I'm in a Latin American politics class and we discussed this in class. There were actually many people in my class that agreed with Robertson.

Whoever said idiocy crosses both party lines wasn't kidding....

Seems like both Robertson and Chvez were at a different kind of party before making certain statements,,,,

In a nutshell, here's how Chávez got to where he is today (from Wikipedia):

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela. A former paratroop lieutenant-colonel who led an unsuccessful coup d'état in 1992, he was elected president in 1998. A highly polarising figure in Venezuela, his presidency has seen sweeping changes throughout the country, including a new constitution, many new social programs, and a new foreign policy distancing Venezuela from the United States.

Since he was elected in 1998 on promises of helping the poor, Chávez's influence over Venezuelan politics has grown. One year after a majority of Venezuelans voted to keep him in office, the populist leader has consolidated his power, striking a harsh anti-USA tone. He is up for re-election in 2006, and recent polls suggest he has about 70 percent popularity.

Chávez and his administration have been opposed through confrontational methods by some established sectors in Venezuela, including the business federation Fedecámaras and union federation CTV, resulting in a coup d'état, general strike/lockout, and recall referendum, all of which failed to remove him from office. Although the opposition charged that there was widespread fraud in the recall vote, international observers said the official results matched their counts at polling sites. Subsequently Chávez and his allies have won consistent political victories, occupying the vast majority of elected municipal, state, and national posts, as well as majorities in the supreme court, national electoral council and national assembly.

Chávez has been married twice and is currently separated from his second wife, Marisabel Rodríguez de Chávez. He has four children: Rosa Virginia, María Gabriela, Hugo Rafael and Rosinés.

Pat Robertson says something stupid and embarassing...

Why is this even news? I thought news usually covered something that wasn't an every day occurance?

What the hell do I know...

News is no longer news... it's entertainment at the lowest common denominator. :D

I do not think it is very Christian of him to say what he said. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong- Either way it is not up to him. I just think it is not very Christian to pass judgement as he is doing. That should be left up to God if that is what you believe in.

I found it interesting that on GMA this morning they had Rev. Jesse Jackson responding to it. Two "Christian" men with actually no say-so in the policies of our country telling us what the country needs to do. Love it.

I also find it interesting that no one is really backing him up on this. Some high-up evangelist guy (not sure of his name) tried to put it "in the best light possible", but no one seems to be actually defending his words.

I actually don't know much about Pat Robertson or about this whole situation, just what I have seen on the news. Anyone out there who knows more about it, I would be very interested to learn.

Robertson is a hypocrite. His best friend is Charles Taylor, the person who is partly responsible for the Sierra Leone massacre and when Taylor was ousted and charged with crime against humanity, he blamed Islamic terrorism for the ills of Charles Taylor. Figure that one out.

What are people upset about specifically?

Is it regarding assassination of a dictator as opposed to going to war?

Is it believing in that type of punishment as a Christian leader?

-Rudey

I wonder this as well. People must not watch the 700 regularly because Pat says so-called "controversial" stuff all the time. :confused:

I agree with AlphaSigOU....news is no longer news, but pure entertainment. :( Like one big episode of Inside Edition.

This was the main thing that I found strange. I would expect most Christian leaders to promote peace and non-violence rather than just killing off someone.

What I just don't UNDERSTAND is his authority on the whole thing- he is a preacher.... he is not a political expert or a military expert or an authority on the workings of our country. I just don't get it. :confused:

If someone can explain it to me, please do. :)

But see, that's just it. Ask yourself - who is actually presenting him off like he is an authority? He says stuff on his show all the time that gets NO press......

For example, I could say something on GC right now and if the media choose to broadcast and publicize it all over, that wouldn't automatically make me an authority on the subject? (Geez, I hope not! LOL).

That is a very valid point. Thanks. It appears that he presents himself as an authority and the media (always looking for a story and controversy) choose to run with it.

How is it that most of the people who get publicized are extremists? I think most people in the country would consider themselves politically as "middle of the road" or moderate. But, where is the press for that?

Extremist bring in better ratings, I guess. :D

But even with moderate people, all it takes of the media to catch on to one or two things you say and then...WHAMO! You're on Larry King Live trying to explain yourself.

You see Larry, what I really meant was......

Isn't Larry too busy having other TV evangelists?

No, he's busy with the Natalie Holloway case.