In case you didn’t hear Pat Roberton’s moronic comments about Hugo Chavez:
You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.
Excuse me? We can pick and choose which doctrines we’re going to use to justify our actions? That sounds an awful lot like RELATIVISM.
And exactly which doctrine says we can oust foreign leaders if we’re not getting our fix of oil?
I’m coining a new term in the war of semantics, Pat Robertson is a “pick and choose absolutist.”
Once again, pick and choose absolutist. Use it around at least five of your progressive friends today.