Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination Of Venezuelan President...

[Pearl Harbor]

Mr. Robertson, the Pope you are not. Shame on you. You display Christian ideals as much as a leper has a clear complexion.

PAT ROBERTSON - Founder and Chairman, The Christian Broadcasting Network

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death

Aug 22 11:06 PM US/Eastern



VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

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."

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 accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

"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."

[nvalleyvee]

Pat Robertson is an Ass hole of the very first degree.

[Tombstone]

Pearl Harbor wrote: Mr. Robertson, the Pope you are not. Shame on you. You display Christian ideals as much as a leper has a clear complexion.

PAT ROBERTSON - Founder and Chairman, The Christian Broadcasting Network

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death

Aug 22 11:06 PM US/Eastern



VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

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."

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 accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

"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."


Luckily, the pope he is not.

[Accountable]

Now Christians are issuing faquahs? that's faquah'd up! :yh_rotfl



I kill me! :yh_rotfl

[greydeadhead]

A perfect example of Ignoramus Assholyus Amerycanass....unfortunately, the media continues to give this species way to much attention when they makes statements like this before checking to make sure that thier brain is in gear before starting to run thier mouth....

[kmhowe72]

See what mean. Some of those so called christian are hypercrits. Pat robertson is among them now. The bible warns becareful of shepards in shemps clothing.

[kmhowe72]

I mean I don't even know who to believe anymore. The churches. some are just in it for the money. Otheres just want to control otheres.

[Adam Zapple]

unfortunately, the media continues to give this species way to much attention when they makes statements like this before checking to make sure that thier brain is in gear before starting to run thier mouth....




Very well said. However, the comparison to mullahs is still a silly one. Robertson is one man who is capable of saying stupid things. There are no fundies rallying in the street shooting weapons in the air and chanting "Death to Chavez". His comments have no effect at all other than to reap scorn upon himself. Robertson doesn't have that kind of influence over anyone because Americans are smart enough to think for themselves and Christians don't mindless follow "fatwahs" (as if there is such a thing in Christianity).

But keep an eye on Chavez.:yh_shame

[gmc]

http://www.patrobertson.com/Biography/index.asp

Even in far away UK I've heard of this nutter-thanks to the god channel and an ill considered attempt by the Bank of Scotland to use one of his media companies that caused outrage and lost them a lot of business. I have even seen him preach-it's like watching a car wreck horrible but fascinating at the same time.

I gather he has his own tv channel. Is he an obscure preacher or does he have a large following? Why would his comments receive any media attention?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/art ... ml?id=7721

TV religious spokesman Pat Robertson has the perfect right to say whatever he wants to say. He lives in America. Freedom of speech is permitted here. In fact, it is encouraged here.

Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi say whatever they want to say. John McCain and Hillary Clinton give forth. Cindy Sheehan is media covered 24 / 7. So that makes it the equal playing field in America.

Of course, the freedom-of-speech enthusiasts who make headlines could have a long list provided them. Nevertheless, the point is that Christian broadcaster Robertson has the outright right to state whatever convictions come to his mind.

And so when he says that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be assassinated, so be it. It may sound extreme to some. Yet again many remarks from Kennedy, Pelosi, McCain, Clinton and Sheehan sound extreme. However, the news feeds give them wide spread. And so the freedoms continue. Same with Robertson.

He gives his reasons. Not all agree with his reasons. So what? He makes his public statements. Not all line up with his public statements. So what?


Great stuff this, wonder what they would say about a mullah in the US calling for GW to be assasinated for his war on islam?



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 67,00.html

[greydeadhead]

One fundamentalist..howabout someone along the lines of William Rudolph who is now where he belongs.. behind bars....

Or even worse, a fundamentalist with a martyr attitude... be scared.. be very very scared....

[kmhowe72]

It was all over the news today. I think Pat robertson is a disgrace right now. To the word christian. anyway I don't like christian who think Harry Potter J .K Rowlings are evil. and burn their books. this why I stay out of Church. But I like farwell sometimes, but I think he is to much into politics and the thing with Harry potter I did not like so much. Then their is Billy Graham. And his son. well I think really good. I listen when ever they are on tv. or the telly as you Britts put it.

[telaquapacky]

greydeadhead wrote: One fundamentalist..howabout someone along the lines of William Rudolph who is now where he belongs.. behind bars....

Or even worse, a fundamentalist with a martyr attitude... be scared.. be very very scared....
Pat Robertson is a boot-licking toady to Satan himself. He is a traitor against Christ and against America. He and the other "Christian" right televangelists are succeeding at taking over the American government only because the right wing is careless about whom they will receive help from and whom they will owe favors to. One day they will come to very sorely regret this. So will we all.

You got it right, grey- except I don't think Mr. Robertson has a martyr attitude. He and his evil crew are looking to make martyrs out of those who disagree with them.

[Clint]

I watched Pat Robertson's TV show about 10 years ago. I was nauseated by him then and I still am. I don’t understand why he has an audience. He’s a cross between Benny Henn and Jerry Falwell. He deserves credit for one thing though…he knows how to make money.

I often bump heads with other Christians over TV preachers. They seem to start out with good intentions but the studio lights do something to their soul.

[Ted]

Pat Robertson has shown quite clearly what I thought some 50 years ago. This is the Christian Right. He does have a lot of influence. Now we will see how much.

Christian--he is not. He is a disgrace to the faith.

Why am I not surprised??

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Clint]

This is all I'm going to say in response to Ted. Ted is not God and cannot judge who is Christian and who is not.

[Ted]

Clint:-6

You are absolutely correct. I cannot judge. However, IMO Pat Robertson does not reflect the Jesus that I read about in the scriptures. He is so far right he'll not likely ever get centered again.

Shades of the extreme whether right or left. Bad lot that.

God will be his judge.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Adam Zapple]

This is the Christian Right.


Please criticize Robertson to your heart's content, he has put his head on the chopping block so to speak. PR is one man. He has influence to an extent but not when it comes to nutty things he says and not in the way you imagine. Congregations are not just sitting and waiting for guidance from PR. He may have some organization skills but he speaks only for PR. And I hardly see how this is the "Christian right". Do you know of anyone else that has called for the assassination of Chavez? Would you make the correlation that because Jose Conseco and Mark McGuire used steroids that all power hitters are drug users and cheaters? Oops, Mark Ensberg hit another homerun. That's powerhitters for you, all lying cheats and Nazis. They are hatemongers toward pitchers - pitcherphobes.

Clint is right. And as an evangelical Christian, I get tired of being called a terrorist and a Nazi because one person says something or because evengelical Christians may have a different viewpoint. It doesn't happen just on this board, it happens anywhere leftists reside. What happened to tolerance? What happened to diversity of thought? I'm not talking about PR, I'm talking about general characterizations of Christians as fascists murderers. Not only is it ridiculous, it is by today's PC code hate speech.

Please don't get the impression that I am trying to form Christians into a victim class, I hate that and won't do it. But it would help if arguments could be based on reason and fact rather than hysterical name-calling. Ted, the "Christian right" as a group has no formed opinion or platform regarding foreign policy toward Venezuala, therefore whatever PR says is his opinion solely. Secondly, PR is not the head of the Christian right, which when it comes down to it is nothing more than a euphamism for a voting block, nor an appointed spokesperson. He is a man who formed a political organization that had some success (just a moveon.org did). He is only a spokesperson for anybody in the sense that the media has made him one just as they have made Jesse Jackson a spokesperson for African-Americans. Asked any African-Americans lately if JJ is their leader and spokesperson?

Everyone on this board is entitled to their opinions and are free to express them. I haven't been here long but I have noticed some fine people who are deeply religious, some of them could be classified with the religious right based on their morals, beliefs, and opinions. Yet they have to come in here and be told that people who believe like them are no better than muslim terrorists and Nazis, are hate-filled, homophobes, etc etc. I may disagree with many of you but I wouldn't call you a terrorist unless you actually earned the title.

I know I've rambled long enough but I would like to bring out another example:

Nina Totenberg of PBS once said of Jesse Helms, "If there is any retributive justice, he will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it." Pretty hateful comment if you ask me. Does this comment indict Totenberg or all PBS listeners?

USA Today's Julianne Malveaux said this of Clarence Thomas, "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease." Who's indicted, Malveaux or USA Today readers.



The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, `We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, `This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger." Are all Democrats terrorists?

Alec Baldwin suggested on Conan O'Briens show, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, that Henry Hyde along with his wife and kids should be hauled out of their houses and stoned. Not much outrage followed this comment. Are all viewers of Alec Baldwin movies now to be considered killers?

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous this name-calling is? I could find more of these hateful comments from liberals just has you could find some hateful comments by conservatives. It's a tit for tat game. Ted, you once made the argument that Christians are terrorists because "they kill abortion doctors". I pointed out that 5 men have killed 8 abortion providers. You have forcefully made the argument that people like these are not Christian and I would agree with you. I'm not even sure you could make a link between these men and christianity. Of course, on the other hand you could make the point that atheists are murderers because they commit genocide. Stalin and Pol Pot are just two atheists alone that have murdered tens of millions of people. But to say that all atheists or even liberal atheists are murderers would be a ridiculous one, don't you think?

Please state your opinion and state is as forcefully as needed but I'm just asking that we keep a little perspective and realism. If you just have to compare all conservative christians with terrorists that is your right but please don't fancy yourself as tolerant or informed.

Now, back to Pat Robertson....(and please keep it to PR, he is the only one who made those comments).

[Ted]

Adam:-6

A good post. Actually I don't disagree with you. We ought not to paint all "Christians" ??? with the same brush.

But I would also add that we ought not to paint all Muslims with the same brush. I have often made the point that the problem is not the particular faith but the extremists on both the right and left. Extremism is the problem it is not Christianity or Islam or Hinduism etc.

That being said, when the likes of Robertson make such statements through the media they give those who are not as well informed as many of us are a very questionable name. It has negative influence.

For strength of point I did not include the term extremist. The problem is that a few or not so few give all a bad name. The question is how many folks on the right think like Robertson? Bush has enough problems without a friend causing and international diplomatic crisis. Being,. apparently, a friend of Bush now raises questions concerning him. Rightly or wrongly this has an influence on many people. Bush would do well, I think, to distance himself from this man, as quickly as possible.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Accountable]

Good points, Adam. Every one. I like that kind of rambling.

[greydeadhead]

Adam.. Ted...

Excellent points made in both of your posts. Actually they remind me of a conversation I had with my daughter immediatly after 9/11... she was a freshman in high school at the time and considering the mood of the country it showed amazing insight... "you can't condemn a whole society for the actions of the few.."

Actually I am more concerned with the wrong person hearing his remarks and taking them to heart. I read a demographic study about people that watch most evanglical shows and it was extremely distrubing.. many are uneducated, less than a high school education, on the lower end of the financial spectrum, low self esteem.. etc.. If I can find this report, I will be happy to post it here..

Finally...

Extremeism, or fundamentalism in any form is very very scary. The narrow views espoused by these people unfortunately gives the whole culture a bad name..

okay

rant over..

[Accountable]

Far right-wing talk shows like Michael Savage are in support of Robertson. I agree it's the fringe that bears watching.

[kmhowe72]

Pat robertson needs to get grip. he cannot make death threats. It's just NOT christian. and if he thinks I am going to send any money to 700 hundred club He's NUTZ.:-5

[Clint]

Accountable wrote: Far right-wing talk shows like Michael Savage are in support of Robertson. I agree it's the fringe that bears watching.
I agree the fringe bears watching. That’s all we get to do though. They have a right to say what they say and to be on the fringe. If you start eliminating the fringe, it will never stop until there is a small group of zealous idealists who claim to be in the center remaining.

[Accountable]

It's a great analogy. Ever try to trim the fringe from a piece of cloth? You just get more fringe & less cloth.

[telaquapacky]

Adam, you have made some excellent points that spoke to me. I have caught myself uttering and writing intemperate remarks about others. We hold broadcasters, especially religious broadcasters to higher standards than we do ourselves. Rightly so, maybe, but maybe the unwise sayings and attitudes of characters like Robertson should motivate us by negative example to be more civilized ourselves. I appreciated your post.

[LottomagicZ4941]

I'm fairly certain there is a scripture that says only God has a right to take a life.

Someone should read that to Pat.

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/?sponsor=Z4941

MagicZ4941A 1-877-526-6957 ID Z4941A

PS Thought of the day if God wanted us to ues the metric system Jesus would have had 10 deciplies:)

[LottomagicZ4941]

kmhowe72 wrote: Pat robertson needs to get grip. he cannot make death threats. It's just NOT christian. and if he thinks I am going to send any money to 700 hundred club He's NUTZ.:-5


That reminds me of when Ozzy Ozborn sent a $1 to save Oral Robert's life.

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/?sponsor=Z4941

MagicZ4941A 1-877-526-6957 ID Z4941A

PS Thought of the day if God wanted us to ues the metric system Jesus would have had 10 deciplies:)

[kmhowe72]

god probably does but not man.

[kmhowe72]

Robertson apoligizes for his remark. AOl reports. But to little to late.. I forgive him about what he said. But will the country. He has damaged himself and maybe born again christians.

[kmhowe72]

Ya I think your right

[BTS]

Hmmm Touchy subject here. I know the libs love to bash the far right christian fringes........ Butt do they bash their own when they make the same kind of statements?



Lets see K?





With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...



Stephanopoulos Urged Foreign Assassination



Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson prompted a firestorm of media outrage on Tuesday after he suggested that the Bush administration should assassinate a foreign leader who posed a threat to the U.S. - in this case, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.



But when senior Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same kind of assassination policy in 1997, the press voiced no objection at all.





Fresh from his influential White House post, Stephanopoulos devoted an entire column in Newsweek to the topic of whether the U.S. should take out Saddam Hussein.

His headlined? "Why We Should Kill Saddam."

"Assassination may be Clinton's best option," the future "This Week" host urged. "If we can kill Saddam, we should."

Though Iraq war critics now argue that by 1997, the Iraqi dictator was "in a box" and posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S., Stephanopoulos contended that Saddam deserved swift and lethal justice.

"We've exhausted other efforts to stop him, and killing him certainly seems more proportionate to his crimes and discriminate in its effect than massive bombing raids that will inevitably kill innocent civilians," the diminutive former aide contended.

Stephanopoulos even offered a way to get around the presidential ban on foreign assassinations:

"If Clinton decides we can and should assassinate Saddam, he could call in national-security adviser Sandy Berger and sign a secret National Security Decision Directive authorizing it."

The Stephanopoulos plan: "First, we could offer to provide money and materiel to Iraqi exiles willing to lead an effort to overthrow Saddam. . . . The second option is a targeted airstrike against the homes or bunkers where Saddam is most likely to be hiding."

The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral."

Stephanopoulos also noted that killing Saddam could pay big political dividends at home, saying the mission would make Clinton "a huge winner if it succeeded."

[kmhowe72]

Yes I have bashed libs(as you call us)many of times

[BTS]

kmhowe72 wrote: Yes I have bashed libs(as you call us)many of times


So what do you thin of Stephanopoulos' view?

[Clint]

The Right Reverend George Stephanopoulos…NOT

[BTS]

kmhowe72 wrote: Yes I have bashed libs(as you call us)many of times


Well here is your chance honey...... You say this about PR:



See what mean. Some of those so called christian are hypercrits. Pat robertson is among them now. The bible warns becareful of shepards in shemps clothing





Pat robertson needs to get grip. he cannot make death threats. It's just NOT christian. and if he thinks I am going to send any money to 700 hundred club He's NUTZ.:-5



What say about Clintons RIGHT hand man?

[Ted]

Pat Robertson claims to be a "Christian". Stephanopoulos makes no such claim. That doesn't make him any less responsible for the promotion of murder.

Pat Robertson has shown his true colours. Somthing I have believed since I became aware of him being in the scene.

Falwell is no better.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

posted by far rider

Any leader faced with the awesome task of protecting our nation must look at all viable options to do so, as difficult of a decision as it would be, the leader must weigh out the cost of hudreds of lives verses a few.

In my opinion, if we could have killed Saddam by a small unit or a precision guided bomb to save coalition lives we should have done so.

If the future needs of our nation dictate the assassination of a military target or a dictator I personally have no problem with doing so.


Warfare should be the last option when all else fails.

Terrorists should be dealt with using intelligence and what americans call special forces.

Chavez is not a dictator he is a democratically elected` leader, so was Allende in chile whose asassination has been laid at the door of the american CIA, althugh whether that is true or not is a moot point.

The US needs to leave nations alone to elect who they want-just because they happen to be left wing in nature does not make them intrinsically bad.

For a south american country and it's people to turn round and decide that assets like oil belong to the nation and they do not want to see the profits going abroad it is not anti american per se but rather prompted by a sense of social justice that does not see why a global corporation should be allowed to asset strip a nations assets to the benefit of a few without benefitting the people. It's the same whether it is oil or farmers protesting about land being sequestrated by large estates owned by foreign agri-businesses. They get pilloried as being anti-capitalist or communist as a means of stifling debate about the issues.

Are you really saying countries like Venezuela do not have the right to elect who it wants or put up the price of oil if it can get higher prices due to increased demand?

If the future needs of our nation dictate the assassination of a military target or a dictator I personally have no problem with doing so.


Who is deciding what the needs of the nation are? The blind assumption that elected leaders must know what they are`doing is a terrifying one in a democracy.

If the US was daft enough to do something like assassinate Chavez has anyone thought through the likely consequences?

[Adam Zapple]

First, thanks for all the respectfulness and open-mindedness with which you all read my previous post. :yh_worshp This is a very respectable bunch at FG.

Ted:

Pat Robertson claims to be a "Christian". Stephanopoulos makes no such claim.


I don't think this is the point. Robertson is a private citizen and as such doesn't speak for the administration. By the same token he should also quit making public statements about what he thinks the administration should do. GS was a senior member of the Clinton administration. He was making a policy statement that could be directly linked to the President, whether Clinton agreed or not.

Far Rider:

If the future needs of our nation dictate the assassination of a military target or a dictator I personally have no problem with doing so.........Just because the idea of doing so is grotesque does not mean it should be counted out as an option.


Bingo! Even the Democrats see the wisdom of this argument.....when they are in power.



Also Far Rider:

So is it the action everyones so upset about or is it who he said it about?




I think neither. I think the uproar is merely over who said it. As BTS has demostrated, it is the messenger rather than the message (for the most part). Most people didn't 't know anything about Chavez before PR's comments and still don't. I didn't know much, just enough to know he wasn't a choirboy or friend to the US.



Now my thoughts comparing PR and GS. I think GS made a lot more sense. Saddam was a brutal and murderous tyrant. Looking at our present situation, who wouldn't think it would have been better all around to have assassinated him and his two psychopathic sons? Chavez on the other hand is a democratically elected head of state. Yes, I know, so was Hitler. But still it raises the bar astronomically when setting policy regarding eliminating other countries leaders. Chavez has had a turbulent reign. He is a populist thus has tremendous support among Venezuela's poor yet he has alienated the traditional powerbase in the country (corrupt as it may be). His approval rating was a low 30% last December and was even pushed from office in April but he managed enough of a comeback to regain his position, or by some accounts was kidnapped in a failed coup attempt. Either way, he is back in power. The key is to work on the downlow to ensure this nutjob is not re-elected. PR's comments can do nothing but make him more popular in Venezuela.

[gmc]

posted by adam zapple

He is a populist thus has tremendous support among Venezuela's poor yet he has alienated the traditional powerbase in the country (corrupt as it may be). His approval rating was a low 30% last December and was even pushed from office in April but he managed enough of a comeback to regain his position, or by some accounts was kidnapped in a failed coup attempt. Either way, he is back in power. The key is to work on the downlow to ensure this nutjob is not re-elected. PR's comments can do nothing but make him more popular in Venezuela.


Interesting point of view. If you have a country where there`is a tremendous gulf between the rich and poor or their is a ruling extremely wealthy group small in number compared to the vast majority then there is going to be social change it is a matter of when, not if, and whether the change can be peaceful or not.

Chavez is a populist so his power comes from the people and he has tremendous support from the poor? When did political power given to a leader by the people become illegitimate in american eyes? Since when did poor mean you had no right to a political opinion and if you had the temerity to exert your influence it was somehow not right? especially if it affects the profits of foreign companies who happen to be based in a more powerful country. PR's comments if they get reported at all will probably boost his support. How likely is it that they would be reported in south america?-they barely rate a mention here. Most american politicians are fairly obscure anyway and reports on fundamentalist christians tend to be of the you are not going to believe what they aredoing now variety.

[Ted]

I am appalled at both the message and the messenger. That is not a Christian approach. It reeks.

Then it raises the issue of what gives America the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

It is rather interesting that America touts democracy but who kept Marcos in power, or Noriega. Who put Saddam in power as well as the Taliban. It seems to me that the American government supports any for of government in another country as long as it is right winged. When it comes to Castro he is a villan because he is left leaning. Not only that he threw out the American supported dictator Batista.

It seems obvious to me that America is out for America. They don't interfere in Africa because it has no oil but the middle east, venezuela.

In God we trust on the money is an hypocrisy. It's all for me and the multinationals and who really gives a damn about the oppressed and the downtrodden and the impoverished. Who cares about the "evil" domination systems that have arisen. Those are what Jesus was fighting for; the lowest in society. America is slipping and slipping badly. We all know what happened to Rome.

The multinationals care nothing for those in poverty. Their whole aim in life is to get more and more and more and more . . . . . .

I believe it was one Daniel Ellsberg that spilled the beans on Viet Nam. I wonder who is going to spill the beans on Iraq and their WMD's LOL

I will agree that Saddam was evil but then who put him there and kept him there. When that didn't work out then dispose of him and Afghanistan was the same.

Always interfereing in the affairs of others.

They negotiated NAFTA. When it is to the American's favour they follow the rules but when NAFTA rules against them they ignore the rules and steal money, some 5 Billion from Canada. What neat friends. Don't need any enemies.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Clint]

Ted wrote: I am appalled at both the message and the messenger. That is not a Christian approach. It reeks.

Then it raises the issue of what gives America the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries.

It is rather interesting that America touts democracy but who kept Marcos in power, or Noriega. Who put Saddam in power as well as the Taliban. It seems to me that the American government supports any for of government in another country as long as it is right winged. When it comes to Castro he is a villan because he is left leaning. Not only that he threw out the American supported dictator Batista.

It seems obvious to me that America is out for America. They don't interfere in Africa because it has no oil but the middle east, venezuela.

In God we trust on the money is an hypocrisy. It's all for me and the multinationals and who really gives a damn about the oppressed and the downtrodden and the impoverished. Who cares about the "evil" domination systems that have arisen. Those are what Jesus was fighting for; the lowest in society. America is slipping and slipping badly. We all know what happened to Rome.

The multinationals care nothing for those in poverty. Their whole aim in life is to get more and more and more and more . . . . . .

I believe it was one Daniel Ellsberg that spilled the beans on Viet Nam. I wonder who is going to spill the beans on Iraq and their WMD's LOL

I will agree that Saddam was evil but then who put him there and kept him there. When that didn't work out then dispose of him and Afghanistan was the same.

Always interfereing in the affairs of others.

They negotiated NAFTA. When it is to the American's favour they follow the rules but when NAFTA rules against them they ignore the rules and steal money, some 5 Billion from Canada. What neat friends. Don't need any enemies.

Shalom

Ted:-6


And at long last...Ted removes his mask.:guitarist

[Ted]

Clint:-6

I've said it all before on this forum. I have nothing whatsoever against the Average American. They are fine decent folks who simply want to get on with life and enjoy it as best they can.

The problem is that the American government is coming ever closer to being a fascist government which is just a little more to the right. There are several hallmarks of fascism and one of them is to raise the level of fear to get cooperation.

Instead of a personal attack show me where I am wrong and I sincerely hope I am.

Shalom

Ted:-6