MSNBC Host Urges Murder

MSNBC Host Urges Murder

www.lewrockwell.com

Tonight on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--the MSNBC show, not the killing house--host David Shuster urged the murder of Robert Mugabe. He should be "taken out," said Shuster. The reason? His policies (crazed redistribution and socialism unmentioned by Shuster) have brought the country to its knees, and now he is hosting a fancy party in celebration of himself. That is, Mugabe is a politician. He's also engaged in stimulus--through monetary policy and deficit spending--of a super-Keynesian sort. But, aside from the Golden Rule question, isn't it slightly unseemly for a TV newsman to be calling for the murder of a foreign official? It sounds like Pravda under Stalin.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I know that people can dislike someone else's policies but since when are news hosts allowed to advocate for the murder of someone else?

As much as I dislike Mugabe I think that this act is punishable under the law. He should be tried and jailed.

Since when are broadcast journalists allowed to call for the death of someone?

www.lewrockwell.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

'Taken out' does not necessarily mean murder.


Ironically, R. Mugabe and B. Obama have nearly identical platforms.

reply to post by stevegmu


How so? You mean to say that Mugabe wants to end the war on terror, renegotiate NAFTA, lower taxes, create a strong middle class, and wants to bring America back to its greatness?

His exact words, from the transcript:

Western diplomats have long been horrified and disgusted by the Mugabe regime. And in an ideal world Mugabe would be thrown in prison or taken out, so to speak. But until our government and others can figure out how to get rid of him, it‘s worth remembering that the people of Zimbabwe are starving to death in the latest antics of their president are hypocrisy, revolting and wrong.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Sounds like he's advocating that Mugabe should be killed. There's a little wiggle-room in his phrasing, he could argue that he meant 'taken out' as referring to 'thrown in prison', the 'so to speak' indicating a synonym. But it doesn't sound like that to me.


Edit: PS: Is it always illegal for a journalist to say someone should be killed? I know there's special laws regarding the President, but is there any general prohibition? I guess he could be found civilly liable, if someone actually was enticed to do so by him, but what is the limit of free speech, in this case?


[edit on Feb 11th 2009 by Ian McLean]

reply to post by Frankidealist35

Since when are broadcast journalists allowed to call for the death of someone?

Obviously you don't watch Fox News....Do you know what I love about the media? The fact that because these arrogant reporters express their opinions and expect the people to listen and feel the same way, they think they are helping us and doing us favors. The media is the reason why t.v. rots your brain because your being fed lies and bull all day. Glen beck is a good example of this.

Turn off your t.v.'s and make your mind up based on your own feelings.

On topic though- I personally believe that if you are responsible for destroying millions of people and families lives, you should be hunted down. There is no shelter for the guilty. Don't pity anyone who wouldn't try to make your life any better...this man is one of those people that needs a trial and then good old fashioned prison beating.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stevegmu

 

How so? You mean to say that Mugabe wants to end the war on terror, renegotiate NAFTA, lower taxes, create a strong middle class, and wants to bring America back to its greatness?

No, I didn't say that at all. I said taking someone out does not necessarily mean murdering him. He could be relocated to France.
America is great and always has been.

reply to post by stevegmu


This is what you said.

Ironically, R. Mugabe and B. Obama have nearly identical platforms.

So I thought you were trying to diss the President, and, try to make it seem like he was a horrible person like Mugabe. It is only natural that I think that. I've seen some pretty bad attacks on the President.

reply to post by Frankidealist35

How so? You mean to say that Mugabe wants to end the war on terror[/]

I guess Barry does. You didn't mention through victory or surrender though. Smart on you.

, renegotiate NAFTA, lower taxes

That's rich! He has no intentions of lowering anyone's taxes, except to give Federal welfare to those who don't pay taxes anyways.

, create a strong middle class

Out of those above he's gonna pay Federal welfare to? Now that is a possibility.

, and wants to bring America back to its greatness?

I don't ever remember America ever having greatness under the hammer and sickle. Wonder which chapter that was in history?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stevegmu

 

This is what you said.

Ironically, R. Mugabe and B. Obama have nearly identical platforms.

So I thought you were trying to diss the President, and, try to make it seem like he was a horrible person like Mugabe. It is only natural that I think that. I've seen some pretty bad attacks on the President.

Oh, you should have specified which post.

(crazed redistribution and socialism

He's also engaged in stimulus--through monetary policy and deficit spending

Sounds a lot like B. Obama's policies.

Originally posted by stevegmu
'Taken out' does not necessarily mean murder.

And "trickle down" is another word for "Keynesian."

In this instance, "..taken out.." is not exactly ambiguous; any reasoning to the contrary is disingenuous, at best.

Originally posted by stevegmu
[Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stevegmu

 

(crazed redistribution and socialism

Obama never said he wants socialism.

He's also engaged in stimulus--through monetary policy and deficit spending

Sounds a lot like B. Obama's policies.
That sounds like Bush too. So are you saying Bush is like Mugabe also? Why are you ignoring all the other Presidents that have engaged in defecit spending and only focusing on Barack Obama?

[edit on 11-2-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 11-2-2009 by Frankidealist35]

why is it so wrong to call for the murder of a corrupt person that has ruined others lives? people wish everyday that bernie madoff would be OFF'ed in the street in front of cameras when he walks to court everyday. I applaud them for having the guts to say it. We live in a society that doesnt give out harsh enough punishments for peoples actions.

just today the guy whose peanut butter company killed 9 people from salmonella had emails that said he didnt care if the peanuts had salmonella and that they will still be released to the public. today he pleaded the 5th to every question. this is another guy where i wouldnt lose 1 second of sleep if he was "taken out" and if it was a family member of mine that was killed from that, i would want to be the one to do it.



[edit on 11-2-2009 by Swatman]

The people of Zimbabwe have seen nothing but uncontrolled inflation and there currency crumble under the deficit spending. Trying to buy their way out of a recession/depression. A few months ago they had inflation go up by 1000% over night. The people of Zimbabwe should revolt but they are too hungry and too sick to fight back against those who are in power. Perhaps he should be "taken care of" or "removed from the situation" as it were. if we took out a country over WMD that may or may not of been there, we can do this really easy.

reply to post by bigvig316


Right, but is it really justified a news reporter to call for murder? What if a news reporter called for the murder of Bush when he was President? Would that be justified although we disliked him?

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by bigvig316

 

Right, but is it really justified a news reporter to call for murder? What if a news reporter called for the murder of Bush when he was President? Would that be justified although we disliked him?

theres a big difference.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You're right, the news needs to be objective and personal opions taken out of it. I guess I am just a little taken because of how some people can be so obtuse to the problems of their own country and flaunt at a party when they should be working to fix a problem they caused. You're right the news is the news and we should form our own opinions from it.

ok first off Mugabe is 100x worse than Bush ever was. Bush was the worst president this country ever had and should be put on trial.

But nothing bush did can compare to the level Mugabe has operated at. Plus there is a huge difference when a reporter threatens death on his own president as opposed to that of another countries.

Mugabe deserves waterboarding at the very least.

Mugabee - the guy who starved sections of his country to force them to vote for him?

I say that the newscaster is correct. He should be "taken out."

Originally posted by Frankidealist35

Originally posted by stevegmu
[Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by stevegmu

 

(crazed redistribution and socialism

Obama never said he wants socialism.

He's also engaged in stimulus--through monetary policy and deficit spending

Sounds a lot like B. Obama's policies.

That sounds like Bush too. So are you saying Bush is like Mugabe also? Why are you ignoring all the other Presidents that have engaged in defecit spending and only focusing on Barack Obama?

[edit on 11-2-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 11-2-2009 by Frankidealist35]

B. Obama is the current President, so his policies affect me more than past Presidents. My taxes will go up to pay for his pay-back and buy-the-vote projects.
A common theme I have been hearing is that it OK for B. Obama to double the debt, because President Bush did. Does that mean the next President can quadruple the debt because B. Obama will have by the time he is gone?