Why? Why do you think our constitution applies to people who arent US citizens?
This idea of extending our gurantee's beyond our borders is idiotic.
Chavez is just grandstanding. Kind of reminds me of the "Mission Accomlished" fiasco, basically both of these were just good oportunites for some good sound bites and photos. If you think about it does Chavez have anything to lose by implying Bush is the devil? The right hates him anyway, so I think all he can do is gain support?? Especially worldwide support.
I don't personally care for someone coming into our country and insulting our leader, but one has to admit to one's self that Bush has left himself wide open for attacks like this.
I don't personally care for someone coming into our country and insulting our leader, but one has to admit to one's self that Bush has left himself wide open for attacks like this.
To clarify, you quoted my post, but the statements you argued against were ones I had quoted from Pabster.
Pabster is an enemy of the United States and of humanity. He does not realize this, just as Mao did not think of himself as an enemy of the Chinese people.
He posts false things. Now, we know he sends PM's with bigotry against gays and the misguided notion that those who love America, and oppose him, should leave.
He's amazingly simplistic; he interprets anyone who has a better understanding of what's right than he does as being an enemy of the nation.
Because he doesn't know our nation's history, he's unaware o fhow his opinions are antithetical to the US's principles; he can just invent the history that agrees with him.
I don't think he's badly intentioned - he's just a poster child for the sort who illustrate that a little knowledge is dangerous, and he's slow to notice the corrections to his errors.
Pabster, your fighting for the wrong policies to help America is like the old saying, "the beatings will continue until morale improves". The question is when, if ever, you will come to see the actual effects of the misguided policies you support - how you are actually causing the problems you want to fix.
To others, I don't think Chavez is an enemy of the US. Rather, I think we live in a complex time of world power struggles, and we have not figured out a way to have world power structured such that it protects diversity in power. Whoever the leading world power is now is going to pursue more power, and this leads to conflict. Unlimited US power, unfortunately, would result in some injustice to others. See the PNAC documents for the goals of those in power who want to make the world subservient.
It's natural for others who are on the short end of those policies to unite to try to keep the US from having total global domination. I think they have a point.
I'm in favor of all nations having democracy and freedom - not in one nation, even the great United States, having dominance.
I am wearing a shirt that says that today, I bought it in Halifax Nova Scotia and it has a pirate on it.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
Excellent points. Neither Bush nor Chavez are angels... I don't really think thats what the point was. He is calling Bush out, telling him he is basically a criminal and alot of people laugh like this isn't true.
Idiots just see someone they don't like or hear someone say something they don't agree with and just proceed to label and insult them without any real counter arguments. Did Chavez really say anything false? oh it doesn't matter its all "rhetoric" anyways.
Jaskalas, how abou tasking the experts on nuclear weapons how verifiable a ban on nukes would be, rather than making assumptions? There are all kinds of potential limiting factors to obtaining nukes to learn about.
By the way, poeple as expert as Robert McNamara believe that the US can have a completely adequate deterrent without nukes - and he strongly believes we should. He also makes the common-sense argument that even if you insist on a nuclear deterrent, a handful - fewer than 10 - of missiles is a more than adequate deterrent.
By the way, poeple as expert as Robert McNamara believe that the US can have a completely adequate deterrent without nukes - and he strongly believes we should. He also makes the common-sense argument that even if you insist on a nuclear deterrent, a handful - fewer than 10 - of missiles is a more than adequate deterrent.
listen, I'm sure you're a good american and proud to be so. I think I'm a good american and am damn proud to be so. I disagree with you, and think you're thoughts are whack, but this IS america, so I'd fight to protect your right to be a whack and to disagree with anyone in the USA, up to and including the freakin' prsident.
You, on the other hand, wish to export and flush away anyone you don't agree with and who might actually have an independant thought. I could be right, I could be wrong, but you don't care since it goes against your thoughts. This is UN-AMERICAN! We don't live in a society which supresses free thought and opinions, and my family didn't fight in the revolutionary war and civil war so close-minded dictators like you could rule over us. You say you're american, yet you profess unamerican ideals.
Maybe you should go to venezuela? But, I suspect, its not where you should go, but perhaps to when you should go. Why don't you go back to a time where bigots and tryants rules the earth? Why don't you go back to a tiime when there was no democracy, no free speech, no nothing but working for the fuedal lord? Wherever or to whenever you go, you gotta go now!
Curt J.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
Our leader? The popular vote never even wanted him in. Bush is a puppet. I give props to ANYONE that insults him. Though its not too hard now is it?
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
I bet you think your a real "patriot" saying garbage like this. "If you don't agree with me your not a true American", this is the brainwashing ****** that the old MSM puts in your head. Pabster, you might just have to start thinking for yourself. OH NOES!!!!!!
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 47,879
- 36,881
- 136
Not liking Bush is no reason to fellate every single person willing to say something bad about him. Chavez is a caricature of the leftist Latin leaders of old who is merely trying claw his way up onto the power table using this rhetoric, his countries oil wealth, and establishing warm relations with pariah nations (none of which the Venezuelan people elected him for). The real players merely laugh at his transparent and quite juvenile posturing.
I don?t care much for Bush, however Chavez?s behavior wears my patience very thin. Can you imagine what hell would break loose if a sitting American president behaved similarly on a visit to a foreign nation? Even the Democrats let him know he was definitely crossing the line and gave him a piece of their mind.
Look, K1052, Chavez is the first non-white leader of Venezuela in at least a very long time, the first that isn't just representing the 400 families or so who own most of the wealth but instead represents the poor and has done a huge amount for them.
Chavez has been the champion of democracy, while his opponents are increasingly anti-democratic, as they try to use economics and force to 'terrorize' the population into opposing Chavez, doing everything from massive false propaganda to a well-planned coup ro a devastating economic shutdown.
He is not just a 'caricature of the leftist' type, he has some much more serious policies designed to improve the country. With the US supporting the coup and pouring millions into his enemies' pockets to disrupt democracy, he has a reason to make it a bit personal with Bush. Remember Bush, before invading Iraq, saying Saddam 'tried to kill his daddy'?
I have my own concers about Chavez, especially the idea of his having a 25 year term, but I think he's doing a lot of good for the nation to break up the horrible, unjust feudalistic hold where a few hundred families keep the rest of the nation impoverished. Any moral, informed person would have little choice but to agree, it seems to me.
Chavez has been the champion of democracy, while his opponents are increasingly anti-democratic, as they try to use economics and force to 'terrorize' the population into opposing Chavez, doing everything from massive false propaganda to a well-planned coup ro a devastating economic shutdown.
He is not just a 'caricature of the leftist' type, he has some much more serious policies designed to improve the country. With the US supporting the coup and pouring millions into his enemies' pockets to disrupt democracy, he has a reason to make it a bit personal with Bush. Remember Bush, before invading Iraq, saying Saddam 'tried to kill his daddy'?
I have my own concers about Chavez, especially the idea of his having a 25 year term, but I think he's doing a lot of good for the nation to break up the horrible, unjust feudalistic hold where a few hundred families keep the rest of the nation impoverished. Any moral, informed person would have little choice but to agree, it seems to me.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 47,879
- 36,881
- 136
He is sure as hell acting like one on the international politics scene.
Everything else you talked about are domestic VZ affairs which should be his primary forcus instead of grandstanding and repeatedly bashing the sitting president of a country he is currently the guest of. Personally I don't care for him either and wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
The same. He learned from his mistakes.
To this day, many Americans are as unable to face the moral ramifications of our killing over two million Vietnamese who just wanted freedom from tyrannical colonialism as the Japanese are unable to face the moral ramifications of their behavior towards China (and others) in WWII. The Germans have done better at facing their issues, if we need a role model.
See the Fog of War some time for an example of the reformed McNamara. I sat about 15 feet from McNamara last year as he explained his thinking on the nuclear issue.
He's passionate about the need to get rid of all, or at least nearly all, nukes.
The second of the two has nothing to do with democracy, so you have an issue with reading comprehension.
On the first of the two, are you familiar with his championing of democracy in the constitution he helped make?
Are you familiar with his putting in the ability for the people to reall the president - a clause used against him by his enemies - that was very democratic?
We could use a clause like that ourselves now.
Are you aware of any of the increases in democracy he's made compared to his enemies, his connections to the people - every week he spends hours directly connecting on a call-in show, he's done many things to increase the spirit of democracy. Again, you can find things to criticize, but when you compare him to the alternatives who are simply trying to preserve a monopoly on power for the few wealthy, you can hardly avoid admitting that he has a lot of advantages in democracy over them in many areas.
KlokWyze
Diamond Member
Really.. tell me what politician isn't merely trying to claw his way to the top? What did Bush do? Wheat politician doesn't use "rhetoric"?
definitions of rthetoric:
-using language effectively to please or persuade
-grandiosity: high-flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation; "the grandiosity of his prose"; "an excessive ornateness of language"
-palaver: loud and confused and empty talk; "mere rhetoric"
-study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)
Who doesn't laugh @ Bush for his juvenile posturing? Can I imagine what would happen if American president behaved like this in other countries? Yes I can. The world would laugh @ and hate him, his name is George Bush. Have you noticed?
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 47,879
- 36,881
- 136
Nice selective editing of my post.
Chavez is tying to elbow up to the big boy's table where he has no business being. Unless you somehow equate VZ's relative importance to that of China, Russia, India, the EU, or the US. That is not what his people elected him to do. They elected him to on his popularist stance with the desired result to be the bettering of the plight of the VZ people. He is using his position and his country's wealth (which does not belong to him) to mobilize his personal ambitions.
To my knowledge even Bush, with his proven deficiencies in tact and sense, has not made such an offensive and insulting spectacle of himself on foreign territory.
What the hell does that mean? Are you saying to Chavez, 'Sit down, boy, and learn your place'?
Chavez is trying to preserve some ability to stand up to the US simply dominating everyone, by allying with others, the only way to do so.
If the US were a bit less aggressive in its own pursuit of power and use of it for selfish purposes, then there'd be less need for the battle against it and we could criticize Chavez.
But as it stands, from the native Americans and African slaves to now, there are too many examples where power is abused and innocents are hurt.
Unfortunately, in some situations, the US has been willing to let masses suffer for our own interests, with examples from Viet Nam to Chile to Iran to Iraq.
You seem to have a very arrogant attitude towards Chavez and Venezuela.
Any nation in the US's position of power is pressured into abuse of that power; the US may be the best nation in the world for dealing with it, but it still does some wrong.
That's why I think we need to continue to improve how we structure the world's power distribution in ways such as the UN attempted to protect diversity of power.
I want a Venezuela and Chavez who can have good relations with the US in fair agreements.
Too often wrongs are done because of our own greed (e.g., Salvador Allende) or misunderstanding (e.g., Viet Nam, where McNamara later admitted we just did not have any understanding of their agenda being to get rid of tyrannical colonialism, and so we made up their motives for them and made them an evil serving China or the USSR we had to destroy). If Europe had not been so harsh on Germany after WWI, Hitler would have had a hard time gaining power. If there had not been a corrupt Batista in Cuba, Castro would not have been able to. Without the Czar's abuses, the USSR would have had a hard time with the revolution. Without the terrible injustices and feudalism in Venezuela, things could be calmer there.
As you express your being offended by Chavez'z name-calling of Bush, why don't you post how you are more offended by Bush's attack on democracy by supporting a coup against the elected Chavez, for reasons ranging from it being a wrong violation of Venezuelan sovereignity and an attack on democracy, to the practical problems of making Chavez and his supporters (the majority of Venezuelans) into more of an enemy? How soon would you forgive a powerful country who caused a coup of your president?
If you can't say a word against the coup against Chavez, even if you list good and bad, then you are an enemy of democracy it seems to me.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter