i never implied that we should thank chavez. go back and read what i wrote. i simply said that those who reflexively crucify the "usual suspects" should see that sometimes the usual suspects arent the bogeymen that some would have us believe.
i do think its relevant, and i think that a man of god calling for an assassination isnt right.
i suggested no such thing. the usual cries of "its the media! its the media!" just dont apply when a quick search of the internet shows stories of hostage taking situations, riots for food, death everywhere, and i dont really hear anyone (fox, cnn or msnbc) saying that bush is in any way responsible. i just dont think it rings true at this point.
all in all, sorry i dont agree with the usual ad hominem responses.
And sometimes they are, so what's your point?
If there is anything that is the hallmark of a liberal commentator, it's presenting a conclusion that subsumes their faulty premises rather than build an argument where any one of their premises can be scrutinized. Telling others not to suspect the usual suspects without noting why this time should be different is simply fatuous.
Thankfully, the whole "plausible deniability" rubric liberals have been hiding behind for years is starting to crumble as more and more conservatives learn to ignore the intellectual fellatio liberals are so adept at, and pay attention to what they do.