Pat Robertson Calls For Chavez To Die

[crazymf]

Kind of an extreme attempt to tie the two together. It didn't work for me, but ok, I get it.

[August1991]

The U.S. has tried to topple the democratically-elected Chavez once before, so the fact that ravings of a nutjob like Pat Robertson are endorsed by some is no surprise.

Trying to oust a democratically elected populist leader because they endanger the economic interests of the doemstic elite is par for the course.

When I read about Pat Robertson's remark, I wondered, "Is this for real?" Then, when I heard the quote (for "real"), I thought about Black Dog. (True story, BD. The Internet is a curious community of opinion.)

Don't get carried away. There is nothing good about Bin Laden and using him in the same context as Robertson gets my hackles up a bit. Bin Laden has a track record of killing people like your sister and brother, had they been at the WTC, 9/11.

Robertson is a mouthpiece and hasn't killed anybody. He's guilty only of making inflamed statements. I wonder if he'll be charged with making death threats under the criminal code?

Thank you CrazyMotherF for making the point I would have made. Pat Robertson never ordered and financed guys to learn how to fly passenger planes and crash them into big buildings, killing themselves and many other people. Pat Robertson just said something really, really stupid.

Well, Michael Moore says really, really stupid things sometimes. So does Noam Chomsky.

The great thing about the United States is that people can say stupid things.

Pat Robertson's ideas, freely expressed, will sink or swim. They're only words.

----

I don't take the rantings of people like Chavez and Castro personally but I can understand why some Americans might feel frustrated about what they hear. We Canadians get all the benefits of being American but we never have to assume any of the responsibilities.

[mirror]

Since when did Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky ever make anywhere near of the kind of statement that Pat Robertson did. For all we know Robertson who has a huge, including the US Administration, listening audience, has made those commnets before. As a matter of fact I think he has, and previously as well, there has been an attrempt on Chavez's life.

The only difference between bid Laden and Robertson is that bid Laden succeeded with his violent killing mission and Robertson has not yet succeeded. What a sick sick society they have down there in the US. The sooner Canada gets completely away from those monsters the better off all Canadians will be.

[crazymf]

We Canadians get all the benefits of being American but we never have to assume any of the responsibilities.

And the 'Hit the nail on the head' award goes to Auggie 91!!!!!!

[newbie]

Pat Robertson's ideas, freely expressed, will sink or swim.  They're only words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you get the big picture here. Bush makes policy based on Christian right rhetoric. Robertson, with Falwell, speak for the moral majority. "Only words" created the KKK, IRA, white supremecy movement, and ultimately al qaeda. Ironically, all based on religion. I'm not trying to incite fear, but rather demonstrate the seriousness of Roberton's statement. This goes far beyond freedom of speech, right up to inciting hatred and uttering threats. It is criminal activity as far as I'm concerned.

[moderateamericain]

The U.S. has tried to topple the democratically-elected Chavez once before, so the fact that ravings of a nutjob like Pat Robertson are endorsed by some is no surprise.

Trying to oust a democratically elected populist leader because they endanger the economic interests of the doemstic elite is par for the course.

When I read about Pat Robertson's remark, I wondered, "Is this for real?" Then, when I heard the quote (for "real"), I thought about Black Dog. (True story, BD. The Internet is a curious community of opinion.)

Don't get carried away. There is nothing good about Bin Laden and using him in the same context as Robertson gets my hackles up a bit. Bin Laden has a track record of killing people like your sister and brother, had they been at the WTC, 9/11.

Robertson is a mouthpiece and hasn't killed anybody. He's guilty only of making inflamed statements. I wonder if he'll be charged with making death threats under the criminal code?

Thank you CrazyMotherF for making the point I would have made. Pat Robertson never ordered and financed guys to learn how to fly passenger planes and crash them into big buildings, killing themselves and many other people. Pat Robertson just said something really, really stupid.

Well, Michael Moore says really, really stupid things sometimes. So does Noam Chomsky.

The great thing about the United States is that people can say stupid things.

Pat Robertson's ideas, freely expressed, will sink or swim. They're only words.

----

I don't take the rantings of people like Chavez and Castro personally but I can understand why some Americans might feel frustrated about what they hear. We Canadians get all the benefits of being American but we never have to assume any of the responsibilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sir, are an insult to canada, your near fanatical statments backed up by little to no proof only show that you need professional help for you extremist hatred of anything American.

[Black Dog]

No offense, but too bad. I'm simply pointing out, that to hold up Robertson as one who represents the views of Christians is as illogical as submitting that Osama Bin Laden represents the view of Muslims. To think that the majority of the "religious right" support the assassination of Chavez is beyond ridiculous. In fact, I would bet that there's a larger percentage of Muslims who support Osama Bin Laden. Any fool, is free to state their opinions. Robertson is a perfect example.

Except nobody said Robertson's views are repreentative of Christianity, but of a small sect of Christianity known as the religious right. Which makes the Robertson/bin Laden analogy more apt and, incidentally, is kinda what I've been saying all along.

[shoop]

Robertson truly is a joke. He says outrageous stuff all the time. The fact that his comments have gotten so much play really indicate how far Bush has slid in the eyes of the U.S. media.

[crazymf]

Pat Robertson's ideas, freely expressed, will sink or swim.  They're only words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you get the big picture here. Bush makes policy based on Christian right rhetoric. Robertson, with Falwell, speak for the moral majority. "Only words" created the KKK, IRA, white supremecy movement, and ultimately al qaeda. Ironically, all based on religion. I'm not trying to incite fear, but rather demonstrate the seriousness of Roberton's statement. This goes far beyond freedom of speech, right up to inciting hatred and uttering threats. It is criminal activity as far as I'm concerned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any whacko with a tv camera and station can call other whackos to arms. He who owns the media owns the country. It's scary to think what might build from that broadcast. Until it does though, they're just the ramblings of one guy.

[kimmy]

Except nobody said Robertson's views are repreentative of Christianity, but of a small sect of Christianity known as the religious right. Which makes the Robertson/bin Laden analogy more apt and, incidentally, is kinda what I've been saying all along.

I hope I'm not the only person who feels there's a difference between calling for an assassination, and actually, you know, killing thousands of people.

Others in the Christian right have disavowed Robertson's remarks.

New York Times

Some of Mr. Robertson's allies distanced themselves from his comments. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, released a statement saying Mr. Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law."

The Rev. Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.

"It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies," Mr. Cizik added.

Maybe when the US Christian right starts blowing up buildings instead of boycotting TV shows and writing angry letters, I'll start viewing them as being more like Al Qaeda. Until then, I'm just not feeling it.

I came across another article:

CBS News: Robertson prays for Supreme Court Shakeup

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg had cancer treatment, Justice John Paul Stevens was 83, and an unidentified third judge has a weak ticker... and Pat Robertson is praying for God to remind them that their time is short. It's not *quite* the same as asking for the CIA to pop somebody, but it's not that far off.

-kimmy

[August1991]

You sir, are an insult to canada, your near fanatical statments backed up by little to no proof only show that you need professional help for you extremist hatred of anything American.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Shady]

Except nobody said Robertson's views are repreentative of Christianity, but of a small sect of Christianity known as the religious right

Are you saying that Pat Robertson and "the religious right" are on par with Osama Bin Laden? And are you saying that "the religous right" support the idea of assassinating Chavez? How do you arrive at these conclusion?

[Black Dog]

Are you saying that Pat Robertson and "the religious right" are on par with Osama Bin Laden?

Inasmuch as their worldviews and belief systems are comprable, yes.

nd are you saying that "the religous right" support the idea of assassinating Chavez? How do you arrive at these conclusion?

It's difficult to say how the religious right as a whole fels about Chavez. But, given that segment's general support of an aggressive foreign policy devoted to maintaing America's primacy in the world, its not difficult to imagine them agreeing that any threat to the U.S. must be dealt with severely. That could, theoretically, include assisnation of foreign leaders. (Heck: the religious right is also strong in it support of Israel, a country that practices just such a policy).

[Shady]

(Heck: the religious right is also strong in it support of Israel, a country that practices just such a policy)

I would argue that strong support for Israel resides in many political persuasions. As for the assassination of "foreign leaders", I would also argue that leaders of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad) aren't considered foreign leaders. Just my opinion.

[Black Dog]

I would argue that strong support for Israel resides in many political persuasions. As for the assassination of "foreign leaders", I would also argue that leaders of terrorist organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad) aren't considered foreign leaders. Just my opinion.

Now you're just splitting hairs. None of your points override what I said.

[Argus]

The only difference between bid Laden and Robertson is that bid Laden succeeded with his violent killing mission and Robertson has not yet succeeded.

Well, nor tried.

[Argus]

The U.S. has tried to topple the democratically-elected Chavez once before, so the fact that ravings of a nutjob like Pat Robertson are endorsed by some is no surprise.

Trying to oust a democratically elected populist leader because they endanger the economic interests of the doemstic elite is par for the course.

When I read about Pat Robertson's remark, I wondered, "Is this for real?" Then, when I heard the quote (for "real"), I thought about Black Dog. (True story, BD. The Internet is a curious community of opinion.)

Don't get carried away. There is nothing good about Bin Laden and using him in the same context as Robertson gets my hackles up a bit. Bin Laden has a track record of killing people like your sister and brother, had they been at the WTC, 9/11.

Robertson is a mouthpiece and hasn't killed anybody. He's guilty only of making inflamed statements. I wonder if he'll be charged with making death threats under the criminal code?

Thank you CrazyMotherF for making the point I would have made. Pat Robertson never ordered and financed guys to learn how to fly passenger planes and crash them into big buildings, killing themselves and many other people. Pat Robertson just said something really, really stupid.

Well, Michael Moore says really, really stupid things sometimes. So does Noam Chomsky.

The great thing about the United States is that people can say stupid things.

Pat Robertson's ideas, freely expressed, will sink or swim. They're only words.

----

I don't take the rantings of people like Chavez and Castro personally but I can understand why some Americans might feel frustrated about what they hear. We Canadians get all the benefits of being American but we never have to assume any of the responsibilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sir, are an insult to canada, your near fanatical statments backed up by little to no proof only show that you need professional help for you extremist hatred of anything American.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm, who are you talking to and about what in particular?

[Toro]

August is anti-American?

[mirror]

Perhaps he meant me but I can assure him I am not anti-American, although I am not particularly fond of the current US Administration..

But hey, some of my favourite people live there.

[mirror]

Chávez taunts US with oil offer

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hit back vigorously at calls by an ally of President George Bush for his assassination by offering cheap petrol to the poor of the US at a time of soaring fuel prices.

In a typically robust response to remarks by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, Mr Chávez compared his detractors to the "rather mad dogs with rabies" from Cervantes' Don Quixote, and unveiled his plans to use Venezuela's energy reserves as a political tool.

"We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," he said.

Gotta like this little guy Chavez. He's a gutsy little fellow.

Robertson has made what I would call a momentous mistake that is going to cost Bush & his fundamentalist crowd big time. What in the world is Bush waiting for to charge Robertson with criminal hate behaviour?

[mirror]

I have been kinda wondering about this myself.

My American cousins, read this and weep about your country. Come on US you can do better than this. You have to get your act together somehow.

Why Pat Robertson isn’t treated as a terrorist?

America's fundamentalist carnival includes many fascinating acts. Pay your money, and you can watch preachers weeping and screaming, dismissing whole segments of humanity as evil, threatening murder, shaking down congregations for extra donations to named-after-themselves projects, or hitting people in the head to heal cancer. You will also see some monsters finally caught after years of molesting children or hear others advocating crimes against humanity such as using nuclear weapons.

Pat Robertson is one of the Christian Sideshow's longer-running acts, periodically adding some new nightmare to his grim repertoire. Oddly, Pat regards himself as a kind statesman-preacher, a latter-day boondocks version of Talleyrand, Talleyrand having started his remarkable and utterly unprincipled career as a Bishop. Pat regularly mixes the tax-free benefits of religion with the promotion of nasty politics. He has run for President, started quasi-religious organizations to promote his political ambitions, and freely offers his uninformed advice on national and world affairs.

Talleyrand had his various church properties and offices to support him in princely fashion while he worked at politics. Pat supports his public-minded work on resources gathered through one of America's greatest money-changer-in-the-temple careers. The fortune generated through decades of his appeals to unhappy, lonely people watching television gives him access to a genuine commercial empire, from so-called Christian broadcasting to oil refining.

A key difference between Talleyrand and Pat is that Talleyrand was frightfully clever and was a breathtaking success at politics. I put the difference, in part, down to style. Talleyrand in person might remind one of the late Archbishop Sheen, snapping and twirling his scarlet cape and watching his listeners with penetrating eyes - to all that would added something of Lord Byron's fascinating stench of corruption. Robertson has never quite escaped the Jesus-on-the-dashboard flavor of his early career. Pat is pure Super Duper Auto Parts, Aisle Six, smiling salesman for mud flaps and sequined sets of big dice, but with enough animal cunning to have risen to running every Aisle Six on the continent.

Pat recently announced on national television that America should murder the elected leader of another country, President Chavez of Venezuela. Previously Pat restricted himself to insulting the religion of a billion people, Islam, or insulting the victims of natural disasters in the United States. After a hurricane in which old men, women, and children died, Pat blamed the victims for their fate by claiming God was punishing America's immorality. His latest effort breaks new ground, being, by any meaningful definition, public advocacy of terror.

Why won't Pat Robertson be treated as a terrorist? Believe me, if you said what he said about any of America's current leaders, you would be arrested quickly under the Patriot Act and locked away. Why will Pat Robertson's broadcasting empire not be classified as an organization supporting terrorist activities? Perfectly legitimate organizations in other parts of the world have been declared outlaw in the United States for having less direct association with terrorist hate-speech. Several bloodthirsty-sounding Muslim clerics, completely unrepresentative of their faith, have been jailed recently for speech closely resembling Robertson's.

At the very least, Robertson should be charged under hate-speech laws. But such laws are weak in the United States, and many Americans fear the idea of hate-speech laws. So radio and television broadcasters continue spewing hate and dishonest claims in the exalted name of free speech.

[mirror]

from the Arizona Republic

Pat Robertson's fatwa is ironic

Aug. 25, 2005 12:00 AM

Timing truly is everything.

Just as soon as The Republic's Editorial Board, along with other similarly minded pundits, finishes chastising Muslims for alleged failure to speak out sufficiently against jihadist terrorism, we have the supreme mullah of the Republican Taliban, Pat Robertson, demanding the head of Hugo Chavez! Can it get any better than this?

Will the official spokespersons for Christianity condemn a fellow cleric? Or will they keep quiet about it, with the same silence of which they accuse official Islam?

Or, even better, will they applaud Robertson's fatwa, and call for yet another holy war, this time in our own hemisphere?

"Moral clarity." Ain't it grand? Onward Christian soldiers, marching off to war! - Lee Poole, Phoenix

[crazymf]

Robertson has made what I would call a momentous mistake that is going to cost Bush & his fundamentalist crowd big time. What in the world is Bush waiting for to charge Robertson with criminal hate behaviour?

A private citizen makes statements. At what point would a federal government step in?

Free speech?

[Technocrat]

Calling for someones death is hardly free speech. As the media owner of a chritian broadcasting network and a host of a tv show that reaches millions of people everyday, hardly qualifies one as a 'private citizen'. Especially when said comments were not made in private but on the public airwaves.

My question is where are the Media Regulators on this one??? Janet Jakson's boob is hardly as vile as calling for a national leader to be killed. Im sensing hipocracy or at least some supremely misplaced priorities.

boobehs = bad

death threats = acceptable?

seems kindof odd...

[Toro]

Chavez is a nutbar. If Bush had called his detractors "mad dogs with rabies", the Lefties would be salivating like crazy.

But he has a great idea. I'm all for it. Bring the cheap oil into America and help the poor. Set it up Hugo. We support you 100% on that one.