Pat Robertson Calls For Chavez To Die

[B. Max]

If you can't understand the most basic of basics then i can't help you.

Nice dodge. Oh wait: I meant "pathetic". Again: "how does calling for the U.S. wihdrawl from Iraq constitute treason?"

Yes, you are patheticly naive. I've already told you and i won't tell you again.

(I also note you provided NO evidence to support your slur that the anti-war faction is "calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics")

With drawing in this case would be surrender. What else would it be. Where do you want to fight the terrorists. Main street amaerica.

And what's this? An artilce from NewsMax: seriously, do you have any sources other than this and WorldNet?

newsmax and WN are two of the best sources there is. No leftwing nonsense.

Oh and by the way, the polls I cited are by reputable, scientific pollsters such as Gallup and PEW research. Your online poll is unscientific, its results easily falsifiable and, quite frankly, worthless. I could single handedly bump the results the other way by voting, clearing my cookies, voting agains, clearing cookies, and so on...

No doubt that is exactly the way the left operates.

(what's even funnier, though is that the margin of the "poll" is so small!)

What other polls are saying:

Nine of 10 people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll say it’s OK for war opponents to publicly share their concerns about the conflict.

Bush approval rating continues to drop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sixty percent support the mission which is how you support the troops. If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops which is what the left is famous for. No surprise there. The left would leave iraq, then what. They can't answer that, because all it is about for them is hating bush for winning the election in the first place. They would rather side with the enemy. Traitors.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE

Nice dodge. Oh wait: I meant "pathetic". Again: "how does calling for the U.S. wihdrawl from Iraq constitute treason?"

Yes, you are patheticly naive. I've already told you and i won't tell you again.

No you haven't, actually. But whatever: I'm not really interested.

(I also note you provided NO evidence to support your slur that the anti-war faction is "calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics")

With drawing in this case would be surrender. What else would it be. Where do you want to fight the terrorists. Main street amaerica.

I suppose the fact that there are more "terrorists" in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam Hussein has escaped your notice?

besides, I thought the goal was to build a democracy in Iraq and bring freedom and such to Iraqis: how is that compatable with the flypaper strategy, given that strategy pretty much guarantees Iraq will remain unstable?

newsmax and WN are two of the best sources there is. No leftwing nonsense.

They're clearinghouses for GOP talking points, as reliable as unbiased as the World Socialist News or the Heritage Front.

No doubt that is exactly the way the left operates.

Funny that you'd claim that, given that the process I described is known as "freeping", which is derived from the right-wing discussion board Free Republic and the tendancy of its members to vote en masse in online polls with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome.

Sixty percent support the mission which is how you support the troops. If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops which is what the left is famous for.

False dichotomy. It is possible to support the troops and not support the mission, just as it's possible to support the mission and not support the troops (for example, by not putting enough of them in so as to make their job easier, or by denying them adequate body armour or cutting their medical benefits...)

The left would leave iraq, then what. They can't answer that, because all it is about for them is hating bush for winning the election in the first place. They would rather side with the enemy

Leaving Iarq would solve the problem of being in Iraq, would it not? I don't really see much point in continuing this discussion (such as it is), as it's clear you're not capable of producing anything original, interesting or even logical.

Traitors.

Time to get a new schtick.

[B. Max]

QUOTE

Nice dodge. Oh wait: I meant "pathetic". Again: "how does calling for the U.S. wihdrawl from Iraq constitute treason?"

Yes, you are patheticly naive. I've already told you and i won't tell you again.

No you haven't, actually. But whatever: I'm not really interested.

(I also note you provided NO evidence to support your slur that the anti-war faction is "calling for is for the US to surrender to the killer islamics")

With drawing in this case would be surrender. What else would it be. Where do you want to fight the terrorists. Main street amaerica.

I suppose the fact that there are more "terrorists" in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam Hussein has escaped your notice?

besides, I thought the goal was to build a democracy in Iraq and bring freedom and such to Iraqis: how is that compatable with the flypaper strategy, given that strategy pretty much guarantees Iraq will remain unstable?

newsmax and WN are two of the best sources there is. No leftwing nonsense.

They're clearinghouses for GOP talking points, as reliable as unbiased as the World Socialist News or the Heritage Front.

No doubt that is exactly the way the left operates.

Funny that you'd claim that, given that the process I described is known as "freeping", which is derived from the right-wing discussion board Free Republic and the tendancy of its members to vote en masse in online polls with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome.

Sixty percent support the mission which is how you support the troops. If you don't support the mission you don't support the troops which is what the left is famous for.

False dichotomy. It is possible to support the troops and not support the mission, just as it's possible to support the mission and not support the troops (for example, by not putting enough of them in so as to make their job easier, or by denying them adequate body armour or cutting their medical benefits...)

The left would leave iraq, then what. They can't answer that, because all it is about for them is hating bush for winning the election in the first place. They would rather side with the enemy

Leaving Iarq would solve the problem of being in Iraq, would it not? I don't really see much point in continuing this discussion (such as it is), as it's clear you're not capable of producing anything original, interesting or even logical.

Traitors.

Time to get a new schtick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If i were you i would get out too. You have spewed nothing but the usual appeasement nonsense.

Leaving iraq would solve nothing. It would however appease the islamic terrorists and undermine the war effort which is what treason is usually about and in this case is about. It would not end the war.

[Shady]

Leaving iraq would solve nothing. It would however appease the islamic terrorists and undermine the war effort

Well said. The biggest success the terrorists in Iraq have had, is with the mainstream media and the Left. In fact, they each use eachother's talking points. And then they wonder why their patriotism is questioned. Well, I say it's about damn time. I for one, am questioning their patriotism.

[Black Dog]

If i were you i would get out too. You have spewed nothing but the usual appeasement nonsense.

So you can't counter my points. no surprise there.

Leaving iraq would solve nothing. It would however appease the islamic terrorists and undermine the war effort which is what treason is usually about and in this case is about. It would not end the war.

Iraq is already in chaos, and the continued prescence of U.S. troops there isn't going to prevent the situation from getting worse. From a domestic political standpoint, the only thing the U.S has to look forward to is more casualties in a war that cannot be won. As far as any connection with the "war on terror", Iraq today is an incubator for terrorism. the U.S. intervention there was doomed from the start and will not make the west safer.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't really care if the U.S. withdraws or not. Perhaps another humbling defeat is necessary for America to reconsider its hegemonic aspirations and curb its rapacious appetite for resources.

Well said. The biggest success the terrorists in Iraq have had, is with the mainstream media and the Left. In fact, they each use eachother's talking points. And then they wonder why their patriotism is questioned. Well, I say it's about damn time. I for one, am questioning their patriotism.

I'm questioning the intelligence of anyone who can still back this venture. Even if the invasion was conceived with the best of intentions on the part of the U.S. (a dim possibility), only the most reality-impaired idealogues can look at the situation and see the whole operation was a clusterf**k from Day One.

Let me put it another way: every prediction made by the warmongers before the conflict has been proven wrong, from the prescence of WMD, to the welcoming of U.S. forces with open arms, to the ability to stave off sectarian violence and build a thriving, secular democracy. At this point, your crowd is batting .000.

[B. Max]

The fact is there was nothing to counter, just as your military assessments you have contributed nothing. I thought you were going to cut and run.

[Guest eureka]

Give him back his candy, Black Dog!

[newbie]

Um, remember Pat Robertson??

[Black Dog]

Um, remember Pat Robertson??

Oh yeah, that guy: what an assh**e.

[Shady]

I'm questioning the intelligence of anyone who can still back this venture. Even if the invasion was conceived with the best of intentions on the part of the U.S. (a dim possibility), only the most reality-impaired idealogues can look at the situation and see the whole operation was a clusterf**k from Day One.

Let me put it another way: every prediction made by the warmongers before the conflict has been proven wrong, from the prescence of WMD, to the welcoming of U.S. forces with open arms, to the ability to stave off sectarian violence and build a thriving, secular democracy. At this point, your crowd is batting .000

I think the biggest problem is with our society and it's poisonous demand for instant gratification. You're correct that in two years Iraq isn't yet a thriving secular democracy. You may question the intelligence of anyone who still backs this venture. I however, question anyone who thinks cutting and running is somehow a legitimate course of action. That which is difficult to achieve, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy and just goal. Leaving Iraq now would be about as irresponsible an action ever concieved. Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean by clusterf**k. Other then something one participates in, in a men's washroom. Maybe you could try and raise the level of discourse.

The fact is, U.S. forces were welcomed in Iraq. Yes, the Sunni population, the Nazi's of Iraq, didn't and haven't taken too well to their toppling of power and control over other populations. However, in the north and south, coalition forces are/were a welcomed sight. Just because I believe in the operation in Iraq, and just because I think it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave, doesn't mean I feel the war has be conducted perfectly. In fact, it's quite the opposite. But an immediate withdrawal is incomprehensibly stupid.

Oh yeah, that guy: what an assh**e

I agree. Although, that's also how I feel about people like Cindy Sheehan.

[Black Dog]

I think the biggest problem is with our society and it's poisonous demand for instant gratification. You're correct that in two years Iraq isn't yet a thriving secular democracy. You may question the intelligence of anyone who still backs this venture. I however, question anyone who thinks cutting and running is somehow a legitimate course of action.

Well, for one thing, it is a legitimate course of action. No one's saying it's a good option, but it's certainly no worse than "staying the course".

That which is difficult to achieve, doesn't mean it isn't a worthy and just goal.

For some one who goes on to talk about raising the level of discourse, perhaps you should consider dispensing with the bland, obvious platitudes.

Leaving Iraq now would be about as irresponsible an action ever concieved

Going into Iraq in the first place without a plan to win the peace was far more irresponsible. The current situation is a direct result of that lack of responsible planning.

Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean by clusterf**k. Other then something one participates in, in a men's washroom. Maybe you could try and raise the level of discourse.

"Clusterfuck" is a military term, like SNAFU, used to describe a disastrously unsuccessful collaborative effort.

But an immediate withdrawal is incomprehensibly stupid.

So what's your formula for success?

[Montgomery Burns]

Robertson is correct that Chavez should be taken out. But he was a fool for going public about something that would be covert.

[mirror]

MB

Do you know the "That 70s Show"?

I think you fit the bill for the father's favourite comment to describe his son and his son's friends.

The difference is that you actually believe Chavez should be killed and the author of the following article is appalled by the idea.

Quite honestly you sound like you have more than one screw loose. Seriously you might want to consider some psychological counseling.

Robertson neglected first rule in planning a murder -- don’t tell

[Montgomery Burns]

Mirror, Chavez is a dangerous communist. He is using his oil wealth to prop up Castro and promote communism in Central and South America.

Frankly, your support for him makes one conclude that you support this murderous ideology (no ideology killed more innocents during the 20th century than communism).

[Montgomery Burns]

Doesn't Pat Robertson know that only the "progressives" at Air America are allowed to call for the assassination of world leaders (they called for Bush's assassination twice)?

[Black Dog]

Doesn't Pat Robertson know that only the "progressives" at Air America are allowed to call for the assassination of world leaders (they called for Bush's assassination twice)?

prove it.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog:

I suppose the fact that there are more "terrorists" in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam Hussein has escaped your notice?

That was Bush's strategy. The Islamofascists are attracted to the US troops like moths to a lightbulb. They are now mostly all in one area; easier for the US to track 'em and whack 'em.

As the other poster perfectly summed it up; how naive of you.

They're clearinghouses for GOP talking points, as reliable as unbiased as the World Socialist News or the Heritage Front.

Hahaha. Ninety percent of Newsmax's news report come fom the AP. Sure their commentary tilts to the right; it is a conservative magazine.

Duh.

Funny that you'd claim that, given that the process I described is known as "freeping", which is derived from the right-wing discussion board Free Republic and the tendancy of its members to vote en masse in online polls with the intended goal of significantly affecting the final outcome.

[sarcasm]But the Kos Kidz and the DUers NEVER do that.[/sarcasm]

Leaving Iarq would solve the problem of being in Iraq, would it not? I don't really see much point in continuing this discussion (such as it is), as it's clear you're not capable of producing anything original, interesting or even logical.

Leaving Iraq too early would result in Iraq being overrun by Al Qaeda, and would be a huge win for Al Qaeda.

Illogical, indeed.

[Montgomery Burns]

Doesn't Pat Robertson know that only the "progressives" at Air America are allowed to call for the assassination of world leaders (they called for Bush's assassination twice)?

prove it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you capable of typing something like "air america bush's assassination" into Google's search engine?

You are?

Prove it.

[Black Dog]

Leaving Iraq too early would result in Iraq being overrun by Al Qaeda, and would be a huge win for Al Qaeda.

Illogical, indeed.

Wait, I thought Al Qaeda was destroyed in Afghanistan? Surely, then, it would be unable to accomplish a feat such as "overrunning" Iraq.

Are you capable of typing something like "air america bush's assassination" into Google's search engine?

Sure, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That means you. I'm not about to do your homwork for you.

[crazymf]

Sure, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That means you. I'm not about to do your homwork for you.

Didn't work when I said that to you a while back. Times change I guess. hehe

[Black Dog]

Sure, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That means you. I'm not about to do your homwork for you.

Didn't work when I said that to you a while back. Times change I guess. hehe

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Refresh my memory.

[Shady]

prove it

You don't remember? Some of them over at Dead Air America had to make formal public apologies.

[err]

Iraq is part of the war on terror, and iraq was up to its neck in terrorism, even having an Al-Qaeda  base in the north east that the kurds had repeatedly tried to get rid of. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers. The islamics started the war a long time ago that it is being fought in iraq is a matter of circumstances.

Al Queda attacked the WTC only after Cheney/Bush started to amass troops on Saudi soil, as a response to having their country's government (and hence Saudi citizens lives) controlled by the USA... There were no terrorists in Iraq until the USA, in their quest to control Iraq's OIL the USA made a mess of that country.

The only smear campain going on here is run by those that are with the terrorists and who are nothing short of traitors who sound be taken out and hanged.

And you have the nerve to call "commies" dangerous... Your moronic redneck remarks really show you for what you are..

Bush has done nothing to endanger the troops what soever.

or Iraqi civilians I suppose ???

Her son went there on his own, twice, because he new it was the right thing to do and she is siding with those that killed him. I spit on her.

Maybe you should spit into a fan, you insensnitive, unthinking low-life.

[err]

Hugo Chavez - A brief background.

Chavez was born into a poorer family. He is unpopular with the US administration due to his emergence as a leader of a movement of Third World countries, trying to challenge today's prevailing economic policies. For instance, he denounced Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). He proposed a counter-deal, that would allocate less power to corporations and retain more for sovereign governments. (He insisted that the FTAA would be a violation of the Venezuelan constitution.) Of course, Venezuela's elite have close ties to Washington and US-based corporations.

One of Chavez's greatest accomplishments was to clean up and take proper control of the corrupt nationalized oil company. Previously the financial gains of the company (PDVSA) were not making it back into the country's coffers, and trickling down to help the poorer citizens. Chavez changed that.

Venezuela does provide oil to Cuba, in exchange for Cuba sending doctors to Venezuela. Chavez is a champion of the poor, which is the majority of the population of the country. Chavez held a referendum, on re-writing the constitution of the country... and received 70 percent support. The new constitution provided strong protections for women's equality, rights for indigenous people, and a ban on the privatization of the nations oil.

On April 11, 2002, an armed faction took over the presidential palace in Caracas and took Chavez prisoner. When the public caught wind of this, they took to the streets. The coup had the support of the Bush administration. According to Chavez, "Washington applauded. The American ambassador (Charles Shapiro) came here to the palace and supported the coup". Only the next day, after Latin American leaders strongly condemned the coup, did US secretary of State, Colin Powell come out against it as well.

Evidence has since emerged that the US may have been involved in the coup.

[Toro]

Chavez is unpopular in the States because he has threatened nationalization of the oil industry - there are multinational oil companies in Venezuela besides PDVSA - and because he uses the language of exporting revolution. There have been a whole raft of left wing governments elected in South America, but Chavez is the only one who has received such attention from the US.

BTW, the US should not be meddling in Venezuela.