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
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...
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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.
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.
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 (800) 759-0700 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
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."
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...
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
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
Subscribe
posted by cerebus19 at 8:55 PM on August 22, 2005