2005

SO< they want a little castro, fine it is THEIR FREAKING COUNTRY, not ours.

You don't like him, I suggest you do not move down there, or better yet, move down their work for citizenship and then work to vote him out! THAT is the true American way...

Something A lot forget, it seems only to suit you when convenient..
posted by Elim at 9:17 PM on August 22, 2005

Hitler was democratically elected. Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 PM on August 22, 2005

but what do you have against Chavez? Seriously.

Not that I'm agreeing with Robertson by any stretch but...

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."

The Venezuelan leader said "socialism is the only path," and told the students the collective goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism."

Chavez expressed his support Monday for Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying he expects to continue strengthening relations. Chavez said like Venezuela, Iran is a country that has been "attacked" for many years by "the hand of imperialism."

He's a borderline autocrat and definite neomarxist/communist/whatever you want to call it. In my opinion, there's nothing good about him running Venezula, either for the people of the country or anyone else, all else aside.
posted by loquax at 9:18 PM on August 22, 2005

H.R he will touch all with his lordly noodley appendage as he has with me.
posted by Elim at 9:19 PM on August 22, 2005

Dear God. The man really is bonkers.

Too tired to go into more detail.

Oh, by all means, get some shuteye and know that we'll all be waiting with baited breath to know specifics about why Chavez is the next Hitler.

/think I just Godwinned myself.
posted by zardoz at 9:20 PM on August 22, 2005

Christianity will be the death of itself.
posted by buzzman at 9:21 PM on August 22, 2005

Loquax, until he attacks his neighbors, US or starts mass murders, he is not a problem, US trying to over throw him 'several times' and illegally at that, then WE are the problem...
sheees come on folks this ain't rocket science here?
posted by Elim at 9:21 PM on August 22, 2005

Paris is obviously proud of how well previous interference into democratically elected South American governments has gone.

...*
posted by Jimbob at 9:22 PM on August 22, 2005

Chavez: "borderline autocrat and definite [lefty]"

Pat Robertson: religious extremist who calls for assassination of foreign leaders

I mean, when bin Laden does it, it's bad, but when Pat Robertson does it's OK because Chavez is a "borderline autocrat"? WTF, Paris.
posted by hattifattener at 9:23 PM on August 22, 2005

The thing I don't understand about Patty-Pat's little fatwa there was that he was warning against Chavez spreading Islam. Is Chavez a Muslim?
posted by socratic at 9:24 PM on August 22, 2005

I swear the thread should be a litmus test for sanity
posted by Elim at 9:24 PM on August 22, 2005

Actually, the thing I don't understand about Patty-Pat's fatwa was that he can make it without, you know, arousing the righteous indignation of everybody. But the thing about Islam was one of the weirder things that struck me.
posted by socratic at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2005

Loquax, until he attacks his neighbors, US or starts mass murders...

Like I said, ignoring the peripheral circumstances and all else aside, no good can come of his type of ideology or government. I'm not calling for his assassination or his overthrow, but he's dangerous and propelling Venezuela towards totalitarian communist rule while hoping to take his neighbours along for the ride. Not a good situation, US actions aside.

but when Pat Robertson does it's OK because Chavez is a "borderline autocrat"? WTF, Paris

That was me, and I cleary said that I didn't support what he said. So did Paris.
posted by loquax at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2005

I bet calling for the assassination of an elected president of another country is illegal under U.S. laws. I can think of a couple of Mefites who should try to get Robertson in trouble for "incitement" or somesuch. Why should this TV personality get a free ride when he publicly calls for someone to be murdered? To be consistent, somebody should come up with a petition to have Robertson indicted, or at the very least cut off from the media. I can't think of a good reason why Robertson's speech should be any less limited in this regard than anybody else's, can you?

I also expect y'all to jump on those who indicate approval of Robertson's incitement to murder. If Bush's life and office are sacred so are Chavez', right? Or if it's perfectly okay to call for Chavez' death then it's okay to call for Bush to be whacked, isn't it?

You people do have some intellectual and ethical consistency, don't you?
posted by davy at 9:28 PM on August 22, 2005

Apparently some of them don't, davy. PP and loquax both appear happy to ignore that Chavez is a quite popular, democratic, head of state of a soverign nation, and instead like to focus on him being a dirty commie, and therefore subject to different rules.

Sure, neither of them "support Pat Robertson", but they seem to think his opinions are justified based on their own dislike for Chavez. That doesn't seem like intellectual and ethical consistency to me.
posted by Jimbob at 9:34 PM on August 22, 2005

Huh? Bin Laden isn't Bin Laden because he has called for the death of certain people. OBL is OBL because he has orchestrated the death of civilions.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 PM on August 22, 2005

I also expect y'all to jump on those who indicate approval of Robertson's incitement to murder.

Nobody has in this thread, as far as I know.

it's okay to call for Bush to be whacked, isn't it?

I argued for the recent comment calling for that here to stay up. Free speech is great that way. Robertson has exercised his right and has shown himself to be a greater fool than I though he was.

Jimbob, give me a break. Read some of the anti-Bush threads here and say that again with a straight face.
posted by loquax at 9:35 PM on August 22, 2005

civilians.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:37 PM on August 22, 2005

loquax, seems like:

ONE we tried an unpopular overthrow before, (international disaster).

Two it IS his country's oil not ours, so tough titty if he don't wanna share,

Three He won not one But TWO elections (certified by the UN and Carter), and he is popular in his own country, so commie or not, they want him....

What this is about is WE WANT the oil.... whether they want to share (their PROPERTY) or not, we want it, and hook or crook we intend to get it, and some high profile Christian mouthpiece seems okay with killing him to get it.

AND some hear don't seem to care if they do, sick and sad...
posted by Elim at 9:38 PM on August 22, 2005

I bet calling for the assassination of an elected president of another country is illegal under U.S. laws.

Didn't Bush rescind the executive order banning assassinations? If the act ceases to be illegal, why would calling for it be?
posted by dreamsign at 9:38 PM on August 22, 2005

I can think of a couple of Mefites who should try to get Robertson in trouble for "incitement"

Hi davy. Would that be me you are calling out?

And guess what? I believe it is against the law to threaten the life of anyone if it is (here we go again) a "true threat." Now Robertson is too cagey for that. But beyond that, I do believe it may well be a specific crime to threaten the leaders of countries with which we have diplomatic relations, as we do with Venezuela.

And if it's only a few of us who think threatening or inciting violence is unacceptable, why are so many of us bitching about "Rev." Robertson, and why is this post even interesting to so many of us?

What is is about assasination talk lately around here? And why does it bring out such puerile responses? What is so fucking hard to understand? You may not like someone, but unless s/he's a lethal threat to you, you can't just kill that person, call for them to be killed, or even express a desire for them to be killed. I mean, maybe in some circumstances you *can* call for it or wish for it, but it's always gross and offensive behavior, and it's often illegal behavior. Defending it accomplishes little or nothing. We don't just kill the elected heads of state of countries we have diplomatic relations with just because they are autocratic. (What about the Saudi princes? What about the PRC? What about Uzbekistan? There's a few autocrats we do business with.) Or just because they are hostile to our interests and control a lot of oil, as long as that hostility is entirely expressed within the realm of international law. There's a very good reason for this, because we expect our own leaders and citizens to be protected and free from harm when they travel abroad, often to these same countries. If you don't like the moral argument (Thou shalt not kill) try the practical one (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because they will). This arrogant fantasy of American superpower making us exempt from long-established international law is amazingly stupid. We still have to do business around the world, now more than ever. We still need allies. We still need resources. And we abnegate our own standing as any kind of exemplar of civilized modern society when we act like schoolyard bullies. Pragmatically, ultimately being a bully weakens us, as it does all bullies. It. Is. Stupid.

So yes, I object to Robertson's crap, and even more to ParisParamus's obtuse remark, which demonstrates only that he has drunk the Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. If the US offs Chavez, without even the barest of pretexts ("WMDs!?), we'd be so isolated in the world that we would be severely weakened. We've done enough damage already.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:53 PM on August 22, 2005

yes, America (the US) is exceptional. We're better than shitty dictators like Chavez, tyrants like Castro, and "even" the devils in Tehran. Gee, that's a tought conclusion to draw.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:55 PM on August 22, 2005

Jesus H. Christ on a fucking cracker. Robertson has gone completely around the bend.

Now, let's be clear here. Plenty of people are thinking how great it would be to put a couple bullets in Chavez's head. I'm thinking here mostly of corporate honchos and guys who work in D.C. And clearly someone (*cough* *cough*) in our government thought that the coup thing was a splendid idea. But all of these people - even the really stupid ones - know better than to advocate assasination on national TV. So it's not the statements I find surprising. Rather, it's the willingness to share them with millions of people around the globe.

I think what we have here is a loose cannon within the Republican Party. And well.. oh hell... I'm going to go out on a limb here: I think Robertson has some kind of disorder (Alzheimer's, whatever) that's eroding his ability to censor what he says. Maybe twenty years from now Robertson will still be going strong and I'll look like a total moron, but hey, I already said it; it's too late to take it back.
posted by Clay201 at 9:55 PM on August 22, 2005

Elim, like I said before, twice now, all else aside, in my opinion, he is a dangerous leader, elected or not, because of his ideology and methods of ruling the country, which include seizing private property, intimidating rivals and journalists, and atempting to export his brand of communism to other countries in the region. I believe communism and marxism to be terrible, destructive ideologies, and that's what I base my opinion of him on.

That being said, I cannot stress more clearly how much I disagree with what Robertson said. It would be disastrous to assassinate Chavez, as well as counter-productive. He is not yet a serious danger, and has not yet behaved in a strictly criminal or totalitarian manner, but that is not to say he won't in the future. Until then, interfering in Venezuelan affiars is wrong, aside from encouraging Liberalism and democratic ideals.

You can believe that Chavez is a bad guy despite how the US behaves towards him. It's allowed.
posted by loquax at 9:56 PM on August 22, 2005

thankyou RCM, you touched far better than I could what I wanted to say but was too enraged to type..
may his divine noodle-like appendage touch you as well.
posted by Elim at 9:56 PM on August 22, 2005

And turn it around while you're at it. Venzuela has enough oil money to pay some very good people to do some very nasty things in retaliation for any such crime as Robertson suggests. We don't overtly speak of or condone the killing of foreign leaders (on their own soil no less!) because we would open ourselves up to the very same in response. We may be a superpower, but our security depends on our relations with other states, including those we have tensions with.

Or we might plunge the place into civil war and wreak even more havoc with the oil markets. That would be a nice outcome.
posted by realcountrymusic at 9:57 PM on August 22, 2005

See, shit like this is why the world hates us.
posted by davelog at 9:58 PM on August 22, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:01 PM on August 22, 2005

America has a long history of supporting trade-friendly dictators rather than democracies that could go either way (or decidedly against) -- especially in Latin America.

This is what is so sickening about the "democracy" chant of this admin. We are no further along. We just hide our corporate interests (slightly) better.

See, shit like this is why the world hates us.

Usually they reserve judgment until we actually install our own brutal dictator.
posted by dreamsign at 10:02 PM on August 22, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

Yeah, that Pinochet, what a great guy. The Chileans on the other hand just don't know what's good for em.
posted by dreamsign at 10:03 PM on August 22, 2005

Crikey!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:04 PM on August 22, 2005

See, shit like this is why the world hates us.

Hold on a second. Pat Robertson is a private individual stating his opinion. Really, who cares what he thinks? It's not like he's making policy. Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." and that his goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism". I'm a lot more outraged that a foreign head of state would say that than some preacher shooting off his mouth. Aren't you?
posted by loquax at 10:04 PM on August 22, 2005

Chavez' socialism is antithetical to Marxism, and isn't communism by any stretch of the imagination. Under Chavez, the per capita income has risen, the economy has grown by double-digits annually, the economy has moved away from reliance on oil, the government is investing in small enterprise (yes, enterprise) at an unheard-of rate.... And he's largely keeping his hands off extant business.

Marxism? Communism? Not even the same fuckin' sport.

The only valid complaints about Chavez' regime are regarding a growing autocracy, but there's really no substantive difference between the amount of power wielded by Chavez and his cohorts and Bush and his cohorts.

The idea that the US, by virtue of its "exceptionalism", should be excepted from 'rules' that it wishes to apply to others is borderline batshit insane.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:04 PM on August 22, 2005

Loquax, as far as intimidating Rival and Journalists, hell we do that here and more openly, (remember, watch what you say, and Bill Maher) as far as Exporting you political Ideal, SO FREAKING WHAT?!? We do that (or say we do every day), if our plan is better they will adopt it... it not then we deserve to lose the world opinion battle (as we seem to be doing). if that is a bench mark for wishing some one removed from office (legally of course) i point you a little closed to home...
posted by Elim at 10:06 PM on August 22, 2005

No, the world understands that there are powerless nutcases who shoot their mouths off. The world hates the U.S. because people with the same basic view of the world as Robertson now make up the current administration's cabinet and brain trust.
posted by spock at 10:09 PM on August 22, 2005

Elim - fine! So we agree that Chavez is dangerous and a poor leader that intimidates journalists and is exporting communism throughout the region! Great!

Not everything has to be continuously judged through the prism of Bush administration actions.
posted by loquax at 10:10 PM on August 22, 2005

Heh? How is having a negative opinion of anyone or anything worse than calling for someone's murder?

save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism

Christ, I'm sure even New Zealand is thinking this by now.
posted by dreamsign at 10:10 PM on August 22, 2005

NO we agree Bush is then, I never said or sited a Chavez event. only our whitehouse
posted by Elim at 10:12 PM on August 22, 2005

This is an excellent film about the failed American led coup attempt in Venezuela. Available on chomskytorrents.org.
posted by mert at 10:12 PM on August 22, 2005

yes, America (the US) is exceptional. We're better than shitty dictators like Chavez, tyrants like Castro, and "even" the devils in Tehran. Gee, that's a tought conclusion to draw

There is no arguing with pure ignorance. I can't help the snark, forgive me. I don't mean "exceptional" as in "outstanding." I mean it as in "above international law." The more we act "exceptional" the worse our security. It has nothing to do with supporting Chavez or not. It has nothing to do with how great America is (USA USA USA!). Our global hegemony, such as it is, depends on alliances which, in turn, depend on being a citizen of the international community. You think we kick ass? Without using nuclear weapons and killing everyone, we cannot control the globe, or our own hemisphere, with military force. We don't kick ass without commanding respect, and -- gasp -- even affection from people in other countries. Among other examples, look how stretched thin we are trying to control Iraq and environs with out "kickass" military strength. You want to wade into shit like that in Latin America? Good on ya. Hope you're planning to enlist, cuz I ain't. And dare I say I "won't lose any sleep" if you enlist and things go badly for you? Yeah, what the heck, I'll say it.

And by the way, our beloved leader has to travel to foreign countries and trust their security forces and civilian governments to care for his welfare. PP, this is not the playground.
posted by realcountrymusic at 10:12 PM on August 22, 2005

loquax: Chavez is an autocrat, one of many in the world running nations. Are you saying it's the US's job to "correct" any country with bad leadership? Wow. That's just, wow. In how many countries is the US propping up bad leaders/dictators today? A few less-than-partisan suggestions: Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, to name a few. Chavez won't play ball with the US, and that's the only difference. The US obfuscates this distinction with rhetorical tropes such as "terror" and "freedom."

PP: I don't know why I even bother, but calling all of the citizens of Venezuela "peasants" goes even further toward marking you as ignorant and a borderline racist, if not an actual one.

And finally, why doesn't Robertson apply his same sick logic to Saddam? If America's omnipotent secret forces can knock off a dictator whenever they see fit, why couldn't it have been in 1991 when Saddam turned from an American ally against Iran to a brutal dictator?

The Right is eating itself.
posted by bardic at 10:13 PM on August 22, 2005

For the vast majority of Venezuelans, Chavez's policies
posted by mert at 10:15 PM on August 22, 2005

Noise Machines work best where they can echo.
posted by 517 at 10:17 PM on August 22, 2005

ops repost Mert, please
posted by Elim at 10:17 PM on August 22, 2005

. . . and who can forget this golden oldie: "Pat Says 'Nuke the State Department'!"
posted by spock at 10:18 PM on August 22, 2005

bardic, read my comments before you post. Seriously, I don't know how many times I've said that Robertson is an idiot and the US shouldn't kill him. Once more - ROBERSTON IS AN IDIOT AND THE US SHOULD NOT ASSASSINATE CHAVEZ.

Again, he is just a private citizen, not a representative of the US government. The US should not be indicted based on him running his mouth off.

Doesn't mean Chavez isn't a bad guy though, as was my point, and as you apparently agree.
posted by loquax at 10:19 PM on August 22, 2005

Noise Machines work best where they can echo.

Point taken, with respect to the reverend and ParisParamus. So much bluster, so little thought.
posted by realcountrymusic at 10:19 PM on August 22, 2005

So he's gone from a "He's a borderline autocrat and definite neomarxist/communist" to you thinks he might be a bad guy. well thats progress
posted by Elim at 10:22 PM on August 22, 2005

It was only a matter of time before someone tried to combine the "threat" of Islam with the "threat" of Communism, to benefit from the ingrained cultural fear/hatred/whatever Americans seem to have.
posted by nightchrome at 10:22 PM on August 22, 2005

What, I have to keep typing that over and over?
posted by loquax at 10:23 PM on August 22, 2005

PP said: No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

That's rich. I'm sure that's what goes through their heads. Exactly that. Interpolating with "Oh how I hate America's freedoms!"

Seriously though, instead of talking like everyone who disagrees with you is a two year old, why not objectively draw the lines from your conclusion about 'freedom hatred' and 'veracity hatred' back to what you seem to know as the minds of terrorists. I'd be interested to read it.
posted by holycola at 10:23 PM on August 22, 2005

oops...

For the vast majority of Venezuelans, Chavez's policies are a welcome change from the injustice of the status quo... or something like that. He may not be making the rich any richer, but he's definitely using the country's oil resources to make life better for the poor.
posted by mert at 10:25 PM on August 22, 2005

loquax states: Hold on a second. Pat Robertson is a private individual stating his opinion. Really, who cares what he thinks? It's not like he's making policy. Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." and that his goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism". I'm a lot more outraged that a foreign head of state would say that than some preacher shooting off his mouth. Aren't you?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:26 PM on August 22, 2005

First off, no. Else, really, Kim Jong Ill would have sent me into deep spasms by now.

Second off, lots of folks in America have inferred a lot about "muslim" or "arab" attitudes by hearing what some preacher shooting off his mouth said. Doesn't it suck, now that you're on the other end?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:29 PM on August 22, 2005

holycola - read this. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's an explanation as to why truth and freedom (in the literal sense, not the jingoistic sense) are diametrically opposed to totalitarianism of any stripe, be it fascist, communist or Islamist. Chavez is headed down this road too.
posted by loquax at 10:29 PM on August 22, 2005

I loved this bit of foreign policy wisdom:
"This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced."

Hey, you just shot that guy! Oh, didn't see you had the Monroe Doctrine there with you. Guess it's okay then, go on about your business. Nothing we can do. What could I do? He had the Monroe Doctrine, as well as other doctrines!
posted by Ty Webb at 10:32 PM on August 22, 2005

Ty Webb--I noticed that too. Appartenly off his meds.

Loquax--I get it. But Robertson is not some sidewalk Jesus freak--lots of Americans take him quite seriously. That's scary.
posted by bardic at 10:40 PM on August 22, 2005

Hey Manson never killed anyone either did he/ he just told some followers to do it for him? (just saying)
posted by Elim at 10:44 PM on August 22, 2005

But Robertson is not some sidewalk Jesus freak--lots of Americans take him quite seriously. That's scary.

Well, I apologize for yelling! You're right, people do take him seriously, I just can't think of what to do about it. He seems to be within his rights to say it, but he doesn't seem to have the influence with the administration that he others believe that he has. Until he does, I think Chavez likely has bigger fish to fry.
posted by loquax at 10:49 PM on August 22, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

Absolutely. I admire those who are right, and I can tolerate those who are wrong, but those esquivalient more or less types really pick my ass.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:55 PM on August 22, 2005

Loquax, I apologize as well, and Hope both US and Chavez deal far more rationally than Pat Robertson.
posted by Elim at 10:58 PM on August 22, 2005

Why, just last week, some other hick lightning rod for the whack right, stated that we should bomb Mecca if the terrorism doesn't stop. I was thinking then, what a logical group the far right is. They are so far right that they are back to back with terrorist organizations, with all this neo con terrorist think going on. But who is fondling whose, when they get back to back in that fashion? Have they figured out that it isn't Dolly Parton back there?

What I will never understand is why anyone thinks that God needs their help, to make the world different in some way. The world is as it is made, on a moment to moment basis. The other thing I have never understood, is just why God seems to love violent, dogmatic, total idiots as God seems to, by the logic of their sheer numbers.

I bet that Jesus Of Nazareth would never, in his most contorted dreams, have conceived of a Pat Robertson, advocating murder in his name.
posted by Oyéah at 10:58 PM on August 22, 2005

RCN, we disagree on a few things but I do recognize and salute your honor. (There has to be a better way to put that, but still.)

And I wasn't really serious about suggesting you shut Robertson up: he's an entertaining old loon, up there with Pat Buchanan, Lyndon LaRouche and Bob Avakian. I wish I could get more people to SEND ME MONEY.
posted by davy at 11:11 PM on August 22, 2005

loquax:

It's entirely possible that Chavez could become a real strongman dictator type, controlling his people with secret police and so forth. That's possible in any country. The thing is, when a country is threatened with invasion, occupation, or the overthrow of its government, the transition to fascism becomes a lot easier and happens a lot faster. If The US really cared about democracy in Venezuela, the last thing they'd do is give off signals that they're considering using force to unseat Chavez. In addition, while the US has a long history of calling the South American governments they back "democracies," there's very little record of any of these governments practicing democracy. There's just no sensible reason to think that the government we would back in Venezuela would be in any serious sense democratic. So it's all well and good to be in favor of democracy in Venezuela, as long as we don't buy into the idea that Operation: Venezuelan Freedom will somehow get us there.

hackley:

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." and that his goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism". I'm a lot more outraged that a foreign head of state would say that than some preacher shooting off his mouth. Aren't you?

This may shock you, but some of us are not outraged by such statements. I, for one, think that Chavez isn't too far off his mark. Now, I don't know how one measures savagery, cruelty and murderousness (number of corpses, perhaps?), but by any such standard, the US is certainly competing with the greats. And you've got to remember, most of the history classes Chavez had probably dealt primarily with South and Central America (and Mexico, of course). Down there, the torturers are often trained by the US military or the CIA. Down there, the US is backing various gangs of thugs against other gangs of thugs and honest-to-god popular resistance. They've got "disappeared" people, murdered church officials and labor organizers, countries auctioning off their natural resources to US corporations... the list just goes on and on. I mean, I'm no fan of the government in, say, Turkey - to pick a middle eastern country that receives loads of military aid from the US - but compared to some of the governments we back in Central America, it's fucking utopian.

So the US really is a threat to just about everything good in South America.

And so, no, I'm not outraged by what Chavez has to say.
posted by Clay201 at 11:12 PM on August 22, 2005

Oops. I didn't read carefully. Sorry.

loquax was responsible for the bit about being outraged by Chavez's statement. hackly_fracture was just quoting loquax. My apologies.
posted by Clay201 at 11:17 PM on August 22, 2005

See, what Chavez needs to do is ditch that oil and get his hands on some diamonds. Then he could count on Robertson's support. It worked for Seko.
posted by verb at 11:18 PM on August 22, 2005

This means Chavez absolutely must bomb the 700 Club, if I understand the Bush Doctrine correctly.
posted by eatitlive at 11:20 PM on August 22, 2005

What Clay201 said. And mert, too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:24 PM on August 22, 2005

I think Pat Robertson is a closet homosexual Satanist with a fetish for young dark-skinned boys.

Yeah, I said it.
posted by deusdiabolus at 11:26 PM on August 22, 2005

Now would be a good opportunity for mainstream Republicans and the center-right to publicly denounce extremism of the American far right. Pat Robertson isn't a government official, but he is close to the administration. His words tarnish America. He shouldn't get away with this kind of talk without a little public humiliation.
posted by Loudmax at 11:26 PM on August 22, 2005

.
posted by jmccorm at 11:26 PM on August 22, 2005

The Lord God calls for Pat Robertson's assassination.
posted by well_balanced at 11:28 PM on August 22, 2005

ParisParamus said: "Hitler was democratically elected...."

For the record, you are wrong. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in January 1933. A month later Hitler pushed Hindenburg to sign a decree suspendeding most of the human rights set forth in the constitution. Goodbye democracy, hello totalitarianism.

If you must prematurely invoke Godwin's Law, could you at least get your facts straight?

BTW, Pat Robertson has a a shake for you. What would Jesus drink?
posted by Cassford at 11:34 PM on August 22, 2005

ParisParamus : "No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality."

Dunno about the reason people hate America, but speaking on behalf of a lot of folks who don't like America, it would appear that the common reason is that the US is more or less wrong, and the US more or less can't handle that reality.
posted by Bugbread at 11:48 PM on August 22, 2005

Sore loserism. The US-instigated coup went down the crapper and now the biz cabals wanna go for another try. Slobertson is their co-pilot, but right now the US's eye is on quite another ball. That could change real fast. For those who call for a pullout of Iraq, did you suppose that maybe the army would then simply be sent to Venezuela after leaving Iraq? A couple bombs, a couple miraculously-discovered passports from Vza and more than Robertson would be calling for blood.
posted by telstar at 12:05 AM on August 23, 2005

I can't imagine why a South American leader would have such strong anti-U.S. sentiments. Doesn't everyone in the world know that the U.S. says that it is the strongest supporter of democracy the world has ever seen? On paper, we truly are the best. And then Chavez engages in hyperbole. How dare he.

Now don't mind those little historical assasinations and coups. We would never do that again. Promise.
posted by Sr_Cluba at 12:05 AM on August 23, 2005

Well, he may have a point about the risk of a synchronised takeover of "communist infiltration and Muslim extremism", the two so go hand in hand don't they? as we all know so well from the lovely relations between former Soviet Union and Muslim extremists, and the little detail the US supported the mujahedeens in Afghanistan fighting against the Soviets...
What an ignorant prick.

And then Chavez engages in hyperbole. How dare he.
Yeah... compared to the nature of US involvement in Latin America, Chavez's statements are even too moderate.
posted by funambulist at 12:47 AM on August 23, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

!

Sorry. I came in late.
posted by sourwookie at 12:49 AM on August 23, 2005

"Chavez called the United States the 'most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world.'

The Venezuelan leader said 'socialism is the only path,' and told the students the collective goal is to 'save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism.'

Chavez expressed his support Monday for Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying he expects to continue strengthening relations. Chavez said like Venezuela, Iran is a country that has been 'attacked' for many years by 'the hand of imperialism.'"

Ah, well; you see, I agree with all of that. Am I supposed to hire my own assassin, or will the democratically elected government of the US (but Hitler was democratically elected too) provide one for me with no cost to my estate? Or will it only be interested if I have oil?
posted by NinjaPirate at 1:02 AM on August 23, 2005

Marxism? Communism? Not even the same fuckin' sport.

on metafilter they're all the same, you know.
posted by mr.marx at 1:02 AM on August 23, 2005

Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:09 AM on August 23, 2005

Heh, Robertson should be given a high-powered rifle and a one-way plane ticket to Caracas. Yep, Pat we'll miss ya! In fact it would be awful nice if all our leaders of the American new world order would take a more active involvement in our future wars. It would help stupid ideas from lasting longer than they should.

I see no future US involvement in Latin America, no matter what veiled threats Dumsfeld and the W keep spouting. We are deeply mired in other money-wasting ventures elsewhere in the world for many years to come. It shouldn't be too much longer that the once-mighty economy of our country is bled dry by these "patriots" who supposedly look out for our "interests".
posted by JJ86 at 1:25 AM on August 23, 2005

I think that well_balanced is onto something, but I think that someone should just go ahead and be the hand of God and take Robertson out. When it comes down to it, in my opinion, I think Robertson is more of a danger to America than Chavez is. And if that is what merits assasination in Robertson's book, then, well...

I'm not really suggesting that someone assasinate good ol' Pat, but seriously, it is debatable that Robertson does more real harm to America because he does reach many people, (whether sane people like that reality or not). He has the ability to reach millions, many who take him seriously...I'm sure someone out there even takes his word for the word of God...so when he makes these insane and dangerous, and in my opinion, evil and most definitely unChristian-like statements, I think he is more of a real danger to the US than statements by Chavez that America is a, "savage, cruel and murderous empire." At least that statement has some ring of sanity to it.
...
and Loquax, since I'm on that subject, while I agree with you that Robertson is an idiot, I'm not so sure I agree with you that Chavez is such a danger to America, or even perhaps a potential danger. Maybe he's a danger to the Neocon's idealized fantasy of America, but the America that I think really represents what "America" stands for could perhaps use a bit of taunting, perhaps use a bit of economic tragedy, a real slap in the face (even if it brings some blood) to wake us up out of our "imperialistic voracity" disguised as a sincere humanitarian spread of democratic "freedom." Perhaps a severe oil crisis, in the long run, would be good for America...just as many suggest, a war in the middle east (Iraq) and all the pain, death, money, etc. it is costing...maybe it will be good, "in the long run" for the Middle East. Then again, maybe not. Only time...
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 1:36 AM on August 23, 2005

I love how 'the sanity' creeps in on the post comments, saving keystrokes on this end. One has to give credit to ParisParamus and loquax, they're real motivators.
posted by gsb at 1:40 AM on August 23, 2005

Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?!

Well played (at least until the final exclamation mark).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:30 AM on August 23, 2005

I do not condone the sentiments of Chavez. He does not have any power and does not know how to expand it to threaten U.S. interests. It is not interesting to watch an upstart create instability for the great world dictator. In fact, it does not make me squeal with delight to watch its spokespeople go ballistic, and it should not you either. You humorless slob.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:44 AM on August 23, 2005

hmm. why don't you assasinate the Chinese leaders too? or are they 'ok'?
posted by Jelreyn at 3:08 AM on August 23, 2005

A Xtian fatwah. Far out.

Pat, in the astronomically unlikely event you fire up a Web browswer and read this...sit down with your beloved Bible and reread the fifth chapter of Mark...you might want to reacquaint yourself with Jesus. Surely you've heard of Him?
posted by alumshubby at 3:25 AM on August 23, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

I'd've said far Right....
posted by pompomtom at 3:31 AM on August 23, 2005

Someone is going to have to spell out the Islamic extremism thing for me, I don't get it. I didn't know that Chavez was a muslim. I don't get the communism thing either. I also don't get how communism and islamic extremism can go hand in hand. I mean, aren't they antithetical?
posted by Eekacat at 3:50 AM on August 23, 2005

I also don't get how communism and islamic extremism can go hand in hand. I mean, aren't they antithetical?

Only if you actually bother to think about it. But if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
posted by psmealey at 4:08 AM on August 23, 2005

It's pretty clear that Pat is headed for the other place after life.
posted by caddis at 4:21 AM on August 23, 2005

Shouldn't someone report this dudes followers in the UK or Australia to the appropriate authorities? The followers of religious extremists whose leaders are calling for terrorist acts should be put under close surveilance Just In Case - (according to the govt adverts anyway).
posted by zog at 4:24 AM on August 23, 2005

I also don't get how communism and islamic extremism can go hand in hand

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

In the fundies' worldview, history is a chess-match between the almighty and.... who could it be.... oh yes, SAAATAAN.

Godless communism on one hand, and idolators (fundies consider Islam an Old Testament religion dressed up with a false prophet) on the other. Each in the power of the Dark One, but working, unwittingly, to bring God's plan for this fallen world to completion.

It's really a beautiful world-view. Christianity is good at that, creating stories that people want to believe.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:16 AM on August 23, 2005

FALWELL:. . . if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. . . .
FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
FALWELL: And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."
ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.
ROBERTSON: Amen.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:28 AM on August 23, 2005

Who says evil, hateful things about America again? Who hates freedom?
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:32 AM on August 23, 2005

it's time to investigate Robertson's evil empire like they're doing to these people.

(also, don't forget the South Park with the aliens and starvin' marvin)
posted by amberglow at 5:34 AM on August 23, 2005

I used to know a Lutheran pastor who often complained that the problem with "fundies" is that they weren't literal enough about picking and choosing their Biblical justifications.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

That sounds more like something Karl Marx would ascribe to than a right-wing shill -- there just isn't any of that good, visceral appeal to deadly power. As Omar Bradley (a soldier himself) once famously remarked, "We have embraced the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount."
posted by alumshubby at 5:35 AM on August 23, 2005

Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 PM PST on August 22

Rove lined up the peasant vote in Middle America like buffet night at the Sizzler.

Don't be so quick to walk away.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:42 AM on August 23, 2005

Democratically elected = mob peasant rule.

I assume this only goes for so-called third world countries and their inhabitants though, right? Just want to make sure that I got that part.

Excellent, a new low for Mr. PeePee.
posted by psmealey at 5:43 AM on August 23, 2005

mob peasant rule

Like, with pitchforks and torches n stuff?
Just the red states, you say.
posted by dreamsign at 5:56 AM on August 23, 2005

Any way you slice it, this pronouncement by Robertson is just fatwah-bulous.
posted by psmealey at 6:15 AM on August 23, 2005

in the white house strategy room...

rove: jesus, guys, our ratings are in the crapper. they aren't even buying our shit in the heartland anymore.
cheney: we need a distraction, like right now!
rove: hmm. no attractive white women in peril right now, no shark attacks. i don't know, dick.
cheney: i got it! quick! ring up robertson and have him say something batshit insane, then have the astroturfers do their usual thing in web forums and around water coolers!
rove: boo-ya! distrizaction f'rizzle, my nizzles!
-- high fives all around --
posted by lord_wolf at 6:38 AM on August 23, 2005

Pat Robertson is so evil it's not even funny.

I have a feeling that every "700 Club" watcher is rather startled when, after they die, they find themselves in a hot place with lava and red men with pitchforks.
posted by clevershark at 6:45 AM on August 23, 2005

ParisParamus writes "Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney."

These days these words are, in the rest of the world, more often spoken of the United States than of other countries.
posted by clevershark at 6:48 AM on August 23, 2005

funambulist -- didn't the US/the West back Islamic groups in the Middle East against secular and/or socialist governments? Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc. Aren't we now reaping the whirlwind of that as secular forces/movements lose ground to Islamic ones?

Surely it seems logical for Chavez to dislike the American government and it's foreign policy. Before he was even elected American diplomats were publicly criticising him and trying to rally support against him. After the landslide victory the CIA bungled an attemptd coup (which Chavez deftly avoided), America publicly opposed attempts to restructure PDVSA, there's the fear about PetroCarib, Chavez can see the long history of the U.S. fucking with and trying to kill his buddy Castro, etc. Just because Chavez might be paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get him.

Plus he said:

"Either capitalism, which is the road to hell, or socialism, for those who want to build the kingdom of God here on Earth," he said.

posted by xpermanentx at 7:40 AM on August 23, 2005

I don't think we can blame Robertson for America's oil dependency, or the kind of craziness that results from it.

We can blame Americans for supporting his with one of the largest, best funded forums going.
posted by ewkpates at 8:18 AM on August 23, 2005

xpermanentx: didn't the US/the West back Islamic groups in the Middle East against secular and/or socialist governments? Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc.

Er, yes indeed, that was what I meant, I was being sarcastic on Robertson having a point! (I thought that would be obvious)

Those are facts but clearly Robertson is blissfully unconcerned with reality. It's like he's conflated two different eras and two opposite ideologies into one big scary enemy. But that's what fundamentalists love, if they didn't have an enemy they wouldn't exist.

Aren't we now reaping the whirlwind of that as secular forces/movements lose ground to Islamic ones?

Evidently. And it is still going on... But it's not polite to talk about it.

(On Chavez I really don't know much, he seems a bit too heavy on the populism, but in general terms of political resentment in Latin America for the effects of US policies there, it is so self-evidently justified, one would have to be completely ignorant or brainwashed to deny that.)
posted by funambulist at 8:24 AM on August 23, 2005

I suggest we all call Pat's prayer line, and ask that god remind him that murder is wrong...

for prayer call [phone]
posted by nomisxid at 8:32 AM on August 23, 2005

Just to go back to that legality thing. Is it really not a crime to encourage the commitment of highly illegal acts in other countries?
posted by biffa at 8:47 AM on August 23, 2005

This may shock you, but some of us are not outraged by such statements. I, for one, think that Chavez isn't too far off his mark. Now, I don't know how one measures savagery, cruelty and murderousness (number of corpses, perhaps?), but by any such standard, the US is certainly competing with the greats. And you've got to remember, most of the history classes Chavez had probably dealt primarily with South and Central America (and Mexico, of course). Down there, the torturers are often trained by the US military or the CIA. Down there, the US is backing various gangs of thugs against other gangs of thugs and honest-to-god popular resistance. They've got "disappeared" people, murdered church officials and labor organizers, countries auctioning off their natural resources to US corporations... the list just goes on and on. I mean, I'm no fan of the government in, say, Turkey - to pick a middle eastern country that receives loads of military aid from the US - but compared to some of the governments we back in Central America, it's fucking utopian.

So the US really is a threat to just about everything good in South America.

And so, no, I'm not outraged by what Chavez has to say.
posted by Clay201 at 2:12 AM EST on August 23 [!]


Well said.




Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." and that his goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism". I'm a lot more outraged that a foreign head of state would say that than some preacher shooting off his mouth. Aren't you?


Loquax, no snarking here, but seriously... try to set aside the outrage for a minute and refute these statements. After all, the voracity (and veracity) of US imperialism is rather hard to deny of late...
posted by krash2fast at 8:52 AM on August 23, 2005

Here's an excellent article by someone who was there covering the background to the speech Chavez made, and which Pat Robertson was quoting out-of-context.

One of Chavez's policies is to distribute free copies of Noam Chomsky's books, which expose how propaganda works in various types of authoritarian systems. Now that's what I call "authoritarian"...

The constant media drone about Chavez being a "populist" and a "communist" comes from the folks who own the newspapers in Venezuela, and are scared they might have to pay higher taxes, to pay for healthcare and education for the poor.

Heaven forbid.
posted by cleardawn at 9:24 AM on August 23, 2005

"Hitler was democratically elected. Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney."

Are we talking about Chavez, or Bush?
posted by Rusty Iron at 9:31 AM on August 23, 2005

'Just when it appeared the revolutionary fervour had reached an insurmountable pinnacle, Chavez finally appeared. Such was the overflow of enthusiasm that it took nearly half an hour before Chavez could start his speech. Whenever it seemed as though the chanting was dying down from one section of the crowd, it would start up with double the enthusiasm from another.'

Imagine if a western political leader could inspire such positive emotion in the young! From cleardawn's link.
posted by asok at 9:32 AM on August 23, 2005

The constant media drone about Chavez being a "populist" and a "communist" comes from the folks who own the newspapers in Venezuela, and are scared they might have to pay higher taxes, to pay for healthcare and education for the poor.

Heaven forbid.

Indeed. If elected socialist governments are to be condemned simply because they are on the left and that they've been freely elected and endorsed (including their social programs) then when is Spain going to become the target of scorn and or threats from the knee-jerk socialism = communism = totalitarianism crowd?

Democracy is only valid when a free-enterprise, corporate welfare, right leaning government is elected?

I've lived under a freely elected NDP government in Ontario. Was I part of the mob middle-class at that time?

As for Chavez's comments about the U.S., I find it amusing that people are suprised with this viewpoint given that the U.S. tried to remove and/or destabilize a popular and democratically elected official from another country no less...
posted by juiceCake at 9:34 AM on August 23, 2005

what the f*ck? who would jesus assasinate?

how is chavez worse than our friends in china or our buddy karimov? paris? loquax? .... you wonder why we spit on people like robertson/bush and their hypocritical supporters...
posted by specialk420 at 9:35 AM on August 23, 2005

Because when I think of Karl "Religion is the opiate of the Masses" Marx, I think of Muslim extremism. They are clearly fellow-travellers.

I believe communism and marxism to be terrible, destructive ideologies, and that's what I base my opinion of him on.

First off, communism != Marxism. There are many many manifestation of communist belief in history, including utopian Christian communism that predates Marx by 200 years (Gerald Winstanley and the Diggers, c. 1650).

Secondly, Marxism is an intellectual school, not a political ideology (what you are referring to is probably Marxist-Leninism, with a heavy dose of Stalinism and/or Maoism). Marxism is a very diverse intellectual movement, and the only destructive thing anyone could honestly claim that Das Capital ever inspired on its own was a generation of history research wasted looking for the bourgeois origins of the English Civil war.

Yes, some revolutionary movements were inspired in their direction by Marx's ideas on capitalism and class divisions within society - but all were revolutionary movements before, and just about all revolutions are violent and can degrade into dictatorships. Exhibit A) the French Revolution, notably occurring without the influence of Marx. (Exhibit B could be the Iranian revolution - a theocratic revolution. I don't know the extent of generally socialist thinking in that revolution - I know that it was important earlier, when the democratically elected government was crushed by the CIA- back Shah - but you cannot claim that any religious revolution is really Marxist.)

So many people just blindly and ignorantly explain the troubles in many nations by saying Marx=EVIL! Clearly centrally planned economies have had very significant problems fulfiling people's basic needs. Equally, Leninist party structures are very oppressive - though, of course, Leninism is just as oppressive in a free-market regime like Chiang Kai-shek's GMD, as under a communist regime like Mao's.

But these cannot be blamed on what still is one of the most significant works in European history, though now more for its theorectical approach (as the history knowledge he based it on has progressed much farther since). Analysis of political events by their economic and class backgrounds is now just taken for granted by history writers of all fields (economic, social, political, etc) - and Marx was one of the first to do this. (Incidentally, anyone who knows of earlier historians, please feel free to email me the references, I would love to see them).

Maybe instead we should be asking: why do revolutions turn violent? Why do some revolutions degrade into dictatorship, while others do not? Is it the ideology, or the nature of the revolution itself? What is the place of economic conflict in revolution, and why do communist ideologies gain popular support?

And what is the difference between a communist country and a social democracy? Is Sweden really going to become the U.S.S.R. just because they have free healthcare?

Okay - sorry for the derail. I just don't like the uninformed Karl bashing.
posted by jb at 9:39 AM on August 23, 2005

So why are the right-wing frightened of Chavez? Here's what a Venezuelan film-maker says about it:

"It is important that Venezuela does not just become about Venezuela but serves as an example for the rest of the world as well. Things are being done in relation to health, social security and education, which those in Europe, in richer countries, are being told are unaffordable. University fees are being introduced "because the state cannot pay for universities - they are too expensive". They want to make us pay for health care "because the state cannot afford it", etc. Yet all the things said to be unaffordable in Europe are being implemented in Venezuela despite the fact that it is a poorer country. It is very important to explain this to unmask the whole lie of the neo-liberal discourse in Europe."

-from here.
posted by cleardawn at 9:39 AM on August 23, 2005

Oops, he's a Spanish film-maker, not Venezuelan. Sorry.

What he says still rings true - and of course, the success of Chevez's policies is even more of a threat to the neo-liberal liars in the US than it is to the neo-liberal liars in Europe.
posted by cleardawn at 9:43 AM on August 23, 2005

at the end of the day - who has killed more (and presided over the torture of) innocent men, women and children? Bush or Chavez?
posted by specialk420 at 9:43 AM on August 23, 2005

loquax: Like I said, ignoring the peripheral circumstances and all else aside, no good can come of his type of ideology or government.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I'm curious why your view of this is so firm. Plenty of good comes from public ownership of assets and services in other countries. For instance, when the Canadian government finally sold off Petro-Canada, it pocketed a cool 3 billion. British Columbia's public insurance is cheaper than every other province. Not to mention the easy target: How poorly private healthcare is doing in the states.

Is your paranoia of socialism so pervasive that you'd actually give Robertson's insane ranting some merit?
posted by Popular Ethics at 9:44 AM on August 23, 2005

no good can come of his type of ideology or government
The poor of Venezuela would beg to differ.

because of his ideology and methods of ruling the country, which include seizing private property, intimidating rivals and journalists, and atempting to export his brand of communism to other countries in the region

Democratically elected - check
Socialism = true Christianity - check
Reversing centuries of oligarchiac rule/discrimination - check
Challenging corporate and oligarch owned communication streams - check
Communism - NO WAY. socialist != communist

Looking in the Dubya/US mirror, we're much uglier.

Pat Robertson is a private individual stating his opinion.
I would say he's a VERY PUBLIC figure and desires to be so. He's also a promionent media figure, political figure and religious figure so it mattres a great deal what he says. No gaining the fruits of a public figure and hide behind the "private citizen" canard. Give me his megaphone and I'll be wealthy and PUBLIC.

What the Damn Liberal Media should have as a headline:

The Mullah Issues a Fatwah

What they really have:

Shape of the World: Views Differ
posted by nofundy at 9:49 AM on August 23, 2005

fuck, it took 140 comments before somebody actually wrote fatwa?
"liberal bastion" my sweet pinko ass
posted by matteo at 10:05 AM on August 23, 2005

Pat Robertson calls for assassinationcrucifixion of Hugo ChavezJesus for being a communist ...
posted by amberglow at 10:06 AM on August 23, 2005

oh, and fuck the "post" button so close to the "preview" one, too
;)

OK, again:

fuck, it took 140 comments before somebody actually wrote that the media should have called this for what it is, ie a fatwa, and it didn't?
etc.
posted by matteo at 10:08 AM on August 23, 2005

American Taliban, indeed.
posted by bshort at 10:17 AM on August 23, 2005

Can I just pooint out that North/South is rapidly becoming a more interesting political divide than Right/Left?
posted by signal at 10:24 AM on August 23, 2005

Robertson is lens and a focus group for the far right. They come up with this silly shit at those closed GOP leadership prayer breakfasts and say "Let's see what the numbers test out when that whack-job Robertson announces this on his 700 Club show!"

Make no mistake. Robertson is a Nielsen test facility for the GOP strategists. This is not a secret.

And I will tell you what this is about. 'Member that little war we started in that place called Iraq. Not going to well if you haven't heard. Golly. It's TRUE!

The ONLY oil port in Iraq - in Basara - keeps getting shut down. And Basara, being exclusively in the control of the Iranian Shia militias, probably won't be working for us when the post-constitution shit storm hits. thus the bill for this war, unlike Wolfowitz promised, will fall squarely on the backs of the US taxpayer. And said oil being about 75% of the reason for this war becomes even MORE expensive because Iran essentially has a near monopoly on southern Gulf oil.

What is a Neocon strategist, who fucked up royally, to do?

Install a "friendly" government in Oil rich (and currently hostile) Venezuela, that's what.

So 'ol Pat is beating the war drums in advance - to see if it will take with the GOP base and to se if the rest of us are paying attention.
posted by tkchrist at 10:24 AM on August 23, 2005

Man, I really hate to see Venezuela reduced to "He's a goodamn commie" versus "Well, the US is the Great Satan and the poor love him!"
Chavez comes from the same mould as Nasser in Egypt: Young military officer from lower class, disenfranchised with power structure, instigates a coup and modernizes a lot of his country. Chavez IS an authoritarian thug and does instigate violence in order to maintain his hold on power. But he's also made a huge difference in the political life of his country, to the benefit of democracy (if democracy is understood as mass participation). He IS a propogandist (most of his anti-US statements can be seen as pretty hollow when you realize that during his tenure, his government has INCREASED their commercial contact with the US), but he's also an expert regionalist and one of the few people likely to truly bring about reform in the terrible structure of popular South American politics.
The real reason the US hates him (or at least one of them) is his increased cooperation with Lula in Brazil, after years of intraregional conflict (though not armed) between the two countries, which means that the US is being excluded from Brazilian oil markets to a greater extent. That and his opposition to the far right thuggish government of Columbia (and his sheltering of refugees-- though he has emphatically acted against the FARC Marxists when they crossed into Venezuala).
His brand of regionalism is similar to Nasser's pan-Arabism, and his brand of populist authoritarianism is there too.
posted by klangklangston at 10:31 AM on August 23, 2005

It's not a Fatwa. A Fatwa is simply a religious decree of proper behavior.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 AM on August 23, 2005

The only thing funnier than wingnuts trying to justify what Robertson said is wingnuts pretending that Robertson is a nobody. Over at RedState they're in "Robertson denial" mode. It reminds me a bit of panel 2 from this cartoon.

Yup, if you're a Republican then either a) Pat Robertson is a non-entity you've never heard of and who has absolutely no influence in the Republican party, or b) he's perfectly sane and his utterly understandable call for the assination of a foreign head of state is more than reasonable. I'm waiting to see if anyone tries to use both defenses in the same post.
posted by sotonohito at 10:51 AM on August 23, 2005

Krash2fast:

"most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world."

Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union. Maoist China. The Ottoman Empire. The Austro-Hungarian Empire. The British Empire. Napoleonic France. The Polish-Lithuanian Empire. The Prussian Empire. The Assyrians. The Hittites. The Golden Horde. The Roman Empire. The Egyptian Empire. It's a pointless exercise to refute meaningless, outlandish rhetoric. If you honestly believe that the above statement is true, we really have nothing to talk about.

"save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism"

I don't believe that the world is threatened by the US, nor do I believe that the US is engaging in imperialism in any relevant sense of the word. This is obviously not the consensus on this site, but by and large, it is a matter of opinion, not fact. I can refute it no more than I can refute his favourite colour or food. I find it offensive because his idea of saving the world is implementing his system of government elsewhere, presumably, and it's one that I disagree with.

First off, communism != Marxism.

Sure. Whatever. I dislike both and think both are dangerous and dehumanizing. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Fascism, Maoism, Communism, Socialism, Collectivism, all of them terrible. Chavez is implementing collectivist policies, centrally planning elements of Venezuela's economy, seizing private land and calling himself a Marxist, all while using authoritarian tactics. Whatever specific political, ideological or economic philosophies you want to ascribe to him, this is my basis for distrusting and disliking Chavez. I know we probably disagree, but again, this is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
Plenty of good comes from public ownership of assets and services...

I disagree wholeheartedly with very few exceptions. That's why my views of any branch of socialism (or whatever you want to call it) are firm. Again difference of opinion, nothing to prove or disprove.

Is your paranoia of socialism so pervasive that you'd actually give Robertson's insane ranting some merit?

As I've said again and again and again. Roberston is a fool. The US should not assassinate Chavez. At the same time, Chavez is a bad guy. The two opinions can coexist. And if you want me to discuss these points with you civilly, please read my earlier comments before you attack a position I haven't taken, and please don't accuse me of paranoia, it's not really conducive to constructive dialogue, presuming that's what you're interested in.
posted by loquax at 10:56 AM on August 23, 2005

I'm kicking in C$50 to the "assasinate ParisParamus" fund. Let's get rid of the fucker.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:02 AM on August 23, 2005

He sounds like a terrorist, rather than a fool, to me.

'Preachers of hate', indeed.
posted by plep at 11:12 AM on August 23, 2005

So 'ol Pat is beating the war drums in advance - to see if it will take with the GOP base and to se if the rest of us are paying attention.

If I recall correctly, Pat is not a fan of the Iraq war...

Apparently, God told Pat that the war in Iraq "was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy."

It's good to know God gets through sometimes.
posted by weston at 11:19 AM on August 23, 2005

Like Capitalism isn't dehumanizing? The only one who isn't going to dehumanize you is your mamma. Large groups of people can only live together reasonably by creating dehumanizing rules.

What we know: US fundies = any other fundies
Jesus not really worshiped in US
Right wing activism in US = good
anywhere else = bad
posted by ewkpates at 11:38 AM on August 23, 2005

From CBN's website:
CARACAS, Venezuela - His name is Hugo Chavez. He is the president of oil-rich Venezuela. Mr. Chavez has decided that America is his enemy, so he is building up his army. He has forged an alliance with Fidel Castro, and many think he is going to make trouble for the United States.
Chavez believes he is in a fight with the devil. But the devil that Chavez fights does not reside in Hell. Chavez believes that the devil resides in Washington.

Looks like Pat has a handy new devil of his own.
posted by maryh at 11:44 AM on August 23, 2005

who would bonhoeffer have done a number on? bush or chavez.... ?
posted by specialk420 at 11:44 AM on August 23, 2005

loquax: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Fascism, Maoism, Communism, Socialism, Collectivism, all of them terrible . . And if you want me to discuss these points with you civilly, please read my earlier comments before you attack a position I haven't taken

You have taken a position, and disavowed it in the same breath! I recognize that you don't support Robertson's death order, but you are agreeing with his claim that Chavez' policies are wrong and dangerous. The fact that a large part of the world has very successful socialist policies, of which I've given you a few examples from Canada, makes your anti-socialist rhetoric equally frightening.
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:46 AM on August 23, 2005

No, they hate US because we are more or less right, and they can't otherwise handle that reality.

ParisParamus, you're an absurd anus. And it's beyond hilarious to see an objectionable, all-American, flapmouthed gobshite like you talking about people not being able to handle reality.
posted by Decani at 11:48 AM on August 23, 2005

Chavez called the United States the "most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world." and that his goal is to "save a world threatened by the voracity of U.S. imperialism". I'm a lot more outraged that a foreign head of state would say that than some preacher shooting off his mouth. Aren't you?

Not in the slightest, since the first statement is merely exaggeration and the second is a perfectly reasonable goal.
posted by Decani at 11:51 AM on August 23, 2005

Hi, long time lurker/first time poster here.

I've never gotten the attraction people have to this nutjob. Makes guys like Joel Olsteen look positively normal. I wonder what would happen to the 700 Club, and CBN, if someone put the "one bullet" Fliescher scenerio in place on him. Trying to call out someone like Robertson advocating violence seems to just ensure the "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" response.

Oh, and just as an aside, is ParisParamus an actual person, or is it a kiosk set up in Bob Jones University that has a post-it stuck to it that reads "Taunt the Liberals"?
posted by Talanvor at 12:07 PM on August 23, 2005

Oh, and just as an aside, is ParisParamus an actual person, or is it a kiosk set up in Bob Jones University that has a post-it stuck to it that reads "Taunt the Liberals"?

ROFL

By the way, fff, that was uncalled for.
posted by caddis at 12:11 PM on August 23, 2005

You have taken a position, and disavowed it in the same breath!

How have I done that? Perhaps I haven't been clear. My positions:

- Pat Robertson = Bad. He should not have said what he said, and he was wrong. Granted, he is influential, but he does not represent official US policy. He also has the right to free speech, as do anti-US imams or Ernst Zundel. He should be mocked, not censured or arrested. If I were running his network, he'd be off the air. Obviously, I'm not.

- Chavez = Bad, for all the reasons I've already mentioned. This has nothing to do with Robertson. Or with Bush for that matter. For whatever reason, he's behaved in an authoritarian and dangerous way, in my opinion, and he is implementing a political, social and economic program that I strongly disagree with.

- Socialism = Bad. That's just my opinion. We can have a debate over it, but that would likely be pointless, especially in this thread. If you like, I can suggest some reading that would illustrate my beliefs on the subject far better than I could.

How are any of these points contradictory? How have I disavowed any positions I've taken?
posted by loquax at 12:22 PM on August 23, 2005

"I disagree wholeheartedly with very few exceptions. That's why my views of any branch of socialism (or whatever you want to call it) are firm. Again difference of opinion, nothing to prove or disprove."
Wrong. You can prove that instances of socialism are good or bad for an economy, a country or a population.
The problem I'm having here, Loquax, is that while I think that your position is generally fairly reasonable (I'm not a huge Chavez cheerleader, I disagree with a lot of the things he's done), you are entering it from the irrational position of an ideologue.
I mean, you can argue that Sweden is evil all you like, but you'll be rightly tarred as someone more concerned with their own biases than anything that can be empirically demonstrated.
posted by klangklangston at 12:29 PM on August 23, 2005

*John Madden football voice*
Now that’s big time crazy

Bush was democratically elected. Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney.

Hmmm....crazy is comfortable.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on August 23, 2005

Robertson: bad. Chavez: bad. Socialism: bad.

loquax: good!
posted by telstar at 12:44 PM on August 23, 2005

Of course, if it’s full scale military action vs. assassination, I’d go with the smaller low intensity operation.
But that’s assuming clipping Chavez fixes everything. Lots of excellent upthread comments on the political blowback around that. If we’re taking over the oilfields, we’ll have to have an occupation force, and that can get sticky.
Can’t think of any recent examples....
posted by Smedleyman at 12:45 PM on August 23, 2005

Venezuela's VP calls Robertson's statements "criminal" and "terrorist".
posted by Jazznoisehere at 12:52 PM on August 23, 2005

Wrong. You can prove that instances of socialism are good or bad for an economy, a country or a population.

Sure, but I wasn't really talking about specifics. However to look at both the long and short term impacts of socialism, as well as all of the various political, economic and philosophical thought involved in a proper analysis would take longer than I and likely anyone else here have time for. My point was more that my opinions and ideas would likely differ so greatly from the person I was responding to that it likely wasn't worth discussing, especially in this forum, and that it was better to chalk it up to creative differences and move on.

I mean, you can argue that Sweden is evil all you like, but you'll be rightly tarred as someone more concerned with their own biases

I don't know what we're arguing about. I am opposed to socialism and friends not out of blind faith or a love of George Bush, but out of rational thought, history and study, believe it or not. Like I said, I can point out some books that make the points I would far better. I never said Sweden was evil, or that Chavez was evil. I said that I believed that Chavez is dangerous because his policies are dangerous because they are socialist/marxist/communist/collectivist (for lack of a simple term) - for me to argue the relative merits of specific instances of socialist policy implementation in Venezuela or the UK or Canada would take far longer than I have time for, and again, others have said it much better. This is what I consider to be the matter of opinion, and it's very fair to disagree with me on the basis of your own beliefs and opinions.

you are entering it from the irrational position of an ideologue.

Why is this assumed? How are my comments different from others? Why are the comments agreeing with Chavez's assessment of the evils of an American empire sober rational thought and my disagreeing comments irrational ideological drivel? How can the comments made by pro-socialists in this thread be presumed any differently than mine? I haven't said Chavez sucks because I hate him and capitalism rulez. I think I've clearly stated my opinions while trying not to get into a debate over political ideologies, which I don't think would be enlightening anyways for this group. This presumption of my motivations (not to single you out, klangklangston) and my beliefs makes it very difficult to actually discuss the subject at hand, as I have to spend a lot of time defending myself, rather than my arguments.

loquax: good!

Thanks!
posted by loquax at 12:57 PM on August 23, 2005

Well, he is right. If any public figure in a "rogue" state said something along the lines about Bush that Robertson said about Chavez, we'd all drown in the talking points that would erupt from the GOP speechwriter's laptops.
posted by Talanvor at 12:58 PM on August 23, 2005

I love this bit too:

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

The cavalier attitude, the arrogance, the sheer hubris of this simple statement just drives me nuts. The ability? What, there's something special about training a sniper in America that is so much better than one being trained in Venezuela, or anywhere else in the world? If you're an American does God reach down and personally part the air for your round so you are more likely to get a headshot? I don't get this at all.
posted by Talanvor at 1:02 PM on August 23, 2005

loquax: Socialism is terrible? oh really...

you know, the United States has NEVER been rated the top country in the world to live. Usually doesn't even make the top 5.

The countries that beat you are almost always somewhat socialist.

Have you ever lived anywhere besides the US? I've lived in Canada, the US, and Europe. There's certainly no question in MY mind why the US doesn't make the top 5. Socialism or social democracy is a better system than the american system. As measured by the rankings for the last 20 years running of where people get the most satisfaction from their lives. The only thing the American system is better at is stealing other nations' resources & at creating a wealth divide that is not only WORSE than most dictatorships, but rivals that of feudalism. Oh, and you lock up your minorites. WE don't do that.

And you don't think you are a murderous empire? Tell me, exactly how many other empires in history have built and deployed 8000 city-destroying weapons and pointed them at the head of the world?
posted by lastobelus at 1:20 PM on August 23, 2005

Loquax: I'm not arguing with your statements about Chavez et al. I'm pointing out that when you say "I said that I believed that Chavez is dangerous because his policies are dangerous because they are socialist/marxist/communist/collectivist," it's pretty easy to point out that you believe Chavez to be bad because he subscribes to a "bad" philosophy, and that philosophy is bad because... Well, because you say so and you don't want to argue about it.
Which does mark you as an ideologue on the topic of Chavez=bad.
If you said that you thought he was bad because of the fact that he uses mob mobilization to stiffle dissent or because his collectivization of the Venezualan oil industry has led to massive waste and inefficiency, those would be things that could be argued one way or another. Instead, we get the rather simplistic "He's bad because he's a communist, and communists are bad because I don't like them ever."
I understand that a critique of communism is a little much to get into here, but a critique of Chavez's actions would carry more weight than an offhanded "I hate iPods because they're made by Macintosh, and I'm not going to get into an argument about why I hate Macintosh."
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on August 23, 2005

Tell me, exactly how many other empires in history have built and deployed 8000 city-destroying weapons and pointed them at the head of the world?

Well, there were these socialist guys we were talking about... I don't know if you're aware of it, but there were actually two sides in the cold war....

In addition, I'd like point out that much of Europe either has "city-destroying weapons" themselves, or has allies who do, and can use them on their behalf. That was what that whole NATO/Warsaw Pact thing was about.
posted by unreason at 1:34 PM on August 23, 2005

Loquax: Also, please don't confuse me with the commenters here that are trying to hold you to the "Why don't you hate America" line, like the one above me.
posted by klangklangston at 1:36 PM on August 23, 2005

Whups. I meant lastobelus, not unreason.
posted by klangklangston at 1:37 PM on August 23, 2005

You guys are way overdue for a violent revolution.

And another one of those.. oh.. reformations.
posted by flippant at 1:43 PM on August 23, 2005

you know, the United States has NEVER been rated the top country in the world to live. Usually doesn't even make the top 5.

Pffft. And who "rates" these countries? I'm sure it is completely non biased.

I have lived in the UK, Central America and Italy. They are all great places in their own right. I'd live in Italy again in a second. But these places are now confronting the problems with social state economics. Eventually the party will end, my friend.

There is a reason "social" democracies CAN be social welfare states. Post WWII reconstruction loans (though "loans" is a stretch since they were never paid back) from the US. And the fact that US NATO presence during the cold war made it possible for Europe to have minimal defense expenditures and focus on healing their damaged states. Now WE in the US are paying for those outrageous expenditures by a contraction in our social welfare budgets.

The only thing the American system is better at is stealing other nations' resources & at creating

Oh. Cut that shit out. Like no European countries stole resources!?! Ever hear of the conquistadores?

What do you think they did for six hundred years and CONTINUE to do now? Why the fuck does most of Africa speak French? FRENCH Indo-china? Who was pushing smack to the Chinese for the better part of a century? Hello? Indonesia spoke Dutch. Mexico speaks Spanish. Brazil Portuguese. On and fucking on.

Europe is STILL extracting resources from their former colonies at massive profit.

There was a time not that long ago that the US thought Europe was the seat of warmongering and it was Europe that spent treasuries on weapons and armies and war.

And it is our military that is keeping Europe's lanes of commerce flowing every bit as much as it has ours. So. Will you knock off the hyperbole already.

It isn't black and white. It is what it is.
In modern global capitalism NOBODY has clean hands. Nobody. The point is NOW what do we do about it? Judging by the rate every country in the west (and now China) is gobbling up resources - not fucking much. But it's fun to point fingers at the other guy, isn't it?
posted by tkchrist at 1:54 PM on August 23, 2005

Why are the comments agreeing with Chavez's assessment of the evils of an American empire sober rational thought and my disagreeing comments irrational ideological drivel?

Perhaps because one takes an objective look at the situation and forms a reasonable conclusion, and the second starts with a preconceived notion and works backwards.

Anyone automatically supporting Chavez because capitalism = bad, and socialism = good would/should be labeled an idealogue as well. I'm sure there's some of those among us in this thread. They're just not displaying it as overtly or proudly.

It worked for Seko. (Mobuto).

Speaking of Mobuto, Lumumba, the Congo, and murderous empires ...

Forty years after the murder of the Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba, evidence has emerged in Washington that President Dwight Eisenhower directly ordered the CIA to "eliminate" him.

President 'ordered murder' of Congo leader

Don't think it couldn't happen again. The Belgians just beat us to it.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:55 PM on August 23, 2005

Oh, and just as an aside, is ParisParamus an actual person, or is it a kiosk set up in Bob Jones University that has a post-it stuck to it that reads "Taunt the Liberals"?

Oh, he's quite real. He was also quite liberal, until, you know, Sept. 11 changed everything. Now he's our very own David Horowitz.

Then:
I Love Paul Krugman! He, better than any writer I have seen, cuts through all the political BS to expose the Republican party, whose members, for the most part, obtain office by cleverly deceiving the little people on what is in their interest...
posted on Apr 11, 2001 - Go to the detail view for this result

Now:
The only Bush policy with which I find fault is energy/environmental policy. He's done all the other major things extremely well--whether it be due to his own intellect or that of his entourage... Plus, he isn't an arrogant dick like his predecessor. Or most politicians. Genuine character, too...
posted by ParisParamus at 10:17 AM PST on November 28 (2004)[!]

You may have noticed a subtle change in his views...
posted by iron chef morimoto at 1:55 PM on August 23, 2005

"There were actually two sides in the cold war....
In addition, I'd like point out that much of Europe either has "city-destroying weapons" themselves, or has allies who do, and can use them"

Indeed. And Chavez has....?

And Robertson wants to focus on Chavez instead of say chasing those rogue nukes the Soviets misplaced because...?

Assassination, particularly disavowed assassination, will be the warfare of the future once/if the power blocs with the nukes solidify since hopefully no one is crazy enough to unleash them.

Of course, Robertson strikes me as crazy and apocalyptic enough to use them which is why this assassination business confuses me.

But we did a lot less open ass kicking and a lot more covert wetwork when we had the Soviets to balance us. I think it’s harmed us. Hell, we didn’t even goose Iraq when they ‘accidentally’ hit us with a missile (during the Regan era). Perhaps I’m too conservative, but I prefer moving slowly and carefully. Of course ‘conservative’ doesn’t seem to mean that currently.
I guess Robertson is more in the ‘dealing in straight power concepts’ crowd.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:59 PM on August 23, 2005

btw, excellent posts by tkchrist and klangklanston (as usual) late in the thread. he beat me to the "fatwa" clarification.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:59 PM on August 23, 2005

tkchrist: What about canada?
Doesn't canada spend about half as much per person as the USA on medical stuff, and at the same time covers everyone, while in the USA only like 80% are covered?
This is because we don't have to deal with the "efficiencies" of a private insurance system.
posted by Iax at 2:00 PM on August 23, 2005

Doesn't canada spend about half as much per person as the USA on medical stuff, and at the same time covers everyone, while in the USA only like 80% are covered?
This is because we don't have to deal with the "efficiencies" of a private insurance system.


Basically the same reasons.

Canada. I love them. Part of the same Empire we were: they shared in the British booty. And I don't mean the Spice Girls. Rowr.

They have us - the greediest and fattest mother fuckers on the planet just south of them to sell all thier neat stuff too.

Canada you can sit comfortable in the knowledge that our nukes and carrier task forces are here to "protect" your "way of life" as well. Don't let that scare you. Let that free you.

BTW - Chavez is at worst irrelevant.

So, my summary.

Chavez=Irrelevant

Socialism=Cool as long as it's your stuff we share

Marxism=Star Trek

Robertson=The retarded cousin you don't let near matches
posted by tkchrist at 2:16 PM on August 23, 2005

Have you ever lived anywhere besides the US?

Check my profile.

As for the rest. yeah sure, whatever. What can I tell you? You want to talk about it, let's get together and have a drink. I don't really have the time to respond to your points, however unfair and unreasonable I think they are. Read some Hayek or something. I really don't know what else to tell you. If you're as well versed in political theory and history as you seem to be, you can likely imagine anything I'd say in return.

Klangklangston - you're right, I am being simplistic (and probably a little lazy) in my condemnation of Chavez and socialism, but it's only because the arguments have been done to death, here and elsewhere, and it's unlikely to result in anything productive. I did say above in some of my earlier comments (and in another thread about Chavez) that I had specific problems with his policies, including nationalization, land seizure, general authoritarian behaviour, intimidation of journalists, suppression of free speech, and interference in other countries, including Bolivia. I don't think any current gain is worth the risk that the trend towards committed, entrenched socialism brings. (As a brief aside, consider that the most dynamic and flourishing economies of the early 20th century were the centrally planned economies of Europe that were on their way towards totalitarian fascism and communism). And you are right again, that it was unfair of me to lump you in with some of the other commenters, although I still think that it's unreasonable to characterize what I've written in this thread as irrational ideological arguments, especially considering the rhetorical caveats I've placed on them. Unpopular and distasteful to some, maybe.
posted by loquax at 2:16 PM on August 23, 2005

caddis: bullshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:23 PM on August 23, 2005

Canada you can sit comfortable in the knowledge that our nukes and carrier task forces are here to "protect" your "way of life" as well. Don't let that scare you. Let that free you.

Oh fuck off. Take your fucking nukes and your fucking carrier task forces and shove them up your goddamn asshole (which, if I read correctly, is located in Nebraska.) We don't want them, we don't need them, and we sure as hell don't want to be associated with them.

More and more, the time is coming for a world without the USA.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:31 PM on August 23, 2005 [1 favorite]

I must mostly agree with loquax on this. It is a mistery to me how lefties are becoming so infatuated with Chavez, a former putschist who promotes a militaristic and highly jingoistic ideology, a strong state so as to better dominate the opposition, continuously meddles in the affairs of other countries (from Colombia to Bolivia) and has often been keen to find scapegoats to fuel his populistic rhethoric.
Really, everything bad anyone could say about Bush, Chavez is it squared. The man is a lot more Mussolini than Allende, and his only saving grace is that he too seems to "make the trains run on time" (as opposed to the shambolic, corrupt old Venezuelan oligarchy). But then, he has it easy thanks to the high oil prices (courtesy of Bush's Mess O'Potamia)...
As for Robertson, he's an evil man, an idiot and a douchebag. I can't understand how anyone can take him seriously, never mind consider him a "Man of God".
posted by Skeptic at 2:37 PM on August 23, 2005

"Oh. Cut that shit out. Like no European countries stole resources!?! Ever hear of the conquistadores?"

No argument from me. But we're talking about current governments.

"And who "rates" these countries? I'm sure it is completely non biased."

The Human Development Index. But the US has made the top 5 on occasion, I was wrong about that. And I hardly think the reason Canada & Norway dominated for so long had anything to do with loans from the US. Sheesh. Talk about hyperbole. Canada's relationship with the US has been a long giving away of our natural resources, at ridiculously discounted prices.

I don't blindly regard Europe as a shining example of liberty either. But some parts of Europe have certainly advanced much farther than the US has in the last generation in terms of social liberty & quality of life for their citizens. The point I was making was that the crap about the US + capitalism being the world's shining example of liberty & freedom -- is just so 20th century. No one buys it anymore.
posted by lastobelus at 2:48 PM on August 23, 2005

You may have noticed a subtle change in his views...

It is almost as if the account changed hands and now a different person is posting. Very strange...
posted by caddis at 2:49 PM on August 23, 2005

loquax, you should study economics, particularly western European economics. To claim, as you did, that "American loans" play a significant part (or have ever played a significant part) in funding the welfare state of Europe is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

The fact is that capitalism is a very, very good system for the owners of the means of production, and a very, very bad system for everyone else.

Socialism tends to balance things out a little more.

But the best is a hybrid between the two, in which the individual opportunity and incentive provided by private enterprise is balanced by the capacity for rational planning, humanitarian intervention, and long-term investment that can only be provided by the state.

Which is why every modern country has a hybrid system - including the US.

The economic argument is not really "Capitalism V Communism" it's simply "How much capitalism, and how much socialism, do we choose to have?"

The political question is different. The US has an utterly corrupt system, in which the views of ordinary people are manipulated through dishonest rightwing propaganda through a thousand different channels, and then ignored anyway since the corporations control both political parties.

The Venezuelan system is a thousand times more democratic.
posted by cleardawn at 2:52 PM on August 23, 2005

Oh fuck off. Take your fucking nukes and your fucking carrier task forces and shove them up your goddamn asshole (which, if I read correctly, is located in Nebraska.) We don't want them, we don't need them, and we sure as hell don't want to be associated with them. More and more, the time is coming for a world without the USA.

LOL. Lighten up, Sparky.

Oh. Wait. My God! Ladies and gentlemen!

The Prime Minister of Canada has joined us on MeFi!

Mister... uh... um... who the fuck is Prime Minister again? Doesn't matter. I'm glad you can come here and speak for your entire nation like this.

And as an aside Mr. Prime Minister Whatsyourname: Perhaps you insecure Canadians are unaware, since it appears anybody with a sense of humor migrates to well paying gigs on Saturday Night Live (in New York City and that's in America, BTW) of this little thing we Americans call "satire" and "irony".
posted by tkchrist at 2:55 PM on August 23, 2005

Shorter thread....

Robertson = bad, but we on the right want the same thing done to Saddam and anyone else we label "terrorists". Don't mention words like cognitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy in our presence.

Socialism = bad, but we on the right don't mind governmental support and wealth redistribution when it helps line our own pockets and those of big businesses. Don't mention words like hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance in our presence.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:59 PM on August 23, 2005

To claim, as you did, that "American loans" play a significant part (or have ever played a significant part) in funding the welfare state of Europe is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Hmm? If anyone claimed this it wasn't me. At least, I don't think I did.
posted by loquax at 3:02 PM on August 23, 2005

Well, hopefully, some local will assasinate Chavez. Even nicer would be for he and Castro to die in a big explosion in Havana.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:06 PM on August 23, 2005

"Well, there were these socialist guys we were talking about... I don't know if you're aware of it, but there were actually two sides in the cold war...."

How do you think historians a few centuries hence, not exposed to propaganda of either side, or to incessant hollywood-propagated mythology will interpret the fact that it was the UNITED STATES that started and was ALWAYS AHEAD in the arms race?

You designed the bomb first. You're the only ones who've ever used them. You've always had more. The arms race is over and you've made no move to stand down, but instead have ramped up, and cancelled disarmament treaties that were in place before the cold war ended.

You can't excuse away your role in nuclear arms buildup with the fact that the Soviet Union had a more repressive government. They were always only ever playing catch-up.
posted by lastobelus at 3:09 PM on August 23, 2005

"Hmm? If anyone claimed this it wasn't me."

It was tkchrist.
posted by lastobelus at 3:11 PM on August 23, 2005

ParisParamus: I am sorry to hear about the death of your penis. Perhaps you should refrain from posting until you deal with the grief.
posted by klangklangston at 3:12 PM on August 23, 2005

The point I was making was that the crap about the US + capitalism being the world's shining example of liberty & freedom -- is just so 20th century. No one buys it anymore.

First. YES they do. Immigration umbers speak for themselves. It's just not our current government that is doing the best job selling.

And. That ain't what you said. You said: The only thing the American system is better at is stealing other nations' resources. Amongst other hate mongering bullshit.

We ain't "better". And even that if it were true it would be a matter of pride for many people. As in: "Yes! We're number ONE! USA! USA!"

But it is a fact that it is NOT true. We are merely the most RECENT pillagers. Not the best. I'd award that to Great Brittian.

You seem to be forgetting that all that loot (IE resources) that Europe plundered and continues to plunder (And by trickle down Canada, too) is still there being circulated by all them good socialists.

Research what is going on NOW in the Congo, Niger, Nigeria, and Indonesia among other places. You will find American, European, Transnational, AND Canadian Oil companies.

So seriously. Yeah the US has serious problems. And we deserve to take a bath. So?

Take out your own mote, brother, before you hurl around the absolutist bullshit.

Nothing personal. But. Study history and economics before you post.
posted by tkchrist at 3:16 PM on August 23, 2005

My apologies, loquax, it was tkchrist who posted that particular piece of rightwing nonsense about economics, not you. It's late, and I'm tired, and again, sorry for my error.

That said, on review, much of your own commentary here has similar content to tkchrist's, though perhaps a little less crude and hysterical.

Another time, I'd be happy to debate with you on fundamental economics, but perhaps now is not the time or the place.

I wish you good night.

ParisParamus: I'm hoping that calling for a terrorist attack like that is enough to at least get you banned from MeFi, if not put safely in a little room somewhere for a few years. I won't miss you. Good-bye.
posted by cleardawn at 3:40 PM on August 23, 2005

Some much pseudo-analysis. Chavez is a lunatic who would best be met with a bullet--end of story. He isn't lifting his country out of poverty (economic, intellectual, or otherwise) any more than Castro is; it's just that he takes our oil money to gain a louder megaphone.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:43 PM on August 23, 2005

Cleardawn I only call for the assasination of known murders: Hamas leaders; Yassar Arafat, unfortunately, just died--not poetic justice. I just think Chavez is a disgrace, and I would not bother mourning his passing.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:47 PM on August 23, 2005

It was tkchrist.

Tattle tale.

And you telling me billions in free money to Europe didn't aid in constructing one goddamned hospital? What? You fuckers just drink all that money away.

Tell you what cleardawn. Let's test your assertions. Give ME a billion dollars. Then see if it effects MY social welfare system. I'll even say thank you.

Look. Sure. The biggest catalyst was WWII itself. As in the destructive force of WWII. Europe needed a strong central authority to manage rebuilding everything. It was that infrastructure - pushing aside much of the aristocratic hold on power and built nearly from scratch - that laid the foundation for the modern social welfare state. And the US's money and 5o years of Defense presence didn't hurt.
posted by tkchrist at 3:47 PM on August 23, 2005

Hey Paris. Shut up. Seriously. You sound drunk or something.
posted by tkchrist at 3:48 PM on August 23, 2005

Sorry, no intention to stop articulating a non-extremist, non-left view here on Metafilter--hey, that's what they pay me for...just kidding.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:52 PM on August 23, 2005

hey, that's what they pay me for

Well. Your not helping. Trust me.
posted by tkchrist at 3:55 PM on August 23, 2005

By the way, if you read Robertson's remarks, he proposed assasination in the context of/as an alternative to a war. That doesn't make Robertson any less a evangelical looney, but it does make his remark more reasonable.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 PM on August 23, 2005

I only call for the assasination of known murders: Hamas leaders; Yassar Arafat

you are a hypocrite. who has killed more innocent civilians and children?

hamas leaders? yassar arafat? osama bin laden or your idol george "whistleass" bush ?


come on man ... answer the question?
posted by specialk420 at 3:57 PM on August 23, 2005

Yeah, I'm with tkchrist with this on review. And confused. Are we not talking about the Marshall Plan?

Between 1948 and 1951, the United States contributed more than $13 billion (equivalent to nearly $100 billion in 2005 when adjusted for inflation) of economic and technical assistance toward the recovery of 16 European countries

"The effects of the Marshall Plan were surprising to even its most optimistic of supporters. The years 1948 to 1952 saw the fastest period of growth in European history. Industrial production increased by 35%. Agriculture had substantially surpassed pre-war levels. The poverty and starvation of the immediate post-war years disappeared and Western Europe embarked upon an unprecedented two decades of growth that saw standards of living increase dramatically. The communist influence to western Europe was greatly reduced as throughout the region the communist parties faded in popularity."

Not that that really has much to do with Chavez or Robertson. We'll talk economics another time cleardawn!
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on August 23, 2005

By the way, if you read Robertson's remarks, he proposed assasination in the context of/as an alternative to a war. That doesn't make Robertson any less a evangelical looney, but it does make his remark more reasonable.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:56 PM PST

Uh, what war? His statement is still not even close to reasonable because war is not a reasonable option with Venezuela. Might as well say, "Assassinating Vicente Fox would be better than going to war with Mexico." Not to mention the fact that if we assassinated Fox, you don't think there would be repercussions? Like, maybe a war?
posted by billysumday at 4:01 PM on August 23, 2005

I meant "if we assassinated Chavez, you don't think there would be repercussions?"
posted by billysumday at 4:01 PM on August 23, 2005

Just as the Japanese Emperor's regime was the proximate cause of the atomic bombings, I don't think President Bush has been the proximate cause (legal / moral / ethical) of anyone in Iraq. Saddam and his regime; and Osama and his followers are to blame for the death of every single civilian and soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq. To think otherwise makes you (one) a pacifist of the highest (lowest?) order.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:02 PM on August 23, 2005

If there was war with Venezuela, it wouldn't be waged by the US directly, unless, perhaps Al Qaeda set up a training base there. Chavez's talk and miltary is scaring Columbia and the whole region.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:05 PM on August 23, 2005

Saddam and his regime - are to blame for the death of every single civilian

tell that to the mothers of the dead children in iraq.... how many have been slaughtered since saddam was dragged out of his spider hole?


many. their blood is partially on yours and people like yours hands.
posted by specialk420 at 4:06 PM on August 23, 2005

Sorry, no intention to stop articulating a non-extremist, non-left view here on Metafilter--hey, that's what they pay me for...just kidding.

You might want to start by actually making an argument rather than broad statements without anything to back them up. I'm not sure you know what articulate means.

And calling something left or right wing as a means of dismissing it is entirely lazy. This, again, has naught to do with articulateness.

However, the comedic value is definitely a bonus. How much do clowns get paid these days?
posted by juiceCake at 4:08 PM on August 23, 2005

What does that have to do with defending Robertson?

Oh, right. Just keep making stuff up, then, and keep defending your made up stuff. That way, you always win!!
posted by billysumday at 4:08 PM on August 23, 2005

If Chavez was any kind of true threat - to us or even his own people - then assassination MIGHT be argued. But he's not. He's a kooky left-wing populist. Populist being key. As in he is popular among his people. Let them get rid of him if they want. It will be easier to play nice and buy him off.

I only call for the assassination of known murders

Ends do not justify means. When you use those metrics, as people have pointed out, Bush is perfectly whack-able. Er. Bad choice of words.

There are few cases - and those are pure hindsite - where we know shooting a leader might have avoided greater tragedy. And since we don't have time machines to correct our mistakes I say avoid the idea as much as possible.
posted by tkchrist at 4:09 PM on August 23, 2005

Actually, the people with blood on their hands are the nit wits who kept Saddam in power through the 1990's, and didn't read the world the terrorism Riot Act during the same period.

Attention Mefi-Mart shoppers: be on the lookout for the ParisParamus UN Tour Podcast, featuring an exclusive interview with Ambassador John Bolton.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:12 PM on August 23, 2005

Actually Paris, if the alternative was a Billion dollar War or a 5 cent bullet I think most people would agree with you. However, in the World of blue skies and oxygen there's always more than one alternative, and the possibility that it's none of your business.

And loquax, that whole article at Wikipedia is a decent read, and you've selectively quoted some of it. The Marshall Plan was decent, but not completely altruistic or great for Social Welfare Boosterism. NATO, on the other hand, that's a decent approach to this argument. Although two European countries rushed to get Nuclear Weapons, and they had the kind of policies that make anti-Socialists shudder.
posted by gsb at 4:15 PM on August 23, 2005

It is ever so much a shame that one can get away with calling for the murder of a political figure, but can not be sure of getting away with offering $500 to see a specific user harmed. Because if I could, I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to see him hurt very badly.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:18 PM on August 23, 2005 [1 favorite]

fff--good job!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:22 PM on August 23, 2005

gsb - maybe so, but I only posted it in response to the following comment:

To claim, as you did, that "American loans" play a significant part (or have ever played a significant part) in funding the welfare state of Europe is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I don't think that comment can really be substantiated. The extent of their impact is certainly arguable, but you can't deny that they had an impact, as the article acknowledges (for what it's worth):

"Today the general consensus has reverted to the earliest argument. It is acknowledged that the United States was acting in its own self-interest by aiding western Europe, but most believe the plan had an immensely beneficial effect on both Western Europe and the United States."

At the very least, it empowered Western Europe to choose their own path, one that led away from the US and (by and large) towards partially socialist welfare states.

I have a feeling that I may be arguing a different point than what was being discussed above though, so never mind if I am.
posted by loquax at 4:22 PM on August 23, 2005

Lol five, are you sure your not American?
posted by parallax7d at 4:26 PM on August 23, 2005

Loquax, the Marshall Plan, etc., to use a familiar term, was seed money given by a venture capitalist. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great gesture; nor does it mean that it was charity.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 PM on August 23, 2005

We are merely the most RECENT pillagers. Not the best. I'd award that to Great Brittian.

...well, Britain were perhaps more exploitive/successful, but I think less ruthless than Spain. But aren't we talking about OUR generations?

Research what is going on NOW in the Congo, Niger, Nigeria, and Indonesia among other places. You will find American, European, Transnational, AND Canadian Oil companies.

Sure...but the social democracies (which are pretty new in the scheme of things) give between double & quadruple (as percentage of GNP) what americans do in foreign aid. They have better gender equality, shorter working hours, lower violent crime, better health, better health care, better social safety nets, more social equality, (at least slightly) less racism, and greater life expectancy. They tend to have lower average income, & higher taxes, but equivalent buying power (so much for the american-style economy being the most efficient)

Maybe it's all just rumours & Robert McNamara is like a recidivist closet Marxist just out to discredit capitalism, but AFAIK Canada, Norway et al have not (in my generation at least) been involved in the deliberate practice of funding and sponsoring military coups, deliberately destabilizing elected governments for economic ends, or -- hell, let's just use McNamara's words -- "tactics...of the sniper, the ambush, and the raid... terror, extortion, and assassination." Were they to attempt to do so, they would not receive electoral support. They would be voted out of office.

But we're all very aware that the US does do and has done such things. So when we hear Chavez say things like he says -- a democratically elected leader with enormous popular support in his country -- we don't really quite hear it as over-the-top, assassination-worthy hyperbole. Sorry. Maybe you need to make more movies to coax us back on the right page?
posted by lastobelus at 4:28 PM on August 23, 2005 [1 favorite]

Paris: Agreed. Exactly what I was trying to say in response to cleardawn. Unless he (or she) meant ongoing US loans rather than historical ones.
posted by loquax at 4:30 PM on August 23, 2005

Chavez is a demagogue, plain and simple. He is trading on the poverty and anger of Venezuela's peasants. Most of whom would move to New Jersey in 12 seconds if they could....
posted by ParisParamus at 4:43 PM on August 23, 2005

"but AFAIK Canada, Norway et al have not (in my generation at least) been involved in the deliberate practice of funding and sponsoring military coups..."

Maybe coups and assasinations made sense (or, at least seemed reasonable) during the Cold War, but they no longer do. On the other hand, re your comment above, those countries didn't have to consider covert actions because the US was. I don't think it's fair to bestow moral superiority on a place too geopolitically insignificant to matter.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:47 PM on August 23, 2005

tkchrist: before you completely dismiss Chavez as "a kooky left-wing populist [only] popular among his people" you should read more international newspapers. He may be a kook, but that's not how he's getting played. BBC, for example, consistently write about him in ways that while purporting to be neutral actually make him appear noble & all criticisms of him as having a sinister agenda.
posted by lastobelus at 4:49 PM on August 23, 2005

By the way, if you read Robertson's remarks, he proposed assasination in the context of/as an alternative to a war.

Ari Fleischer did the same thing before the invasion of Iraq:

However, Fleischer added: "I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than" a US invasion. "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that. But there are many options that the president hopes the world and people of Iraq will exercise themselves if that gets rid of the threat."

Asked to clarify whether the US advocated Hussein's assassination, Fleischer replied, "Regime change is welcome in whatever form that it takes."

posted by kirkaracha at 4:55 PM on August 23, 2005

But the BBC has become a bastion of lefties (at least somewhat). They perpetually side with the Palestinians, so why wouldn't they LOVE Chavez? I think his embracing of Castro is a far better indicator of his outlook than a BBC swoon.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:57 PM on August 23, 2005

But aren't we talking about OUR generations?

That is just convenient cherry picking since you still benefit - today - from all those misdeed of the past. The colonies, wealth and resources exploited and plundered are still in use today.

Don't get me wrong. I'd live in Italy. I'd live there over here, Seattle. A very livable place. But not close to even an Italian slum livability wise.

But is this social welfare state sustainable without riding the coat tails of an empire somewhere along the way? I don't think so. And I think there is ample proof of that. And how long can a social welfare state be maintained?

FI the EU is facing something of a crisis right now. Well lot's of little ones as well. But a big one is demographics and the aging population. Another is should the EU militarize? Eventually NATO is going to pullout. And the US and China are going to be the EU's big rivals for diminishing energy reserves and each have massive military budgets. So what is the EU going to do? You will see - you are seeing - an erosion of the Social Welfare status quo as a result of these factors.

We in the US are feeling the brunt of this now. Actually for some time. The EU may have the benefit of learning from our mistakes. But don't expect the standard of living in Europe or Canada to a birth right.
posted by tkchrist at 5:01 PM on August 23, 2005

Maybe coups and assasinations made sense (or, at least seemed reasonable) during the Cold War, but they no longer do. On the other hand, re your comment above, those countries didn't have to consider covert actions because the US was.

Ah, is THAT what you were doing in South America -- protecting us from Russia!

Thanks, much appreciated.

Hey, now that Russia's not out to get us anymore, how about turning off some ICBM's? They're kind of scary. The fact that you have them affects how we view you. Sort of like how if there was some big guy hanging out at a party you were at? and he had like a big loaded, cocked Glock and was always waving it around and pointing it at people, saying things like "it's really important to make sure nobody at this party has a GUN", and punctuating such declarations with little jabs of the loaded Glock in your direction, how that might affect your opinion of this guy?
posted by lastobelus at 5:07 PM on August 23, 2005

before you completely dismiss Chavez as "a kooky left-wing populist

I dont care if he is Ghandi. He is irrelevant to me. I am saying he is only relevant to Venezuala. Thier problem or thier savior. I don't care. We should leave him the fuck alone.
posted by tkchrist at 5:09 PM on August 23, 2005

One big difference from Saddam: we have *diplomatic relations* with Venezuela. A lot of Americans work and vacation there. They are intertwined in numerous trade and political treaties in the region to which we are signatories. Robertson's kind of talk could make the price of "one bullet" very high indeed, even if it comes from a Venezuelan's gun. You can leave the moral questions to one side. Pragmatically, both actually practicing political murder and a prominent public figure calling for it are just plain STUPID things to do in an interconnected world. Arrogant. Stupid. Bad for America.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2005

the people with blood on their hands are the nit wits who kept Saddam in power through the 1990's

the more you and your twins like hannity shoot your mouth off the more you exposure your lie and contradiction filled rotten core. the blood of the little kids that died when bush junior had to show his dad who was a man - is directly on your filthy hands. be a man and own up to fact that peope died because the fool that you voted for lied to this country and the world - not to mention the thousands of dead while previous republicon administrations supported the SOB.
posted by specialk420 at 5:21 PM on August 23, 2005

and punctuating such declarations with little jabs of the loaded Glock in your direction, how that might affect your opinion of this guy?

First of all I tell him to get SIG Sauer if he is going to spend the money. Glocks are way over-rated. And then, after a brief distration, I may shoot him with my much cheaper Argentinian made Bersa 380. Betting that I spend more time on the range with the cheaper 380 ammo.

And the US has reduced it's amount of strategic arms. And like hand guns I would be 100% for getting rid of all of them. IF everybody else did.
posted by tkchrist at 5:25 PM on August 23, 2005

ParisParamus, allow me to refute some of your points:

“Some much pseudo-analysis. Chavez is a lunatic who would best be met with a bullet--end of story. He isn't lifting his country out of poverty...”


Fuck you.


“I only call for the assasination of known murders... I just think Chavez is a disgrace, and I would not bother mourning his passing.”


Yeah, see, but, fuck you.


“Sorry, no intention to stop articulating a non-extremist, non-left view here on Metafilter--hey, that's what they pay me for...just kidding.”


Ha ha ha, fuck you.

(also I’ll mention to my precinct captain that I’m a leftist)



“By the way, if you read Robertson's remarks, he proposed assasination in the context of/as an alternative to a war. That doesn't make Robertson any less a evangelical looney, but it does make his remark more reasonable.”


What’s reasonable is you going & fucking yourself.


“Just as the Japanese Emperor's regime was the proximate cause of the atomic bombings, I don't think President Bush has been the proximate cause (legal / moral / ethical) of anyone in Iraq. Saddam and his regime; and Osama and his followers are to blame for the death of every single civilian and soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq. To think otherwise makes you (one) a pacifist of the highest (lowest?) order”


What’s ironic here is that Bush is not responsible for 9/11, but the Japanese Emperor fuck you.




“If there was war with Venezuela, it wouldn't be waged by the US directly, unless, perhaps Al Qaeda set up a training base there. Chavez's talk and miltary is scaring Columbia and the whole region.”


Of course, fuck you.







“Actually, the people with blood on their hands are the nit wits who kept Saddam in power through the 1990's, and didn't read the world the terrorism Riot Act during the same period.”


Like Bush the First, and actually, fuck you.



“Loquax, the Marshall Plan, etc., to use a familiar term, was seed money..”

To use a familiar term, fuck you.


“It is ever so much a shame that one can get away with calling for the murder of a political figure, but can not be sure of getting away with offering $500 to see a specific user harmed. Because if I could, I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to see him hurt very badly.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:18 PM PST on August 23 [!]”








Who would that be? Kind of a Catch-22 to eschew assassination but offer $ to do violence.


I have the means, but I cannot imagine doing harm to anyone for money. Even a LOT of money. The Churchill anecdote comes to mind:
(short version)
Churchill asked a woman if she would sleep with someone for 1 million pounds. She said she would. He asked if she would sleep with someone for 1 pound. She gasped “No! Of course not, what do you think I am?”
He said: “We’ve established what you are we’re just negotiating a price.”

Not a derail. Robertson has established what he is with this ‘let’s you go and kill Chavez’ crap, and PP too (fuck him) with his ‘I wouldn’t lose any sleep’ or ‘call’ for assassination.
Sorry fuckers, you want someone clipped you go do it your damn self. But it won’t happen.

Not only because they lack the guts, but because they’re thought it based not on principle but on the confederacy of paradigms they’ve chosen to idolize. Often this includes a religeon or political party.

But reasoning by affiliation is more than specious, it's a betrayal of principle. And of course, what someone may then say is forever suspect since it's not based on anything but expediancy. It’s an abomination, in the truest sense because you are in a way possessed. Not thinking for yourself.

And of course there are many folks suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on August 23, 2005

But the BBC has become a bastion of lefties (at least somewhat). They perpetually side with the Palestinians, so why wouldn't they LOVE Chavez?

Dude, the rest of the world sides with the Palastinians.

You keep wondering why the other people smell funny; they don't understand why you won't take a bath.
posted by cytherea at 5:36 PM on August 23, 2005

how long can a social welfare state be maintained?

wealth is becoming progressively less absolute/external to human culture, ie, less and less resource-based. I suspect that this is what makes socialist democracy possible in human culture in the first place, and that the less resource-based human wealth becomes, the greater the advantage social democracies will have over opportunistic or free market models of organizing society.

The less tangible wealth becomes, the greater the difficulty & cost of enforcing the divides which fuel opportunism. You can currently buy for about the cost of a high end luxury car a 3D printer which is capable of manufacturing most of the everyday objects in your life.

That's the beginning of the end of capitalism.

Once such devices become ubiquitous you'll have to choose between the police state necessary to enforce "intellectual property" & restrictions on who can make what; and socialism or some form of society where wealth distribution is flat enough to minimize people's propensity for opportunism.
posted by lastobelus at 5:36 PM on August 23, 2005

"Pragmatically, both actually practicing political murder and a prominent public figure calling for it are just plain STUPID things to do in an interconnected world. "
Et. Al.
Good lord, I keep forgeting there are smart, pragmatic, well-informed people here.


tkchrist - agreed on Glocks. But they’re good in extreme cold.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:40 PM on August 23, 2005

and punctuating such declarations with little jabs of the loaded Glock in your direction, how that might affect your opinion of this guy?

That is one of the most fucked up things I have seen on the internets - other than thet guy who fucked to death by that horse.

My second comment is... exactly how much you talking about... um, for arguments sake?
posted by tkchrist at 5:46 PM on August 23, 2005

I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to see him hurt very badly

UGH! I meant to quote this! I blew a perfectly good joke. DAMIN IT! As you can see I had too much free time today.

And Smed. As always. You are in the frigg'n Zone buddy! I don't know what I'd do without you and Heywood. Awesome.

And Paris. Turn off the computer. Your mamma's calling you for supper. Now don't "Aw shucks" me. I can hear her plain as day. Skoot. Skeedaddle. Let the grown-ups talk.
posted by tkchrist at 5:54 PM on August 23, 2005

It is ever so much a shame that one can get away with calling for the murder of a political figure, but can not be sure of getting away with offering $500 to see a specific user harmed. Because if I could, I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to see him hurt very badly.

Is this appropriate for Metafilter? I think the fish should get some time off for this.
posted by caddis at 5:54 PM on August 23, 2005

Have been lurking over past two days as I watch all of the tortured analysis being thrown around with little headway being made in defining Pat Robertson's dumbfuck comments. I mean what a total asshole and worse yet, what a total loser in the art of war that he demosntrates himself to be.

Execute Hugo Chavez? Of course he should be. But for god sakes, why would an public figure come out and say that to the press!!?? This ain't the way you wage war against one's enemies !(and yes, he is undoubtedly our enemy)

Just slip the hounds of war on Mr. Chavez. Quietly. And be done with it. Thes freakin' born again christians just don't get it. Too caught up in being macho for their repressed christian wives. Any good atheist knows you just off the fucker quietly and with as little ripple in the pond as possible. Keep it simple stupid....

Z
posted by zagszman at 6:00 PM on August 23, 2005

ny good atheist knows you just off the fucker quietly and with as little ripple in the pond as possible.

A steady hand clasping a silenced Steyr M-series 9mm, cloaked in shadow, slowly emerges from behind the bedroom door with the poster of Steven Segal on it.

A seated figure, obese and unwashed, typing furiously at his Dell, is unwitting to the danger behind him. He chuckles, pleased with himself over the use of the words "butt" and "head" in the same sentence, as he reaches for his Mountain Dew. And then...

[ SOUND EFFECT: Silencer] PA-FFFFT!

CLOSE UP: Brains splatter on monitor.

VOICE OVER: ...And with that final irony zagszman posts to Me-Fi no more.
posted by tkchrist at 6:13 PM on August 23, 2005 [1 favorite]

lastobelus writes 'You can currently buy for about the cost of a high end luxury car a 3D printer which is capable of manufacturing most of the everyday objects in your life. '

Seriously? Link, please?
posted by signal at 6:16 PM on August 23, 2005

MeTa
posted by caddis at 6:17 PM on August 23, 2005

the sad/ironic part of of these ignorant statements by robertson is that they will be yet another excuse for extremists in venezuala/south america/world wide to kill more americans -
posted by specialk420 at 7:28 PM on August 23, 2005

When all else fails, resort to shameless commerce. My boyfriend designed Assassinate Pat t-shirts...

Turning on the Sarcasmotron(tm) has become our default means of dealing with this obscene bullshit.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:14 PM on August 23, 2005

lastobelus wrote:

You designed the bomb first. You're the only ones who've ever used them.

Of course, we had the help of Albert Einstein, who warned President Roosevelt that the Germans were researching nuclear fission for weapons, and the help of several Germans who came to the U.S. prior to 1939.

Had the Germans been serious about it, you can be sure that London and Moscow would have both gone up in smoke. Would that have somehow been better?

/derail
posted by spirit72 at 8:20 PM on August 23, 2005

very good, bitter : >
posted by amberglow at 8:31 PM on August 23, 2005

Why thank you, amberglow. My idea, boyfriend's design. Did I mention that all proceeds will go to fund building a Twin Peaks-themed bar in our basement, where we can drink........TO FORGET!
posted by bitter-girl.com at 8:38 PM on August 23, 2005

Just out of curiosity, does Bush condemn "Islamic fundamentalism" or religious fundamentalism generally? Something tells me it's the former, but do correct me if I'm wrong.
posted by dreamsign at 8:42 PM on August 23, 2005

Hugo Chavez had the best possible answer:

"I don't know who that person is," he said. "As far as his opinion of me goes, I couldn't care less."

Exactly how this lunatic fucker of Robertson should be treated.
posted by NewBornHippy at 9:56 PM on August 23, 2005

Eh, what the hell, here's some gas.
posted by 517 at 10:01 PM on August 23, 2005

Hitler was democratically elected. Mob peasant rule is not a virtue. He's a looney [Chavez?].

If you believe Iraqi democracy exists (or will exist), you have only two logical possibilities:

(1) Iraqi democracy is mob peasant rule.

(2) Iraqi democracy is not mob peasant rule.

If you believe (1), you have to explain why we wasted so much money and soldiers to promote "mob peasant rule." If you believe (2), you have to explain how an Iraqi majoritarian state that is currently experiencing a quasi-civil war between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds is a better "democracy" than Venezuela. Somehow, I'm not convinced either argument is doable.
posted by jonp72 at 11:14 PM on August 23, 2005

Some much pseudo-analysis. Chavez is a lunatic who would best be met with a bullet--end of story. He isn't lifting his country out of poverty (economic, intellectual, or otherwise) any more than Castro is; it's just that he takes our oil money to gain a louder megaphone.

So are you advocating that we should stop buying oil from authoritarians? I'm guessing that somehow the Saudi Royal Family would not be included in this boycott. And yes, he actually IS lifting his country out of poverty since the POOR are better off under him than they were before.

Cleardawn I only call for the assassination of known murders: Hamas leaders; Yassar Arafat, unfortunately, just died--not poetic justice. I just think Chavez is a disgrace, and I would not bother mourning his passing.

By that same reasoning you could call for the murder of Sharon and Bush. One person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Sorry, no intention to stop articulating a non-extremist, non-left view here on Metafilter--hey, that's what they pay me for...just kidding.

Do you honestly think your views are mainstream centrist? Are you serious? And they say it's the lefties that use all of the drugs.

By the way, if you read Robertson's remarks, he proposed assassination in the context of/as an alternative to a war. That doesn't make Robertson any less a evangelical looney, but it does make his remark more reasonable.

Except there's really no reason to go to war with Venezuela. There's no humanitarian reason, they don't have any terrorist training programs, no nuclear/biological weaponry.... so what's the context, that he doesn't send money to Republicans? Or is it simply because they're sitting a lot of sweet, sweet oil?

Just as the Japanese Emperor's regime was the proximate cause of the atomic bombings, I don't think President Bush has been the proximate cause (legal / moral / ethical) of anyone in Iraq. Saddam and his regime; and Osama and his followers are to blame for the death of every single civilian and soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq. To think otherwise makes you (one) a pacifist of the highest (lowest?) order.

And being a fearmongering chickenhawk is so much better than being a pacifist, obviously. Bush and his regime WAS a primary cause of the current Iraq war/occupation. You can argue that Saddam was a bad guy all you want, and I won't disagree, but Iraq did not declare war on America. Iraq did not bomb America. Iraq was easily contained by the near constant bombing and embargo that America and her allies placed on it. So he built palaces instead of feeding and taking care of his people. Honestly, you of all people should applaud that kind of behaviour, it smacks uniquely of capitalist self-interest, no?

If there was war with Venezuela, it wouldn't be waged by the US directly, unless, perhaps Al Qaeda set up a training base there. Chavez's talk and military is scaring Columbia and the whole region.

Oh yeah, I just love a good ol' proxy war. Korea was good, Vietnam was AWESOME, and even thinking about Afghanistan just gives me the vapors since that turned out so amazingly well. I wonder if OBL ever wrote a thank you card to us for all the training and funding. You really have no sense of history.

Chavez is a demagogue, plain and simple. He is trading on the poverty and anger of Venezuela's peasants. Most of whom would move to New Jersey in 12 seconds if they could....

Do they know about Newark? Anyway, so what if he is popular by helping the poor of his country? Since he hasn't started to round up all the middle and upper class and shipping them off to concentration camps and confiscating all of their wealth, I'm failing to see the problem. And, incidentally, if the poor is the majority of his country, and he is a democratically elected official, is he not obligated to deal with their concerns? Or are you unclear of the nature of democracy? Besides, in America we capitalize on the irrational fear of terrorism in politics every single day, but I don't see you leading the charge for a more moderate stance on this.

But the BBC has become a bastion of lefties (at least somewhat). They perpetually side with the Palestinians, so why wouldn't they LOVE Chavez? I think his embracing of Castro is a far better indicator of his outlook than a BBC swoon.

Just to reiterate, any person or news outlet that says something that does not entirely align with your extremist viewpoint is automatically left-wing, liberal and wrong. I know selective relativism is all the rage in neo-con circles, but America really is to the right of the rest of the world's right wing, so by definition most opinions expressed abroad are going to be left of yours. And seriously, Chavez is obviously being targeted by America, so is Castro, are you really all that surprised that they have enough in common to be friendly? And speaking of assassinating South American leaders, considering how horribly the CIA have botched their (admitted!) attempts at neutralizing Castro, do you think they'd do a better job on Chavez? Hell, that makes me grudgingly respect the son of a bitch, and somewhat embarrassed by our foreign operatives.
posted by Talanvor at 11:55 PM on August 23, 2005

It is ever so much a shame that one can get away with calling for the murder of a political figure, but can not be sure of getting away with offering $500 to see a specific user harmed. Because if I could, I would -- and I am dead bloody serious about this -- offer that much to see him hurt very badly.

Really, that's just uncalled for.
posted by Talanvor at 11:57 PM on August 23, 2005

Eh, what the hell, here's some gas.

Why does this not surprise me? A self purported Christian leader using his privileged position to make money. Honestly the people who preach the loudest about their religion usually have other things in mind, in my experience.
posted by Talanvor at 12:00 AM on August 24, 2005

can i second the whole "paris, fuck you" thing? i mean, i know it's bandwagonesque and all, but... fuck that guy, right? or am i reading this whole site wrong?
posted by Hat Maui at 5:17 AM on August 24, 2005

If Chavez welcomes Osama to Caracas, I'm all for going in with the Marines and shooting the guy--that was, afterall, the premise of Robertson's remarks.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:26 AM on August 24, 2005

Oh, this is beautiful. Chavez is offering to sell discounted gas to poor communities in the US! I'm sure it's just rhetoric, but it so cuts to the heart of the matter of interfering in other countries' domestic politics, markets, and cultures. Hugo Chavez, or whoever advised him to put this out there, is a freaking genius. The best response to Robertson, EVER.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:32 AM on August 24, 2005

Chavez for President in 08? : >
posted by amberglow at 5:59 AM on August 24, 2005

"Chavez's talk and military is scaring Columbia and the whole region."
Scaring Columbia? When is Superman coming back, Bizarro?

Oh, and Loquax: As someone else mentioned above, some socialism is necessary for any economy to function (or at least avoid corporatism). I think the difference between you and I is simply that I'd prefer a little more than you would.
Aside from the ParisParamus Molotov brigade, I tend to think that most people really aren't separated by all that much politically...
posted by klangklangston at 6:48 AM on August 24, 2005

Oooh, I'm gassin' up at Citgo from now on!
posted by klangklangston at 6:50 AM on August 24, 2005

Oh, this is beautiful. Chavez is offering to sell discounted gas to poor communities in the US! I'm sure it's just rhetoric, but it so cuts to the heart of the matter of interfering in other countries' domestic politics, markets, and cultures. Hugo Chavez, or whoever advised him to put this out there, is a freaking genius. The best response to Robertson, EVER.

Maybe the anti-Rove? From what I can gather it's just rhetoric though, I mean, will they do a credit report on every person pulling up to the gas station? Hell people around here drive 5 miles to fill up for .02 less.

If Chavez welcomes Osama to Caracas, I'm all for going in with the Marines and shooting the guy--that was, afterall, the premise of Robertson's remarks.

So... you're in support of shooting OBL, or Chavez? I guess just both and let God sort them out, eh? Personally I'm still pissed OBL is walking around (or sitting on dialysis, whatever), but actually catching the guy would be, like, work and stuff. Of course you can't expect the guy who claimed that the Iraq WMD evidence is a slam dunk (or let Sept. 11 happen in the first place!) to be that quick on the ball in any event.
posted by Talanvor at 8:09 AM on August 24, 2005

klangklangston - thank you very much for the info and detail.
posted by jb at 11:25 AM on August 24, 2005

Post WWII reconstruction loans (though "loans" is a stretch since they were never paid back) from the US.

tkchrist: Canada has never borrowed money from the U.S. And I believe that our current national debt is smaller per person.

Social welfare isn't about how rich a country is. Elizabeth I established one of the world's first national social welfare systems in 1601. In the centuries before, many individual cities and communities had social welfare services and programs. This is in the middle ages and early modern periods, not exactly known for their over-production of commodities.

It doesn't matter how much money you have, it's about what your society decides to do with it.
posted by jb at 11:58 AM on August 24, 2005

the social democracies (which are pretty new in the scheme of things) give between double & quadruple (as percentage of GNP) what americans do in foreign aid.

Actually, I thought I had heard Canada is similarly low in terms of foreign aid, just about the same percentage of GDP as the U.S. And European countries are divided - some give much more, some similar to the U.S. and Canada.

Does anyone have numbers on this?
posted by jb at 12:11 PM on August 24, 2005

cannot believe the internet is a buzz from all this.
It's lame saying what PR can and cannot say, especially when you criticize him under free speech.

Lamer, finding it hypocritical to PR’s beliefs and thus saying WWJD as only Jesus knew. Adding, wwjd is a me me me tactic in most arguments these days.

Why I say all this, because I wonder why his words are heard for critiquing when the critics don’t like him.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:20 PM on August 24, 2005

Robertson sez was he was misinterpreted:

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time."

They could, for example, "take him out" to lunch... or even "take him out" to the ballgame. How, oh how could the media have gotten this so wrong? So terribly terribly wrong? Perhaps that he used the assassination in his immediately preceding sentence had something to do with it.
posted by psmealey at 12:30 PM on August 24, 2005

Foreign aid? There's every indication that too much is given; too muchto be absorbed and not significantly diverted to corrupt politicians.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:42 PM on August 24, 2005

will they do a credit report on every person pulling up to the gas station?

I'm sure someone could figure out a way. Say, issue a debit card to people who can show, maybe through an income tax report, that they support a family and have an income below a certain level. And allow that card to be used only by that person to buy a certain maximum amount of gas per month and only to fuel a certain car registered in that person's name. It would be a little bureaucratic, but any benefit system is (somewhat necessarily) bureaucratic.
posted by pracowity at 12:52 PM on August 24, 2005

Tomcat: Please make sense in the future. It will help me reply to you.
posted by klangklangston at 1:15 PM on August 24, 2005

Apology
posted by caddis at 1:34 PM on August 24, 2005

Unless Robertson apologizes for being a hypocritical idolatrous proponent of his perverted version of Christianity, I wouldn't accept it.
posted by psmealey at 1:48 PM on August 24, 2005

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement," he said in a written statement.
--from caddis' link. So 5 hours later, when he sees no one is buying his lie, his story changes? What a good role model.

Finally, tho, they put it into context: Controversial statements are not new to the 75-year-old Robertson.

He has suggested in the past that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children,
posted by amberglow at 2:04 PM on August 24, 2005

signal: Google Search for 3D Printer

They've actually come down a lot in price, starting at around 25K now.
posted by lastobelus at 2:10 PM on August 24, 2005

I think his embracing of Castro is a far better indicator of his outlook than a BBC swoon.

We all could learn a lot from Cuba. Like how to farm sustainably.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:45 PM on August 24, 2005

Robertson can't possibly compete with James Dobson - who has written about belt-whipping his miniature Daschshund.

Assasination is ugly, yes, but whipping little weiner dogs goes beyond the pale.
posted by troutfishing at 11:20 PM on August 24, 2005

Tomcat: Please make sense in the future. It will help me reply to you.
posted by klangklangston at 3:15 PM CST on August 24 [!]

Why do you feel the need to reply to me in the first place? I just made a statement why I thought this whole critique about PR was lame. Since it can be found all over the internet.
What could have been added to that? A lamer statement...
PS, it’s “thom”cat spike as in Thomas.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:45 AM on August 25, 2005

Robertson also told viewers of his "700 Club" television program that God had told him Bush would win re-election in a "blowout."

Ha ha...I never realized PR really thinks God speaks to him. False prophets show themselves by not being 100% correct whom PR seems to show here.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:01 AM on August 25, 2005

"Why I say all this, because I wonder why his words are heard for critiquing when the critics don’t like him."
Thomcat: That's where I didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
posted by klangklangston at 11:28 AM on August 25, 2005

First, if it had not been for the net, I would never hear PR mouth his lamer ideas. They’re frustrating, as hell hearing, which he now says was the inspiration behind this thread’s discussion. Yes, I could skip reading the posts, but it becomes hard when the net's most popular views are mainly these discussion. I have to thank metafilter for knowing about PR * cough*.

Also, PR is not a popular figure on the net, so why would folks bother listening to him? To find bad critique of him, since the good commentary will be excluded. This makes useless sense in the end, as it just more useless rhetoric being spewed.

Unfortunately at my home, MANY of my cable channels turn into the 700 Club during the early morning broadcasting. So if I fall asleep with the TV on and it happens to change to PR's station (only program that triggers this) - I don’t waste my time finding the TV remote control; I’ll just rip the cord out of the wall socket, silencing it for a better sleep.

I’ve tried listening to The 700 club just to hear why PR is off kilter like many say on the net while cleaning house. In the end, I'd rather bang my self-unconscious with the TV set than hear his sale pitches – this coming from a Christian.

So why would his critics want to listen to him, especially the non- Christians? Maybe, it’s God’s way of spreading his word.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:15 PM on August 25, 2005

millions of other people hang on his words, thomcat--it's important that we know what he's advocating. It's like Limbaugh, except worse, because Robertson puports to be a man of faith who God talks to, he says.
posted by amberglow at 5:19 PM on August 25, 2005

and welcome back--i missed you : >
posted by amberglow at 5:19 PM on August 25, 2005

"Muslims want to rule the world. They want to take over the whole world. That's their evil purpose ... Most of them are very harsh. There's no tenderness or love."

[Where do you get your information about the war?]

"The Bible and the 700 Club. I also listen to preachers who know what's going on. Pat Robertson."
-- Mary Fowler, 54, Oklahoma Housekeeper,
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on August 25, 2005

He may also have called for the stoning deaths of UFO watchers. [source suspect, at the least a bit wacky]
posted by caddis at 7:17 AM on August 26, 2005

...If Chavez really was a brutal, bloodthirsty tyrant, you'd expect Robertson would be supporting him -- given his track record of backing such dregs of humanity as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now back to being the Congo again) and Charles Taylor of Liberia. Considering how enormously useful Pat's death threat will be to Chavez politically, it doesn't seem completely nutty to wonder whether the same might be true here. Maybe the Reverend is long oil futures, or has his eye on some Venezuelan mining concessions he can disguise as a charitable relief operation.
But, since Chavez is not a dictator (although he does like to pal around with one) it's more likely that Robertson is short the Bolivarian Revolution, and is getting tired of sitting on a position that isn't even close to being in the money -- and might not be any time soon.
Maybe Pat thought he could shake something loose with a little fascist hatemongering ... But how Robertson's own interests fit into the picture is not clear. In this case Pat may be following his ideological obsessions, not his financial ones. He certainly isn't the first Southern ultraconservatives to show a sentimental weakness for Latin American-style fascism.
...
Robertson himself was a big supporter of -- and fundraiser for -- the Nicaraguan contras (i.e. the "good" terrorists.) back in Ollie North's salad days. One contra unit was so grateful it renamed itself the Pat Robertson Brigade. ... --billmon:Bring Me the Head of Hugo Chavez
posted by amberglow at 10:52 AM on August 27, 2005

Amberglow: You do know that seeking rational explanations for Pat Robertson's outbursts is like looking for concrete predictions out of telephone psychics, right? Robertson just kinda says whatever pops into his little skull, and has the microphone to make sure that it's heard.
posted by klangklangston at 10:58 AM on August 27, 2005

Come on. Many of us, most of us don't trust Robertson much, and I really think preachers shouldn't be meddling in foreign policy of this kind much, but it wasn't a flat call for his assasination (Chavez'). He said that if his government continued down the road it looks like it's going down, there might be a need to deal with Venezuela qua terrorist supporter, and that might require military action, and that taking out Chavez would be preferable.

Does anyone think that taking out Castro with a bullet might not be a good idea? At this point, he's not important enough, but it still might be a good idea. I don't think the jump to Chavez, if his regime continues, is that off the scale.

This is more about wanting to call Robertson a wacko than calling his statement wacky.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:05 AM on August 27, 2005

"Does anyone think that taking out Castro with a bullet might not be a good idea?"

Or stated another way, how many innocent people does one have to murder, imprison, and who knows what else, before assasination becomes a good idea? Is Chavez there? I don't know, but he's going down that road.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:44 AM on August 27, 2005

posted by caddis at 5:04 PM on August 27, 2005

Paris, now that communism is dead, stick a fork in it, I think we ought to normalize relations with Fidel, on the express condition that he improve human rights. I think he would do it, given the right olive branch. If he doesn't accept we are no worse off than where we are now, and he will be dead in a few years anyway. Bush would be the man to do this, kind of like Nixon going to China. Everything else about his presidency has been troubled, but this could help cement him a place in history.
posted by caddis at 5:12 PM on August 27, 2005

Caddis, you have a point about Castro, but I think the appropriate time to consider that is when the guy dies (he won't go into retirement--believe me); to do otherwise would be to reward, or forgive a horrible man. But Chavez, well, he shouldn't be set up to "prendre le relais" (take the baton) from Castro. Yes, I know that Venezuela isn't the oppressive place Cuba is...

it all just stinks, Chavez, and the recent wacky political past in Peru, and yes, even, the way the US has treated Latin America in the past.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:20 PM on August 27, 2005

Sorry, but it's not "thou shall not kill"; it's thou shall not murder. Once someone is responsible for murdering another, they are fair game.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:48 PM on August 27, 2005

I will grant you the biblical translation. However, I think going in and killing him would be tantamount to murder. What gives us the right to decide when he has killed too many of his own citizens? To us at least, he is not much more than a bellicose thorn in our side. Let him start sending terrorists to the US, or some other act of war directed against us and it might be different. Even then, assassination is pretty much frowned upon for reason of world stability. We just can't have a system where anyone can go assassinating the leader of another country just because they have political differences. It destabilizes the world.
posted by caddis at 7:24 PM on August 27, 2005

Once someone is responsible for murdering another, they are fair game.

And Chavez has murdered who? when? where?

He's the duly elected leader of his country, in an election less corrupt than ours. We have to befriend people before we invade or off them anyway--see Saddam, and Haiti, and Panama and...

Considering the fact that Venezuela is our 4th? biggest supplier of oil (the world's remaining oil that is) , i'd not be encouraging any kind of disorder there--the disorder in Iraq has hurt things enough, no? (or enriched certain folks, which may be the point all along--is oil at 70 a barrel now or 50 like it was pre-Iraq?)
posted by amberglow at 10:46 PM on August 27, 2005

"And Chavez has murdered who? when? where?"

No one. Not yet. And I don't think the US should do a thing yet (other than, perhaps, support anti-Chavez politics). But embracing Fidel Castro should put Chavez on a watch list, don't ya think?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:15 AM on August 28, 2005

But embracing Fidel Castro should put Chavez on a watch list, don't ya think?

Sure--if you put Rummy and every single Govt official who embraced Saddam on a watchlist too. And every single Govt. official who embraces dictators everywhere on a watchlist as well, including Bush.
posted by amberglow at 9:20 AM on August 28, 2005