home

Robertson Apologizes

He was just misunderstood. Any takers on this one?

I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club." (Watch video)

...."If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." (Watch Robertson's comments)

< Defense Shines at Tampa Professor al-Arian's Trial | New Harris Poll: Bush at Lowest Rating Ever >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#1)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Here's what Robertson said: "If he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." It would be reprehensible for anyone to have said this. I have no words strong enough to condemn what it means for a professing Christian to have said it, and to have said it publically, let alone someone who has a following of millions of people. If he now claims he was "misunderstood," it only shows how far he remains from common decency. He has openly called for murder.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Nobody really has Robertson's back on this one, so I'll make a lame attempt... The leftists who say it's not fair to correlate mainstream Islam with terrorism because Islam condemns murder, are obligated to accept Robertson's clarification because Christianity condemns dishonesty.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    He has openly called for murder.
    Well I disagree with this point. I don't think he was legitimately calling for the assassination of Chavez, but I think this excuse is a hot steamy pile of bull dung too.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#4)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    How in tarnation does this count as an apology? TL, I might be missing somethinbg, but this looks like the classic "I'm misunderstood" runaround. Sorta like Santorum after he said he hated homosexuals. Why even title the thread "Robertson apologizes"?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Oops, should have read the link. My bad. It appears he did indeed apologize. Good. He needed to.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Glanton, "Roberts Apologizes" is the headline of the CNN article.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Novak also claimed to not mean secret agent when he used the term operative for Valerie Plame. Josh Marshall pointed out that in all the times Novak used operative as opposed or analyst operative always meant undercover secret agent. Who are they kidding? These guys all should be banished to some rabbit hole where everything means nothing.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Yes, JM, I got it. Sorry bout that.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#9)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Democracy Now had a good discussion of the deplorable Robertson statement today. Amy Goodman interviewed Chris Hedges and Michael Ratner. Here's part of what Ratner said: You know, this is – you know this is – we should not underestimate the seriousness of what Robertson did. I mean, what we have here is a man with millions of adherents around the world, in this country, possibly in Venezuela and other places. And when that person says it's good to take somebody out, it's good to assassinate him, what is he saying to his adherents except go for this guy? So, when Robertson – when Chavez is in Venezuela, there may be some guys there, when he comes to the U.S., obviously, this is the heart and core of Robertson's support, and is that statement, are his strong statements about what this guy represents going to cause somebody to do something? So, they have cause – they have asked for real protection, if and when Chavez comes here.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Jesus talks about Robertson:
    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#11)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Roy, why anyone would think Robertson needs defending is beyond me, but you seem to think so, so let me explain this clearly. If you are a Muslim, and preach that Islam condemns killing innocent people, you're OK in my books. If you are a Muslim, and go about muttering "death to America" while trying to set fire to your shoes, then you are a dangerous lunatic. If you are a Christian, and preach that Jesus taught us to love our neighbour as we do ourselves, you're OK. If you are a Christian, and preach that our government should assassinate foreign heads of state, you are a dangerous lunatic. If you come back the next day and explain that by "assassinate" you really meant "kidnap", you are a dangerous lunatic weasel.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Has anyone asked the Intelligent Design advocates how they account for Pat Robertson?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    flippity flippity flop.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Roy, why anyone would think Robertson needs defending is beyond me, but you seem to think so, so let me explain this clearly.
    If accused murderers get defense lawyers, surely Robertson is entitled to a defense on blog discussion threads. It's not his fault he was appointed an apathetic engineer who's trying not to get caught reading blogs instead of debugging.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    Has anyone asked the Intelligent Design advocates how they account for Pat Robertson?
    You don't wanna go there, because then you have to ask how evolution/natural selection could result in a thing like that.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    A person who breaks a moral rule to follow a religious command is a religious fanatic. Robertson is a religious fanatic. He clearly and unequivocally called for the assasination of Chavez on his 700 club program. This weasing shows that Robertson is beyond redemption.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    You don't wanna go there, because then you have to ask how evolution/natural selection could result in a thing like that.
    EDL, most genetic anomalies aren't productive;-)

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:41 PM EST
    PR called for murder, then denied he called for murder, then apologized for calling for murder. Ya know, it's no wonder this guy is a favorite of the WH. I wonder what the call logs between rove and robertson would show in the last couple of days.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Sailor, of course you are correct. I suppose that Pat Robertson is a modern day version of Dunkleosteus. The Placondermi family evolved in the Silurian and perished in the late Devonian, leaving no descendants living today. Their appearance and disappearance has been likened to an early failed evolutionary event. As fierce as they were, they persisted only 50 million years... Let's just hope that his kind doesn't persist for 50 million years!

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Ernesto, how could they persist for 50M years, the universe is only 6k years old;-)

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Errr...how old does that make the Flying Spaghetti Monster again?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Ever since Chavez began his popular upheaval in Venezuela he has been under attack by the Catholic hierarchy in that country. In fact, members of Opus Dei were involved in the failed coup of 2000 and have been instrumental in the CIA-funded opposition movement since the coup, just as they were intimately involved in the murderous CIA-sponsored coup in September 1973 in Chile. Last month, Bishop Baltazar Porras, president of the Venezuelan bishops' conference, said proponents of radical liberation theology are using it to weaken and divide the Church
    Who Would Jesus Assassinate?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Hey, anyone in the mood for a laugh watch Hannity and colmes tonight, in a few minutes the're going to address the Robertson thing. Predictably, to them, the central question is whether or not Chavez "is worth defending" in the first place. I'm telling you, ya gotta watch things like this from time to time. It's important to know your enemy and laughter is healthy.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    et al - Well of course he called for a hit team, and seeing as how a lot less people would be killed, that seems the Christian thing to do. And of course the above is outrageous. But he does make one point. Chavez is using the old "bad US" boogey man to keep the peons inflamed. Like most dictators he can't rule without one. And before you deny that, I refer you to comment after comment you have made about Bush.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    except this time Chavez is right, the Us was involved in the 2002 coup attempt.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    People like Robertson don't deserve the time it takes to defend or attack them... comments that plainly stupid don't merit even the time it takes even to write this comment... this whole thread just legitimizes him as someone worth consideration... Nuff said...

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    I keep seeing people refer to Chavez as a dictator - can you be a dictator if it is a democratic country? What is the definition of a dictator anyway? I would say that any DEMAGOGUE needs a bogeyman. And that includes here in the U.S. too...

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    can you be a dictator if it is a democratic country?
    Not sure... maybe a "dick"tator? Look at Dubya...

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    edger - Most dictators have elections. See USSR, Iraq, Cuba....

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#30)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Notice the tactic of the Right--slowly it converts this into a conversation about Chavez. Look at the shwarping of this very thread. Please don't let the bastards turn this into an indictment of Chavez, that essentially validates what Robertson did and what he is.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Robertson was not a christian during that segment of his broadcast, he was a 'pundit.' At least according to his evangelical apologists. (Can anyone tell me when being a Christian became a part time job?)

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    Man Pat, that was lame, you've got to do better than that. I know you're a smooth talker, you've been talking good people out of their money for years, I think you are slipping...no confidence left in your con? You better pray that your god doesn't exist. You and Osama may end up roomates.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#33)
    by LorettaNall on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    If I were Pat Robertson I think I would be on the lookout for that proverbial lightning bolt.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    PPJ on calling for murder by muslims: Posted by PPJ aka Jim at May 15, 2005 08:36 PM ................"They are immoral radical terrorists with a desire to spread their vision of the world, by killing. As such you cannot discuss anything with them. They have no moral boundries, and will harm you, or anyone else who does not bow down to them, for the simple reason that you do not count. You are not real to them. Actually, this amoral position is much worse than the morals of those who kills someone in a robbery, or whatever......" PPJ on Pat Robertson advocating Assassination of a State Head: But he does make one point. Chavez is using the old "bad US" boogey man to keep the peons inflamed. Like most dictators he can't rule without one. such a bore.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    sailor writes:
    Can anyone tell me when being a Christian became a part time job?)
    The point is, obviously, that he was discussing secular/political views rather than pure religion... Hey, I have agreed that he shouldn't have said it, but the above isn't all that hard to understand..... Unless, that is, you just want to snark about it. Pete Guither writes:
    Has anyone asked the Intelligent Design advocates how they account for Pat Robertson?
    Yep, called up a ID'er. Yes I did. "We don't know," he said. "We just put it in the Michael Moore and Al Franken category." JL - Sweetie. What's your point? That I see radical terrorists that blow up cars and crash airplanes into buildings and behead reporters as people evil people who want to take over the world? That I see Chavez as a communist who wants to use the US as a bogey man to control the uneducated peons? Guilty as charged, JL. Too bad facts bore you. BTW - What are you going to say when he starts siezing private property?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Boogey man. Terrorist. To me, Pat Robertson is a terrorist and a boogey man.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#37)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    The point is, obviously, that he was discussing secular/political views rather than pure religion. PPJ has such a fascinating idea of the obvious. Issuing a public call, heard by millions, for a political murder apparently has nothing to do with "pure religion." Hmmm.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    theologicus, are you George Hunsinger?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Issuing a public call, heard by millions, for a political murder apparently has nothing to do with "pure religion".
    Regardless of PPJ's spin, if it looks like a Fatwa, smells like a Fatwa, and quacks like a Fatwa, then it's a Fatwa. Just one from our real life version of the Rev. Nehemiah Scuddard.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    "The point is, obviously, that he was discussing secular/political views rather than pure religion..." Such a reasonable guy, Robertson. He was just "discussing" his views, that's all. Anyway, back on Earth, Jim's quote is the rationale that allows the leaders of the Religious Right to be lockstep war mongers while simultaneously upholding themselves as men of peace.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#41)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    "Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities." 2 Cor. 12:5

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#42)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Nicely done theo. May you stay well.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    sailor-As you, being in the biz, must know the bible is a living document. It has something for everyone even all the versions of fundamentalists who are originalists .
    Robertson was not a christian during that segment of his broadcast, he was a 'pundit.' At least according to his evangelical apologists. (Can anyone tell me when being a Christian became a part time job?)
    Pat Robertson was full time when he made his assassination remark, as the crusaders were full time when they went on a spree to kill all heathens. Your voice (and comments) is appealing but it is an interpretation of Christianity nonetheless.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Jim, Give me a reason why the "peons" in Venezuela should cast a vote for the monied class that has never done a thing for them? Believe what you want about Chavez, but the mass of poor Venezuelans who make up his electoral base should be treated with a tad more respect than your condescending view of them as just little people blindly following the big, bad dictator because he tells them scary stories about the U.S. They have suffered for years, not because of Chavez, but because of the ruling class that treated them like sh*t for eons. The ruling class we, as in most of cold-war Central and South America, supported for decades. Also, I believe JLivingstn's point is you're creating your own bogeyman in the form of cartoonish and robotic muslim terrorists, all of them exactly the same. And you're doing this to scare people into supporting a policy. Then you accuse Chavez of inciting the "peons" by scaring them with the U.S. bogeyman. As we supported a coup attempt already against Chavez, a clear argument could be made about which bogeyman, yours or Chavez's, is a bigger danger to their respective citizens.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#45)
    by mcoletti on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    As has been mentioned elsewhere, Robertson clearly suffers from Frist's Law, whereby he seems to forget that people tape stuff. Oops.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Dadler - How ya doing? I was out your way over the weekend, what a neat place to live. As for JL, no, I think he just wants to snark me, and that's okay. Free country and all that stuff. As for the Moslem terrorists, they are pretty easy to profile, late teens, to late twenties, religious nuts, etc. Or else they are just super horny and want to get to those 72 virgins waiting for them in Paradise. Chavez? Let's wait and see when he steps down. Right now I think he is "President for Life," and as his popularity wanes he will do even more outrageous things to curry favor with his base. And no, I don't see a large middle class in Venezuela, but there is one. And I would agree that the peons don't have any particular reason to like either the upper or the middle. Reform of the Spanish/catholic based countries in SA and CA has been a problem for years and years. And you can include Mexico in that grouping. The long term question is will the country be better off under Chavez or someone else. My money is on someone else, given that he thinks Castro is a good leader. Squeaky - According to you no minister or religious leader can have secular opinions. That's a recipe for a state religion. glanton - See above. Adept - Don't misstate my position. I clearly stated that his comments were outrageous. JL - I see Robertson as someone just popping off. He has no terror cells; he has no way of enforcing his views. You are just stating the Left's innate horror of anyone with a cross. Relax. It won't hurt you.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    God wanted Robertson to make an ass of himself on his 700 Club show, then lie about it, and finally make a half-hearted apology, to expose to the world that Robertson is a false witness.
    A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness uttereth lies. Proverbs 14:5


    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    PPJ- Were the crusades a secular decision? When Pat Robertson speaks to the public it is not secular. In this case is was about godless commies. Secular seems a convient word for what here? Did not mean it? Out of my realm of expertise? Just a layman's opinion? I am sure that when father Ritter was buggering little boys he was being secular. It did not help his case either. Oh, forgot that was done in a closet, and different from the case on topic.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Reform of the Spanish/catholic based countries in SA and CA has been a problem for years and years.
    The problem has been that every time there is a reformer...we kill them or overthrow them. Pat Robertson was just summoning up that old time tradition.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    God also wants us to notice some other related developments. CNN reported that Chavez was unconcerned about Robertson's remarks. But other sources (including this one) report that Chavez responded to "...calls by an ally of President George Bush for his assassination..." by offering cheap oil to the US poor. The Guardian article also mentions the following interesting bit of context for Robertson's remarks.
    Jamaica yesterday became the first Caribbean country to reach an agreement with Venezuela for oil at below-market terms. The Petrocaribe initiative is a plan to offer oil at flexible rates to 13 Caribbean countries. Jamaica will pay $40 a barrel, against a market rate of more than $60.
    In addition to not mentioning the offer of cheap oil to the poor, the CNN report did not mention the Petrocaribe initiative.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Pat Robertson for President!

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    P.S. Dadler, you hit it right on the head. I am too tired to give out explanations to semi stupid people like PPJ, so I am very appreciative of your interpretation.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    I am sure that when father Ritter was buggering little boys he was being secular.
    What he was doing was wrong, and a sin. I thought even you would understand that. Were the Crusades secular? Yes, in that they were preemptive wars fought to retain territory.
    So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
    But honestly, Squeak. Do you really think what happened 900 years or so ago is germane to the ME, now? I mean outside of the Moslems using it to beat over the heads of Lefties so they can listen to them whine and apologize. My thought? Hey dudes! Get over it. Let me repeat. A preacher, priest, minister, et al, can and do make comments that are totally in the secular world. Their opinons have no more weight about Chavez than mine or yours. Should Robertson have said it? No, but I have never claimed he was smart. Ernesto - The problem has been that the reformers have been socialist/communist. Those are failed political and economic systems. Shortwave - And when his US buyers enforce the lowest market price clause, what will he do? Quit selling? The poor won't like that very long. JL – Aw, the old I can’t beat him so I’ll just ”blame something else strategy,” eh? But I must say that I am pleased to be up-graded to "semi-stupid." Wish I could say the same.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ-So 'secular' is the new 'mission accomplished'. A word used to divert attention away from what is actually going on, often meaning its opposite. Good work PPJ! You have obviously mastered chapter six. Have you started chapter seven yet?. It starts off with soldiers..."All the King's horses and all the King's men...."

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Shortwave - And when his US buyers enforce the lowest market price clause, what will he do? Quit selling? The poor won't like that very long.
    Assuming Chavez wasn't merely taunting the US, he'd sell oil at the price he sells to other comparable poor customers, such as Jamaica: $40/barrell instead of $60/barrell. Suppose he's a vendor selling to the US Government. It's not true that vendors must give the government the lowest price. What is true is that the seller must offer the government the same (or lower) price that it offers to its comparable commercial customers. So much for the theory that the price would go up. Whatever happened to the libertarian ideal of free trade? I find this protectionist talk bizarre.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Shortwave - He isn't selling to the US government, so your comments don't match reality. Lowest market price has nothing to do with size of purchaser in the commercial world, and price deflators are quite common in contracts. I'd bet money that the major oil buyers are protected both ways. Squeak - Turning into a meanie, eh? How about telling us again about your racist position re Rove?

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    PPJ-So it is Rove that you are rushing to rescue from my big bad racism. He is the most oppressed white man, in power, I know. German too I hear. Wonder if his grandpa gave him some torture tips, or some help with propaganda, it is his forte, propaganda that is. I guess he could be a natural though and that would blow my whole racist platform. America is the land of opportunity as you say and grandparents have nothing to do with who you are in the 'new country'. That is unless you do not look white, then grandpa figures in big, whether you are a nazi or just talented.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    You'd bet money PPJ? You should know for sure, so that your comments will match reality. You should also say what the market equilibrium is - an economic claim without an equilibrium, common among conservatives, is inconsistent. Those guarantees of protection have nothing to do with Chavez. But you're absolutely right: the poor will not like knowing that they can't get cheap oil. This discussion is really beside the point, which you completely missed: Chavez is using oil as a political weaopon.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Aw, PPJ, I was referring to others in this thread that are semi stupid, you are a full blown moron. Please do not misinterpret me.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    JL - Aw gee, now you have gone and broke my heart. I have never been so insulted in my life by a Leftie. I mean, never. I do note, however, that you don't refute.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Toles nails it. Intelephant Design Don't forget to notice what the little bird is saying. He tolls for thee, Jim.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Thanks for passing that along. How more people don't see the simple truism Toles' expresses, that is beyond me.

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    I think it's worth pointing out how silly PPJ's original post is by going along with it. Suppose that the buyers are under an eternal obligation to buy at some market rate fixed in advance, instead of the lowest price (as if futures contracts never expired). Chavez has an easy option: sell oil at $60 per barrel instead of $40 per barrel. He then takes the $20/barrel difference, and offers it as foreign aid to the poor communities he originally intended to help with his offer of cheap oil. So we see how easy it is to circumvent PPJ's childish attempt to short-circuit Chavez's offer with uninformed drivelling about "lowest market price" protection going "both ways."

    Re: Robertson Apologizes (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    Venezuela to seek legal action against Robertson and potentially seek his extradition.