[The Mick]

Oh, that whacky Pat Robertson is at it again. This time he is calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Chavez because it would be cheaper than going to war with him.
Linkage.
Doesn't seem very Christian-like to call for killing people.

[Millennium]

It's hard to deny that assassination is cheaper than war. That said, whether or not you believe that there was a legitimate case for war against Iraq, it's just as hard to deny that any case for assassinating Chavez would be much flimsier than the case for Iraq was.

[BRussell]

It wasn't just a simple statement that assassination is cheaper than war. He's calling for the assassination of Chavez because he has oil and doesn't like the US. Maybe he's been reading mojo2's posts.

[budster101]

Cavez is a scumbag. He deserves lead poisoning by way of lethal injection through a ballistic projectile.

Same goes for the ahole which Chavez is visiting in Cuba. Chavez said that "The people of Cuba are governing themselves..." Riiiigggghhhhttt.....

I don't know about PR, nor do I care, but the man is right. I'm saying this as a very very bad buddhist.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

Cavez is a scumbag. He deserves lead poisoning by way of lethal injection through a ballistic projectile.

What makes him a scumbag?

[osxisfun]

For ****s sake this is a suposed "man" of GOD! Who is calling for the ****ing assaination of another human being!


AND worse the only reason why he's went after chavez is that President Cheney has sent word that Chavez is not playing nice with all OUR oil he has under HIS land. (that was sarcasm for the wingnuts out there.)

Wingut Pop Quiz:

True or False: venezuela is a member of opec.


I say we invade. Let's lie and say he has WWMD then let's lie and say he's connected to 9/11 then after we screw both of those up let's say "Wellll, i'm glad we did it for "humanitartian reasons" and then when it fails and there is "constitution" that is a blueprint for an islamic republic called Iran Jr.... let bush JR come out and say freedom is on the march!!!*

*unless you are a women in that case you must behave according to shirira law






The ****ing hypocrisy of the the right simply is stunning.

[OreoCookie]

Even if he is a scumbag, it's not right and not just. That's what courts are for.

[budster101]

But since you guys don't believe in God, what's the big deal. He's crossed over to your side. Isn't that good?

What makes Chavez a scumbag? You asked the question, now go dig out the answer for yourself.


Edit: Ok, maybe this will help to get you started.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/lat...antidrug_work/

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

But since you guys don't believe in God, what's the big deal. He's crossed over to your side. Isn't that good?

What makes Chavez a scumbag? You asked the question, now go dig out the answer for yourself.

So you don't know. You just heard that Cheney et al dislike him so now he's Teh Evil!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

The ****ing hypocrisy of the the right simply is stunning.

and ht Left is better? Weren't they unanimously supporting Bush at the start of all this, despite knowing that it was less than kosher (unless were just STUPID)? How does that make THEM better?

Both parties are sh*t, get your head out of your ass and realize the truth.

[budster101]

Venezuelan leader vows to cut US antidrug work
President's threat marks sour relations
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Globe Staff | August 19, 2005
BOGOTÁ -- In the latest sign of deteriorating relations with the United States, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has vowed to cut off all bilateral antidrug cooperation and expel the US Drug Enforcement Administration from a country whose porous borders make it a leading transshipment point for cocaine and heroin from neighboring Colombia into the United States and Europe.

source

[TETENAL]

And this justifies assassination? Because he disagrees with the US on anti-drug policy?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

and ht Left is better? Weren't they unanimously supporting Bush at the start of all this, despite knowing that it was less than kosher (unless were just STUPID)? How does that make THEM better?

Both parties are sh*t, get your head out of your ass and realize the truth.

And the problem is that the same applies to most of the world.

[vmarks]

How is it breaking news that Robertson has a screw loose?

And how is Robertson representative of the 'right' ? I don't recall electing him to any office.

[OreoCookie]

It is irrelevant whether he's a `scumbag' or not, it's the duty of the legal system to take care of him.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

source

When I have time I'll show you links proving that the US has been using that program as a CIA base for various not so Good and Christian things in Venezuela.

[osxisfun]

? Weren't they unanimously supporting Bush at th

The current democrat leadership does not have gonads, I will agree with you there.

But the simple fact is that they:

a) They said you can go to war if bush went to the UN one more time. He didn't
b) cheney retasked not CIA over and over to get bad info on iraq that was then fed to them
c) They GOT STOVEPIPED information fed to them from Sen. pat roberts
d) Had information held back from them bause of a new law bush passed after 9/11 that restricted information to 8 members of congress
e) bolton intmiated state and the cia and cherry picked the info that was shown to them
f) condi ****ing liar running around "mushroom cloud" mushroom cloud"
g) rummy says we KNOW were the wwmd are "they are in teqrit, and around bagdad"
h) Dick cheney saying that we have evidence of 9/11 connection. Bull ****.
They voted on cherry picked information. Period.

look we can disagree all we want but this war is bush's **** up. period.

He and the neocons wanted war with iraq from the beginning. The dems did not.

Bush said on sept 12 to clarke "Iraq. Iraq find out if iraq is involved. Not the dems.

Rumsfield said within days of 9/11 "Let's bomb iraq and when clarke asked "why?" rummy said becuase the had "better targets". Not the dems.

Bush started the air war months before he said or asked to go to war with iraq. Not the dems.

When iraq turns out to be the 2nd biggest islamic repbublic (next to iran) beucase of the monstrosty of the bush admin's ineptidute and we are TRULY less safe then we are today and america wakes up to the fact THENNNNNNNNNNNN we can get back to regular R vs D issues and the hypocrycy of the demos which of course they have their share of as well.

Because politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge.. But president cheney and his neo con cabal took it all the way to Iraq.

But phew! At least freedom is on the march!

[budster101]

Is the CIA or the USA supposed to act Christian? I did not know that.... I thought our government had a seperation from church and state.....

Thanks for enlightening me to my own government and how you think it works... but really, it doesn't work like that. Now try and twist my words around.

Chavez is a scumbag. So is Castro, whom he is going to visit. Send them to the afterlife.

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by budster101

But since you guys don't believe in God, what's the big deal. He's crossed over to your side. Isn't that good?

What makes Chavez a scumbag? You asked the question, now go dig out the answer for yourself.


Edit: Ok, maybe this will help to get you started.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/lat...antidrug_work/

But I like my drugs.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

Chavez is a scumbag. So is Castro, whom he is going to visit. Send them to the afterlife.

You still haven't shown us why Chavez is a scumbag.

Is it time for you to go home perhaps?

[Macrobat]

Pat Robertson was indluging himself and his listeners with a little thing called "sarcasm." He was pointing out that Chavez, himself, is accusing the United States of trying to assassinate him. I admit it wasn't a particulaly humorous example of the genre, but some of you truly need to get the knees out of your eyes.

Funny how you don't jump in with the exact same righteopus indignation when prominent figures on the Left, such as Phil Donahue, engage in the EXACT same sarcasm in prediciting and calling for assassination of President Bush, huh?

PKB

[BRussell]

There wasn't a hint of sarcasm in his voice. He was dead serious. The video can be seen here.

[von Wrangell]

Perhaps you guys (USA Is Teh Shiznit Crew) should just read up a bit on Luis Posada Carriles. Just for starters.

[BRussell]

Are Muslisms allowed to say shiznit?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Are Muslisms allowed to say shiznit?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There wasn't a hint of sarcasm in his voice. He was dead serious. The video can be seen here.

The best sarcasm is always delivered deadpan.

[budster101]

So, von Mongrell, you think Chavez is NOT a scumbag. Please elaborate as to how he is NOT a scumbag. Show me all the wonderful things he is.

You think he is a good guy for doing this? You must support the drug trafficking to the USA and Europe then right?

You ok with Castro, and Chavez? Do you think the people in Cuba are happy and self-governing like Chavez says?

[budster101]

Wow, you are correct. His people just love him. He has almost as high voting numbers as Castro does!!!

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1711

I apologize. He is beloved in his homeland of Vendetta, err I mean Voteformeordie-ah... oh wait, I mean Veneswine-ah, Venezuela.

[turtle777]

The problem is hat politics and Christianity don't mix well. They have different objectives and mandates.
Even the Bible admits that there are different standards. But the Religious Right in the US doesn't get that.

-t

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

So, von Mongrell, you think Chavez is NOT a scumbag. Please elaborate as to how he is NOT a scumbag. Show me all the wonderful things he is.

You think he is a good guy for doing this? You must support the drug trafficking to the USA and Europe then right?

You ok with Castro, and Chavez? Do you think the people in Cuba are happy and self-governing like Chavez says?

I take that as you have given up trying to explain why he's a scumbag. But sure, I'm always ready to educate you on various topics.

Chavez:
He's given Venezuela a new constitution: Venezuelan Constitution You can also read the translation if you follow that link.

He won the first election where he ran for office by the biggest support in four decades in Venezuela.

He's increased democracy in Venezuela by having frequent referenda on various topics. An example is the right of the people to have a referenda to remove the president from office through voting.

He's drastically raised the income Venezuela gets from oil sales. You can read more about it here: A National, Popular, and Revolutionary Oil Policy for Venezuela

He's been strengthening ties between the Latin American countries and making bilateral trade deals with many of them.

He's started various programs like Barrio Adentro which provides free health care for poor areas. Other are Plan Zamora, Plan Bolivar, Mission Robinson and Mission Sucre (You'll have to google for info on them yourself). He's put up subsidised grocery stores (Mercal) in poor areas.

Among the education system reforms he has made is trying to offer poor and under-served areas with, among other things, free internet access.

This should do for now. Just read up on the things I've mentioned.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by turtle777

The problem is hat politics and Christianity don't mix well. They have different objectives and mandates.
Even the Bible admits that there are different standards. But the Religious Right in the US doesn't get that.

That's something I've always wondered about. It is said that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world" in exchange for a single act of temptation. At this point Jesus had just come into his power, and so he would have seen through any attempts at deception. Given this, two questions:

• How would Satan have been able to meaningfully offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus, unless they were his to give? Lying would have rendered the whole thing meaningless, after all, and there was no way to avoid being caught.
• If Christ refused "all the kingdoms of the world", then why should a Christian do any differently?

[budster101]

I think by not supporting ant-drug efforts would suffice for you. I guess not.

Castro get's 100 percent of the votes too.

Wow, he raised income from oil sales.... don't bitch about Bush and Oil then ever ok?

Bilateral, drug deals maybe?

Wow, he's given the poor, free internet access!! <mini aplause>

No need for me to read anything you've mentioned if you won't read mine.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think by not supporting ant-drug efforts would suffice for you. I guess not.

Do you even read your own links?

Adam Isacson, Latin-American security specialist at the Washington-based Center for International Policy, an independent think tank, said ''that border has always been a sieve" because of poor policing by both Venezuela and Colombia, ''and a few DEA guys weren't going to do much about that, anyway." An end to bilateral cooperation, he added, ''will make it a little more difficult to interdict drugs, but I think the political impact will be greater."

It will have little impact but it will keep out CIA agents the USA uses through this program.

Wow, he raised income from oil sales.... don't bitch about Bush and Oil then ever ok?

The difference is that it's not the rich who gain from it. It's the people of Venezuela.

Bilateral, drug deals maybe?

ummm, no.

Wow, he's given the poor, free internet access!! <mini aplause>

You obviously don't understand the impact of the internet when it comes to education. Been long since you were in school?

No need for me to read anything you've mentioned if you won't read mine.

I've read yours. Nothing in it that makes Chavez a scumbag. No matter how hard you try. Want another attempt?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by turtle777

The problem is hat politics and Christianity don't mix well. They have different objectives and mandates.
Even the Bible admits that there are different standards. But the Religious Right in the US doesn't get that.

-t

How so?
While I am a Christian, I do not number myself with the religious right, at least with some of their views. I think biblically speaking we are to care for our brothers more then ourselves If we can do that in politics why not? While we are admonished not too seek the praise of men (over God) or love money (for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil) we can and should get involved in our local government.

Originally Posted by Millennium

* How would Satan have been able to meaningfully offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus, unless they were his to give? Lying would have rendered the whole thing meaningless, after all, and there was no way to avoid being caught.
* If Christ refused "all the kingdoms of the world", then why should a Christian do any differently?

I'm no theologian but here's my take on this,I think your splitting some hairs here pretty finely. First Satan offered the kingdoms of the world if Jesus bowed down to him. Why should Jesus bow down to an angel albeit a fallen one, that he himself created (as lucifer) to inherit the kingdoms of the world when he was going to get them when he returns anyways. Its not that Jesus should't inherit the kingdoms but rather he shouldn't (and didn't) bow down to Satan. When he returns he will establish his kingdom.

I think however your close with your second bullet. We should not strive for power money or glory. Our eye's should be affixed to God not on the almighty dollar.


Finally to answer the OP,
I have to say the Pat Robertson really gives us Christians a bad name, How can a man of God come out and say that, who cares if Chavez is a scum bag, I don't know if he is, and I don't care. I think he was elected by his countryman, so let him deal with his country and we deal with ours.

Mike

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

That's something I've always wondered about. It is said that Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world" in exchange for a single act of temptation. At this point Jesus had just come into his power, and so he would have seen through any attempts at deception. Given this, two questions:

• How would Satan have been able to meaningfully offer the kingdoms of the world to Jesus, unless they were his to give? Lying would have rendered the whole thing meaningless, after all, and there was no way to avoid being caught.
• If Christ refused "all the kingdoms of the world", then why should a Christian do any differently?

Why would a fallen angel offer God "all the kingdoms of the world"?




:runs for cover:

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Why would a fallen angel offer God "all the kingdoms of the world"?

If we assume the Trinity (which I don't, but this is an interesting line of thought), then it would have been a trade of heavenly power for earthly power; by giving a sincere act of worship to Satan, Jesus/God would have acknoweledged him as ruler. Jesus/God would have given up the "top spot," as it were. Not a bad trade, from Satan's perspective, particularly since even if Jesus/God refused, Satan wouldn't have lost anything but his pride.
Even without the Trinity, though, Satan still gets a good deal. Such an act would have spoiled Jesus as the Messiah, and although his rulership would likely have been long, he'd have died eventually, and presumably Satan could simply take the world back at that time. A few years of diminished power, in exchange for spoiling God's plan: once again, not a bad trade.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by budster101

But since you guys don't believe in God, what's the big deal. He's crossed over to your side. Isn't that good?

What makes Chavez a scumbag? You asked the question, now go dig out the answer for yourself.


Edit: Ok, maybe this will help to get you started.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/lat...antidrug_work/

Um, we don't believe in God but we also don't advocate killing people. It'd be rich if he got all fired up about abortion in the same show.

[budster101]

How is that? Abortion is killing of the innocent... nothing similar at all.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by budster101

How is that? Abortion is killing of the innocent... nothing similar at all.

Excellent point.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Why would a fallen angel offer God "all the kingdoms of the world"?

Because the Son of God doesn't own the world (God doesn't either, Free Will's a bitch).


Here's one for ya. Why would Jesus say, "Ana Ana" (calling himself "I Am"), and then the crowd wanted to stone him? Give that some thought. (John 8:56-59)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

How so?
While I am a Christian, I do not number myself with the religious right, at least with some of their views. I think biblically speaking we are to care for our brothers more then ourselves If we can do that in politics why not? While we are admonished not too seek the praise of men (over God) or love money (for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil) we can and should get involved in our local government.

Christians can and should get involved in politics.

BUT: the rules in goverment and politics are different!
God's mandate to the goverment is to protect the people it rules over. This would include action that is contrary to the love a Christian should show to everyone.

Example:
A Christian is supposed to love those who persecute him personally.
A Christian in the governement has to DEFEND the people that get persecuted, not love the persecutors.

Different mandates, different responsibilities.

-t

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Because the Son of God doesn't own the world (God doesn't either, Free Will's a bitch).


Here's one for ya. Why would Jesus say, "Ana Ana" (calling himself "I Am"), and then the crowd wanted to stone him? Give that some thought. (John 8:56-59)

He will own it, as he paid the ransom for our sin, he just hasn't cashed in that marker

As for your other question that's an easy one.

God told Moses in the burning bush "I Am WHO I Am" Ex 3.14

Basically Jesus was putting himself on equal footing with God which drove the pharisees and other Jewish teachers wild (he was right).

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Example:
A Christian is supposed to love those who persecute him personally.
A Christian in the governement has to DEFEND the people that get persecuted, not love the persecutors.

Different mandates, different responsibilities.

-t

I think that's kind of a weak argument but I will agree that there are circumstances and issues that certainly will conflict with a person's faith. That does not mean they should not be active in their government. Conflicting views and ethic positions do not invalidate Christians from serving.


You can personally love and forgive a persecuter but yet defend the persecuted because there's consequences to ones actions and while you can forgive him that doesn't mean you will let him abuse anyone else in the future which means you need to take action on the persecuter.

Mike

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I think that's kind of a weak argument

Why weak ? The Bible clearly assignes the government ("authorities") a different task than Christians in their personal lives. And nowhere in the Bible you will find a call for a "Christian Government". What's that supposed to be anyways ?

Originally Posted by Maflynn

That does not mean they should not be active in their government. Conflicting views and ethic positions do not invalidate Christians from serving.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Maflynn

You can personally love and forgive a persecuter but yet defend the persecuted because there's consequences to ones actions and while you can forgive him that doesn't mean you will let him abuse anyone else in the future which means you need to take action on the persecuter.

I also agree. But that doesn't necessarily make the government "Christian".

I am just against some religious rights that want to establish a Theocrazy(sic).

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

As for your other question that's an easy one.

God told Moses in the burning bush "I Am WHO I Am" Ex 3.14

Basically Jesus was putting himself on equal footing with God which drove the pharisees and other Jewish teachers wild (he was right).

That's my point. By calling himself "I Am" he removed all doubt as to wait he claimed to be. Whether he was/is God is up to each person to decide, but he DID call himself by that name.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

That's my point. By calling himself "I Am" he removed all doubt as to wait he claimed to be. Whether he was/is God is up to each person to decide, but he DID call himself by that name.

Well, the Bible says he called himself that. I personally doubt that Jesus ever claimed to be God; rather, once that became the pitch of Christianity, the Gospels, which came long after Jesus died, started to include those types of lines. I don't have any absolute proof of that, of course, but it makes some sense given what I've read.

[edit] Uh, which thread is this again?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by turtle777

I am just against some religious rights that want to establish a Theocrazy(sic).

-t

I agree - this country was formed because certain Christian denominations were being persecuted and they wanted the right to worship God the way they believed.

With that said I don't believe G. Bush is trying to make a theocracy. I do believe he is trying to place conservative individuals in positions of authority and some of these positions will have a long lasting effect, i.e., supreme court. He's doing no different then what Clinton was doing/trying what we forget back then was the republicans had to use the fillabuster to squash/delay appointments because they were in the minority (at least in his first term).

I have not heard Bush say that he want's to see a Christian government, others in the media have but I have not heard that from him.

Mike

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well, the Bible says he called himself that. I personally doubt that Jesus ever claimed to be God; rather, once that became the pitch of Christianity, the Gospels, which came long after Jesus died, started to include those types of lines. I don't have any absolute proof of that, of course, but it makes some sense given what I've read.

[edit] Uh, which thread is this again?

Except ancedotal evidance points the other way. When the Gospels were written and various other letters (Pauline letters to the church) the first generation of critics were still alive. So that means that any lies that were told would have met with fierce oppistion and the movement would have died.

Plus you look at the apostles and why would each and every one of them (accept for John) die a martyrs death if it was for a dead man, not God. I mean if it was a lie why did all of them (the apostles) not try to enrich themselves instead they were dirt poor again if your going to try to fool people why not make a buck - They gave away everything they had.

Mike

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I agree - this country was formed because certain Christian denominations were being persecuted and they wanted the right to worship God the way they believed.

Yeah, the good old days. Today, Christians aren't safe here in the US either.

Originally Posted by from website

Mrs. Reiter and her husband David, received a cease-and-desist order from the agency that found her in violation of a city ordinance prohibiting more than one "prayer meeting" at a private residence per month.

http://www.warroom.com/biblestudy.htm

I mean, WTF ? It's a private home ! What happened to the land of the free ?

-t

[budster101]

Y'all want to argue about God, go start your own thread. This is about assasinating a scumbag authoritarian ruler of Venezuela...