Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (13448)	8/23/2005 10:37:56 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

CNN Goes Full-Out All-Robertson-All-The-Time Media Blog Stephen Spruiell Reporting It's official: According to CNN there is nothing else going on in the world but Pat Robertson's comment that the United States should assassinate Hugo Chavez — a man whom I seriously doubt even a small fraction of Americans could identify. Right now I'm totally amazed at CNN's Kyra Phillips, who just dismissed an e-mail from a viewer who said CNN was using "slanted language" to describe Robertson by disagreeing but thanking the viewer for the comment. CNN anchors have been bashing Robertson all day, dredging up anything controversial he's said over the past few years and not just criticizing but ridiculing it. Now I'd probably join them in ridiculing some of Robertson's past statements, but I wouldn't then have the gall to say that I was giving Robertson fair treatment. I would say, "Sure, I disagree with Robertson and I think he's wrong about a lot of things, and that's my opinion." CNN is pretending to play it straight. More distressingly, it's covering the Robertson story as if Robertson's opinion on foreign policy actually mattered. It doesn't. Enough already. media.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (13448)	8/24/2005 1:34:34 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

HURRICANE PAT'S TEAPOT TEMPEST By Brian Maloney Michelle Malkin's Blog August 24, 2005 (all relevant links below) Who knew Pat Robertson held a key administration post? Or, that he had significant foreign policy influence? In what way is Robertson more than an opinionated, somewhat influential television host? He hasn't claimed to speak on the government's behalf. So when he calls for a oppressive tyrant's head, what in the world is the fuss about? Could be a tempest in a teapot, rather than Hurricane Pat's Great Caribbean Uprising. Why would the Bush Administration feel the need to condemn the remarks? Ignoring them would have been a lot smarter. The same, normally silent leftists on human rights abuses in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and elsewhere, suddenly love Thug-In-Chief Hugo Chavez, simply because Robertson doesn't. That's now the full extent of lefty discourse. Don't believe me? Take a stroll down Technorati Road. He's currently the most-searched topic, with hundreds of liberal bloggers worked up into a hysterical frenzy. I'd love to see this level of concern for the well-documented abuses that occur in these countries on a daily basis. If it doesn't provide a way to attack the right, "progressives" don't care. Would some of Robertson's critics care to see what Human Rights Watch (hardly a conservative outfit) has to say about Chavez's recent abuses? By the way, did anyone notice just who Chavez was standing next to, when trashing Robertson and the Bush Administration? Fidel Castro, on Cuban soil! While we're at it, what about Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? He's been mowing down shanties in recent months, displacing the country's poorest during wintertime. Where are the liberal bloggers on this one? I may not see a case for killing Hugo Chavez, but conservatives ought to use this opportunity to highlight some of the world's worst tyrants and press for action. In doing so, we expose one of the left's biggest shortcomings: they only care when they believe they can be used to make Republicans look bad. Example: a Seattle talk radio host, a former coworker of mine, posted this on his website before last night's show: <<< 9pm - Should Pat Robertson go to jail or a rubber room? It's time these nutcases from the religious right are held legally accountable for their actions. It doesn't stop with this thief from the 700 Club. Michael Moore's life was thretened by radio host Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly said there would be no peace unitll L.A Times editor Michael Kinsley was murdered. The list goes on. >>> (tip: Orbusmax) This from a left wing talk host who last year called for President Bush's own execution on "war crimes violations". So that we have this straight: --- President Bush = bad bad bad, must be executed. --- Hugo Chavez = never heard of him until criticized by conservative, now my hero. There's today's lefty lesson. michellemalkin.com cnn.com technorati.com hrw.org hrw.org mikewebb.org mensnewsdaily.com

To: Sully- who wrote (13448)	8/25/2005 9:05:46 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A GIFT TO A THUG NEW YORK POST Editorial August 25, 2005 Rev. Pat Robertson finally gave in to near-universal condemnation and apologized for saying on Monday that, since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. . ." Yesterday, the Christian Coalition founder said, "Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the United States is out to kill him." We're no fans of Chavez — South America's latest America-hating thug. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration have criticized him, with good cause. A few weeks ago, Sen. John McCain denounced Chavez's political use of trials to intimidate his opposition. The socialist-populist has become Fidel Castro's de facto protégé and been welcomed in both Tehran and Saddam Hussein's Baghdad. He recently threatened to cut oil exports to the United States in retaliation for some perceived "aggressions." He is, in short, no friend of America. That said, Chavez has been popularly elected twice, and survived both a 2002 coup and a 2004 recall referendum. (Poll watcher Jimmy Carter declared that last process to have been "free and fair," despite substantial evidence that it was neither.) The State Department was being kind in terming Robertson's reckless statement "inappropriate" This "assassination" talk was more foolishness from a man who suggested that American immorality brought on 9/11. President Gerald Ford's 1975 executive order banned the assassination of foreign leaders. Notwithstanding challenges presented by the War on Terror, the Bush administration has continued the policy. Despite the retraction, Robertson's remark remains a precious gift to Chavez, giving credence to his "America is out to get me" line, which enhances his reputation among poor Venezuelans. Thanks, Pat. For nothing. nypost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (13448)	8/25/2005 12:50:07 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Yup! There absolutely, positively is no liberal bias in the MSM. Clinton Cabinet Member Called For Hussein Assassination By Rob Wizbang Pat Robertson (who is an absolute lunatic) has been getting a lot of heat lately for this comment: “If Chavez expects us to assassinate him, we should.” Yet during the Clinton era senior administration adviser George Stephanopoulos called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein while writing an op/ed piece for Newsweek. "We Should Kill Saddam." "Assassination may be Clinton's best option," "If we can kill Saddam, we should." Where was the clucking-of-tongues in the media then? Where was the outrage from the political left when it was one of their guys calling for assassination? It didn't exist. Why? Because there is a double standard in the media when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. Kind of like how the New York Times was against the filibuster... until Democrats wanted to use it. By Rob Port of Say Anything. wizbangblog.com sayanythingblog.com newsmax.com sayanythingblog.com