jlesk68, you crack me up.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
What the hell is this jerk-off thinking, publicly calling for the assassination of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. For those not in the know, Venezuela happens to be one of the nations top importers of crude oil, and with gas prices approaching
wallet exploding prices, this has to be one of the most deep-fried and stupified public statements made in recent history.
So, I hereby call for the assassination of
Pat Robertson. Two in the chest one the head, Retard. Your thoughts please.[/quote]
Whether you agree with the statement he made or not, in my opinion he should not have made this statement publicly. However, as RainJack pointed out, I can’t understand why the 1st amendment only seems to be applicable to the left. I have heard statements made by people like Michael Moore that I found to be very offensive, but he has every right, under our Constitution, to make those statements.
So Robertson exercised the same freedom that Michael Moore, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, and many others exercise in this country every day. So you don’t agree with him. So I don’t agree with him. So what? Consider him for what he is, and the fact that he happens to have a bully pulpit and can say whatever he pleases, be frustrated by it if you will, and then move on with your life.
It seems kind of strange to me that you would be upset over his statement to assassinate someone, and then suggest the same for him. So it was wrong for him to exercise his freedom of speech and call for someone’s assassination, but you are perfectly within your right of freedom of speech to call for his assassination?
As much as I have to worry about with everyday life, I sure don’t need to waste any time and energy worrying over what someone I don’t even know has to say.
Christopher
As the right is quick to point out, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you don’t have to hear the opposing viewpoint or criticism of your own speech…
So, that which you question is explicitly an example of free speech.
However, free speech may get a little more involved when the people doing the speaking become the representative of something. Then their speech is not necessarily simply their own…
[quote]vroom wrote:
As the right is quick to point out, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you don’t have to hear the opposing viewpoint or criticism of your own speech…
.[/quote]
Fine, Label him a kook, ignore him, debate him, whatever. Calling for his assasination may be a tad extreme though, dontcha think?
Conservatives and liberals alike get mad when the others make comments and exercise free speech. The difference in the 2 are that the mainstream media is primarily left wing. Because of this, inflammatory comments from the right always get much more negative attention than inflammatory comments from the left.
Calling for the assassination of this dictator wasn’t the worst thing ever stated. I’m sure if I had time to surf through media archives I could find more than my fair share of wacky liberals calling for Bushs’ death as well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, free speech may get a little more involved when the people doing the speaking become the representative of something. Then their speech is not necessarily simply their own…[/quote]
What? So are you saying that free speech should only be recognized as such if enough people agree?
Please tell me your logic for socializing free speech.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The Lion’s Paw
[/quote]
His Lion’s Paw will never defeat my Eagle Claw!
Hey RJ, don’t liberals want to socialize everything?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
When should a sovereign state consider the use of assassination?
vroom wrote:
As soon as it wants to be considered an evil empire by everyone that doesn’t live in it…
Oh, wait… nevermind, there are obviously other ways to acquire that title.[/quote]
I tend to agree with George. No, not that one…
George Stephanopoulos, in the December 1, 1997 Newsweek, explaining why Bill Clinton should have Saddam Hussein offed:
[i]But what's unlawful -- and unpopular with the allies -- is not necessarily immoral. So now that I'm not in the White House, I can say what I couldn't say then: we should seriously explore the assassination option. Even though the current crisis may be subsiding temporarily, we don't know what the future holds. A direct attack on Saddam would no doubt be politically risky -- the president, concerned about his place in history, would be torn between the desire to get rid of a bully and the worry that an assassination plan gone awry would embarrass him late in his term. But the president should think about it: the gulf-war coalition is teetering and we have not eliminated Saddam's capacity to inflict mass destruction. That's why killing him may be the more sensible -- and moral -- course over the long run.[/i]
[quote]doogie wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The Lion’s Paw
His Lion’s Paw will never defeat my Eagle Claw!
[/quote]
Doesn’t paper cover Lion’s Paw?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
vroom wrote:
As the right is quick to point out, freedom of speech doesn’t mean you don’t have to hear the opposing viewpoint or criticism of your own speech…
.
Fine, Label him a kook, ignore him, debate him, whatever. Calling for his assasination may be a tad extreme though, dontcha think?[/quote]
I’m guessing that this was done to be either sarcastic or ironic.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
doogie wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The Lion’s Paw
His Lion’s Paw will never defeat my Eagle Claw!
Doesn’t paper cover Lion’s Paw?[/quote]
Does rock win anything?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
However, free speech may get a little more involved when the people doing the speaking become the representative of something. Then their speech is not necessarily simply their own…
What? So are you saying that free speech should only be recognized as such if enough people agree?
Please tell me your logic for socializing free speech.[/quote]
Good golly miss molly, you are slow. What he means is just like you hate Michael Moore and construe what he says to be representative of all of Hollywood and demonize all of Hollywood for his comments, Osama Robertson represents the Evangelical movement. No right or wrong that’s just the way it is!
How very Christain of Pat Robertson.
FYI
buffballswell started this thread with a statement I took as sarcasm while Robertson’s statement definitely was not sarcastic.
Liberal media?
Just repeating a false statement does not make it true.
Years ago the media did their job. If that is liberal then so be it.
The entire MSM is run by 6 multinational corporations which are decidedly capitalistic which puts them squarely in the conservative camp.
Intellectual dishonesty will allow you to ignore this.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
A much more interesting question: When should a sovereign state consider the use of assassination?[/quote]
Before we consider going to war.
CNN says he is gonna apologize…thats nice.
I thought it was really classy of him to offer up assination as alternative to war…because its cheaper.
Well Pat I got news for you, I, who am a godless heathen, if forced to have a leader assasinated to avoid a war because it could save thousands of LIVES.
That we would lose our own people and risk the lives of civilian non-combatants. Would be the main benefit of using assasination over war, and yes it would in fact be cheaper.
I just dont think that saving money should be the first reason a man of god gives for an assasination used to avoid war.
While I dont agree with Robertson, nor do I really like the idea of assassination when we arent already at war with a country, when I heard what he said on the radio it didnt really shock me. He views Chavez as a dictator and because he believes war with Venezuela, however neceassry, would be too costly, assassinating Chavez is the best option. I disagree with his target but Im willing to bet that many would rather have had Saddam assassinated (along with his sons)then have a full out war.
I think, in this case, many people are reacting just as much to who said it as they are to what was said. However, with that in mind, if a Christian’s primary responsibility is to act as a representative of the Church (as I believe it is) then Robertson is, as many so-called Christians are, going to have some serious questions to answer when he dies, IMO. I understand that governments operate under somewhat different rules than the private individual, but I doubt very much that anyone would be able to square his statements with Christian doctrine.
[quote]Jersey5150 wrote:
I just dont think that saving money should be the first reason a man of god gives for an assasination used to avoid war.
[/quote]
Just as the Bible warns many would do, Robertson, IMO, claims to be a man of God, but it is clear from his actions that he is anything but a man of God. Im fairly confident that his main focus of worship is money and Christianity is simply a means to that end. Its sad but true…
Chavez is little more than a populist blowhard, just as Robertson is his own brand of moronic blowhard. Chavez rails against the US for political gain, but ultimately he poses very little threat so long as he’s not backed into a corner. Venezuela may be a poster child for illiberal democracy, but the fact remains that he was legitimately democratically elected by a substantial margin in thoroughly contested campaigns. Talk of war or even assassination in this case is highly irresponsible given the low level of “conflict” between the two countries. Chavez may make a few symbolic gestures of retaliation, but ultimately, the status quo should return fairly quickly unless some other blowhard politicians or media figures pickup the ball and run with it. The status quo: Bush and Chavez hate each other, oil ships as normal, and Robertson is still an asshole with foot scented mouth.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think your question deserves some attention. While Robertsons remarks do appear “ff the wall” there is something to consider. If we could have killed Hitler in the mid 1934 when he became “the supreme commander of the armed forces” we would have saved millions of lives!
Which one of us would not have pulled the trigger on Hitler before all of the pain, destruction and loss of life that he caused?
[/quote]
I wouldn’t go there if I were you, considering your political inclination. May I remind you that it was the Republican party that did everything they could to prevent FDR – the president all right-wingers love to hate – from getting the US involved in WWII for the longest of time? In fact, if it weren’t if the republicans doing such a bang-up job of stopping FDR from doing the right thing, the US would have stepped in much sooner and millions of lives would have been saved.