In case you didn’t hear Pat Roberton’s moronic comments about Hugo Chavez:
You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … 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. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.
Excuse me? We can pick and choose which doctrines we’re going to use to justify our actions? That sounds an awful lot like RELATIVISM.
And exactly which doctrine says we can oust foreign leaders if we’re not getting our fix of oil?
I’m coining a new term in the war of semantics, Pat Robertson is a “pick and choose absolutist.”
Once again, pick and choose absolutist. Use it around at least five of your progressive friends today.
Why just around progressive friends? I hope you aren’t suggesting most conservatives fall in line with Pat Robertson!
BTW, is “progressive” being used by some in place of “liberal” now? I hope I’m not stumbling into a touchy subject. I’ve only lately learned what “neo-con” and “dominionist” mean so I want to keep up.
To every one in Washingtons credit they’re all running a mile from this stinker. Takes a lot.I cynical enough to believe that Marian’s, sorry Pat’s beef with Chavez could probably be easily solved — offer Boss Hog a chance to make money in Venezuela. He does have quite a few runs on the board as far as business dealings with nasty regimes is concerned.(Don’t know why I just used a cricketing expression with you guys, but there you go anyway.)
“Diamond” Pat Robertson might be careful what he wishes for. The Chavez regime might very well ship someone up to Virginia Beach to assassinate him.
(The Diamond reference is a reference to his collusion with the former dictator in Liberia. Aren’t these people wonderful?)
BTW, it’s obvious that he has his head in his nether regions. The Monroe Doctrine has no applicability here. The Monroe Doctrine was intended to keep Europe from meddling in central and south America (so that the US could have free rein to meddle, of course). Chavez was elected domestically. How would the Monroe Doctrine apply? This guy (Robertson) is an idiot. But we knew that.
ReasonAble at August 24, 2005 02:57 AM
BTW, is “progressive” being used by some in place of “liberal” now?
Apparently. But it should be recognized that “conservatives” aren’t really conservative. They are liberal. They run up huge deficits that are going to fall on the shoulders of members of the next generation, while passing out huge welfare checks to their buddies. And they pollute the environment in which they will have to live. That’s what passes for conservatism nowadays.
And they pollute the environment in which they will have to live.
I’m not sure what is “liberal” about that.
Ricardo at August 24, 2005 05:34 AM
It’s part of the revisiontist re-definition of the term “conservative”
I commented about Pat’s little call for murder on my blog too. I also linked to a quote from him from 2003 where he took the Bush Administration to task for asking the President of Liberia to step down. He said that we just can’t ask duly elected Presidents to step down. Apparently we can try to murder them though. Click on my blog link for the full story from 2003.
grantdale said: “To every one in Washingtons credit they’re all running a mile from this stinker. Takes a lot.”
I don’t know if that’s to their credit. They should be running TO him—with handcuffs and an arrest warrant. I’m pretty sure calling for the assassination violates The Patriot Act in some way….
Robertson has monetary investment in Nigerian oil. He’s got his little pinkies in all kinds of profit making enterprises and has the ability to lobby our government to protect his own.
He’s a capitalist and has been enriched for it, virtually tax free because of his ‘church’ status.
A Communist like Chavez is a danger to such financial interests Robertson already has, or what he yet might make.
Henry Ford, although a huge influence on industry and mass production in the US, was a horror of an Anti Semite, and used his influence to ensure that Jews fleeing the Nazis couldn’t be given asylum here in the US.
And so were turned away to their deaths.
Pat Robertson and his ilk have shown their true colors before.
They are rich, and gaining influence and they like that power.
And wouldn’t give it up for anything or anyone.
I’m not surprised Robertson said it…
I just don’t think he’ll be the one who’ll pay for his statements, someone innocent will.
I’m almost hoping that an illegal alien gang member will take a pot at our President and nail him at least as badly as Reagan got nailed.
Maybe only then he’ll learn how pernicious and dangerous our border (among other things) situation is.
Our President has shown he can tolerate peace officers and American children being killed by foreign or locally born gang members.
Urban terrorists are just as evil as those in Iraq.
A single shooting incident in LA last night. Six people shot. From a car.
The war is here.
But he’s not listening to the soldiers in local police departments who know of what they speak.
Pat Robertson isn’t too concerned about this plague in our own backyard either for that matter.
Aparantly Robertson is now saying that “…if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.” could mean all sorts of things like, for example, kidnap.
Uhhh… no, Pat, it can’t.
Robertson can’t just come out and say “ooops, I was wrong. I’m sorry.” and instead has to spin.
But I guess if you’re OK with murder, you aren’t going to feel bad about lying over what you said.
Since this post turned into a political piece, I have to give some credit to Bill O’Reilly. He dedicated time this morning to pointing out that Robertson is an extremist and his views are nutty.
As a second example, he brought up the Falwell/Robertson statements after 9/11. He asked a caller “do you really think that 9/11 was caused by lebians and feminists?!?” I’m kinda glad that quote has legs.
And I’m glad that some conservatives are hearing from a person they respect that it is nutty and extremist to blame gays for all the problems of the world.