Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination

[TheresNoMoney]

Not in my book, Scoonie

Let me guess. In your book, anything besides Social Darwinism is labeled as Communism?

[John Dibble]

Not in my book, Scoonie

Let me guess. In your book, anything besides Social Darwinism is labeled as Communism?

Let me guess. In your book, anything to the right of 'democratic socialism' is labeled Social Darwinism?

[Jake]

How exactly is he a Communist? There is a difference between communism and socialism.

Nothing you posted refutes my claim. Example of why he calls himself a socialist. If you were a extreme authoritarian, would you call your political party the Fascist Party or something like the American Party? Obviously, you wouldn't blatantly admit you're a communist.

[TheresNoMoney]

Nothing you posted refutes my claim. Example of why he calls himself a socialist. If you were a extreme authoritarian, would you call your political party the Fascist Party or something like the American Party? Obviously, you wouldn't blatantly admit you're a communist.

The economic system of his country is not Communist. Russia was Communist. Venezuela is Socialist.

[Jake]

Which has zero bearing on whether he is a communist.

[TheresNoMoney]

Still waiting for at least one fact as to how he is a Communist. It's easy to just throw out labels.

[Jake]

Chavez promoting state-run industry and government provided food

"Hugo Chávez has built free health care clinics, subsidized food and created small manufacturing cooperatives."

Chavez on seizing Private Property

"The Ley de Tierras ("Law of the Lands"), passed by decree in November 2001, created Plan Zamora to enact land reforms in Venezuelan agriculture: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands, and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives. There are three types of land that may be granted under the program: government land, land which is claimed by private owners, but whose claims the government disputes, and disused private land.

State Propaganda Networks

"Chávez has a live talk show Aló, Presidente! Originally a radio show, it now broadcasts every Sunday on state television. The show features Chávez speaking his mind about topics of the day, taking phone calls from citizens, and touring the sites of government programs. The show has an open format and schedule and showcases Chávez's personality and style."

[TheresNoMoney]

The first two are evidence of Socialism.

The third is completely irrelevent.

None of the three point to Communism.

[Giant Saguaro]

And figure his closer and closer ties to Castro and you've got enough evidence to suggest this is heading toward Soviet type Communism. The bit on seizing property alone and buddying up with Castro is enough to tell me this piece of trash is a Commie.

I've read but am looking to confirm that his opponents are either spending time in jail and/or are facing time in jail.

[TheresNoMoney]

It could possibly head towards Communism but it isn't there yet (and Chavez has been in office since 1998, so it probably would've already happened).

This is kind of a stupid discussion altogether, but it bugs me when people throw out labels without any evidence to back them up.

[patrick1]

Pat Robertson is a hypocritical piece of crap.  I hate Chavez and pretty much everything he stands but Robertson should really take a look at some of the Latin dictators he and his churches have associated.  All under the banner of building his evangelical network, he coddled murderers like Rios Montt in Guatemala and D'Aubuisson in El Salvador (sadly the U.S. overeagerly did as well)  Being an anti-communist is one thing but exterminating villages and killing priests is quite another.  Robertson is a dangerous man on a mission. 

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Not to mention Robertson's support of Charles Taylor as I pointed out earlier.

Also note the second image in my sig. That's the logo of the freedom fighters who bravely battled the Ris Montt regime. Eat that Robertson.

[Nation]

Why is this man still allowed on the air?

Everyone should be allowed on the air.  You know that, he can say whatever the hell he wants.  We all know he's a crazy fool and should ignore him, but he can say whatever he desires.

Then why are there no leftists on the airwaves in America?

Invisible airwaves crackle with life.

BRIGHT ANTENNA BRISTLES WITH THE ENERGY

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Then again, Chavez is what we can think of as a Communist. And trampling Communism as well as Communists ain't such a bad idea.

Chavez is not a Communist, he's a Socialist, and a democratically elected one at that.

To label him a Communist is deliberately false.

Not in my book, Scoonie, and as you know, Hitler was a democratically elected socialist too.

1-Hitler was not democratically elected
2-Hitler was not a socialist. And if you want to argue he was because his party had socialist in the name then you must believe  that North Korea is a democracy because the official name is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

[patrick1]

Not to mention Robertson's support of Charles Taylor as I pointed out earlier.

Also note the second image in my sig. That's the logo of the freedom fighters who bravely battled the Ris Montt regime. Eat that Robertson.

Diamonds mines and private airstrips:  Jesus must be proud.  

Montt should be lined up and executed.  The R.C. Church decided to speak the truth about Montt so he became an Evangelical preacher and wiped out some villages at the same time.  A friend of mine is from Guatemala, he told me how the Mayans were treated like absolute garbage at that time and I am sure they still are.  Rigoberto Menchu is a pretty good writer on the topic even if she is given to hyperbole.

[Giant Saguaro]

Then again, Chavez is what we can think of as a Communist. And trampling Communism as well as Communists ain't such a bad idea.

Chavez is not a Communist, he's a Socialist, and a democratically elected one at that.

To label him a Communist is deliberately false.

Not in my book, Scoonie, and as you know, Hitler was a democratically elected socialist too.

1-Hitler was not democratically elected
2-Hitler was not a socialist. And if you want to argue he was because his party had socialist in the name then you must believe  that North Korea is a democracy because the official name is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

I was waiting for someone to call me out on that and am surprised it took this long. Hitler was democratically elected (convinced the government to lift the ban on the Nazi party and in 1932 his party won a majority with 38% of the vote and he was named chancellor after all his promises to workers and unions, an early very substantial element of his support) and the Nazi party's beginning was pure populism all the way. You can probably research the American Socialist Worker's Party of today or whatever nonsense it is - I have the title somewhere here and if you check it, it's workers unite rhetoric with lots and lots of racism. Same stuff, basically, and they even have Nazi imagery. They think Hitler was a great guy.  

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Not to mention Robertson's support of Charles Taylor as I pointed out earlier.

Also note the second image in my sig. That's the logo of the freedom fighters who bravely battled the Ris Montt regime. Eat that Robertson.

Diamonds mines and private airstrips:  Jesus must be proud. 

Montt should be lined up and executed.  The R.C. Church decided to speak the truth about Montt so he became an Evangelical preacher and wiped out some villages at the same time.  A friend of mine is from Guatemala, he told me how the Mayans were treated like absolute garbage at that time and I am sure they still are.  Rigoberto Menchu is a pretty good writer on the topic even if she is given to hyperbole.

Disturbing that his party still continued to do fairly well even after democracy came about. At least Montt got his ass kicked in the last election, although it's still rather disturbing that such a butcher could get 19% and that he was even allowed to run in the first place since the constitution bans former coup leaders from holding office (I always thought of how sad it was the constitution would even need such a clause)

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Then again, Chavez is what we can think of as a Communist. And trampling Communism as well as Communists ain't such a bad idea.

Chavez is not a Communist, he's a Socialist, and a democratically elected one at that.

To label him a Communist is deliberately false.

Not in my book, Scoonie, and as you know, Hitler was a democratically elected socialist too.

1-Hitler was not democratically elected
2-Hitler was not a socialist. And if you want to argue he was because his party had socialist in the name then you must believe  that North Korea is a democracy because the official name is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

I was waiting for someone to call me out on that and am surprised it took this long. Hitler was democratically elected (convinced the government to lift the ban on the Nazi party and in 1932 his party won a majority with 38% of the vote and he was named chancellor after all his promises to workers and unions, an early very substantial element of his support) and the Nazi party's beginning was pure populism all the way. You can probably research the American Socialist Worker's Party of today or whatever nonsense it is - I have the title somewhere here and if you check it, it's workers unite rhetoric with lots and lots of racism. Same stuff, basically, and they even have Nazi imagery. They think Hitler was a great guy. 

Last time I checked 38% is not a majority. Hitler got a bunch of backroom deals passed and convinced a senile old man to appoint him Chancellor with many believing that he could be kept in check and that this position would stop him from trying to sieze power through something like the Beer Hall Putsch. That's not exactly democratically elected.

Socialists don't ban trade unions once they get to power, or arrest all members of a socialist party which opposed them. Nazi type groups can use the word Socialist all they want, but it doesn't make them socialist anymore than the word Democratic makes North Korea a democracy. The real socialists in Germany (the SPD) were the ones who opposed Hitler, along with the Communists, the only two parties to vote against the Enabling Act.

[Giant Saguaro]

Then again, Chavez is what we can think of as a Communist. And trampling Communism as well as Communists ain't such a bad idea.

Chavez is not a Communist, he's a Socialist, and a democratically elected one at that.

To label him a Communist is deliberately false.

Not in my book, Scoonie, and as you know, Hitler was a democratically elected socialist too.

1-Hitler was not democratically elected
2-Hitler was not a socialist. And if you want to argue he was because his party had socialist in the name then you must believe  that North Korea is a democracy because the official name is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

I was waiting for someone to call me out on that and am surprised it took this long. Hitler was democratically elected (convinced the government to lift the ban on the Nazi party and in 1932 his party won a majority with 38% of the vote and he was named chancellor after all his promises to workers and unions, an early very substantial element of his support) and the Nazi party's beginning was pure populism all the way. You can probably research the American Socialist Worker's Party of today or whatever nonsense it is - I have the title somewhere here and if you check it, it's workers unite rhetoric with lots and lots of racism. Same stuff, basically, and they even have Nazi imagery. They think Hitler was a great guy. 

Last time I checked 38% is not a majority. Hitler got a bunch of backroom deals passed and convinced a senile old man to appoint him Chancellor with many believing that he could be kept in check and that this position would stop him from trying to sieze power through something like the Beer Hall Putsch. That's not exactly democratically elected.

Socialists don't ban trade unions once they get to power, or arrest all members of a socialist party which opposed them. Nazi type groups can use the word Socialist all they want, but it doesn't make them socialist anymore than the word Democratic makes North Korea a democracy. The real socialists in Germany (the SPD) were the ones who opposed Hitler, along with the Communists, the only two parties to vote against the Enabling Act.

For the era, that's democratically elected. He got 38% in a five-way election, so that's not bad. Actually, socialists and communists *usually* don't ban unions - rather, they usually set up one to which you have to belong and it becomes another arm of the state, like we saw in the Soviet bloc. Lot of strife in Poland over that union business. Communists get militant overwhelming populist support as Hitler did (but his was more down-on-their-luck populism, but still an angry crowd), so in this case it morphed into fascism instead of state socialism, and it so often morphs into State Socialism.

Socialism always starts out with promises and make-the-world-better rhetoric and then somehow strays off course. Over and over and over and over we see example after example. Why? I don't know. Too much anger, too much resentment. Hate. When you have full power, you can't govern well with your platform being that you're pissed. And a revolutionary government is kind of an oxymoron anyway - it's not a revolutionary force now that it has filled the void once held by the government.

Now I'm outa here.

[opebo]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

[??????????]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wow, twisting historical fact must be really nice to you isn't it?

[John Dibble]

Then again, Chavez is what we can think of as a Communist. And trampling Communism as well as Communists ain't such a bad idea.

Chavez is not a Communist, he's a Socialist, and a democratically elected one at that.

To label him a Communist is deliberately false.

Not in my book, Scoonie, and as you know, Hitler was a democratically elected socialist too.

1-Hitler was not democratically elected
2-Hitler was not a socialist. And if you want to argue he was because his party had socialist in the name then you must believe  that North Korea is a democracy because the official name is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

You do realize he was saying that Hitler SAID he was a socialist, not that he WAS one, right? There's a big difference between what people say and what they do. You can give yourself whatever label you want, but if you actions don't match up with that label then that label is a lie. His point was that just because Chaves SAYS he is a socialist does not actually make it so.

[John Dibble]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wow, twisting historical fact must be really nice to you isn't it?

Facts don't matter unless they agree with opebo's worldview.

[Giant Saguaro]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

You need to read your history more, obviously. And you'd see that so many of these movements - communism, the KKK, fascism almost always have at the base cause a militant, vulnerable-sensing populist movement and it always ends up as a quest for power without constructive purpose.

[opebo]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

Why on earth would the German owning class care if Hitler slaughtered the Jews, as long as he still slaughtered the Socialists and Unionists?