The topic I addressed was the action he took to throw the evangelists out of the country. I thought that that was what Tom was seeking comment on. If I missed that mark, then sorry about that.
That I did not address all possible topics that concern Chavez, I make no apology for. I don't really care if he was paranoid (or if he was more or less paranoid than Nixon - nother good topic for discussion).
I do say that in this one case his action was understandable and defensible.
I can't imagine how you think the Bush "dismissal" and the Robertson "apology" should make the target feel better about evangelists and their popular leaders. Is he supposed to say "Oh, well. That's all right then."?
People do try to kill this man. People do try to take over his government by force. People do make death threats against him.
My take on this whole thing: Tom chose a bad event to make a stand on. Lots of other negative stuff that Tom could have said about Chavez that I would agree with. This one is BS.
Current Events » in reply to He was paranoid BEFORE Robertson's blathering
Right. So?
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Latest pronouncements from the newest Hero of the Left
- More info on expulsions
- When the mass starvation, the mass arrests, the mass killings
- Damn Tom, you need to organize the posse for a roll out like that....
- After Robertson's blathering, you don't think he's entitled to a little paranoia? (n/t)
- He was paranoid BEFORE Robertson's blathering
- nor retaliation, if that's what it was? (n/t)
- Laugh it up. Robertson isn't sitting on 15 percent of our oil imports.