Why do some of us go GA-GA over Hugo Chávez?

[dhinojosa]

I don't think Hugo is a good guy, and makes me nervous. Radicals in all spectrums right or left make me uneasy. I also tend not to side with assholes who are heads of state and who also wear military outfits just to over compensate their wee widdle dicks. You know, like this asshole....



All I am saying is be careful DUers, just because he is an enemy of Bush and Robertson doesn't make him your friend. It's best to be flexible and not get too cozy, because some of your posts like "I wish Hugo was our president", "Viva Hugo", etc. can bite ALL OF US in the ass if anything ever boils over.

[JuniperLea]

1. Ew! That picture again!

I find it rather disturbing... on many, many levels.

Yes, be careful who you trust. The Devil mixes lies with truth to confuse... oh, wait, yeah, that is Bush. Could go for Hugo too.

[billbuckhead]

2. What has Chavez ever done wrong?

George Washington and Ike wore uinforms too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Not in office, they didn't.

And neither Washington nor Eisenhower tried to wrest power in a coup before getting elected, either.

[redqueen]

81. He tried to wrest power in a coup before he was elected?

Got a source for that? First I've heard of it...

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. In 1992, actually.

From the BBC's profile of Chavez:

Mr Chavez first came to prominence in February 1992 when he led an attempt to overthrow the government of President Carlos Andres Perez amid growing anger at economic austerity measures.

But the foundations for that failed coup had been laid a decade earlier, when Mr Chavez and a group of fellow military officers founded a secret movement named after the father of South American independence leader, Simon Bolivar.

The February revolt by members of the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement claimed 18 lives and left 60 injured before Colonel Chavez gave himself up.

[redqueen]

95. Thanks

I can see why he did it.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DerekG]

101. Yeah, Eisenhower just orchestrated coups

The same guy who warned us about the military-industrial complex conducted some rather nasty business in Guetemala, Iran, Vietnam and Cuba.

[Spider Jerusalem]

120. Every American President of the 20th century...

can have one bit of nasty business or other laid at his feet, either through overt action or tacit acceptance. Which means Eisenhower's not really much different to JFK, LBJ, both Roosevelts, et cetera in this regard. FDR made stirring defences of freedom and the right of all peoples to political self-determination...and still supported the Somoza regime in Nicaragua because "he may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch". Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable, also. Not going to argue that he's effective and thus far has largely gotten positive results; I just don't really believe in hero-worship.

[K-W]

130. And who are you accusing of hero worship exactly? EOM

[Spider Jerusalem]

134. No one.

Which you'd see if you read closely. Uncritical admiration comes pretty damned close to the definition, though.

[K-W]

147. OK, who are you accusing of uncritical admiration? EOM

[Spider Jerusalem]

170. Why, exactly, are you interrogating me here?

This isn't about ME, nor is it about my attitude towards anyone else's opinion as expressed in this thread. Is there some point you're trying to make here? If there is, would you get to it, please?

Oh, and it's "WHOM are you accusing". (Just for future reference.)

[K-W]

177. I was wondering why you mentioned it.

This isn't about ME, nor is it about my attitude towards anyone else's opinion as expressed in this thread. Is there some point you're trying to make here? If there is, would you get to it, please?

I didnt ask you about you, I asked you about the things you wrote in your posts. And I would love to make a point, except that I dont know your point because you wont answer my question. Which is certainly your right, I have no intention of interrogating you.

Oh, and it's "WHOM are you accusing". (Just for future reference.)

Oh, and I dont care. Just for future reference. If I wanted my grammer checked id have asked.

[Spider Jerusalem]

197. Is it really so hard to grasp...

that employment of certain terms, and disparagement of them, DOESN'T mean that one is "accusing" anyone of ANYTHING?

The relevant passage from what I wrote (redacted for a bit more clarity, so perhaps you can see what my point was, since you missed it the first time): "Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable...I ...don't believe in hero-worship."

Putting a political leader on a pedestal, and remaining blind to whatever flaws they possess, is hero-worship, at least in my book. Clear now? (Working on your grammar might help your reading comprehension, you know.)

[K-W]

205. So the answer to my question.

Was that you werent accusing anyone.

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know.

The relevant passage from what I wrote (redacted for a bit more clarity, so perhaps you can see what my point was, since you missed it the first time): "Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable...I ...don't believe in hero-worship."

Just because I didnt comment on something, doesnt mean I didnt read it. So I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

Putting a political leader on a pedestal, and remaining blind to whatever flaws they possess, is hero-worship, at least in my book. Clear now?

Yes, that would be hero worship. I just was wondering why you brought up hero worship. I thought you might be suggesting that someone was engaging in it, so I asked.

(Working on your grammar might help your reading comprehension, you know.)

Well, if my reading comprehension were defficient, I might take that into account.

[H2O Man]

198. Your questions were fair.

This is a discussion forum. The poster implied that others here were not meeting his/her level of critical thinking, and were prone to mindless hero worship. That's a cheap shot. Likewise, refusing to back those things up seems cheap. The comment about spelling was undignified.

People have the right to their own opinions. People will disagree from time to time. But we will all do better if we take the time to try to explain our positions, and respect other people's point of view.

[Spider Jerusalem]

239. Actually, I wasn't implying anything.

And you'll note I also said that I admired Chavez. So I'm certainly not going to bash other people for doing it. I happen to be autistic (I have Asperger's Syndrome), and I don't do subtext. If you see a subtext in anything I've written, it is the product of your own mind, not of my intentions. Also, this sort of conversation REALLY ought to be carried out in private messages. Bad form to talk about a third party who's going to read what you say as though he's not there. In point of fact, you COULD have addressed your comments TO me instead of making them ABOUT me. And you talk about "cheap shots"....ah, the irony.

[H2O Man]

132. That's funny.

I could have sworn that George Washington was involved in some military action before he became president.

[Spider Jerusalem]

172. Yeah...

but it didn't involve ousting the governor of Virginia and declaring himself the new head of state.

[H2O Man]

176. Neither case did.

Both involve revolutionaries.

[Flavin]

229. Not in offic - redux

The british would disagree with the statement of washington....

Flavin

[dhinojosa]

279. Why? He was president after the war....nt

[dhinojosa]

7. "Who are heads of state AND who also wear military outfits"

Ike wore suits as president. I don't know about George, I assume there was no need for him to wear military getups.

[Minstrel Boy]

115. Jesus Christ - Chavez WEARS SUITS.

But oh my - he also wears red. tsk fuckin' tsk.

[H2O Man]

143. Maybe if he wore

two neckties some of our friends would feel more comfortable. After all, it would show he can top Dick Cheney in being formal.

I can't understand why some DUers like that Gandhi fellow. He wore some strange garb. I feel slightly anxious when people dress differently than I do. I wish President Bush would enforce a dress code around the globe.

[Minstrel Boy]

236. Or maybe if he incorrectly buttoned his shirt

it would put those folks at ease. Because they have very delicate sensibilities, and it is all about them.

[H2O Man]

308. I notice you

forget to specify: are these shirts properly ironed? Makes ALL the difference to me. Leadership is defined by a crisply ironed shirt. Never trust a man who pretends to love the poor, but who does not pay close attention to his shirts. Point of fact: Nixon began his career with crisply ironed shirts (more so than those Kennedys), but by late 1973, one can see the drool-stains. Need I say more about the current conversation?

[rman]

243. judge people by the fruit of their labor.

[radwriter0555]

47. We like Chavez because he conducts himself LIKE A WORLD LEADER. With class

dignity and most importantly, compassion for the people that he's responsible for.

He's a good, kind, smart, witty, confident world class LEADER.

America could use a man like Chavez.

[madokie]

116. couldn't have said it better. I agree with you.

we just need a man man what we have now is a man child

[chavi]

140. Yep! I TOTALLY agree!

I've yet to hear anything that makes me think twice about him.

Chavez is a TRUE hero in my opinion!

[tabasco]

51. Bush was the first President in US history ...

to wear a military uniform while in office.

It really shows what a little chickenshit he is.

Chavez seems to want to help the poor in Venezuela. Do you have any specific things he has done that warrant condemnation? I admit I'm really not an expert in Venezuelan affairs.

[Bucky]

294. Wrong. George Washington during Whisky Rebellion. Adams during QuasiWar

It was Jefferson who set the precedent of presidents never wearing military uniforms. The first and second prezes had no problem doing so. I'm not sure bush actually wore a uniform since (a) it was only a flightsuit and (b) it was really a costume.

[tabasco]

323. As far as I know, Washington never wore it in office.

Washington wore it after he was President, IIRC. I will happily admit to being wrong if you can provide a good cite/link that shows he wore it during the Whisky Rebellion.

I did a google on Adams. It seems he put on a military-style costume that he wore when speaking to private militias. IMO, not anything that could be considered a US military uniform, alhough still pretty inappropriate.

Bush's flight suit was an authorized duty uniform. The flight suit had a nametape with his name and rank indicated:

George W. Bush
Commander In Chief

That fits my definition of military uniform.

Thanks for any info !

[chavi]

129. EXACTLY! What has Chavez done wrong?

[H2O Man]

163. We can't afford

to wait until there are mushroom clouds, can we? It's been proven he bought lemon cake from Niger. We must stop him.

[chavi]

179. I'm new here...

I'm having a hard time telling the difference from the jokers and those that really believe this sh**!

I predict that YOU"RE just yanking my chain, right?

[marbuc]

247. I hear Niger has some gooood Lemon cake.

[Blackwater]

3. I agree. Chavez is a fascist,

nothing more, nothing less.

[movonne]

14. No bush is the fascist....(blackwater?)

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. You meant to say that bush is a fascist, right? Because he is. nt

[Beaver Tail]

19. Hes not a fascist

He's a socialist - I am just wondering how close to communist he is. I appreciate and support his stand against Shrub but I really don’t have a lot of trust in the man.

[htuttle]

21. Been hanging around Fallujah again?

Don't get all burned off now. I hear it can be a real drag -- as in behind a car....

[rman]

24. evidence please

[Blackwater]

32. I prefer representatives in civilian attire.

[donheld]

73. It's how they govern, not how they dress that's important

So he lost his copy of World Leader Dress Code. Mr Chavez has busted his behind to make life better for the average person. Who cares what he wears.

[killbotfactory]

82. He was in the military, and his military guard is the only reason

the reason that the coup by the "civilian" leadership in fancy business suits failed.

[Minstrel Boy]

97. Oh, you mean like this?

Learn something about fascism before you go slinging it at the most progressive leader with the most democratic mandate in the world today.

[Bouncy Ball]

224. You mean like the guy in the opening post on this thread?

BWA!! :rofl:

[patdem]

292. Are you saying if a man was ever in the military and had his pic taken

in uniform he should NEVER govern? Is that what you are saying?

[jzodda]

28. I agree with that

He is a dictator. I have read about cases where he has had people disappear. He is no progressive.

[K-W]

34. I have read about unicorns.

Doesnt mean they exist.

Feel free to support your alligations with evidence.

[jzodda]

40. I have no evidence

I just read about it.

Want to convince me hes a good guy? Convince me, I am open minded.

[K-W]

41. I dont know him, so im not really in a position to do so. nt

[Minstrel Boy]

98. "I have no evidence"

and you say you're open minded? Pah.

[jzodda]

121. Hmm not a good job of convincing me there lol

[K-W]

131. Someone has to convince you to value evidence? EOM

[jzodda]

201. nobody has presented me with any

give me a site or a link to an article with good info

Here are the problems I have with him. In 1992 did not his country already have free elections? He tried to over-turn that with a coup
Regardless of what he has done of late that causes me to be very suspicious of him

Next during the last election I read about a so called increase of 2 million voters that could not be accounted for. Is that true? Did that stand up to scrutiny?


Also from here


http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530052004

this quote

"The confrontation between the government and the opposition has been characterised by violent discourse, with the private media explicitly supporting the opposition and the state media backing the administration. In the process both sides have sought to de-legitimise and demonise the other and have encouraged a polarized and violently intolerant climate in many parts of the country. The administration has been accused of inciting supporters to threaten and attack media workers who are identified with the opposition and many of these cases have never been adequately investigated by the authorities. There have been regular mass pro- and anti-government demonstrations that on a number of occasions have resulted in violent clashes between the different groups of demonstrators and the police and security forces, with several allegations of excessive use of force by security forces."

[dhinojosa]

296. Hey, that's not right....

Way to attack someone who wants to learn. Yikes!

[donheld]

53. A dictator who was elected twice

How does a dictatorship work when people vote in the person? :shrug:

[derby378]

56. Take a good, hard look at the US...

You left yourself wide open there. :silly:

[K-W]

59. Not really.

Venezuala's elections are certified by international monitors.

The US's arent.

Stealing an election isnt the same as winning one.

[donheld]

178. I said elected, not stole elections

Wide open? I think not.

[Bucky]

300. The Venezuelans who I know say Chavez did steal the election

They also say his re-write of his country's constitution was sold to the voters in a misleading fashion. These are people who generally loathe George Bush, too. But they tend to see Chavez as the flip side of the same coin as Dubya. The middle class of Venezuela--not just the rich--are leaving in droves.

[chavi]

304. Hmmm...

That's very different from what I've heard. I wonder which version is the truth and which is propoganda!

[K-W]

321. Pure propaganda.

Venezualan elections unlike US elections monitered by international agencies and certified as democratic.

[chavi]

Excellent question!

I doubt we'll get an answer from the Chavez haters though!

[rman]

91. nonsense

A dictator who allows opposing media - the long established commercial/corporate mainstream media in Venezuela, who constantly vilify Chavez much like the RW pundits on US TV vilify liberals.

A dictator who allows opposing political parties.

Claiming "I have read about cases" doesn't cut it. Sources please.

Otoh it is well established fact that the business/media elite of Venezuela with help from part of the military did actually make Chavez disappear - or they tried to, but failed. This was during the coup against Chavez in 2002. It's widely known that Chavez disappeared and re-appeared a few days later during that coup. What few people know is that he re-appeared thanks to a bloodless mini-revolution by the people with help from the palace guard against the newly (and illegally) established government.

And if you look at what he is doing for the people of Venezuela, there's no denying that he is a progressive.

[Catrina]

42. To make such a definitive statement

you must have facts, links to back it up?

Btw, welcome ~ I think you'll find it very educational here, as most posters here require proof for such statements. Opinions are fine too, but that's all they are, without something that proves them otherwise :hi:

[radwriter0555]

102. Chavez hasn't one fascist bone in his body. He's a progressive socialist

minded world class leader who puts the people before the corporations.

[Stuckinthebush]

144. It's amazing how many don't understand what the word fascist means

huh, radwriter?

Call Chavez a fascist is like calling a hammer a nail.

It makes no sense.

[chavi]

150. I DON'T agree!

What can you back up this statement with?

I've seen NOTHING that supports your claim yet...

[burythehatchet]

230. Yeah, just like Mussolini, always with the land reform.

:eyes:

[SoCalDemocrat]

324. Here's a .25 go buy a clue

I give your troll a 2/10. Unoriginal and uninspiring.

Chavez is a socialist.

Bush is a Facist, or the closest thing the industrialized world has to one. Try to learn the difference if you're gonna troll here.

[David__77]

4. Because he is a progressive leader.

He opposes imperialism. And, let's please try to face facts: the U.S. is acting as an aggressive imperialist power. We shouldn't cover up that fact. The "war on terror" is simply a fig leaf for the most brutal attempts to maintain and expand U.S. hegemony. The U.S. is earning the hatred of hundreds of millions of people all around the globe. A leader like Chavez, who opposes such aggression while upholding basic human rights, women's rights and workers' rights, is just what is needed. If there aren't leaders like him, fundamentalists and populist fascists will step into the void.

[laura888]

10. bravo! n/t

[Team44Car]

12. So far, so good

the more we see of him, the more we like him

[dhinojosa]

16. Yeah firing 18,000 union workers is progressive...

Yippie skippy!

[rman]

25. source?

[dhinojosa]

36. Here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

[Mairead]

44. Wikipedia is not a credible source on anything political

Look up 'libertarian' and you'll see what I mean.

So, how about more impartial sources?

[dhinojosa]

50. Wikipedia is not impartial?

First I heard about that. If you are such a fan democracy you'd know that wikipedia is impartial.

[K-W]

52. Of course it isnt.

And one can be a fan of democracy without thinking that it magically produces impartiality.

[dhinojosa]

60. It doesn't magically produce impartiality...

Work is involved in wikipedia, by the people (You know like democracy) . If you don't like what you see on wikipedia, and if you think you have better grasp of the facts. Edit it. Go ahead, free to do. You can challenge articles ad nauseum too. That's the beauty of it.

[K-W]

68. Then why did you claim it did?

Work is involved in wikipedia, by the people (You know like democracy) .

No, work is involved in wikipedia by SOME people.

If you don't like what you see on wikipedia, and if you think you have better grasp of the facts. Edit it. Go ahead, free to do. You can challenge articles ad nauseum too. That's the beauty of it.

Of course I am free to join in editing it. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an impartial source. Contrary to what you seem to be saying I can in fact accurately point out that it isnt impartial without having to dedicate my time to working on it.

[T Town Jake]

219. Oh, it's impartial alright...

...you simply don't know what you're talking about, again. That seems to be a standing habit of yours.

[K-W]

225. Actually it isnt.

But im glad you have an ad hominen attack to support your claim rather than a rational argument.

I mean who needs rational arguments when you have cheap rhetorical flourishes.

[Mairead]

88. If you really believe what you're saying, then you need to read

the 'discussion' pages on libertarianism. Look at the calls for impartiality being rejected in favor of partisanship.

Go ahead, really dig in. What you're seeing there is anti-democratic brownshirtery, not democracy.

[Mairead]

58. No, it's not.

Go look up 'libertarian'. Look at the commentary/argument page. See for yourself!

[dhinojosa]

71. This just proving my point.

Having a discussion page is proof that Wikipedia is impartial. If it was partial to one side, all arguments would be stifled and the need for a discussion page would not exist.

Is there a specific part of this enormous page I should be looking at? There are also different libertarian entries, maybe I am not seeing what you are.

[K-W]

72. No it doesnt.

Having a discussion page is proof that Wikipedia is impartial. If it was partial to one side, all arguments would be stifled and the need for a discussion page would not exist.

The fact that you can discuss articles doesnt make the information contained in them impartial.

Is there a specific part of this enormous page I should be looking at? There are also different libertarian entries, maybe I am not seeing what you are.

What you are seeing is proof that the information in a wikipedia article isnt garunteed to be either impartial or true. Especially when there are politically interested groups trying to use the articles to push an agenda.

[rman]

76. Fact is Chavez did in actually fire that many union workers -

for good reason, as explained in the wiki article.

[dhinojosa]

80. "Fact is Reagan did actually fire that many union workers"

for good reason too? nah. Cmon.

Like I said in another post. There is nothing progressive about firing thousands of workers just to teach a political lesson.

[rman]

113. "dismissed on grounds of mismanagement and corruption"

as i said in another post

[dhinojosa]

161. 18000 people?!?!?!

Do you think Hugo had and reviewed files on every single one of them?

[1932]

182. Are you talking about PDVSA employees?

They seem to have their shit together now, now that there aren't right wing opportunists running who are willing to impoverish the nation with a strike in order to protect the interests of the wealthy. Now PDVSA is making money for all Venezuelans.

Also, Venezuela has a history of union activity sympathetic with capital rather than labor.

Your allegations are convenient in that they sound anti-liberal on the surface. However, for anyone who cares to learn the context, they truth is that, like PDVSA, the actions Chavez has taken has been better for the poor and for all citizens of Venezuela.

[dhinojosa]

193. What I am saying is that there is no way....

Chavez knew those 18,000 personally or knew of their employment records. All that reeks of a political move, and like I said that is NOT progressive.

[1932]

203. If you're talking about PDVSA, the right wing union was trying

to sabotage the country.

Now that they're gone, PDVSA operates for the benefit of millions of Venezuelann citizens.

Do you think it would have been smart to leave the most important industry in the country in the hands of people who had displayed such contempt for the well-being of millions of fellow citizens?

[Chovexani]

89. Wikipedia is impartial?

LOL are you new to the internets?

Dude, I've seen bullshit edit wars break out over stupid crap like Harry Potter, and you're willing to believe on life and death issues like politics everyone is totally responsible and no one has an agenda?

I've got some prime beachfront real estate in Mississippi for you, then.

[rman]

67. "dismissed on grounds of mismanagement and corruption"

"although supporters of the oil bosses called the action "politically motivated". Hey, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Anyway, you seem to assume these employees where not guilty of mismanagement and corruption - what's the basis for that?

[dhinojosa]

78. Sure it sounds familiar.

"although supporters of the oil bosses called the action "politically motivated". Hey, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Sure does, like Ronald Reagan firing air traffic controllers in 1981 because they wanted higher pay and better medical care.

Firing thousands of workers is not progressive in any book, even if they oppose you politically. This is true if you are a right-wing nutbag like Reagan or a left-wing nutbag like Chavez.

[rman]

105. how do you know they were fired not for of mismanagement and corruption?

[Catrina]

26. Do you have a link to that?

I've heard many allegations like this, and then found there were legitimate reasons for much of what he's done.

I like the fact that he's using Venezuela's oil resources to benefit his people.

I like that one of his first acts was to begin to eliminate illiteracy and to raise the poor out of the awful poverty the power elites had kept them in for so long.

I like the fact that he believes in an educated population, and that he is returning to the people of Venezuela what is theirs.

Mostly I like that he has refused to enrich foreign oil profiteers at the expense of his people.

I have seen nothing in his behavior that I would call fascist, by any means.

Mostly, he is enormously popular in Venezuela (way more popular than our current leader) and was elected in one of the cleanest elections ever.

Also, rather than just shoot those who tried to oust him (as our longtime ally, Saddam Hussein liked to do) he is giving them fair trials and has allowed many of them to remain free while awaiting trial. Imagine that happening here?

So far, I see no reason to think of him as anything but a fair leader who cares about his people and his country who has kept all the promises he made in the election!! Imagine us having such a leader??

Blackwater, mmm. Another difference between the US under Bush and Venezuela under Chavez. Chavez' people are enthusiastic about joining the military there.

Here, Bush can't meet his quota of recruitment, month after month and has had to create a 'private army' of mercenaries in Iraq, and it seems here in the US now, in order to fight all of his wars.

I don't see Chavez invading other countries either ~


Should he do anything to cause concerns that he may indeed be fascist or have dictatorial tendencies (as does our leader, according to himself) , then I'll change my mind.

Oh, and one more thing, he isn't a phony hero, he is courageous and has actually fought for his beliefs, unlike our AWOL leader and the rest of his administration.

[dhinojosa]

37. oui...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez

[Catrina]

63. Thank you

I remember that. I don't think this was any ordinary union.

The majority of those who participated in the strike were opposition-supporting white-collar workers including management, opposed in particular to Chávez' attempt to gain control of the oil industry from longstanding vested interests.

Tens of thousands of the country's highest paid, most privileged engineers, technicians, managers, field and office workers that worked for PDVSA participated in these protests, risking their paychecks and their livelihood in order to protest the Chávez government. Many of these workers were dismissed and officially blacklisted by the government so that they would not be employed at any government or government-supporting firms. Most of them were unable to find oil-related jobs in Venezuela and now work abroad.

As I remember, these were the people who trampled on the poor and catered to interests outside their country, such as the Oil Industry. They were opposed to Chavez' refusal to privatize his country's oil industry! Seems to me he did the right thing, and probably could have filed charges against them for treason, but didn't, AIRC.

[Ignis]

46. Interesting context for that action, if you research.

Also, isn't it a bit awkward to claim that the only contemporary Latin American leader to enact sweeping land reform is a fascist?

[dhinojosa]

49. I never said he was a fascist....nt

[rman]

74. You did imply the union workers were fired for no good reason

If they'd be fired for good reason then there's no ground to oppose the firing.
It turns out there is a good reason - or at least hat there very well might be a good reason. It's Chavez's word against the word of big oil corporations who were sharing the wealth only with an exclusive few.
It's all in the wiki article that you linked.

[dhinojosa]

92. Torture and Ill-Treatment are not progressive either

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530052004

[killbotfactory]

103. The police is controlled by the opposition

And were just as brutal during the failed coup attempt. The opposition is always stirring up trouble and violence. In fact, they used violence and media manipulation to paint pro-Chavez demonstrators as violent thugs, while their snipers randomly shot people in the crowd. Of course, the coup leaders were the ones the US backed.

[rman]

122. Where the crowd were Chavez supporters

All the dead and wounded were Chavez supporters.

I just wanted to have that clear.


see all about it:

The revolution will not be televised
www.chavezthefilm.com

[dhinojosa]

152. Link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4794597&mesg_id=4795769

[rman]

180. it's not the 02 coup, no snipers, no deaths

also from your link:

"In April 2002 the confrontation between the opposition and the government led to wide-scale political violence and a short lived coup d’etat forcing the president from office for 48 hours, leaving at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The human rights violations committed in this context have not been clarified and virtually all those allegedly responsible have avoided prosecution."

It;s interesting Amnesty does not mention who died and who did the killing.
I can tell you most by far of these deaths were Chavez supporters. Much of it was on camera.

see all about it:

The revolution will not be televised
www.chavezthefilm.com

[dhinojosa]

146. Excuse Me?

From the link....

According to information gathered by Amnesty International, on 1 March Carlos Eduardo Izcaray, a cellist with the Venezuela Symphony Orchestra and music teacher, was reportedly a bystander as opposition demonstrators clashed violently with the Guardia Nacional (GN), National Guard in Altamira, a middleclass neighbourhood in Caracas known for its fervent opposition to the Chávez government. Opposition demonstrators had erected barricades with burning tyres and rubbish and were throwing stones and bottles and firing fireworks at GN lines, who fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors. According to Carlos Izcaray, he was not participating in the protest but merely observing. However, as the situation became increasingly violent he tried to leave the area, only to be detained by members of the GN who reportedly beat him with their baton (rolos y peinillas) and fists and dragged him by the hair. According to the victim, he was repeatedly insulted and beaten as he was taken to the rear of the GN lines and forced into the back of a GN truck. He was made to sit in a corner with 3 other detainees and was beaten around the head and the back of the neck with different objects, including GN helmets, traffic cones and tear gas canisters. Members of the GN reportedly shouted "Now you’re going to see who the Nacional Guard are" ("ahora si van a ver quien es la Guardia Nacional"). He was repeatedly insulted and one official forced his pistol into his mouth and compelled him to repeat humiliating phrases. Tear gas powder was repeatedly rubbed into his face and hair then water was thrown on him to increase the burning of the powder. Detainees were made to inhale tear gas fumes, while the GN present wore gas masks.

[killbotfactory]

188. I was talking about the 2002 coup attempt

The opposition controls the police, not the national guard. And the opposition is constantly provoking violent protests, as cited in your example.

The abuse by the national guard should be investigated.

[dhinojosa]

196. I wish the opposition would stop causing their own torture...

Damn them!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

on edit: spelling

[killbotfactory]

210. wtf?

I'm not exusing what the national guard did.

But it's pretty much standard operation procedure for the opposition movement to provoke violence for propaganda purposes.

[dhinojosa]

217. I'll take your wtf? and DOUBLE IT!!!! WTF? WTF?

Standard operation procedure for the opposition movement to provoke violence?

[killbotfactory]

240. Yes

You can watch the movie "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and see pro-Chavez supporters being shot in the head by snipers, while the opposition yucks it up with the people orchastrating the coup about how they planned the violence to cause the crisis which led to the nice white-looking people in business suits taking over the government.

Or you can see the police on the streets after they announced the "resignation" of Chavez (which never happened, despite threatening to bomb him and everyone inside the presidential building if he didn't) shooting Chavez supporters who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the "new" government. Something which good ol' Ari Fleicher had no problem doing during the middle of the entire event.

I was watching Current TV where they were asking people in Caracas about what they thought about Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Chavez, and the most vocal anti-Chavez people they talked to applauded the statement and openly called for Chavez's assassination.

It is a volitile climate, and they are trying to provoke violence for political reasons.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

99. I don't agree that the US is imperialist; quite the reverse.

An imperialist country is one that actually wants to govern other countries; most empires have been essentially selfish, but there's often some attempt to take account of the interests of the governed as well as those of the governors.

George Bush and co don't give a damn about other countries. Provided they allow the US access to their markets and keep a regular supply of oil coming, they can go hang - Republicans are actively opposed to "Nation Building".

Bush and Co want tame but independent states where possible, and client (but still independent) states with puppet rulers where not, to avoid having to accept any responsibility for those under their rule.

I think that benign US imperialism would be one of the best developements possible in international politics, although I'm fully aware that a) that's an extremely controversial position, especially for a liberal, and b) that any prospective imperialism from the US in the forseeable future would be anything but benign, making it a complete pipe dream.

[K-W]

104. So you just dont think the US is imperialistic enough?

Because it is, very obviously an empire.

An imperialist country is one that actually wants to govern other countries; most empires have been essentially selfish, but there's often some attempt to take account of the interests of the governed as well as those of the governors.

That is rediculous. Empires only take into account the people so the people wont attack them too heavily.

[rman]

You just need enough control to channel wealth to the US

Once upon a time that was done by taking over a country completely.

These days, economic and political manipulation suffices.

[Mairead]

181. There have hardly been any imperialist nations that have actually absorbed

their victims. Rome might have been the last one that actually absorbed peoples with whom they had no pre-existing cultural ties, although I'm not familiar enough with the Ottoman Empire to know how they did it. The formation of nation-states in the 19th c. also went forward by absorption, but most of the victims were culturally similar (e.g., the formation of Italy and Germany out of Italian- and German-speaking feudal territories).

No, the US is definitely an imperialist power of a piece with the 19th c. imperialist-colonialist UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. As did they, we create puppet/client governments and rule them instead of frankly making our victims US states and the people US citizens.

[movonne]

5. In time to come we will see how Chavez does...but for now he

is doing good for his poor...too bad we can't say the same...

[Balbus]

8. Oh, you're treading in some dangerous water... eom

[maxsolomon]

9. why do you say he's a "radical"?

i think he's a democratic socialist. that is not a radical, except in the insular world of the united states.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. Exactamente

But you do understand saying that makes you look bad. :D

[K-W]

35. Like those crazy radicals in Finland.

Bomb throwing psychos those Finns.

[H2O Man]

155. Thank gosh

we stopped them before they took over Grenada.

[Bouncy Ball]

226. This is making me giggle so hard.

Gallows humor.

[leveymg]

11. Ya, but Hugo doesn't wear cod pieces.

[Dora]

15. IMO

The Venezuelan economy has improved since Chavez has come into office.
The plight of the Venezuelan poor has improved BECAUSE of what Chavez is doing.
Chavez expresses his opinions freely without fear of retaliation.

He's more of a leader than we've seen in years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Have Some Questions..

If he allows


- a free press

-opposition parties

-habeas corpus

-freedom of religion


I have no problems with him....

[1932]

75. As Amartya Sen writes in Development and Freedom

Freedom is more than just process. It has to do with outcomes too.

I think Venezuela is doing well according to both measures.

[Village Idiot]

20. Because he's a RARITY. A truthful politician.

(edited for clarity)

He says what he intends and then does it, for good, or ill.

He stood for election on LAND REFORM, then instituted a land reform program designed to assist small farmers and the landless poor.

He stood for election on BETTER EDUCATION AND OPPORTUNITIES, and Venezuelan education is now free (right through to university level) and is arguably the best educational program in South America.

He stood for election on CONSERVATION and ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, and his government has set up a marine conservation program and is taking steps to protect both the land and fishing rights of indigenous peoples.

He stood for election on HELPING POOR FARMERS and SMALL BUSINESSMEN and then set up special banks to assist small enterprises, worker cooperatives, and farmers.

He stood for election on NATIONALIZING OIL AND ENERGY INDUSTRIES, then frustrated ALL attempts to further privatize the state-run oil industry and placed limits on foreign capital penetration.

HE IS ANTI-IMPERIALIST, ANTI-BUSH, yet NOT ANTI-USA - Chavez kicked out U.S. military advisors in Venezuela and prohibited overflights by U.S. military aircraft engaged in counterinsurgency in Colombia, as well as kicking out DEA agents attempting to gather intelligence covertly. Venezuela remains the third largest exporter of oil to the USA, however...

HE IS A BOLIVARIAN POPULIST LEADER, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED TWICE and will remain so: "Bolivarian Circles" have been organized throughout the nation, neighborhood committees designed to activate citizens at the community level to assist in literacy, education, vaccination campaigns, and other public services.

He stood for election on HELPING THE EMPOVERISHED, and his government now hires unemployed men temporarily for street repair, garbage removal and to help fix neglected drainage and water systems in poor neighborhoods...

Then there is the government's new COMPREHENSIVE health program...

etc... etc... etc...

The fact that he is an extraordinarily COURAGEOUS foil to US imperialism is just icing on the cake...you have to remember that he literally takes his life in his hands every time he criticizes Booosh and US foreign policy...it's his RIGHT and obligation to do so as Venezuela's LEGITIMATELY ELECTED LEADER...

Look at other Central and South American states and what US imperialism has done with compliant dictators and militaristic despots - compare them (Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc) with Chavez's Venezuela...

[rman]

22. Please enlighten us: what's radical about Chavez?

In particular: what's radical about Chavez that you don't like?

The reason why people go ga-ga over Chavez is because he responds to popular demand for improvement in low living standards and production for domestic needs.

[Darranar]

29. He's a Latin American leader who does not bow to the Empire. n/t

[rman]

62. I know. Id like to hear dhinojosa's reasons for claiming Chavez is radical

[donheld]

64. He's radical because he stands up to the USA and

Corporatocracy. That's a radical i can get behind everytime. I'd say he's anti-fascist.

[Inland]

23. Agreed. Most we can say is, not the threat or dictator Bush claims.

nt

[rman]

27. Agreed that Chavez is radical? - On what basis?

[Terran]

137. Yeah, I'm not getting that part either.

So Chavez publicly excoriates Bush for what he is, and uses his country's oil to leverage his agenda *for* his country--which, as far as I can tell, is primarily about changing the paradigm where the US stomps all over the economic independence of South American countries. How does that make him a radical?

[MetaTrope]

30. Sort of like Salvadore Allende...

[aquart]

31. Because Chavez has gotten the better of Bush and we haven't.

If he's a fascist, why isn't he George's best friend?

[K-W]

39. The facist claim is funny.

I love it when cons try to call someone a leftist and a facist at the same time.

[oasis]

33. Chavez will be interviewed by Ted Koppel tonight on ABC's "Nightline".

There's a chance for him to get even more fans.

[dhinojosa]

38. Interesting thanks...nt

[donsu]

43. since you have 1000+ posts you already know why

so why did you ask? pray tell.

[dhinojosa]

55. I've never been a good follower

Just because everyone loves Hugo, doesn't mean I shouldn't question it.

[rman]

61. You could read up on why people love Chavez before you question it.

[dhinojosa]

165. I have....

otherwise I wouldn't have enough to argue with you about it. ;)

[1932]

77. Have you been a good reader?

The posts I've seen about Venezuela tend to be well-argued and supported with links (unlike your drive-by post).

You could also read these books if you want an answer:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1920888004/qid=1126898197/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0913486-6351016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1844675335/qid=1126898197/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-0913486-6351016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[dhinojosa]

167. Drive by post?

How does one consider it a drive by post when the poster sticks around to respond?

[1932]

183. Without the links and the substantial argument and something more than

sloganeering, it feels like a drive by.

[dhinojosa]

186. I have given links in this thread all day! WTF! :)

[rman]

209. those have been discussed

and were found unsupportive of your claims.

[dhinojosa]

221. hahaha. you've just ignored them

Ill check out your movie in due time though. ;)

[1932]

232. Wikipedia? Come on.

[dhinojosa]

246. I gave you amnesty internation too......don't forget

[1932]

255. Why did Amnesty drop The Revolution Will Not be Televised from their

film festival?

http://www.google.com/search?q=amnesty+international&domains=venezuelanalysis.com&sitesearch=venezuelanalysis.com&Search=Search

[dhinojosa]

257. Never saw that before...

Ill need some time to review. ;)

[killbotfactory]

262. Weren't they threatened with violence?

I remember reading something, i think from the film site, that they were going to show the film, but someone started calling in and threatening them with violence if they showed it...

[1932]

297. Aren't they supposed to stand up to threats of violence?

Since when have they backed down on something merely because people willing to resort to violence threatened them?

And considering what they do, is that a good precedent to set? (Presuming that's was a legitimate reason.)

[1932]

298. Aren't they supposed to stand up to threats of violence?

Since when have they backed down on something merely because people willing to resort to violence threatened them?

And considering what they do, is that a good precedent to set? (Presuming that's was a legitimate reason.)

[sandnsea]

280. Why I won't play n/t

[sandnsea]

45. Leftist Ideologues

They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed.

[1932]

79. What about Chavez's ideology scares you?

[killbotfactory]

84. It's the whole fighting for the rights of the poor thing..

It gets big business in a tizzy, and when you live on a large chunk of oil and aren't about to let BushCo and the IMF fuck your nation out of it's wealth it tends to get their puppets in the media riled up. You can't blame people for being un/misinformed about the whole situation down there, when people can get on our news channels and call him a dangerous terrorist supporting dictator who should be assassinated and it's considered enlightened debate.

[sandnsea]

93. No, it's blind allegiance

And the inability to admit that no person or ideology is perfect. The mere idea that leftists can be dictators is lost on far too many at DU.

[K-W]

96. Who claimed Chavez was perfect, out of curiousity? EOM

[rman]

100. It's not about admitting imperfection or realizing what "can be".

This is about what actually is.

Do you think Chavez is a dictator or not? And if so, why?

[killbotfactory]

108. I don't see anyone saying he's perfect

Just admiration of someone who is being a leader for his people and standing up to our corrupt administration.

[Minstrel Boy]

110. It's the incapacity of Chavez-bashers to recognize his overwelming

and legitimate mandates, and their persistance in calling him a dictator, that drives me batshit crazy.

These are generally the same people who regard the Bush thefts of 2000 and 2004 "conspiracy theories."

I have neither patience nor respect for malign and wilfull ignorance.

[Binka]

261. I have neither patience nor respect for malign and wilfull ignorance.

In a fucking nutshell MB.This is a most disturbing thread.

[sandnsea]

114. This could all be written by Bushbots

Quite predictable, and sad.

Hail Chavez!!

[K-W]

119. So you dont care if its true or not.

Only if it is possible for Republicans to say similar things.

Brilliant. Out of curiousity, is there anything Republicans cant say? Is there any claim that would pass your odd ruberic?

[sandnsea]

124. Chavez Ideologues don't care what's true

Excuses are made for everything he has done, just like with Bush. Same thing with Castro. It's nuts, not an odd ruberic.

I don't even know what your reference to Republicans means.

[1932]

138. What exactly do you think people are excusing?

I think it more accurate to say many people only like him because Bush doesn't.

That doesn't mean there aren't many good reasons to like him.

What do you think is a reason people shouldn't like him?

[rman]

139. "everything he has done" - like what?

While you claim i don't care about the truth, you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that Chavez is as bad as you imply him to be, and you seem to be avoiding discussion on the issues.


It's not about admitting imperfection or realizing what "can be".
This is about what actually is.
Do you think Chavez is a dictator or not? And if so, why?

[K-W]

141. Except that you are just making this up.

There is no blind following. There are no excuses being made up.

And my point was that Republicans can say anything, lie about anything. Your argument is that those praising chavez are blindly following him because republicans praise people they blindly follow, which is rediculous.

You are assuming that Chavez is not worthy of praise, and your only proof is that people praise him.

[sandnsea]

187. Here

Tear up this guy.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a corporatist tool, fascist, bla bla bla. I already know the responses I would get to anything I would say against Chavez.

[1932]

135. So it's not Chavez that scares you. It's that many people like him?

And what makes you think it's blind?

At its core, there are people who like him for good reasons.

It does seem like some people like him just because Bush doesn't like him. That's sort of like how we almost picked a presidential candidate, and it's no more helpful in this context as it would have been in 2004. But that has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with personality.

Rather than worrying about this part of the phenomenon, it might be more interesting to talk about what Chavez means to people who have thought about this beyond the context of Bush not liking Chavez.

[Toucano]

322. It's not lost.

Some of us realize that even a leftist dictator beats a "democratically elected" fascist regime.

Chavez is NOT a dictator, of course.

[sandnsea]

90. Blind allegiance scares me

Nobody is perfect and neither is any political or economic philosophy. It is the blind loyalty to Chavez that is scary. I wouldn't want any group of people in charge if they couldn't look at their own failings honestly.

And I refuse to debate Chavez on this board again, it's a waste of time. Hail Chavez!!!

[K-W]

94. A straw man, how refreshing. EOM

[sandnsea]

118. Blind ideology is not a straw man

It's ridiculous that there isn't even skepticism considering the number of leftist dictators that have caused as much harm as the corporate ones.

[killbotfactory]

123. Where is this blind ideology?

If he starts censoring the media, from which the most insane and idiotic anti-Chavez propaganda comes from, or cancelling elections, let me know and i'll be the first to condemn him.

[sandnsea]

126. You wouldn't know

Because you'd deny he was doing it anyway.

[killbotfactory]

136. Hahaha

That's fucking ridiculous. You don't have proof of your assertions, yet you expect us to believe you, and if we don't, we are blind ideologues.

Whatever.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

145. lololol

Believe me? I haven't made any assertions. But it's clear if I had, the proof wouldn't meet your standards, and you wouldn't believe it.

But you aren't blind ideologues.

Whatever indeed.

[K-W]

151. You have made several assertations.

Im not sure why you would choose to deny that.

[rman]

158. nothing but assertions, nothing concrete, no evidence

as was to be expected

[sandnsea]

162. List them please

I've made NO assertions, just that I don't like blind leftist ideology anymore than when it comes from the right. Whether it's Nader or Chavez or even Kucinich.

[K-W]

171. Is this really neccessary?

"Leftist Ideologues: They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed" - assertion

"The mere idea that leftists can be dictators is lost on far too many at DU." - assertion

"This could all be written by Bushbots" - assertion

"Chavez Ideologues don't care what's true
Excuses are made for everything he has done, just like with Bush. Same thing with Castro." - assertion


There are a few more, but I think this should do the trick since you claimed none.

[sandnsea]

194. And so?

These aren't assertions about Chavez. It's about leftist ideologues who can't see the failings of some of their own politics or leaders. It's impossible to argue because an ideologue would never understand what you're arguing about anyway, they're in denial and like it there.

[K-W]

212. Nor did you specify assertions about Chavez.

I am more than aware that you made no assertions about Chavez. You have carefully avoided doing so.

It must be convienent that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong by definition.

[sandnsea]

227. #187

All kinds of assertions about Chavez there. Have at 'em. Tell me that every newspaper or agency that reports anything negative about Chavez is a US corporate tool, bla bla bla...

[K-W]

234. I'll look it over.

I do appreciate that you posted a link to something substantive.

As far as your attempt to put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself.

[1932]

238. The buck should stop with you.

Take some responsiblity for your arguments. Don't pass the buck off to this guy.

[sandnsea]

276. One more time

I'm not arguing about Chavez, I'm arguing about people who are incapable of acknowledging anything negative about him or any other leftist. This guy's arguments are as good as any I might choose to make, because my point is about the responses. If people are honest, they will be the same responses I always get. Anybody who says anything negative about Chavez is a US CIA corporate tool.

[1932]

302. That logic doesn't work.

Maybe Chavez deserves the thumbs up that he gets from the left.

[sandnsea]

303. See #280

Do you think I don't read the rest of the thread?

[1932]

312. an "n/t" post is your argument?

?

[sandnsea]

313. The WHOLE THREAD is my argument n/t

[1932]

314. The whole thread shows the weakness of your argument.

[sandnsea]

319. Yes

Because any argument anybody put up, even Amnesty International, you proved them wrong. Right?

[patdem]

305. SO we throw out the good because it is imperfect....what is left?

No dear, Chavez is not perfect, nor is any person, but if the facists who claim perfection win elections because of their claim of perfection..we need to claim perfection also...or ALL IS LOST!

[killbotfactory]

160. You aren't making any assertions

Except to call everyone in this thread who has expressed approval for what Chavez is doing a blind ideologue.

Either Chavez is doing something wrong and people here are too blinded to see it, of which you offered no proof, or you're just stirring up shit for some reason and copping out on the "blind ideologue" bullshit so you don't have to back anything up.

[K-W]

127. No, your argument is a straw man.

You desmiss people without any rational argument because you claim they are blindly following chavez, when any honest reading of this thread and others shows that people are basing thier opinions on evidence.

[sandnsea]

133. I've had the debate too many times

Killbot, 1932, they know I have. In any event, my argument IS that the blind allegiance of leftist ideology is as dangerous as the Bushbots. The left wouldn't have a clue if one of their beloved leaders was slaughtering thousands because they'd deny it anyway. That's my primary problem with the Chavez love, I'm actually on wait and see mode politically. Although not holding my breath.

[rman]

142. you have become very skillful at avoiding it

[sandnsea]

149. Don't know you either

If Killbot and 1932 wanted to be honest, they'd let you know we have debated Chavez many, many times. And Castro as well. With JudiLyn, and a few others around here.

We'll see.

[1932]

153. I don't remember you saying anything substantial in any of those debates.

If you want to search the archives and give a link to one of your favorites, go ahead.

[sandnsea]

159. "nothing substantial"

See, wouldn't believe anything anybody else presented anyway. Thanks so much.

[1932]

No. I honestly don't remember you saying anything weighty about this.

I remember comments similar to the ones you're making here.

[1932]

173. No. I honestly don't remember you saying anything weighty about this.

I remember comments similar to the ones you're making here.

[sandnsea]

199. Of course you don't n/t

[1932]

216. which is your problem, not mine.

If you have a star, feel free to search the archives and provide a link to a thread of which you're especially proud.

[1932]

148. Do you know that Chavez was inspired to lead his country

because the Caracazao riots (I'm not sure if I spelled that right) among other things.

The previous government murdered citizens who were protesting neoliberal government polices.

Chavez hasn't slaughtered thousands, or even dozens, and is, in fact, the consequence of a government which did do that.

You should read either of the two books I linked above somewhere.

[sandnsea]

157. I'm talking about blind ideologues

NOT Chavez, at this particular moment. In any event, history has seen many horrific leaders replaced with equally horrific, sometimes more horrific, or just plain bad. Who the leader was before Chavez has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Creating a hero and placing your political ideology on him is exactly what the Bushbots do though.

[rman]

164. you have yet to explain which ideology, alegiances to what

your OP:
"Leftist Ideologues
They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed."

Ever since you have presented nothing but assertions, nothing concrete, no evidence.

[1932]

191. The people who are "blind" seem to care about personality, not ideology.

Two thirds of the posters here just like him because Bush doesn't. That has nothing to do with ideology.

The other third actually know what he has done for his country, and I see know reason to question their enthusiasm.

[K-W]

156. So you are right, because you are right.

And anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, because they are wrong.

Wonderful.

[rman]

154. It is if it enables you to avoid explaining why you think Chavez is

a dictator - or even go on record saying that he is, rather then merely implying it.
Where "why" would be -what Chavez has done- to qualify as a dictator. If i'm a blind ideologue because i support Chavez, then what ideology do you think i am following? What do you think this ideology entails?

[sandnsea]

166. Are you a leftist?

Maybe you're one of the rare Chavez supporters who aren't. :shrug:

[rman]

207. i am

[Minstrel Boy]

222. You say that like it's a bad thing. n/t

[sandnsea]

223. Blind ideology, thank you n/t

[K-W]

228. Yes believing that all leftists are bad is blind ideology. EOM

[1932]

231. Let's try to connect the "blind" and the "ideology" parts of this claim.

Why do you think is being blind? And how is that blindness connected to ideology?

The only knee-jerk pro-Chavez posters I see here just say, basically, "if Bush hates himk, I like him." I see no ideology in that. Personally hating Bush isn't an ideology, and the support for Chavez isn't being framed in terms of ideological difference (like, "I like all social democrats no matter what!").

However, there are many DU'ers who explain why the support Chavez in much more detail, such as Judi Lynn. I see nothing worth criticizing in her posts. They certainly aren't blind.

[rman]

241. so leftist = blind ideology?

interesting frame you present there.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Binka]

287. Just As An Aside Cindy Is My Friend

My son is a US Marine currently in Ramadi. This is not a condemnation of Cindy and her brilliant and wonderful work. It is a question about your ideology.

Cindy loves Hugo BTW. Just sayin. :hi:

[sandnsea]

307. Cindy isn't the issue

Has nothing to do with anything. Neither does the fact that your son is a marine. Neither does the fact that Cindy loves Hugo because she certainly doesn't have alot of time to focus on Venezuela. In any event, she obviously has discernment, which some on DU do not have, which was my only point. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Don't know, and frankly, don't care.

I thought you were going to put me on ignore. What happened to that?

[Mairead]

48. That's an easy one: he actually DOES good things.

Given a choice between believing words and believing deeds, who but a fool would choose to believe the words?

So as long as he keeps DOING the right things, he's got my vote.

[Kolesar]

54. Oh, I'd much rather have a corporate-f**k in his place

Just like the good old days of the Monroe Doctrine when we stomped the shit out of anybody who got in the way of the USA. :sarcasm: The Reagan/CIA/right-wing war against the Nicaraguan Sandinistas was probably the formative issue of my political philosophy. Chavez has his back up against the wall. I find myself rooting for the underdog.

[killbotfactory]

87. Agreed. Cuba was the only nation to escape our grasp, really

And Chavez is learning the lessons of that revolution, well.

[Kolesar]

109. I understand Costa Rica never got visited by the Marines

Whereas Nicaragua was invaded four times. A whitewater kayaker friend of mine visited Costa Rica and reported that "that is probably why Costa Rica is not as militaristic as the other Central American countries". I might be overstating my support for Hugo Chavez. He certainly does not have a model government. Maybe I am just indulging myself because Hugo "gives it" to the Bush* administration.

[arcos]

125. Also Costa Rica has no standing army...

Theoretically, it is possible for it to be organized during a crisis, but no one here believes that could ever happen... we simply reject military stuff automatically.

[rman]

57. Chavez is a threat to US/Western corporate/capitalist interests,

which is why he is a potential target for a coup instigated by the US, or assassination, or a military invasion.

Many DU-ers sympathize with Chavez because he is more truly a man of and for the people, more truly a 'democrat' then most of the rest of the world has ever had as a leader.

The US/Western corporate/capitalist interests and the means by which these should be secured are explained in documents from the State Department from 1948:


What follows are excerpts from the famous debate between Noam Chomsky and Richard Perle at The Ohio State University in 1988 (http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8409).

In the debate Chomsky cites from now declassified documents from the State Department. Even an academic of high standing such as Noam Chomsky has a hard time getting access to such documents:

"One learns a lot from looking at the documentary record, and one learns a lot from the fact that certain people don't want you to look at it."
- Noam Chomsky

Chomsky makes a distinction between what he calls "official doctrine" - doctrine as created behind closed doors, and "widely proclaimed doctrine" - the policies as told to the public.
He notes that what's actually happening in the world (much of which goes unreported in the mainstream media) - ie US/Western support of various dictators and genocides, and the 'debt-trap' of so-called "Free Trade Agreements" - is in fact consistent with (secret) official doctrine, but inconsistent with publicly announced policies.

"Official doctrine is quite inconsistent with the historical and documentary record. (Official doctrine) conforms to the pattern of evolving events, and is entirely inconsistent with widely proclaimed doctrine."
- Noam Chomsky


Quotes from declassified State Department documents:

On the 3rd World:

"...a source of raw material and markets for the industrialist capitalist powers, to be exploited for their reconstruction"...

On Latin America:

"Prime concern is the protection of our raw materials. We have 50% of the worlds wealth but only 6% of its population, we must maintain this disparity to the extent possible, by force if necessary, putting aside vague and idealistic slogans such as human rights, raising of living standards, democratization, preferring police states if needed over democracies that might be to liberal and to indulgent to communists, the latter has lost any substantial meaning in US political rhetoric, referring simply to anyone who stands in our way."

"The primary threat to the US in Latin America is the trend to wards nationalistic regimes that respond to popular demand for improvement in low living standards and production for domestic needs. That's not acceptable because the US is committed to encouraging a climate inductive to private investment, in particular guaranties for opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return."

"We must therefore oppose what is regularly called ultra nationalism in secret documents, that means efforts to pursue domestic needs. We must foster exports or (...) production in the interests of US investors. It is recognized such programs have very little appeal to the Latin American public. So the conclusion is that we must therefore gain control over the military which can in turn control domestic opposition and overthrow civilian governments if necessary."

===

"There is a declassified State Department paper from 1948 that outlines what the US intended to do with various regions of the world after World War II. The US decided to take the Middle East and Asia. When it came to Africa, the document essentially says that we're not so interested in Africa, so we'll give it to the Europeans to "exploit"-that's the word used-for their reconstruction." - Chomsky
http://www.madre.org/articles/chomsky-0801.html

===

I. Fundamental Principles: Straight Power Concepts

The fundamental aims of Western foreign policy under American leadership, were stated in a now declassified top-secret planning report produced by the US State Department’s policy planning staff, headed at the time (February 1948) by the ‘liberal’ George Kennan: "We have about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain’ the ‘position of disparity’ between the West and the rest of the world. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.’
http://www.transcend.org/t_database/articles.php?ida=78

===

also see
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html

[Matariki]

65. 2 words

indigenous rights

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Because he fights against American imperialism.

Which is a good enough reason for me.

[dhinojosa]

106. There have been many enemies that fight "American imperialism".

That doesn't mean they are friends of mine.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

190. Do you prefer "friends" like Tony Blair?

He doesn't wear a uniform.

[mshasta]

69. yes I am going ga -ga over chavez and so what!!!

Is no like he is running the USA, is not like he is going to bankrupt the USA by he's little self! ..
So what if I like him or not that is nobody’s business, I can like who ever I want!! And yes I like him and....? What are you going to do about it?
:rant:

[FreedomAngel82]

70. He's one of the first people

who told Bush to fuck off.

[Kralizec]

83. Hugo has some very real qualities. No one is perfect but he has

showed he is pretty selfless and willing to challenge dangerous and irresponisble U.S. and other Western policies. He is *very* popular in South America. I just visited there and the people are much more aware of politics than here. Hugo has the backing of many working people.

[mitchtv]

86. I did not trust him at first., he reminded me of Peron

with the coup and all, but once in power he has seemed to have done the right thing. I will be careful,however.

[redqueen]

107. Find me a leader who's enacted more reforms to help the poor.

Name one leader who has such overwhelming support from the least powerful among the citizenry.

Please.

[killbotfactory]

111. That's a trick question

The US has managed to kill, "disappear", or exile most of them before they had a chance!

[redqueen]

112. That in itself is a testament to Chavez's leadership skills.

I know what you mean, but what I'm trying to convey with that request is the reason so many are so "ga ga" about him.

[K-W]

117. And the Venezualan military.

Which has chosen to serve the people over getting rich.

[redqueen]

128. Yup...

Wonder what would happen if someone in the military did that here?

[H2O Man]

169. I don't understand

why some people are taking the negative position on the guy. Obviously, he's not going to be the democratic candidate in 2008. But I wish that we had a candidate that shared some of his values.

[redqueen]

174. I don't get it either.

It bothers me, though. A lot.

A fair review of flaws I could understand... comparing him to the criminals in charge of this country is, IMO, completely unfair and unwarranted.

[H2O Man]

185. I must admit

that I do not know a great deal about him. However, from the little I do -- and all of it comes from the corporate media -- I find him to be a positive influence in the world. I'd like to learn more about him. I'm not impressed with folks like Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney yapping about him. I'm having a difficult time telling the difference between the negative posts on this thread and the Sean/Dick position. And that's sad.

[rman]

202. here's some perspective

aside from Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney yapping about him (which should tell you a great deal) and aside from Tenet saying "Obviously Venezuela is important because it is the 3rd largest supplier of petroleum. I would say that mr Chavez... the state department may say this... probably doesn't have the interests of the United States at heart."

And then knowing the contents of certain now declassified State Dept documents from 1948:

What follows are excerpts from the famous debate between Noam Chomsky and Richard Perle at The Ohio State University in 1988 (http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=8409).

In the debate Chomsky cites from now declassified documents from the State Department. Even an academic of high standing such as Noam Chomsky has a hard time getting access to such documents:

"One learns a lot from looking at the documentary record, and one learns a lot from the fact that certain people don't want you to look at it."
- Noam Chomsky

Chomsky makes a distinction between what he calls "official doctrine" - doctrine as created behind closed doors, and "widely proclaimed doctrine" - the policies as told to the public.
He notes that what's actually happening in the world (much of which goes unreported in the mainstream media) - ie US/Western support of various dictators and genocides, and the 'debt-trap' of so-called "Free Trade Agreements" - is in fact consistent with (secret) official doctrine, but inconsistent with publicly anounced policies.

"Official doctrine is quite inconsistent with the historical and documentary record. (Official doctrine) conforms to the pattern of evolving events, and is entirely inconsistent with widely proclaimed doctrine."
- Noam Chomsky


The 1948 State Department documents:

On the 3rd World:

"...a source of raw material and markets for the industrialist capitalist powers, to be exploited for their reconstruction"...

On Latin America:

"Prime concern is the protection of our raw materials. We have 50% of the worlds wealth but only 6% of its population, we must maintain this disparity to the extent possible, by force if necessary, putting aside vague and idealistic slogans such as human rights, raising of living standards, democratization, preferring police states if needed over democracies that might be to liberal and to indulgent to communists, the latter has lost any substantial meaning in US political rhetoric, referring simply to anyone who stands in our way."

"The primary threat to the US in Latin America is the trend towards nationalistic regimes that respond to popular demand for improvement in low living standards and production for domestic needs. That's not acceptable because the US is committed to encouraging a climate inductive to private investment, in particular guaranties for opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return."

"We must therefore oppose what is regularly called ultra nationalism in secret documents, that means efforts to pursue domestic needs. We must foster exports or (...) production in the interests of US investors. It is recognized such programs have very little appeal to the Latin American public. So the conclusion is that we must therefore gain control over the military which can in turn control domestic opposition and overthrow civilian governments if necessary."

====

"There is a declassified State Department paper from 1948 that outlines what the US intended to do with various regions of the world after World War II. The US decided to take the Middle East and Asia. When it came to Africa, the document essentially says that we're not so interested in Africa, so we'll give it to the Europeans to "exploit"-that's the word used-for their reconstruction." - Chomsky
http://www.madre.org/articles/chomsky-0801.html

====

I. Fundamental Principles: Straight Power Concepts

The fundamental aims of Western foreign policy under American leadership, were stated in a now declassified top-secret planning report produced by the US State Department’s policy planning staff, headed at the time (February 1948) by the ‘liberal’ George Kennan: "We have about 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain’ the ‘position of disparity’ between the West and the rest of the world. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we will have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.’
http://www.transcend.org/t_database/articles.php?ida=78

====

also see
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html

[H2O Man]

215. Thank you.

I remember that some folks got upset when Malcolm X said that people want to control their own communities. And these same people got really nervous when Malcolm talked about community control in terms of the constitution. They found that threatening.

Malcolm did threaten those who wanted to prey on the vulnerable. I always admired that. And I always like people who follow Malcolm's line of thinking.

[julianer]

235. Isn't your use of the words 'ga ga'

rather like the tired accusation that anyone on the left must be mad?

I think people are excited about Chavez, not 'ga ga', mainly because he seems to be an honest democrat with a popular left programme.

[redqueen]

244. I'm sardonically using the OP's words.

:hi:

[1932]

168. Omar Torrijo took back the canal for Panama

He got a pretty good deal out of Carter and he did it to alleviate poverty, but, oops, his plane fell out of the sky. Eventually, his protoge Noriega became president of Panama who ended up not being all that helfpul to the US, so we invaded the country.

A good book about Torrijos is Graham Greene's book (the title of which I can't remember). Also, Noriega wrote a book that's probably worth reading.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

175. I think it's Conversations with the General. But you wouldn't want to read

it. Because Torrijos also wore his uniform so that makes him an asshole.

:eyes:

[1932]

200. The uniform Chavez wears is of an army that builds railroads to poor towns

In Chavez's book, which I've linked, there's extensive discussion of what the military was about in Venezuels. The secret police assassinated people during the Caracazao riots. Many in the military, made up of formerly poor, radicalized people, were horified by the killings.

When Chavez himself was in the military, he intervened to protect an indigenous tribe from being killed for sport by white hunters.

Since Chavez became president, he has used the army as a public works organization.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

204. I actually got the book. At least I think I know which book you refer to.

I haven't gotten a chance to read it. The New Latin America?

[1932]

206. Yeah, that's it.

Read it. It will blow your mind. It's a very quick read.

[redqueen]

184. Thanks...

I was thinking more along the lines of current-day leaders... but thanks for the info.

:hi:

The lack of response so far seems to indicate maybe people do have a reason for being "ga ga".

[rman]

192. "Confessions of an economic hitman" also mentions it.

The author John Perkins was the 'mechanic' making the economic deals with the Torrijo govt. When he was called off he realized it was turn for the "jackals" to give it a try. It's standard procedure.

[1932]

211. Right. Torrijo cut a deal with him.

Only recommend projects that actually benefit the citizens and Torrijo would give him all their contracts.

People back at the office couldn't believe that Perkins wasn't using development funds to put a noose around Panama's neck, but couldn't complain because Perkins was bringing in so many contracts.

It's important to recognize that Panama was the only country where Perkins admists he actually did anything helpful (and I think there was a hint of guilt in his book that maybe it was because Panama was working that Torrijo ended up dead).

[chavi]

189. Can't think of any - sorry!

Viva la Chavez!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

195. Wearing that uniform is what saved his life a few years back.

Even though the high command betrayed him the lower ranking officers decided to defend the constitution instead. What a concept. He's one of them and that's the one thing that has kept him from suffering the same fate as Allende, Arbenz and others before them. Oooooooh he wears a scary costume. I'm sorry but that's just fucking silly.

As far as the people he fired go. Venezuelans that I've talked to (whether they like him or not) have told me those assholes were using PDVSA as their personal piggy bank. Complete with chauffeurs for their kids, cell phones and all kinds of shit all paid for by the company.

There's a shitload of things I didn't like about Clinton but still respected the good things he accomplished. To each his own I guess.

[1932]

218. Wait until you read about the kidnapping in the Chavez book.

It's fascinating.

A group of soldiers -- guards -- were going to shoot him. He calmed them down. He convinced them to wait until the morning to see what happens. They all slept on the beach. He said he could have walked away when the guards were asleep, but he stayed.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

220. Man that book took forever to come out. Amazon kept showing

a different release date every month. I would have preferred a spanish edition but didn't find one.

[ArkDem]

208. I thought Hugo was a hurricane...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

214. Yup, 1990. It fucked up my house. Kinda like Bush is doing to the world.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

252. Interesting...

:)

[dhinojosa]

310. Works both ways

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4796093&mesg_id=4796093

[Douglas Carpenter]

237. What is the basis for calling him a radical??

He is not a dictator. He is certainly not a Marxist. His human rights record is certainly better than the almost any of his neighbors according to every credible human rights organization in the world.

He is called a radical because he represents opposition to a world system that has radically increased the gap between the rich and poor.

I live in the Philippines part the year. Like in most of the third world, there are more fine restaurants, night clubs, cafes and boutiques than ever before. If you read the financial journals, you will hear how the economy has been growing and growing and economic opportunity is getting better all the time.

If you talk to the vast overwhelming majority of Filipino's (the same can be said of almost every other developing country) you will hear a completely different story.

Hugo Chavez has emerged as a worldwide voice for those who are not welcome in the fine restaurants, boutiques, night clubs and cafes of the world.

God Bless him.

[chavi]

248. Well said! Bravo!!! n/t

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

245. Give me a break.

[T Town Jake]

251. As David Lee Roth would say....

...one break, coooooommmiiiiinggg up!

About what, BTW? (if you don't mind me asking and all...)

[1932]

256. Didn't Van Halen have an anti-imperialism song?

[Qibing Zero]

249. This post is disgusting.

With no evidence whatsoever, you insult Chavez and anyone supporting him, and then claim to be a 'genuine liberal'. We're the freeper trolls, yet you're not, posting this utterly baseless drivel?

Open your mind up every now and then, pal.

[T Town Jake]

253. Must have hit pretty close to "home"...

...to get such virulent reactions, huh?

[rman]

270. No, it's just disgusting.

That alone is enough to call it disgusting.

[T Town Jake]

278. Nah. It's the truth...

...and you just think it's hell (with a tip of the hat to Harry Truman, whom would no doubt agree with me that Chavez is an asshat).

[rman]

281. I know it's a lie

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

317. Even if it's true that the truth hurts

Not everything that hurts is the truth.

I don't know what you wrote but it must have been pretty outrageous to have been deleted (while the supposedly "virulent" responses weren't.)

[Bridget Burke]

273. No, some people are still shocked by baseless drivel....

The rest of us just get bored.

Red Baiting went out a LONG time ago!

[Qibing Zero]

283. Yes.

The fact that some Dems still freak out, tossing the 'commie' tag at anyone more left than themeselves, is quite disturbing to me. It's okay though, these boards are still open-minded - for the most part. :)

[Bridget Burke]

250. I'm not "ga-ga" over anyone.

But I've got some admiration for Chavez. And even Castro.

No, they aren't perfect. Who is?

[chavi]

254. OMG! You need to get a clue!

Personally, I think the anti-Chavez brigade are disrupters! But, I'm a newbie here so what do I know? I thought I knew my own, maybe I don't!

[dhinojosa]

259. Welcome to DU....

Cordially,

Disrupter numero uno!
;)

[chavi]

263. Thank You!

:toast:

[Douglas Carpenter]

264. what is your evidence that Chavez is not a progressive ?

I am sure he is far from perfect -- let's put him in the context of a Latin American leader -- it would be intellectually dishonest to compare him to a western leader. The situation is completely different. In the context of a Latin American leader, what is your evidence that he is not a progressive?

[dhinojosa]

268. .

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530052004

[killbotfactory]

291. If Chavez was a dictator with an iron grip on his nation...

I would lay blame at his feet for this. But as it is now, it's impossible to control everyone in a democratic society. Especially one that has an opposition movement calling for the violent overthrow of his government, starting riots, and saying Chavez should be assassinated.

Hell, worse happens in the US, and we are self-proclaimed beacons of freedom.

[dhinojosa]

295. Wow, that makes no sense....

Bush has no irongrip on this nation either, yet we still torture.

[Qibing Zero]

299. You're delusional

Just because the people may not agree with what goes on, doesn't mean the government won't still do whatever the fuck they want. Actual representation went out the door years ago, and since we have no way to remove people from office as a people, we lose.

[killbotfactory]

301. Uh.. yeah

You don't think a lot of that is beyond Bush's control? Or are you trying to say that every abuse of power from the military to the local police is a result of orders from Bush?

[dhinojosa]

306. That seemed to be the point about Abu Ghraib...nt

[killbotfactory]

309. Abu Graib was much different

you realize that, don't you?

[dhinojosa]

315. How is it different?

It isn't. Where does the standard operating procedure come from? The top.

[killbotfactory]

320. Abu Graib was systematic torture to try and infiltrate a guerilla movement

It was authorized from the top.

What's happening in Venezuela, or at least the specific example you cited, is what happens anywhere in the world when protestors start riots and get into violent conflicts with law enforcement and security. If you can't find any examples of that happening here, you aren't looking very hard.

[T Town Jake]

271. Communists are not "progressives"...

...and no amount of burbling about the "context" of "a Latin American leader"--not the standard any genuine liberal I know would subscribe to in the first place--changes that hard fact.

Try again.

[Bridget Burke]

275. Perhaps you should start a thread.

Define "genuine liberal" for us.

[Qibing Zero]

277. A question:

Are you old enough to have taken 'Americanism vs Communism' classes in school? If so, how did they affect your current hateful status toward anyone to the left of your current view?

[Douglas Carpenter]

282. hugo chavez is not a communist -- that is proposterous

And let's compare his human rights record that he is directly responsible for to that of any of his neighbors.

Sorry, I'm on break and I have to get back to work.

[chavi]

286. Do you have a problem that he was elected democratically?

What's your REAL beef?

[Minstrel Boy]

288. Chavez is a democratic socialist.

Though you probably think I'm splitting Marxist hairs.

In his own words:

"Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from with capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington. We have to re-invent socialism. It can’t be the kind of socialism that we saw in the Soviet Union, but it will emerge as we develop new systems that are built on cooperation, not competition."

[chavi]

293. I agree with this! Does that mean that I am in the...

wrong newsgroup?

I thought I was a dem. (that's what I'm registered as). I'm definitely NOT a repug! Do greens agree with this?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

318. Communist?

Now everyone to the left of Margaret Tatcher is a communist?

Who else is a communist? Lula? Zapatero? Schroeder?

[rman]

284. The situation is the same:

Pretty much everywhere there's a struggle between the powerful wealthy few and the unpowerful not so wealthy many. Difference is in Venezuela the many are in power.

[Bridget Burke]

258. Nervousness & uneasiness can be symptoms...

What did you have for lunch?

[dhinojosa]

260. A quesadilla made of corn tortilla and muenster....

After such an ethnic you would think I would be "GA-GA" over Chavez. ;)

[malaise]

265. All I'll say is

Viva Chavez.

[dhinojosa]

266. You still want a quesadilla?

;)

[QC]

267. He's so DREAMY!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone at school is just soooooo jealous of my Hugo Chavez lunchbox!

[ArkDem]

269. You are lost. This is not a Wes Clark thread.

[LittleClarkie]

272. Bwahahahahahaha!

:yourock:

[chavi]

289. When will they come out with a...

John Edwards lunch box? I'm waiting for THAT one!

[Telly Savalas]

285. I hear that Chavez has a program to get kids addicted to crack.

You've just read it on the internet. It must be true.

[killbotfactory]

290. I heard the same thing!

Now you have "multiple sources".

[Toucano]

311. Viva Chavez! I wish Hugo was US president!

There.

Now ALL OF US are primed for the ass bite. Rrrrrr!

As if!

[oasis]

316. Chavez will be interviewed by Ted Koppel tonight on ABC's "Nightline".

I'm sure Ted will go over the pros and cons.

[BronxBoy]

325. OK

I read the entire thread. And I still have the same question at the end that I did at the beginning: What's your fucking point? What the fuck is he making you nervous about? What's going to boil over? I don't know if you noticed but shit is boiling over in this country. Chavez bite us in the ass? Katrina just bit us in the ass and spent 2 weeks chewing on it. (Predominantly dark meat I might add)

I'm sure this guy isn't pure as the driven snow but it seems from the a lot of the posts that I read that things have improved considerably for the poor and disadvantaged under his watch. You bring up some good points and so do people who hold opposing views.

Your last statement is very cautionary and I appreciate it but I tell you what: When Chavez is President of the United States and he's letting Black people drown in the Delta, then I'll be concerned. But I don't think he'd do that. He might let a bunch of rich people drown but hey, there needs to be some balance right? Let the pendulum swing...

But once again, aren't there some other cautionary tales we could be worrying about?

[Moderator]

326. Locking...

This is flamebait and this thread has run its course.