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.
"We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," he said.
I'm beginning to like this guy. He's exposing Pat Robertson as a whackjob and offering to alleviate the poor from the tax hikes on gas and subsidies that are driving prices up for Bush's buddies.
I wonder what would happen if some nut job went off and assassinated Chavez because of Robertson...
As Jon Stewart would say "aaawwkwaaard..."
Ever [i]seen[/i] Pat Robertson? He says stuff like this all the time like it's nothing... he'll be having a perfectly normal conversation with his wife on the show and then say something rediculously psychotic, as if it were totally reasonable.
A week or two ago they had prayer time to ask for more people on the SC to die.
Pat Robertson, on the other hand never heard of him befoer this gaffe. Don't like him.
Hopefully people will see the nut robertson for what he is: a nutcase. An extremist with terrorist tendencies.
Is this not an encitement to terrorism? atleast an incitement to commit a criminal act? Are there any legal obligations US senators have to meet regarding these things?
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pat Robertson, on the other hand never heard of him befoer this gaffe. Don't like him.
Hopefully people will see the nut robertson for what he is: a nutcase. An extremist with terrorist tendencies.
Is this not an encitement to terrorism? atleast an incitement to commit a criminal act? Are there any legal obligations US senators have to meet regarding these things?
I'm surprised you've never heard of him before - I know I have ranted against him a couple times on the forum before.
As a private citizen he has complete and total protection of the right to speak freely - and he did retrack his comments - if he were a public official he would have to answer to an ethics board, would probably lose his seat and might face criminal extridition - the latter part is dependent upon the circumstances in which he said it.
Pat Robertson is no public official though - he is a preacher, one of the fundamentalists we so often compare muslim fundamentalists to - indeed it was these people we who perverted fundamentalism into an insult that we first used the term for.
He has a wide following and a great deal of influence through the Christian Coalition, however he does not have the legitimacy of our greater (more erudite and... calm) preachers like Billy Graham and his son - two really good men.
You have your nuts... we have ours - this is one of them.
I truly hope others in the CC will seek to push him out after this latest demonstration of his careless disregard for what he says, and his obtuse and saggesic interpretation of scripture.
As for whether this is considered a criminal threat (we have no laws regarding enticing someone into a crime) it's hard to say. He was suggesting the government "take out" chavez as a matter of foreign policy, which has different implications.
Not sure what to make of it really - more than anything I hope this strips him of his legitimacy.
The tragic part is I never once doubted his faith... he is just way off course.
I do not like to use the word fundamentalist as a derogatory term though... As it means following the fundamentals of our faiths, which we should. These idiots also do alot of damage to our vocabulary!
—
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I do not like to use the word fundamentalist as a derogatory term though... As it means following the fundamentals of our faiths, which we should. These idiots also do alot of damage to our vocabulary!
I like it even less since I am one. The fundamentalist movement started in the 1940s under billy graham as an effort to eliminate human doctrine which had accumulated over the previous centuries of protestantism. Over the years it became interwoven into the republican party and became moldable - now the original movement has turned into "credit card christianity" where everybody is forgiven for everything and therefore nobody cares if they sin as long as they are a "good person"
Meanwhile the other part went way off into militant nationalism. Basically it uses religion as justification for all military ventures.
Democracy and God are the same thing to them.
So basically [i]they[/i] (the fundamentalists) turned it into a bad thing.
There are obvious parallels to people like bin Laden who use religion as an excuse for a new kind of arab nationalism - and since we were unfamiliar with the phenomenon in the early 90s we just transfered terms.
True fundamentalism is pretty much dead - even billy graham has started to lean in the jerry falwal "it's all good" direction.
Of course I still respect him - he is a great teacher and retains many of his fundamentalist roots.
Submitted by Beast on 5 September, 2005 - 10:52 #9
Chavez will make Venzuela a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Moslem extremism all over South America?!?!
I wonder if any of these evangelists will be banned from this country soon for 'incitement to racial hatred'.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18b.htm
lol that's Pat Robertson - the same guy who prayed for more people to die on the Supreme Court.
[size=18]Chávez taunts US with oil offer[/size]
[b]Venezuelan president hits back at assassination remarks with offer of cheap petroleum for poor Americans[/b]
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,12716,1555970,00.html]The Guardian[/url]
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.
I'm beginning to like this guy. He's exposing Pat Robertson as a whackjob and offering to alleviate the poor from the tax hikes on gas and subsidies that are driving prices up for Bush's buddies.
I wonder what would happen if some nut job went off and assassinated Chavez because of Robertson...
As Jon Stewart would say "aaawwkwaaard..."
Ever [i]seen[/i] Pat Robertson? He says stuff like this all the time like it's nothing... he'll be having a perfectly normal conversation with his wife on the show and then say something rediculously psychotic, as if it were totally reasonable.
A week or two ago they had prayer time to ask for more people on the SC to die.
I like chavez from what I heard of him.
Pat Robertson, on the other hand never heard of him befoer this gaffe. Don't like him.
Hopefully people will see the nut robertson for what he is: a nutcase. An extremist with terrorist tendencies.
Is this not an encitement to terrorism? atleast an incitement to commit a criminal act? Are there any legal obligations US senators have to meet regarding these things?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I'm surprised you've never heard of him before - I know I have ranted against him a couple times on the forum before.
As a private citizen he has complete and total protection of the right to speak freely - and he did retrack his comments - if he were a public official he would have to answer to an ethics board, would probably lose his seat and might face criminal extridition - the latter part is dependent upon the circumstances in which he said it.
Pat Robertson is no public official though - he is a preacher, one of the fundamentalists we so often compare muslim fundamentalists to - indeed it was these people we who perverted fundamentalism into an insult that we first used the term for.
He has a wide following and a great deal of influence through the Christian Coalition, however he does not have the legitimacy of our greater (more erudite and... calm) preachers like Billy Graham and his son - two really good men.
You have your nuts... we have ours - this is one of them.
I truly hope others in the CC will seek to push him out after this latest demonstration of his careless disregard for what he says, and his obtuse and saggesic interpretation of scripture.
As for whether this is considered a criminal threat (we have no laws regarding enticing someone into a crime) it's hard to say. He was suggesting the government "take out" chavez as a matter of foreign policy, which has different implications.
Not sure what to make of it really - more than anything I hope this strips him of his legitimacy.
The tragic part is I never once doubted his faith... he is just way off course.
Ah! I should pay more attention!
(Oops I thought he was a senator!)
I do not like to use the word fundamentalist as a derogatory term though... As it means following the fundamentals of our faiths, which we should. These idiots also do alot of damage to our vocabulary!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I like it even less since I am one. The fundamentalist movement started in the 1940s under billy graham as an effort to eliminate human doctrine which had accumulated over the previous centuries of protestantism. Over the years it became interwoven into the republican party and became moldable - now the original movement has turned into "credit card christianity" where everybody is forgiven for everything and therefore nobody cares if they sin as long as they are a "good person"
Meanwhile the other part went way off into militant nationalism. Basically it uses religion as justification for all military ventures.
Democracy and God are the same thing to them.
So basically [i]they[/i] (the fundamentalists) turned it into a bad thing.
There are obvious parallels to people like bin Laden who use religion as an excuse for a new kind of arab nationalism - and since we were unfamiliar with the phenomenon in the early 90s we just transfered terms.
True fundamentalism is pretty much dead - even billy graham has started to lean in the jerry falwal "it's all good" direction.
Of course I still respect him - he is a great teacher and retains many of his fundamentalist roots.
[img]http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9190/horsey2xa.gif[/img]
hahahha
that's like what my pastor said "Dave, he's the classic false prophet"
I like how even the Roman is lookin at him like hes a crackpot