Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/23/2005 6:08:17 AM EDT
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/23/national/main791483.shtml

Televangelist: Take Chavez Out

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., Aug. 23, 2005



Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson preaches on Aug. 1, 2000. (AP)



[Robertson] has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

(AP) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"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," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."


Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device.

He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:13:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:14:09 AM EDT by Dolomite]
And let's not forget his ethereal musings on the root cause of the 9/11 attacks.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:14:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:16:29 AM EDT by Xtremhigh]
That can't be good for his ministry.

Pat's an asshat, but I agree with him on this issue.

ETA: I just re-read the last two lines of the story, PAT IS A FRICKIN LOON.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:15:10 AM EDT
I agree with Pat. Some people need killin. What's the problem?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:15:54 AM EDT
Chavez is an enemy of the US.

He is conspiring with our enemies.

He is doing almost the same stuff that Mugabe has done.

What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:17:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Chavez is an enemy of the US.

He is conspiring with our enemies.

He is doing almost the same stuff that Mugabe has done.

What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?



So the Ten Commandments say something like "Thou shalt not kill except if the guy has different political ideas." Is that correct?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:18:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Chavez is an enemy of the US.

He is conspiring with our enemies.

He is doing almost the same stuff that Mugabe has done.

What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?



WWJD?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:18:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?


Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:20:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?


Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?



Pat Robertson = Christian Mullah, if there ever was one.

Robertson makes Falwell look positively sane
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:20:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
So the Ten Commandments say something like "Thou shalt not kill except if the guy has different political ideas." Is that correct?



No.

The Bible condemns MURDER.

It does NOT condemn killing those who are conspiring with your enemies to do you grave bodily harm.

Ask any Chaplain in the Military.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:
WWJD?



"3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Romans 13

Chavez is practicing evil.

Time to execute some wrath.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
It does NOT condemn killing those who are conspiring with your enemies to do you grave bodily harm.


Like Cindy Sheehan?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:22:40 AM EDT
On several occassions God gave man the order and or the power to kill the enemy...so why is this any different?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:23:01 AM EDT
IF the leader is someone you would soon be at war with then by all means try and take them out if you think that will really change the direction of things. However just because you are opposed to him or he is opposed to you and you policies is not a license to kill them. I think a total proscription on assasination is absurd in the face of war, but using it to solve any and every policitical problem you encounter is just as absurd.

He's a little short of rational I think.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:23:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:23:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?



So now killing enemies of the US is terrorist action.

Goodie!

Tell all our soldiers in Iraq that.

See how far you get.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:23:37 AM EDT
+1, bubba.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:23:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
So the Ten Commandments say something like "Thou shalt not kill except if the guy has different political ideas." Is that correct?



No.

The Bible condemns MURDER.

It does NOT condemn killing those who are conspiring with your enemies to do you grave bodily harm.

Ask any Chaplain in the Military.



Even if they are conspiring to kill you...isn't it still murder? If not, then what?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:26:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ElCamino:
Pat Robertson = Christian Mullah, if there ever was one.



So let me get this straight:

Robertson endorses the idea of taking out the leader of Venezuela who is cozying up to Iran, sponsoring terrorists movements in an attempt to destabalize his neighbor states, declares that south America and the radical Islamist states should join together to stand against the United States....

And that makes Robertson a mullah?



Robertson makes Falwell look positively sane



Whatever.


Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:28:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By wolfman97:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/23/national/main791483.shtml

Televangelist: Take Chavez Out

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., Aug. 23, 2005



Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson preaches on Aug. 1, 2000. (AP)



[Robertson] has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

(AP) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"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," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."


Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device.

He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."



I have to agree with Robertson...but it would be cool if he said "SMITE" instead of kill.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:28:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:
Even if they are conspiring to kill you...isn't it still murder? If not, then what?



Are you serious?

Is it murder when a SWAT team kicks in the door and shoots a guy holding hostages?

Is it murder when our special forces folks in Afghanistan raid a cave and shoot the guys in there planning the next 9/11?

HARDLY.

The Bible condemns the taking of innocent life. It does NOT condemn defending your own life from someone who attacks you. The Bible says that "as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men".

There are just some men we cannot live in peace with.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:30:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Like Cindy Sheehan?



Comparing Sheehan and Chavez is either an attempt at inflamitory rhetoric by someone loosing the arguement, or is the product of someone too ignorant to be involved in an adult discussion in the first place.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:31:10 AM EDT
Pat is right about Chavez.
And he's right about feminism too.

Sorry if your too stupid to understand it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:33:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:35:32 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Like Cindy Sheehan?


Comparing Sheehan and Chavez is either an attempt at inflamitory rhetoric by someone loosing the arguement,

I'll give you that but at least I can spell!

or is the product of someone too ignorant to be involved in an adult discussion in the first place.

Oooh! Name calling? Who's 'loosing" what again?


Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?


So now killing enemies of the US is terrorist action.


Not even close to what I said and a rather hysterical attempt at a circumstantial Ad Hominem diversion on your part.

Do radical islamic clerics make impassioned pleas on TV for the destruction of certain political entities or do they not?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:33:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
IF the leader is someone you would soon be at war with then by all means try and take them out if you think that will really change the direction of things. However just because you are opposed to him or he is opposed to you and you policies is not a license to kill them. I think a total proscription on assasination is absurd in the face of war, but using it to solve any and every policitical problem you encounter is just as absurd.

He's a little short of rational I think.



Chavez is an ENEMY. Not because he disagrees with us.

He is an enemy because he wants to work with Iran on getting nuclear weapons. He is sponsoring and giving aid and comfort to terrorist organizations within his boarders. He is constantly making threats against the US.

That is why a little 7.62 magik is in order.

You stitch this mutt up before he can make good on any of those threats.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:36:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:43:08 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?



So now killing enemies of the US is terrorist action.

Goodie!

Tell all our soldiers in Iraq that.

See how far you get.



No - I think the problem is defining ANYONE you don't like as en "enemy" and then, viola! It's magically okay to kill them! Obviously, people that have demonstrably been involved in ATTACKS on the U.S. - such as Al Qeada, people we are fighting, like Iraqis, etc - are enemies.

I mean, who else is an "enemy" of the U.S. and should be killed?

If the E.U. wins in court in their suit against U.S. government subsidies of Boeing, does that make them an "enemy" of the U.S.? After all, it woudl cause "harm" to the U.S. Would it then be okay to assasinate EU commissioners?

Denmark has legal abortion, really emphasizes women's rights, and has all kind of socialized welfare policies. Kind of sounds like an "enemy" of good righteous people. Should the prime minister of Denmark maybe be assasinated?


OBVIOUSLY, these are silly examples - but they do illustrate my point, which is the danger of the worlds only superpower deciding that it's okay to kill anyone that is an "enemy" by a vague standard. It is a little too Orwellian, and the kind of self-serving policies that you expect from dictators and third-world countries, not the nation of law that the U.S. is.

As long as the defintion of "enemies" is very rigorous, honest and transparent - I don't have a problem with it. BUt the POTENTIAL for abuse is very high.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:41:35 AM EDT
Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson was born on March 22, 1930, in Lexington, Virginia, to A. Willis Robertson and Gladys Churchill Robertson. His father served for 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. Robertson's ancestry includes Benjamin Harrison, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and governor of Virginia, and two United States presidents, William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, the great-grandson of the signer of the Declaration of Independence. Robertson also shares ancestry with Winston Churchill.

After graduating with honors from McCallie School in Chattanooga, Tennessee, a military prep school, Robertson entered Washington and Lee University in 1946, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1948 he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. After graduating magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Washington and Lee in 1950, Robertson served as the assistant adjutant of the First Marine Division in combat in Korea. He was promoted to first lieutenant in 1952 upon his return to the United States. Robertson received a juris doctor degree from Yale University Law School in 1955 and a master of divinity degree from New York Theological Seminary in 1959.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:41:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Not even close to what I said and a rather hysterical attempt at a circumstantial Ad Hominem diversion on your part.

Do radical islamic clerics make impassioned pleas on TV for the destruction of certain political entities or do they not?



"Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!"

Ronald Reagan

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

The safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung.

Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to fight the wars. But now we all can find any nation, wherever it may dwell, between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with our Charter.

In a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist center. Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization."

Winston Churchill

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Declaration of Independence

Nice to know that America is based on Mullah-ism! The impassioned plea for the destruction of certain political entities!

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:44:13 AM EDT
if there's a hell, it has a special place for people like Robertson
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:45:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?



So now killing enemies of the US is terrorist action.

Goodie!

Tell all our soldiers in Iraq that.

See how far you get.



No - I think the problem is defining ANYONE you don't like as en "enemy" and then, viola! It's magically okay to kill them! Obviously, people that have demonstrably been involved in ATTACKS on the U.S. - such as Al Qeada, people we are fighting, like Iraqis, etc - are enemies.

I mean, who else is an "enemy" of the U.S. and should be killed?

If the E.U. wins in court in their suit against U.S. government subsidies of Boeing, does that make them an "enemy" of the U.S.? After all, it woudl cause "harm" to the U.S. Would it then be okay to assasinate EU commissioners?

Denmark has legal abortion, really emphasizes women's rights, and has all kind of socialized welfare policies. Kind of sounds like an "enemy" of good righteous people. Should the prime minister of Denmark maybe be assasinated?


OBVIOUSLY, these are silly examples - but they do illustrate my point, which is the danger of the worlds only superpower deciding that it's okay to kill anyone that is an "enemy" by a vague standard. It is a little too Orwellian, and the kind of self-serving policies that you expect from dictators and third-world countries, not the nation of law that the U.S. is.

As long as the defintion of "enemies" is very rigorous, honest and transparent - I don't have a problem with it. BUt the POTENTIAL for abuse is very high, and the implications quite Orwellian, IMO.



Are you serious???

What the bloody hell do you people think Chavez is if he is not an enemy?

Why did we declare war on Germany? After all, they didn't attack us. The Japanese did.

We declared war on them because they were allied to the enemy who attacked us. Chavez is cozying up to the forces in the world who want to do violent harm to US citizens and interests.

THAT makes him an ENEMY.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:47:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
He is an enemy because he wants to work with Iran on getting nuclear weapons.


So therefore one can only assume that the US also needs to assassinate Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin as well?

In your mind, is there possibly another way to deal with other countries besides the liberal dispensing of 7.62mm ‘magik’?

What happens at the McDonald's drive-thru when they get your order screwed up? Is the act of terror they created in the cab of the Lord's truck so great that some smoting needs to be done with a 1911?

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:49:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Chavez is an enemy of the US.

He is conspiring with our enemies.

He is doing almost the same stuff that Mugabe has done.

What is wrong with posing the idea that somebody ought to put a bullet in his head?



Well I think that way also, but then again I don't profess to being a 'Christian'.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:49:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
'Let no man despise thy youth', I think St. Paul once wrote.

Don't say or do something so entirely antithetical to the Teachings of Christ while you are posing as a Messenger of the Gospel of Christ.



Stopping someone who is a threat is not antithetical to the Christian message.




Drop the King James from your hands, and find another outlet for your thoughts...than Christian programming.



Who said Christians aren't supposed to discuss world affairs? We are not called to live OUT of the world, you know, but to live IN it.



Christianity and Its Message can thrive in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and in Chavez' Argentina very nicely.



Christians remain faithful even to death in many lands.

But I am of the opinion that it ought not be that way.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:52:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:53:26 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
So therefore one can only assume that the US also needs to assassinate Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin as well?



Putin is not making direct threats against the US.

Putin is not a few miles south of our border.

Putin is not harboring terrorists and running destabalization campaigns against his neighbors.



In your mind, is there possibly another way to deal with other countries besides the liberal dispensing of 7.62mm ‘magik’?



That is an utterly rediculous question.



What happens at the McDonald's drive-thru when they get your order screwed up? Is the act of terror they created in the cab of the Lord's truck so great that some smoting needs to be done with a 1911?

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)



Whatever you say.

Obviously I am some sort of blood thirsty mongrel who wants to kill everyone that disagrees with him. Kudos for spotting it and warning everyone!!!

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:53:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
'Let no man despise thy youth', I think St. Paul once wrote.

Don't say or do something so entirely antithetical to the Teachings of Christ while you are posing as a Messenger of the Gospel of Christ.



Stopping someone who is a threat is not antithetical to the Christian message.




Drop the King James from your hands, and find another outlet for your thoughts...than Christian programming.



Who said Christians aren't supposed to discuss world affairs? We are not called to live OUT of the world, you know, but to live IN it.



Christianity and Its Message can thrive in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and in Chavez' Argentina very nicely.



Christians remain faithful even to death in many lands.

But I am of the opinion that it ought not be that way.



What? You shouldn't stay faithful to the death? So Jesus should have wimped out on the cross and begged for his life?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:55:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:
What? You shouldn't stay faithful to the death? So Jesus should have wimped out on the cross and begged for his life?



That is not what I meant.

I meant that the conditions that make it necessary to choose life or Christ ought not exist.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:55:38 AM EDT
DkProf


It is not the wanton act of a country to take out an enabler of terrorist regimes. Just so you know, as apparently you fail to grasp this, Chavez is just that, a terror regime in the making.

He needs to get dead.

We need to do it.

The reason Europe is in the straits that it is in today is Euroweenie gutless thinking that you and others are proposing. It is that self same gutless whimpering and handwringing that gave the world Hitler.

Hope you guys enjoyed the German occupation.

Oh wait, no you didnt.

What do you say, wish a Danish agent would have slipped a dagger into Herr Hitlers guts? Whatcha' think? Sounds good, doesnt it?

Kill them, or overthrow them... save the 200 billion dollar taxpayer funded war.

Think about it.

Dram out

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:57:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

So therefore one can only assume that the US also needs to assassinate Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin as well?

In your mind, is there possibly another way to deal with other countries besides the liberal dispensing of 7.62mm ‘magik’?

What happens at the McDonald's drive-thru when they get your order screwed up? Is the act of terror they created in the cab of the Lord's truck so great that some smoting needs to be done with a 1911?

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)



Dolomite,
Your arguments are so ridiculous it really hurts your credibility on other subjects as well.

If you want a forum where such hyperbole will enhance your reputation, perhaps you should try comedy.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:58:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:
What? You shouldn't stay faithful to the death? So Jesus should have wimped out on the cross and begged for his life?



That is not what I meant.

I meant that the conditions that make it necessary to choose life or Christ ought not exist.



Agreed. But the world is a nasty place.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:58:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dramborleg:
Euroweenie


Oh man!

That one's going right into the old intraweb dictionary friggin' tout de suite!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:58:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
Dolomite,
Your arguments are so ridiculous it really hurts your credibility on other subjects as well.

If you want a forum where such hyperbole will enhance your reputation, perhaps you should try comedy.




Or DU.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:00:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

So therefore one can only assume that the US also needs to assassinate Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin as well?

In your mind, is there possibly another way to deal with other countries besides the liberal dispensing of 7.62mm ‘magik’?

What happens at the McDonald's drive-thru when they get your order screwed up? Is the act of terror they created in the cab of the Lord's truck so great that some smoting needs to be done with a 1911?

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)



Dolomite,
Your arguments are so ridiculous it really hurts your credibility on other subjects as well.

If you want a forum where such hyperbole will enhance your reputation, perhaps you should try comedy.




I think Dolomite has a good argument. And as far as I can see, he hasn't resorted to name calling.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:02:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:
I think Dolomite has a good argument. And as far as I can see, he hasn't resorted to name calling.



No, he hasn't directly called me a name.

But he did quote a scripture out of context and ask if I blow away the kid at a fast food joint that messes up my order.

Where I come from, we call that an insult.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:02:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:

Pat's an asshat, but I agree with him on this issue.




+1.

Are we ready for another Fidel Castro sitting upon our second-largest supply of oil?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:02:33 AM EDT
Did he say that on Aug 1, 2000?

If so (it does say so at the top), I think it is very misleading to mix it up with more recent statements, and play it as it just happened.

That's like finding Billary's term paper from college, and making it look like it was written yesterday. I still hate the woman (I only refer to her as a woman out of politeness), but don't play it off like it's new. It loses all credibility.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:03:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Maybe because that's how radical islamic clerics act?



So now killing enemies of the US is terrorist action.

Goodie!

Tell all our soldiers in Iraq that.

See how far you get.



No - I think the problem is defining ANYONE you don't like as en "enemy" and then, viola! It's magically okay to kill them! Obviously, people that have demonstrably been involved in ATTACKS on the U.S. - such as Al Qeada, people we are fighting, like Iraqis, etc - are enemies.

I mean, who else is an "enemy" of the U.S. and should be killed?

If the E.U. wins in court in their suit against U.S. government subsidies of Boeing, does that make them an "enemy" of the U.S.? After all, it woudl cause "harm" to the U.S. Would it then be okay to assasinate EU commissioners?

Denmark has legal abortion, really emphasizes women's rights, and has all kind of socialized welfare policies. Kind of sounds like an "enemy" of good righteous people. Should the prime minister of Denmark maybe be assasinated?


OBVIOUSLY, these are silly examples - but they do illustrate my point, which is the danger of the worlds only superpower deciding that it's okay to kill anyone that is an "enemy" by a vague standard. It is a little too Orwellian, and the kind of self-serving policies that you expect from dictators and third-world countries, not the nation of law that the U.S. is.

As long as the defintion of "enemies" is very rigorous, honest and transparent - I don't have a problem with it. BUt the POTENTIAL for abuse is very high, and the implications quite Orwellian, IMO.



Are you serious???

What the bloody hell do you people think Chavez is if he is not an enemy?

Why did we declare war on Germany? After all, they didn't attack us. The Japanese did.

We declared war on them because they were allied to the enemy who attacked us. Chavez is cozying up to the forces in the world who want to do violent harm to US citizens and interests.

THAT makes him an ENEMY.




My point is more general - and goes to the potential problems with the principle of calling for the death of anyone who is the "enemy" de jour.


I don't know enough SPECIFICALLY about Chavez to really make a judgment. I suppose Pat Robertson does, and has access to all sorts of unbiased evidence that "proves" (to some reasonable standard to evidence) that Chevez is indeed an enemy of the United States.

If NOT, he should not be publicly calling for his death.

Isn't Venezuela a LARGE source of oil for us? If Chevez really was such an enemy, why has he not turned off the oil tap? If he did it RIGHT NOW, he could probably plunge the U.S. into an economics depression that would hurt us as badly as 9/11. If he is an "enemy" that needs killing, then the standard seems quite low.


Let there be no doubt - he is definitely not a FRIEND of the United States. He uses a lot of anti-US rhetoric, and he is closely allied himself with Cuba. On the other hand, many people believe that the U.S. had a hand in the unsuccessful coup against him in 2002 - and he seems to genuinely fear U.S. involvement (like in Nicarague) or direct U.S. invasion.

However, I just do not see all this strong evidence of him harming or attacking the U.S. - or of providing funds to terrorists or others who have attacked the U.S.

My point is just that it seems DANGEROUSLY close to branding people we REALLY DON'T LIKE - as "enemies" and then its suddenly okay to kill them.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:03:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:

Pat's an asshat, but I agree with him on this issue.




+1.

Are we ready for another Fidel Castro sitting upon our second-largest supply of oil?



DING DING DING DING!!!

Somebody gets it.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:03:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 7:04:04 AM EDT by TacticalMan]

Originally Posted By Xtremhigh:

I think Dolomite has a good argument. And as far as I can see, he hasn't resorted to name calling.



That's a good one!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:03:58 AM EDT
Christian Extremism............
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:04:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 7:06:34 AM EDT by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
Dolomite,
Your arguments are so ridiculous it really hurts your credibility on other subjects as well.


Hu Jintao and Vladimir Putin both support Iran's nuclear program as does Hugo Chavez.

Do you honestly think that putting a bullet in Chavez will make them change their minds? Will their attitude towards the US become more or less affable?

When/if Chavez is assasinated (which is exactly the action Mr. Robertson is proposing to the masses via the big glass tit) - do you think the people of Venezuela will elect a leader that is more friendly or less friendly to the US?

Argue that.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:06:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jasba:
Christian Extremism............



Uh-oh.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top