The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

24 August 2005

Pat Robertson Still Stirring Controversy

Robertson Over-Kill?

Media Thrilled To Have Conservative Target


The same liberal media outlets that took weeks, if ever, to report on a sleazy scandal at Air America now can't get enough of Pat Robertson-bashing.

That's after he seemed to call for Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez's extermination on his 700 Club television program:


"...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.

It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.


And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ...This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced.

And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

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


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


Robertson's general philosophy is correct, this can occasionally be the answer, it's just not clear Chavez is anywhere near this territory. Leaders of North Korea, Zimbabwe and several other countries are a better fit for this kind of rare, drastic action.

If you can save thousands, even millions, of innocent lives by taking out a depraved dictator, why wouldn't you do it?

My piece for Michelle Malkin's site generated a significant response, it's here if you missed it.

Meanwhile, the media feeding frenzy continues over what is simply one man's opinion, take a look:


From the Virginian-Pilot:

Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of Venezuela’s president set off a global media frenzy Tuesday, as religious and political leaders heaped scorn on the Virginia Beach-based Christian broadcaster.

The Bush administration quickly distanced itself from Robertson’s remarks, but Venezuela’s vice president said Robertson should be investigated for his “terrorist statements.”



Tim Cuprisin of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ties Robertson to Michael Graham:

The Rev. Pat Robertson may get away with his on-air call for the assassination of Venezuela's president, but the firing of a Washington, D.C., radio talker shows there are limits to what you can say.

Michael Graham was the midday guy at ABC-owned WMAL-AM in the nation's capital. It's a conservative talk station that carries Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, along with some local voices.



From the New York Times:

In Caracas, he was criticized by the vice president of Venezuela, and in Cuba, by President Fidel Castro.

Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel of Venezuela said: "This is a huge hypocrisy to maintain an anti-terrorist line and at the same time have such terrorist statements as these made by Christian preacher Pat Robertson coming from the same country."

Rumsfeld dismissed Robertson's assassination remark, saying: "Certainly, it's against the law.
Our department doesn't do that type of thing."

He added, "Private citizens say all kinds of things all the time." Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, called Robertson's comments "inappropriate."
Robertson ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988.

He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush.
Bernardo Alvarez, the Venezuelan ambassador in Washington, said: "Mr. Robertson has been one of the president's staunchest allies. His statement demands the strongest condemnation by the White House."


Until I see the same level of outrage directed at the everyday human rights abuses of thugs like Chavez, Castro and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, the left doesn't have a leg to stand on in denouncing TV host Pat Robertson.


Update:
Robertson backing off under pressure? Here's the latest, he says comments were misinterpreted.

Evening update: Robertson apologizes, he's been all over the map on this issue today.


Your Amazon orders help to support these efforts. Thanks!

59 Comments:

  • If you can save thousands, even millions, of innocent lives by taking out a depraved dictator, why wouldn't you do it?

    Or secure cheap oil. But there's no real difference I suppose.

    Chavez was elected. He survived a malicious recall attempt. What, besides your depraved dillusions makes him a depraved dictator?

    And what millions of lives sre we looking to save by removing Chavez? Is he filling mass graves? Maybe he has WMD?

    WHy can't you just admit that Robertson's remarks are ridiculous and be done with it?

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 15:09  

  • OK - Robertson is a nutcase, granted ... but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We would have been far better off if instead of tearing the shit out of Afganistan and/or Iraq, had we simply put some operatives into place to "86" Osama and Saddam. Pat the Rat is correct; it's far cheaper than fighting a war (or two, or three). If we had real balls, we would simply OFF the problem-people. Remember when Dan Blather interviewed Saddam on 60 Minutes? He could have done the job then .... whoops, wrong guy.

    By Blogger Don, at 24 August, 2005 15:16  

  • Don,

    And why limit yourself to "taking out" only foreign problems?

    The same philosophy can be applied domestically. Why bother with nicities like elections and such? Just "take out" the opposition.

    Uncle Joe would be proud!

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 15:24  

  • Good idea, Mitchell. Let's start with Randi Rhoades. She suggested the same "solution" for the "GWB problem".

    By Blogger Don, at 24 August, 2005 15:29  

  • Don,

    The "Randi Rhodes" incident was an obvious JOKE to anyone listening. Pat Robertson was serious. Big difference.

    And she STILL apologized.

    What's with it with you Righties and you inability to admit error and apologize?

    By Blogger Robert, at 24 August, 2005 15:41  

  • I had never before realized that this thug Chavez was such a holy man to liberals. I know that liberals tend to turn a blind eye to human rights violations when they are perpetrated by leftist governments, but I didn't know they worship the ground Chavez walks on. Personally, if I heard this South American strongman got whacked, my response would be, "Uh, ok. Wanna go for coffee?" And to be brutally honest, what would the history of the world be if someone had assassinated Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Hirohito, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc., while they were still only tinhorn dictators?

    Who is Pat Robertson? He is a private citizen. He is an evangelist. He founded the Christian Coalition. He appears daily on the 700 Club TV show. He has no connection with the government, he has no influence, so far as I can tell, with top government officials. Therefore, under our basic right of free speech -- the very right liberals routinely use to defend sedition, treason and pornography -- he should be allowed to say anything he wants. Nope. Not when Pat Robertson says it. Louis Farrakhan can call for the extermination of Jews and you won't hear a whimper of protest from the left. But when Pat Robertson says something stupid and non-Christian (and he did), it works thousands of left-wing drama queens into a hysterical frenzy. I spent several hours cruising liberal blogs last night (shudder) and the bile, the vitriol, the almost demonic hatred being aimed at this man was totally out of proportion with anything he has ever said.

    Why does the left hate Pat Robertson at such a reptilian level? Take a look at the 700 Club Website. Click on the CBN Outreach tab and take a look at the good this organization does. They feed the hungry, they clothe people, they bring medical help to those in need, they help millions of poverty-stricken people all over the world. They actually DO what liberals only TALK about doing. Now, take a look at that annoying Make Poverty History site. Can you find ANY projects for the poor there? You can wear white wristbands to help the impoverished. You can send a postcard to vote for trade justice. You can put wallpapers and screen savers on your computer to end suffering. GASP! Why, you can even wear skimpy briefs to make poverty history!!!! WHAT CRAP! Liberals should be donating their time and money to CBN, not throwing it at this phony baloney Make Poverty History scam!

    Pat Robertson is helping MILLIONS, while Make Poverty History is substituting symbolism for substance and is no doubt paying their board members six-figure salaries. Liberals should LOVE Pat Robertson. But they don't.

    The left hates Pat Robertson because he is a man of God and they hate God. The left hates Pat Robertson because he is a Christian and liberals hate Christians. If the devil engaged in politics, he'd no doubt be a.......hmmmm. HMMMM.

    By Blogger Lone Ranger, at 24 August, 2005 15:45  

  • This is a good thing. Nobody but nobody (& I'm the religious right) cares what Pat says. About anything.

    Let CNN, the NYT & friends spend all the time they want on this. It just takes away broadcast time from the war we are losing in Iraq. Or the US economy that is collapsing. Or the Social Security System that is being privatized. Or the incarnate-nazi's Bush is nominating to the Supreme Court.

    In case you hadn't noticed, Pat Robertson takes his orders from Karl Rove...

    By Blogger Becker, at 24 August, 2005 15:55  

  • Lone Ranger,

    Who has been idolizing the ground Chavez walks on? Decrying a call to assassinate him is a far cry from idolizing him. Maloney calls him a dictator yet he was elected to his office. Just because you dislike his politics does not make calling for his murder any less offensive.

    And no one ever said you had the right to be free of the consequences of your free speech. No one is trying to stop Robertson from speaking. That is indeed his right. He can, however, expect to be held responsible for what he says. Farrakhan whare the fuck did you dig him up from? What does he get some air time on public access occasionally? Pat Robertson appeared at the GOP convention for Christ sake. And what do you know about how Robertson is living. I understand he lives quite a bit more than comfortably off the donations of his listeners. And why, if he is going to advocate political assassination does his organization have tax-exempt status? A man of God my ass. The man had business dealings with Charles Taylor, a real depraved dictator in Liberia.

    As for your bullshit about liberals hating God and hating Christians I happen to be both. Liberal and Christian.

    This is about Pat Robertson advocating assassination to secure access to oil. It has nothing to do with Hugo Chavez.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 16:12  

  • Who cares what Pat Robertson says? Nobody. But you're right that leftists worship the ground that Chavez walks on. Chavez is a lot like Mugabe in the way he is coming to rule the unfortunate Venezuela. That last election was pretty shady, and the way Chavez is strong-arming the new constitution and dismantling the legal system that stands up to him is a bit disturbing.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 24 August, 2005 16:16  

  • Brian said: Meanwhile, the media feeding frenzy continues over what is simply one man's opinion, take a look:

    Hey Brian, I was getting very close to agreeing with your post “Robertson Over-Kill?”, but I came back from my slumber and faced some reality.

    I think your statement, “If you can save thousands, even millions, of innocent lives by taking out a depraved dictator, why wouldn't you do it?” won’t work. We could certainly point to a number of times that could have been used in the past in Africa. But they don’t have OIL so it would be just to save lives and why do that.

    The problem with promoting this policy is the same as why we don’t promote torture it’ll come back and bite you in the butt.

    You say this is “simply one man's opinion”. Yes one man, but with one hell of a megaphone don’t you agree. You and I can pound away at our keyboards for the next 5000 years and we still would not get the audience he does on just one show.

    Just like the guy that was fired from his Talk Show the other day Pat Robertson put his big foot in his mouth. No he put BOTH of them in.

    Mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 18:13  

  • lone ranger said: it works thousands of left-wing drama queens into a hysterical frenzy.

    And I’m sure you didn’t utter ONE PEEP after the Senator Durbin speech on the senate floor.

    Oh yes, he can say anything he likes. . . and he has if you do a little research. When he get up in the morning he puts his socks over his head out of habit because hit foot is in his mouth so much.`

    lone ranger said: The left hates Pat Robertson because he is a man of God and they hate God.

    Well what would Jesus do? Kill all the folks you dislike so very much? Pat Robertson is neither a leader nor man of God. Sorry if you can’t stand a liberal Christian. That’s your problem.

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 18:34  

  • Lone Ranger, I have only one difference of opinion. Liberals hate Christians that disagree with them., especially if they disagree with abortion on demand and same sex marriage.

    Some liberals hate Christians If you are a liberal Christian you will be tolerated as long as you don't talk about it. Have you ever seen the threads that discuss religion at DU degenerate to attacks, swear words and total intolerance to anyone who has Christian beliefs, even if they are a liberal?

    Everything else is spot on. Many liberals are enamored with Chavez. They are willing to overlook any and all human rights violations as long as a country has major aspects of socialism. I've even seen liberals say that the US leaders should be more like Chavez and the country more like Venezuela.

    I've known this for some time, but I was literally dumbfounded the first time I saw this. I still find it disgusting.

    By Blogger Linn, at 24 August, 2005 20:40  

  • Mitchell-Who has been idolizing the ground Chavez walks on? Decrying a call to assassinate him is a far cry from idolizing him.

    All you have to do is go to liberal blogs and message boards and poke around a bit you will see liberals idolizing the ground Chavez walks on.

    It's not because liberals are decrying a call to assassinate him that we are saying that some liberals idolize Chavez. It's because in blogs and message boards they are saying how great he is, he's putting in place socialist and dictatorship policies, etc and they seem to love that.

    By Blogger Linn, at 24 August, 2005 21:24  

  • And what millions of lives sre we looking to save by removing Chavez?

    Who's we kimo sabe?

    The "Randi Rhodes" incident was an obvious JOKE to anyone listening.

    And I'm sure both of them laughed their fool heads off at the time.

    By Blogger eLarson, at 24 August, 2005 21:25  

  • Linn said: All you have to do is go to liberal blogs and message boards and poke around a bit you will see liberals idolizing the ground Chavez walks on.

    Linn, Linn, Linn, I was not going to respond to your posts anymore but BABY I just couldn’t pass this one up.

    You just love lumping folks into your little world of boxes. Each labeled with “HATES AMERICA”, “HATES BUSH”’, “HATES CHRISTIANS”, “HATES CONSERVATIVES”, “HATES HATE” and on and on it goes.

    My God how you GENERALIZE with the statement you made: “All you have to do is go to liberal blogs and message boards and poke around a bit you will see liberals idolizing the ground Chavez walks on.”

    I have a Blog, I have visited hundreds of Blogs. Until your DUMB statement and Pat Robertson’s statement I have NEVER seen anyone talk about Chavez. You could at the very least (since you’re a Christian I assume) be honest. Or is that not a requirement of your faith.

    mick

    By Blogger mick, at 24 August, 2005 22:16  

  • One word: HYPE

    Big "TV preachin'" Pat,

    This is just asking for money without saying a dollar amount.

    Remember Oral Roberts?
    Said God was going to "call him home",
    if he didn't get MILLIONS?

    Anyone want to guess if on his tax records that the amout he grosses went down over the last few years?

    More like an air ripple in a thimble.

    By Blogger Mr. X, at 24 August, 2005 22:31  

  • Linn,

    Since you seem to be tripping over liberal blogs that have been fauning over Hugo Chavez perhaps you can provide us with some links?

    Pretty please.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 22:45  

  • Other than saying it publicly, I see nothing wrong with Pat Robertson's comments. Hugo Chavez is scum that the world could do without.

    By Blogger Brian, at 24 August, 2005 22:49  

  • Gee Brian.

    A lot of people around the globe feel the same way about George Bush and think he should be wiped from the face of the earth. Most of us rational people call them terrorists.

    Not really a very Christ-like attitude you've got there.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 22:54  

  • Funny to see the comments coming from the left saying "who idolizes" chavez, while saying he is "elected" (so is Castro, so was Saddam), and he believes what you believe politically:
    socialism
    9/11 was a result of American foreign policy

    can you see it yet?

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 23:09  

  • The Ace,

    So who exactly delegated the authority to Pat Robertson and the Bush administration to officiate about which elections are valid and which elections are not?

    George Bush has been walking around holding hands with a leader who wasn't elected in anyway whatsoever. Does every foreign leader need Pat and George's stamp of approval before they are safe from being "taken out"?

    It's the big bad socialism boogie man. Oh! Better watch out. Next thing you know it'll be crossing the border into south Texas.

    What a joke.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 24 August, 2005 23:18  

  • um, nobody.
    I didn't say that Robertson or Bush had any say in that matter. And nobody else has, and Bush condemned the comments.
    So whatever point you were trying to make is obviously meaningless.

    Chavez was about as "freely elected" in last year's referundum as Saddam was in his last "election"
    That is my only point. And you libs keep touting the fact that he is "elected" when its pretty ridiculous to say so.

    By Blogger Ace, at 24 August, 2005 23:30  

  • A$$:

    I'm assuming that you have a lot of facts about Chavez's election to make such statements. Please tell us more. Who was Chavez running against? How does the election process in Venezuela work? What was the winning margin? Who oversaw the election? How did they assess the election process?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 01:09  

  • Nice one, Brian, but I am saddened that you would be so flippant with Pat’s comments. WE may not think he has much power or influence, but I’m sure out of the many thousands of ardent followers there are a dozen or two who would take up his challenge.

    He really is no better than the multitude of iman who profess the same thing against Bush. We may not like Chavez and he may be an ‘elected’ despot, but we’ve got to keep it above board otherwise we can only expect the same from some other country.

    But the best on this was from a talking head – ‘If Pat Robertson is a man of God, than God must be a practical joker!’

    By Blogger MacBoar, at 25 August, 2005 01:23  

  • PhilM,

    It was a referendum which was activated after the opposition collected signatures from 20% of the population - a recall mechanism inserted into the Venezuelan constitution by Mr Chavez in 1999.
    (On a brighter note: Thousands of citizens who had signed the petition that triggered the referendum lost jobs, pensions or suffered harassment.)

    He wasn't "running against" someone in that sense. It was a vote for or against Chavez himself (but Coordinadora Democratica is the oppostion).

    The Organization of American States election monitors were there, and so was the thug loving Carter (who's methodolgy was rebuked on the matter).

    However, Exit polls by American polling firm Penn, Schoen, and Berland Associates (PSB), the Primero Justicia (PJ) party, and the Proyecto Venezuela party showed the opposition ahead by over 18 points.
    Note: The PSB firm did exit polling for President Clinton.

    And here is how the process went according to two observers:

    Two American election observers, Curtis Reed and Steve Henley, a Democratic candidate running for supervisor of elections in Hillsborough County, Florida, were invited to Venezuela by the opposition parties and sent a letter to Capitol Hill describing what they saw.

    Months before the election, they said, the government granted citizenship and voting rights to hundreds of thousands of foreigners while withdrawing voting rights from other citizens living abroad. The CNE also reassigned opposition voters to polling places hours away from their homes to discourage them from voting and replaced thousands of accredited poll workers who signed the recall petition with poll workers who supported Chavez.

    During the election, they said, pro-government groups cordoned off voting centers and allowed only pro-government voters to cast ballots or physically assaulted anti-government voters.


    Any other questions, moron?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 08:39  

  • nfNow now A$$... I'm trying to conduct intelligent debate and you can't help yourself with the slurs. I guess Maloney's ass-lickers always revert to type when their assertions are challenged. So A$$man, if what you spent all night researching is true, then it sounds like Chavez may be closer to the GOP than we think... in which case I'm all for removing him.

    Yeah I have one more question bitch...
    I'm interested in your sources. You see there are a lot of blogs out there which are just nothing but lies and smear. Take this one from Maloney for example. I just to make sure this information is coming from a credible source.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 09:14  

  • Since Brian no longer reports on ratings:

    Air America:

    Up from 1.2 to 1.4 in San Fran
    Up from 0.0 to 0.5 in Philly.

    By Blogger Justin, at 25 August, 2005 09:34  


  • I'm interested in your sources. You see there are a lot of blogs out there which are just nothing but lies and smear


    Huh?
    This stuff was openly reported at the time you moron.

    Go cure your own damn ignorance.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 09:59  

  • The Ace,

    You really should give Kim Zetter credit if your going to cut and paste her stuff into your comments. At least a link. After all the bellyaching Maloney does around here about not getting credit for his invaluable work I'd think his supporters would be a little more sensitive about theft of intellectual property.

    For shame.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 10:17  

  • Yes, you are correct that many leftists, even liberals, seem to fawn over the dictator Chavez. Many of my friends, to my dismay, seem to put much of their hopes for the future in Chavez and (gulp) Castro. To the extent that they are that stupid politically, there are real limits to the friendships. No religion, no politics. A pretty good rule for casual friendships and also for family.

    By Blogger al fin, at 25 August, 2005 10:28  

  • Who is Kim Zetter?
    And where/how did "paste her stuff"?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 10:42  

  • Yes, you are correct that many leftists, even liberals, seem to fawn over the dictator Chavez. Many of my friends, to my dismay, seem to put much of their hopes for the future in Chavez and (gulp) Castro.

    So Your friends fawn over him and that makes it a universal leftist quality?

    Well I know many liberals and not one of them gives a crap about Hugo Chavez. And Castro? When is the right going to get over him? Christ. You want to talk about a nobody! What do you htink he's gonna do invade Florida? He's paractically half dead and his communist empire is a piece of crap dirt poor Caribbean island covered with shanty towns. Get over it.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 10:46  

  • And Linn, I notice you haven't provided any links to liberal blogs where people are worshipping the ground Cahvez walks on.

    Still working on it I suppose.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 10:48  

  • The Ace,

    This entire passage;

    Two American election observers, Curtis Reed and Steve Henley, a Democratic candidate running for supervisor of elections in Hillsborough County, Florida, were invited to Venezuela by the opposition parties and sent a letter to Capitol Hill describing what they saw.

    Months before the election, they said, the government granted citizenship and voting rights to hundreds of thousands of foreigners while withdrawing voting rights from other citizens living abroad. The CNE also reassigned opposition voters to polling places hours away from their homes to discourage them from voting and replaced thousands of accredited poll workers who signed the recall petition with poll workers who supported Chavez.

    is lifted word for word from here.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 10:52  

  • Justin, you're forgetting:

    Down 0.4 to 0.3 in DC
    Down 1.4 to 1.3 in Nassau
    Stagnant at 0.4 & 0.2 in Boston
    Stagnant at 0.4 in Chicago
    Stagnant at 0.4 in Detroit
    Stagnant at 0.4 in Akron
    Stagnant at 1.0 in New York City
    Stagnant at 1.7 in San Diego
    Off the chart in Monterrey (and not in the good way)
    Off the chart in Riverside

    For a growing network they sure aren't ... growing.

    By Blogger BF, at 25 August, 2005 11:03  

  • I'm curious about one thing.

    Robertson made a stupid, counterproductive remark, and has been - well - crucified for it.

    Where are all the demands for a public apology from Louis Farrakhan? Does he gat a pass because he is a Man of Allah instead of God?

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 11:52  

  • Where are all the demands for a public apology from Louis Farrakhan? Does he gat a pass because he is a Man of Allah instead of God?

    Right....everyone's given Farrakhan a pass. Give me a break. The man is a pariah. No respectable Democrat has anything to do with him. And no I do not consider Jesse Jackson to be a respectable Democrat. The man is a racist anti-semite and outside of his circle of Nation of Islam followers that is pretty much universally recognized. Sure he should publically apologise for some of his past remarks but to posit that Farrakhan is held in the same regard by the public at large as Robertson is is ridiculous and you know it. Farrakhan wasn't invited to consult with president-elect Bush about his faith based policy initiatives was he? Farrakhan didn't address the Republican national convention did he? If you want to make a comparison how about comparing the Robertson uproar to that over the comments made by Sen. Durbin about US military abuses resembling the behavior of Nazis. Come on. A little bit of honesty, please.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 12:09  

  • Brian, Chavez is a BASE communist.
    He believes in nothing else.
    Let me give you a taste of how crazy and potentially devastating the man could be;

    "Capitalism makes democracy impossible. Capitalism makes social justice impossible. If we don't change this system, the world is going to end. The eternal existence of our planet is not guaranteed. Look at other planets. In Mars there was water. It's possible they will soon find remains of living beings. Who knows how many years ago there was life on Mars. Mars is very similar to Earth. It rotates around the sun almost the same as Earth. It's very likely that there was life on Mars. It's possible that the Martians couldn't keep life going on their planet. Old Karl Marx was right. Capitalism, monopolies, the exploitation of man by man, Karl Marx's theory was correct. We have to break this model of domination

    And as for Mitchell, if you would like to see what makes him a depraved dictator go visit our site.He isn't a good guy because one really really wants him to eb a good guy .We've been writing about the psychopath since day one.If you disagree with our back catalogue feel free to post.

    http://neocenturions.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger ZoonPoliticon, at 25 August, 2005 12:39  

  • Mitchell -

    Farrakhan spoke in Dorchester last night. His characterization of the city and government wasn't flattering.

    So - why isn't Menino or DiMasi decrying his remarks?

    BTW - I agree that Farrakhan would not be invited to speak at the GOP convention, as Jackson routinely does at the Democrat one.

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 12:54  

  • Huh?
    This stuff was openly reported at the time you moron.

    Go cure your own damn ignorance.


    Tsk tsk A$$man... you sure get touchy when your statements are challenged for their veracity. Oh wait...now I see your reluctance to reveal your sources. You're a plagiarist (Good work Mitchell). An example of more dishonesty from one of Maloney's lick-spittles.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 13:31  

  • Farrakhan spoke in Dorchester last night. His characterization of the city and government wasn't flattering.

    So he has to be flattering to the city and the government or he must apologize?

    So - why isn't Menino or DiMasi decrying his remarks?

    Are his remarks untrue? Maybe you can find a link to his remarks because I can't. Let me know.


    BTW - I agree that Farrakhan would not be invited to speak at the GOP convention, as Jackson routinely does at the Democrat one.

    Pat Robertson has never spoken at the Democratic Convention either. See I can play games too.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 13:47  

  • And as for Mitchell, if you would like to see what makes him a depraved dictator go visit our site.He isn't a good guy because one really really wants him to eb a good guy .

    Well I don't think I ever said he was a good guy. Why is it that opposing calls for assassination is distorted by people like yourself into idolizing the guy? What's up with that. No where did I express support for any of the guys policies or how he conducts himself as president of Venezuela.

    I have no interest in defending Chavez. He may very well be a depraved dictator but I don't believe, individuals with a mass public forum, or my government, should entertain assassination as a means to remove a strong arming foreign head of state that we don't happen to get along with. And to rationalize it as appealing because it's less expensive and won't even disrupt the flow of oil is, as far as I am concerned, as depaved as anything Chavez is guilty of. That is why I suggested Maloney should condemn Robertsons remarks and move on.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 14:00  

  • you sure get touchy when your statements are challenged for their veracity. Oh wait...now I see your reluctance to reveal your sources. You're a plagiarist

    -I'm a "plagiarist" huh?
    I got that passage from another site, and have never heard of that person before.
    However, does that make the passage untrue?
    You asked for facts and I gave them to you. Your silly comments demonstrate you don't want to engage in the topic (of which you know nothing).

    Hilarious to see a dumbfuck like you mention the term "sources" when things you have posted are blatantly false.

    mitchell,
    I presume you were just as outraged when Stephanopolous called for Saddam's assisination, correct?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 14:49  

  • George Stephanopolous is a little twit.

    Honestly I can't say that I was aware of his having done such a thing until you just mentioned it so no I was not outraged. Sorry.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 15:14  

  • And that makes him not any more of a Democrat?

    Of course you didn't hear of it, you're on the left...you kids cover your ears or remain willfully ignorant of facts so you can make silly claims against thost on the right and pretend you're not hypocrites.

    Stephanopoulos, December 1, 1997 edition of Newsweek said:
    "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"

    and he concluded with:
    "A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it's possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should."

    --Funny how the left wasn't into a tizzy about how "dangerous" comments like this were then, huh?

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 15:21  

  • I got that passage from another site, and have never heard of that person before.

    Using ignorance as an excuse?

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 15:22  

  • Of course you didn't hear of it, you're on the left...you kids cover your ears or remain willfully ignorant of facts so you can make silly claims against thost on the right and pretend you're not hypocrites.

    Again, I'm sorry I missed that one back in 1997. I have no excuse. I'll get myself all outraged now. Actually, now that I think about it I'm not a Democrat so do I need to get outraged?

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 15:29  

  • Here's a link to the boston Herald coverage, Mitch.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=99551

    Full transcript isn't yet up on the NOI web site.

    So - think the Big Dig was done to facilitate tanks being moved on Roxbury? Or Revere?

    And is THAT wy the legislature was so intent on changing the name from the Freedom Tunnell to the Tip O'Neill tunnel?

    Hmmm...

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 15:32  

  • For the record The Ace;

    I don't think the United States government has justification for assassinating Hugo Chavez or Saddam Hussein. And I remain of the opinion that the the invasion of Iraq was not necessary and quite likely not a legal action. And I never expressed "outrage" at Robertsons comments. I called them ridiculous. I know you find it much easier to argue with the generic "left" but I find it a bore.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 15:37  

  • Peter,

    And you don't think the Herald's coverage of that particular quote by Mr. Farrakhna was included in that story to draw attention to the fact that he's a crack pot?

    Again, the man is so far marginalized it is not even funny. He operates the same way Robertson does. He capitalizes on fear of "others" to appeal to his audience. I have no idea why you think I waould support anthing he says.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 15:45  

  • Pat Robertson is a lot funnier than Al Franken, without even trying. Both nitwits, of course.

    Gosh, who are these idiots who spend half their lives leaving comments but can't be bothered to post a profile or write their own blog? Barking moonbats suffer from neural syphilis far above their proportion in the population at large.

    By Blogger Buffy, at 25 August, 2005 16:02  

  • Mitch - I don't think you do, any more than I think you believe that I endorse Robertson's remarks (you don't, do you?).

    MY QUESTION REMAINS - where's the outrage? where's the hand wringing? Why the double standard?

    I still contend Farrakahn is still more of a political leader than Robertson - and he's talking about HERE, not Venezuela.

    By Blogger Peter Porcupine, at 25 August, 2005 16:03  

  • mitchell, I agree with you.
    Robertson's comments are ridiculous.

    He is a caricature at this point.

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 16:04  

  • Yes but his organization is still actively used by the Republican party apparatus to marshall support for the GOP.

    That's the dfference between The Moral Majority and the Nation of Islam.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 16:22  

  • MY QUESTION REMAINS - where's the outrage? where's the hand wringing? Why the double standard?

    Have you heard some outrage by Democratic leaders over Robertsons remarks? It had it's news cycle. Now it's gone. You guys are making a lot more of this than anyone on the left has.

    So where is the outrage? I'd like to know.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 16:24  

  • Gosh, who are these idiots who spend half their lives leaving comments but can't be bothered to post a profile or write their own blog? Barking moonbats suffer from neural syphilis far above their proportion in the population at large.

    Gee buffy so sorry. Maybe Brian can make it a requirement that you have a profile and a blog to comment here. That way everyone will be in conformity. K?

    By Blogger mitchell, at 25 August, 2005 16:31  

  • -I'm a "plagiarist" huh?
    I got that passage from another site, and have never heard of that person before.
    However, does that make the passage untrue?
    You asked for facts and I gave them to you. Your silly comments demonstrate you don't want to engage in the topic (of which you know nothing).

    Hilarious to see a dumbfuck like you mention the term "sources" when things you have posted are blatantly false.


    Not so fast A$$man. You tried to pass off someone else's published content as your own. That's plagiarism. That's dishonest. Did you get through law school plagiarizing other people's work? How does it feel to be thief?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 August, 2005 19:18  

  • Yes but his organization is still actively used by the Republican party apparatus to marshall support for the GOP.


    thanks for proving my point mitchell.
    You girls on the left are total hypocrites. Georgie S says it and its ignored/no comment/I didn't know then you go back to attacking Robertson/GOP
    Fantastic!

    By Blogger Ace, at 25 August, 2005 21:05  

  • Since when are we talking about George Soros?

    What do I have to do Ace? Preface every comment I make here with the disclaimer that I disavow anything offensive to a conservatve ever said by anyone claiming to be a liberal?

    Give me a fucking break.

    The issue is Pat Robertson. Not Louis Farrakhan, not George Stephanopolous and not George Soros. Next time they say something stupid and Maloney writes a post about it I'll give my opinion.

    Oh, and btw I thing Michael Moore is a dick head.

    Happy.

    By Blogger mitchell, at 26 August, 2005 08:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger