Chavez Calls Bush 'The Devil' at U.N.

The truth hurts, eh?

Critical, I find that Rhine generally exhibits an excellent, well-cited understanding of the situations he's commenting on - even if he does fuse that with a sort of bemused contempt for people who refuse to open their eyes and look at the world objectively.

Which part of Chavez's statements do you disagree with? Where specifically is Rhine wrong? Wolf obviously doesn't want to hear anything Chavez has to say, and to me and presumably to Rhine such an attitude is counterproductive. Please respond to this - don't just slink away, I'm curious - where do you disagree?

Critical,

The truth still hurts, eh?

Btw, you must be a neo-con -- waiting for the truth to come to you. If you were a real man, a real American that stands for truth and freedom, you would go to the truth, pursue it till you find it. Instead of taking what you are being spoon-fed to be the truth.

When I was little, my mom would give me bitter medicine if I got sick and she would tell me that it is bitter-sweet and that for every spoon I took, Santa Claus will bring me a super-sweet candy at the end of the financial year. I swallowed it without questioning.

Wolf obviously doesn't want to hear anything Chavez has to say, and to me and presumably to Rhine such an attitude is counterproductive. Please respond to this - don't just slink away, I'm curious - where do you disagree?

Why do you presume to think that I don't want to hear what he has to say? I've listened to it and to me, it's all American hate spewed out in our faces. He's hated us well before he and Ahmadinejad started becoming giggling schoolgirls.

The fact of the matter is that Iran is funding Hezbollah. This fact alone proves that they are up to no good. This is taking the idea that they are potentially creating WMD out of the picture for a moment.

Should I trust the fact that they have nuclear power and are using it for peaceful purposes, why would I considering this fact? Why would I consider Chavez and Ahmadinejad strange bed fellows?

It seems awfully convenient to me to further corrupt a corrupted neighbor to the south as a means to catch us with our pants down, namely on the oil front as well as the possibility of smuggling terrorist members into the same country only to sneak their way into ours.

I couldn't help but laugh because so many of the things Chavez was saying was RIGHT. However, I am concerned because this the 100,000,000th piece of evidence that the world hates the USA. Bush's foreign policy blunders, and his devious schemes have really damaged our reputation.

With God's help, the Democrats can take Congress this fall. Then we can begin to rebuild our reputation.

With God's help, the Democrats can take Congress this fall. Then we can begin to rebuild our reputation.

It's not so much Republican / Democrat / Xenu, we need people in office that are realists.

Keep us safe but don't sacrifice what this country has worked hard to become for its people.

Regardless of Bush and his administrations blunders, we do have people crazier than a @!$%# house rat willing to kill us (us being the American people) because of our leader's policies or the way we live our lives.

If people think that this is a made up major conspiracy theory to make us all sheep, tell that to the victims families globally who've had family members die in senseless attacks on anywhere these same nuts can stick a pack of C4 to.

With God's help, the Democrats can take Congress this fall. Then we can begin to rebuild our reputation.

Most of the what is happening today is just the result of a series of events started during the '70s and '80s when the Democrats had control of Congress. I really doubt they would change much of anything.

And when Clinton wanted to enact laws that would keep the US safe during the 90's the republicans played politics and stopped anything real from happening.

oh yes... and the White house controls the foreign policy... not congress.. thus the republicans are at fault in as much as the President controlled how the US conducted itself over seas.

Adam, once again you are flaming Democrats without any substantiation. Tell me with facts where the Democrats are responsible for todays situation. If I am not mistaken, a Republican was in office for 24 of the last 36 years.

And when Clinton wanted to enact laws that would keep the US safe during the 90's the republicans played politics and stopped anything real from happening.

And you just answered yourself here:

oh yes... and the White house controls the foreign policy... not congress

(also, I've heard you repeat that over and over again without ever citing specific laws and how they would actually help fight terrorism)

Tell me with facts where the Democrats are responsible for todays [sic] situation. If I am not mistaken, a Republican was in office for 24 of the last 36 years.

Please read what I say and what my comment was in reference to, which was:

With God's help, the Democrats can take Congress this fall. Then we can begin to rebuild our reputation.

If the problems start with a Republican as President, then turning the Congress to Democrat changes nothing.

If the problem is at the Congressional level, well then the Democratic Congress previous did very little to help anything.

Adam, you still failed to answer my assertion. You have asserted that all the ills of the world are due to Democrats being in power during the 70s, 80s, 90s, til now. When in fact the Republicans have been in the office of President for 2/3 of that time period. Please answer how you find the Democrats responsible for our current situation. If you can't, then please refrain from making the accusation again.

Hetep and Respect I remember the good old days when folks on the vine just complained about me referring to Bush as the King. Now headlines read, Bush is the Devil! It does not appear that the King is improving the image of our country.

someone needs to make a devil poll on the vine.

Adam, you still failed to answer my assertion. You have asserted that all the ills of the world are due to Democrats being in power during the 70s, 80s, 90s, til now.

I am unable to answer your question because you claim that I asserted something that I did not.

I never claimed that the ill of the world are due to Democrats being in power in the past. I merely claimed that the ills of now were set in motion in the past when Democrats were in power in Congress and were thus unable to help prevent any of the ills today. I don't care about the Republican president because the initially comment I was responding to made no mention of the presidency. The scope of the initial comment and my subsequent comments were entirely limited to Congress. If the initial comment had mentioned elect a Democrat in 2008 to help fix everything, then the president becomes relevant. This, however, is not the case and the president is irrelevant.

I merely claimed that the ills of now were set in motion in the past when Democrats were in power in Congress and were thus unable to help prevent any of the ills today. I don't care about the Republican president because the initially comment I was responding to made no mention of the presidency. The scope of the initial comment and my subsequent comments were entirely limited to Congress. If the initial comment had mentioned elect a Democrat in 2008 to help fix everything, then the president becomes relevant. This, however, is not the case and the president is irrelevant.

So, I guess you are now backtracking on previous comments on other threads that Clinton was to blame. Now you are saying "the president is irrelevant".

So, I guess you are now backtracking on previous comments on other threads that Clinton was to blame. Now you are saying "the president is irrelevant".

No, I am saying the Presidency is irrelevant to this conversation here and now. This scope of this conversation is just about Congress, not the President. Other conversation may be about the President, but not Congress. Other conversation may involve both.

Yes... it is about Congress... Congress did not cause the problems we see... 40 years of cold war international relations caused this.

What congress can do is stop passing laws that hurt people and reward corporations. Stop passing laws that destroy liberties, and put a huge boot on the rear wheel of the president's agenda (he already put one on his front wheel). So, congress can not fix the problems over seas, but it sure and heck can fix the problems we have here.

"The truth hurts" is usually used by people who have no real argument and facts to backup their beliefs. All this means when I hear it is that you have given up on the argument and also would like to say, "Please pretend that I won".

Well I have no interest in winning this argument because there is to much ignorance involved. I have seen it on both sides actually.

What should be kept in mind though is that the world has always hated America. We step in to help out when needed but we also take advantage of opportunities in those situations. But that isn't why we are hated. They are just excuses we give them to the real things that can't be voiced out so easily. For some it's jealousy that people who don't share their beliefs get to live in safer, richer lands. To express that would be to show envy which is like admitting we are better, whether we are or are not.

We're not better, we just have had it better. We are the ones who sit at the poker table and blindly bluff and stab at the pot, then you feel silly when we win having nothing in our hands. Then you feel even dumber when you try to call our bluff and we pull out 2 Aces.

Back to the topic. Bush is hated by many Americans and that feeds the fire. I am not sure if it is good or bad to have the focus and blame put on Bush alone but I do know that people hated us before GW and will hate us still long after. To think otherwise is very ignorant. I also know that Those who voted for Bush last election should feel proud of themselves because if we said to the world. "OOPS, we're sorry we reacted so wrongly to the little airplane prank. We'll get rid of the person who pushed the most for it and get this other guy in here" All we would be saying is that we are WEAK.. We would look so weak and stupid, regardless of it being the best course of action. I have such a respect for the President because he has an unshakable conviction and that is what is ABSOLUTELY 100% NEEDED in any leader!

Bush may not have done what someone else would have done but you can't look back in time and say things would have been better had we gone another way. Fact is even if things had even seamed better it would have only been because you would still be blind to the resentment against us. It has and always will be there. The only way to create peace is to first have conflict. America had it's share of conflict and the end result was that we came out stronger. In the same way this will lead to a stronger more united world. It's certainly time to look forward not backward. Blame games are a joke! Not a funny once since few people are blaming the people who turned innocent people into human bombs now days.

To those who feel like you can just sit back and have a happy life, and be peaceful and loving to everyone around you. I'm sorry but the people who bombed us, the people who hate us. They have no comprehension for your passive attitude. Look at our northern neighbor, Canada. They are fairly quiet to the world and are just as hated because they are also a democracy. These people hate more then America but it would only be by destroying us that they can destroy the rest who don't share their religious views.

Critical,

Myopic vision is a virtue to you?

That's a good link. Some people around here might find it very instructive, were they the sort to embrace instruction.

Here here! Let the UN go somewhere else. The UN should go somewhere less metropolitan, and perhaps spread the love a bit and go elsewhere - like Monrovia, or Kabul.

Yes, sending the UN out fo American...that will send such a strong message to the world, that we believe in freedom, but only for us.

I was to cuss, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster has warned me about you pirates.

I wouldn't kick them out of the USA. But, I would send them packing from Turtle Bay. Kofi has been pissing and moaning about the building's state of disrepair. He also says that they need far more office space and better security.

We should give them land on Governors Island in the East River. More space to build a larger new facility. Surrounded by water so it is far more secure. It could meet all of the UN's needs and give the City back the prime real estate on the Lower East Side.

My God. The world says that the U.S. has lost its civility but I think what has truly happened is that the U.S. is one of the last remaining civilized countries in the world. That this supposed "World Body" would entertain such disrespectful behavior is an absolute disgrace.

I find this as disrespectful as what you claimed Chavez said, the only difference is that Chavez criticized one leader of one country, while you insulted the whole world. "One of the last remaining civilized countries"? Where else have you lived? This is the kind of condescending comments based on nothing that make this country the target of the rest of the world (if you acknowledge the existence of such).

Americans need to travel, and even stay at other countries to see how there are more than one way to live. And guess what, some other ways can work pretty well, too.

UN is worthless without US's back, I'd say, see the list linked above about US's vetos. If those vetos didn't happen, maybe, just maybe UN would be a lot more relevant.

"One of the last remaining civilized countries"? Where else have you lived?

Directly echoed. I don't think you can speak for other countries very objectively when you're living in the US.

I also dont see why so many of you balk when someone criticizes America, but find it perfectly fine that Bush has ruined all of our foreign relations by criticizing all of them for not supporting him in his endeavors.

Are you not supposed to be "diplocatic" when you go to the UN? Sounds like Chavez was acting like a child at the grown ups table.

Just imagine that President Bush gave the same speech that Chavez did only directed at Chavez. How would you react then? If Hugo Chavez wants to say this stuff then fine but do it in his own country and not in front of the United Nations. That entire rag tag organization has got to go.

whats wrong with calling the devil by his name? If he thinks bush is wrong can he not say so?

whats wrong with calling the devil by his name? If he thinks bush is wrong can he not say so?

This type of talk has no place in the United Nations. They are supposed to act like heads of state.

I'm glad to see that some prominent Democrats came out to rightly chastise Hugo Chavez and his un-statesmanlike comments.

Charles Rangel

Nancy Pelosi

Ironically the more Chavez and Mahmoud rhetoric sounds like Democratic campaign speeches the more Bush poll numbers are rising...

I was thinking the exact same thing. When the Democrats are confronted with this though they become defensive and act insulted.

I think what is happening is that the Democrats' opinion and President Bush's low (although now rising) approval numbers have been so prominent in our news media that these two bit leaders are picking up on it and believe that repeating the same things will make them popular. I think they underestimate how most Americans don't like to hear our President and our country being insulted on our own soil.

Americans don't like to hear our President and our country being insulted on our own soil.

Damn straight!! Its my right as an American to insult my President, not Chavez's! I pay taxes, all he does is take our oil money!

Seriously, if Chavez cared that much about the anti-american crap, he'd just stop selling us oil and watch us break down. But he won't because his country is making lots and lots of money from us.

Likewise, we Americans should stop buying so much damn energy from the places that hate us. This two sided "we hate you and want to bomb you while you shoot at us with guns that you bought from us, with the money that we gave you" is pointless. If we really care so much, stop buying oil and natural gas from Iran and Venezuela.

I mean, we've been told that if we buy drugs then we're supporting terrorism... where does buying a Hummer fit in exactly?

I think they underestimate how most Americans don't like to hear our President and our country being insulted on our own soil.

Then how do you explain the popularity of The Daily Show? They insult the President all the time. I love it. :)

I think they underestimate how most Americans don't like to hear our President and our country being insulted on our own soil.

The U.N. in New York is not "your own soil". The United Nations in New York is international territory. FBI & CIA can't do @!$%# inside as far as authority goes, if they do not have consent.

I'm not going to give you a lecture about how this "soil" came to be because we eradicated the Indians and how slaves helped create this country via free labor.

Then how do you explain the popularity of The Daily Show?

At least it's us.

The U.N. in New York is not "your own soil".

Yes yes yes, I know about "international territory" but you also know exactly what I'm talking about. The UN is not located in Europe. It's in New York. Last I heard that was located inside the United States.

he'd just stop selling us oil and watch us break down.

Already happening. Venezuela is stopping a good deal of contracts with Citgo gas stations. Of course this is not of his choosing, but thanks instead to Chavez's incompetent management of his nation's Oil resources.

Then how do you explain the popularity of The Daily Show? They insult the President all the time. I love it. :)

But that is coming from other Americans or at least Canadians sometimes. It's like the rule that no one can insult your brother or sister but you.

Or we could do like civilized nations like Iran do and let a group of deranged students overrun it and hold the delegates hostage for a year or so. It's not like the Europeans would do anything. They are supine when talk fails (c.f. Darfur, Bosnia, the original Iranian hostage crisis, etc.).

Hobson, I think you are ascribing the lack of oil contracts to Citgo from Venezuela to Chavez's management being bad rather than Chavez just not selling oil to the US.

Did you ever think that perhaps he considers it against their nation's interest to sell off its oil resources as fast as they can?

Behind My Screen, not at all. Chavez has been unable to meet those contracts with Venezuelan oil for sometime now and has actually had to buy outside oil to meet those contracts. If he was able to meet them, then he wouldn't have had to go outside to do so. He ended them not because he didn't want to, but because he wasn't able to.

What do you think the changes were? Less exploitation of the work force would result in less oil production and still not be attributable to mismanagement.

What do you think the changes were? Less exploitation of the work force would result in less oil production and still not be attributable to mismanagement.

Actually the exact opposite is true. The less exploited a work force is the more productive they are. Would you call the American workforce exploited, especially in comparison to the Venezuelan workforce, and yet the American workforce is far more productive.

I was referring to long hours and low wages. Plantations were very productive for their time. Giving the slaves their freedom killed those plantations because they could not be as productive, even if they transitioned to share cropping.

So to say that removing exploitation should mean one is more productive is missing the curve.

Is the american worker exploited? I dunno.. the hourly workers certainly aren't, I think that Salaried workers could be considered as over worked and for the most part, not compensated for those hours... that would be a form of exploitation and they seem to be pretty darn productive.

So Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Bush are all morally equivalent? Which would you choose to protect you?

So Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Bush are all morally equivalent? Which would you choose to protect you?

Depends on where you live.

Is has nothing to do with morality, but with their stupidity to use such religious references. They're presidents, not religious figures. Religious language should never be involved in politics.

So Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Bush are all morally equivalent? Which would you choose to protect you?

Is there an option for "none of the above?"

So Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Bush are all morally equivalent? Which would you choose to protect you?

When's the last time Iran, Venezuela or Cuba were in a war?

Just asking...

The Iranians in the eighties were in a nasty dustup with Saddam. They didn't prosecute the war very effectively either, despite an almost overwhelming advantage in manpower.

Personally, I subscribe to the Walls Test. When you build a wall around your country is it to keep people from moving in or to keep them from moving out? Neither Iran nor Venezuela have built either kind of wall, but Cuba fails. Badly.

Dennis P. McCann

When's the last time Iran, Venezuela or Cuba were in a war?

Who disputes that the Iranians controls Hezbollah. They are Iranian soldiers that infiltrate other countries and recruit locals for extremists reasons. Hezbollah is a military group FROM Iran.

Who disputes that the majority of Iraqi opposition is a group from Iran?

Where are the IEDs from? Iran. Where are the Jordanian and Hezbollah missiles come from? Iran.

Check Venezuela and Bolivia

The U.S. State Department has expressed its concern that Venezuela is using its wealth gained from oil production to destabilize the country's democratic neighbors in the Americas by funding anti-democratic groups in Bolivia, Ecuador, and elsewhere.

Cuba is not so great either....

Chavez has made a valient effort to rescue his economy from IMF-induced loan-slavery, has opened up free health clinics across the country, has taught one million adults how to read, and has created for the first time in decades a culture in Venezuela that's predicated on the idea that poor people don't have to simply accept poverty without a fight. His country has been a victim of Western economic warfare for decades and he has the audacity to fight back - what do you know about him, really?

No, he hasn't succeeded in everything. No, he's not perfect. No, I wouldn't rather live there than here in the US. But my humble opinion is that he's doing a remarkable job considering the obstacles in his path, and hate-filled assertive ignorance as expressed by yourself, Forbes Goldstein, as well as by several others in this forum, helps nobody.

...and that nice young man has multi-billion dollar arms deals with Russia, and he's cute too....

AND

I wouldn't rather live there than here in the US.

Please go! Please! Please! Please!

So...multi-billion dollar arms deals are illegal? I don't understand your moral outrage here considering your unflagging support for the United States.

As far as me leaving - man, grow up. Your singularly uninformed brand of ignorant ethno-centric petulance gets boring after a while. Maybe if instead of spouting talking points and living with the tremendous strain of supporting a regime that perpetually undermines principles you purport to hold you took a moment to educate yourself you'd have something productive to add to the discourse. As it stands, you're just another brainless voice chanting in a remarkably dull chorus of monotone misanthropy. And you - you who have never in my experience on these forums NEVER made an informed point and NEVER stuck around for a constructive debate - YOU have the audacity to ask me to leave?

Sir, I have nothing further to say to someone so deeply committed to ignorance and intolerance. Have fun with your catch-phrases and uninformed and unquestioned moral indignation. If you ever come to the realization that your maginot line is pointed at the only people willing to stand for freedom and democracy, drop me a line. Otherwise, you can go to hell.

Chavez has made a valient effort to rescue his economy from IMF-induced loan-slavery

That alone should be indicative of the type of leader Chavez is. Organizations like the IMF and World Bank (of which one of the supports of PNAC is the head), are part of an intricate monetary policy hustle that keep dependant nations in perpetual debt. I don't want to get to far into it now but if other countries took Chavez's lead and gave the IMF the finger, they would be a lot better off.

Chavez has oil so it's not so hard to tell the IMF to take a hike. However, other less fortunate countries that don't have the valuable natural resources cannot.

Politics is a trip.

With the U.S vast oil reserves

Huh? Did you shoot the ground in your backyard and discover some texas tea? Where do we have vast enough oil reserves to survive without any foreign oil?

Oil is simply not the answer. Coal could tied us over for a while, but we really need to be moving away from fossil fuels altogether. Then we CAN stop dealing with these jerk-offs, and they'll stop getting rich off of us.

mcrg, are you more critical of Chavez' arms deals with Russia or with the US' position as the number one arms producer and dealer in the world? Also, you'd have a stronger point if you read Mykola's actual words before responding. She said 'I WOULDN'T rather live...'. Not 'I would..'

But aside from that, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Bush are all guilty of the same unfortunate tendency towards hyperbole. Difference is that while Chavez has done much for the poor in his country and Ahmadinejad has craftily positioned his country as a major regional player (interesting opinion piece by John Simpson here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/5363098.stm), all Bush has done is created a big stinking @!$%#hole of a mess in Iraq, and caused the deaths of many more US citizens than Chavez or Ahmadinejad could ever hope to do.

Where do we have vast enough oil reserves to survive without any foreign oil?

There was a new find in the Gulf of Mexico just a couple weeks ago.

Mykola Bilokonsky, normally I actually like reading your comments. But you really need to get off your righteous, holier-than-thou, high horse. You really aren't acting any different than the people you hold in such contempt.

You aren't necessarilly better informed, or better educated, than those who opose your points of view. It is possible that you just interpret things differently.

You are starting to remind me of a better written Phaedrus; and that is kind of sad.

jdmacor: can you give me some examples of the "many countries" the IMF has saved? List some places that are better off after IMF intervention? The IMF and the World Bank were created to secure economic control of the world, man. It's not a charity.

It's a complex problem, national debt, but a big part of it is capital flight. Chavez is cracking down on that, while the IMF plus a handful of corrupt politicans are all it takes to sink a country for generations.

Kevin... do you have a link? I recall hearing something similar but then found out that it was a lie.

Finalcut.... Mykola was spot on. He is a lot smarter and more well informed than a lot of the hit and run conservatives on here. Being angry at those people for saying something of no value or not sticking around for a debate, or not even bother ing to become educated is completely understandable.

The hit and run conservatives are not very bright. There are conservatives here however that do have defensible positions that I and many other Liberals respect and consider friends. Top Jedi is one, Kevinb66 is another (well.. sometimes he is smart :-P ). The day that you see Mykola getting angry at those people is the day that you can be critical of his indignation.

Oh yeah... Adam Hobson is another educated Conservative.

Here you go.

CBS News

ABC News

Louisville Courier-Journal

Anchorage Daily News

The Moscow Times

Good thing Chevron was not sold to China :-)

David Vogel

Also, you'd have a stronger point if you read Mykola's actual words before responding. She said 'I WOULDN'T rather live...'. Not 'I would..'

Mykola Bilokonsky

Sorry,I got it wrong. It was 2 in the morning (I am still fighting a cold) and everything on the page was "Hate Bush drivel"

I thought it said that you WOULD rather live, and I wished that the whole left could just go to hell themselves. It's not that I still don't wish that all the left would go to hell, but I did get that one wrong.

I have been to Venezuela. It was 30 years ago and eye-opening. The individual floats with politics because in their minds all politics is selfishly corrupt. The individual just wants to be in on the game.

I have no worries about South America being a threat to the US. The technical skills of each Venezuelan in doing their jobs was below standard. The terrorists are the biggest threat. Russia and China wink and nod. Europe plays along, Iran actively funds and distributes armed militias around the globe.

Venezuela IS throwing money around to influence elections. (What ever happened to Mexico's double government anyway.)

I cannot understand why Mykola Bilokonsky gets behind ANY OTHER political movement or opinion except the support of th USA or our president. Mykola Bilokonsky and Keld Back could date or something. I will not continue this thought here, but unlike others, I am for decency, our country, God, and our president.

Like Vietnam, throwing roadblocks in the way just makes the job harder and take longer for us, and makes it easier for the enemy.

So, again, to Mykola Bilokonsky, I did get it wrong, but you can go to hell, too, anyway. Venezuela is too hard to get to, the Visas and passport thing, the relocation costs and finding a job.... It's tough!

Behind My Screen, I just caught your compliment in #9.11 and I appreciate your kind words. I am proud to have bright friends with very different views than mine, including Mykola.

My belated two-cents on this Chavez good v. evil thread is that I have seen and experienced life in many 3rd-world countries. Even some countries that are making great improvements for their people without alienating and aggravating as a core rallying point for gaining internal popularity. Especially when those being aggravated and alienated are very capable and quite willing to help people in need when the political annoyance subsides.

The story on Chavez is far from written, but given his current attitudes and actions I would be embarrassed if he was among the strongest of endorsers of books that I was recommending to my friends. I don't endorse books often, but it would cause me to re-evaluate my book lists if Chavez enjoyed the same ideology as me.

The only way it can work is with the veto power intact. Otherwise you have a world governing body. Would you want someone from Europe determining the laws of the United States? Not me.

As the world grows more and more interconnected, a world governing body is going to be necessary to some extent. We can spout the "I don't want another country deciding our laws", but it's just a matter of scale. We already have people from states many of us have never been to running our governments, governors from other counties running our states, etc, etc.

There was a point, somewhere in history, where individual tribes and groups realized that a more central governing body would be beneficial...as we extend that idea, eventually, yes, it will be of use to have input from around the world on how each country operates. Perhaps not dictating laws completely, but to arrive on common sentiments and morals that we can agree would be for the best.

But Vincent - if we did that, it would be so much harder to form globe-spanning exploitive economic empires. Jesus Christ, you want people to be able to express themselves in a meaningful forum? Have you gone mad? Next you'll say we should actually support nascent democracies in impoverished regions around the glove rather than undermining them.

Get with the program, your ideas are crazy.

...

The UN doesn't create laws within countries, except maybe in the case of human-rights issues (which it doesn't do well enough). Its main purpose is to create rules that deal with how countries interact with each other.

As it stands now, the UN is nothing but a placebo. It convinces people that there's some global democratic process where countries can come together and fairly decide how they will interact with each other. But the reality is that 5 countries have complete power to do whatever the hell they want. If we can convince the UN that Iran is bad, then Iran is bad. But if every country except the US thinks Israel is bad, then the US can just say "too bad, we like them."

I don't think anyone has made a convincing case that the idea behind the UN is unnecessary, nor do I think anyone has made a convincing case that the UN as it stands (with veto power) can actually serve the purpose it was meant to serve.

The General Assembly should have the power to overturn a Veto. 80% yay vote perhaps?

That would be acceptable to me. I doubt it'll ever happen, though.

Part of the problem is so many of the other countries are not exactly there acting in good faith. While we are far from perfect you consistently have completely ridiculuous items like how some of the worst human rights violators are placed on the council for human rights. Now I dont blame countries for acting for their own self interest, I expect them to. But when that comes at the cost of common sense and the truth, then we get the UN that we have now.

We saw much of this exemplified with Iraq, where you had countries like Russia and France giving double speak on such things as sanctions, while they were busy getting as much money as they could behind the scenes.

The UN is the worlds version of our Congress, down to every fault. Self serving partisans who have little interest in truly doing their job and keeping their oath who spend their time trying to get as much as they can for themselves and a few select around them.

That council of Human rights issue was dealt with like 3 years ago.

It is where Cindy Sheehan and Noam Chomsky would be happy.

It is where Cindy Sheehan and Noam Chomsky would be happy.

And where it takes three whole adults to equal the weight of just one Rush Limbaugh. And probably about 20,000+ of them to make up his salary.

What other irrelevant references can I throw in so that I can link names of people I don't like to "bad" subjects.... hmmm.

You deny that those two would be loving life down there based on their public statements?

I am assuming that you are referring to the pre-1998 400lb Limbaugh rather than the current 200lb version. That would make them each 133 versus 66 pounds.

While we are throwing names around, I don't think any Venezuelan would trade salaries with Al Franken...

Jay Butler - Why would Noam Chomsky want to live in Venezuela? I am looking for a serious answer here. What makes you believe that Chomsky would love living there?

I always thought it took two Limbaughs to equal one Michael Moore - though it looks like Rush has lost more weight while Moore is pushing to make it a 3-to-1 comparison... Not sure how that ratio works out to the average repressed Venezuelan.

And Mr. Butler, with Air America filing for bankruptcy, Venezuelan salaries might have a closer comparison to Mr. Franken's than you'd think.

Bankruptcy is not equal to out of business. I t means that the company was mismanaged and needs protections from creditors in order to fix itself.

Who said anything about going out of business? Filing for bankruptcy may be a sign of going out of business... but it almost always includes restructuring - kind of along the lines of letting people go, terminating contracts, etc:

Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told ThinkProgress.

Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.

They won't be terminating Franken... he is one of their top hosts.

They just added "the young turks" to their morning lineup and I like it. I have not been able to catch the 9-12 slot but I heard that Springer was tossed aside.

What does it really mean to be the 'top host' on a network that can't pay its own bills tho?

You are assuming (you what that makes you!) that the Bankruptcy is due to lack of revenue. Franken has beaten Rush in most markets they compete in. His Revenue generation and the Companies as a whole is fine... it is mismanagement that has caused the problems.

mismanagement that has caused the problems

The loss of their flagship station did not help. On August 31, they got booted off WLIB in NYC. Their New York broadcasts are now done from a weak station up in the Bronx. It hardly covers the metropolitan area at night when FCC signal strength rules especially affect the stations at higher frequencies.

If they had any foothold in NYC, that will certainly be difficult to maintain if the audience cannot receive a clean signal.

Franken has beaten Rush in most markets they compete in.

Source? Arbitron sure doesn't see it that way.

Yeah, I would be rather surprised if that were true.

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/articles/airamerica1.htm
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05157.html
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/05/043238.php

arrg....

here here and here

and there are more hits on google.

Hmmm, a couple of blog articles talking about one time that he beat him in Oregon. And another article from 'RushLimbaughOnline'.com (hardly a legitimate source) where the best they could do was to compare a 6 hour window and say that Air america beat Rush (a 3 hour sho).

this is far from the

Franken has beaten Rush in most markets they compete in

Can you show this as a trend? Across multiple markets? sometime closer then a year ago? Just wondering...

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

Hugo Chavez - UN - Sept 20 2006

I don't care if it's Western democracy or not. But while Ahmadinejad is representing a state that is much more theocratic and fascist than democratic for him to call for democratic reforms at the UN is remarkably hypocritical.

The UN only has two means of protecting the rights of minority member states. The first is the notion of Westphalian sovereignty, which is basically to say that the UN is powerless. The other is vetoes on the Security Council. Until the member states are willing to respect the rights of minority member states (that is, until they respect the princpiles of democracy) "democratic" reform can't be considered anything but a disingenuous attempt to shift the balance of power.

Look at the membership of the Human Rights Council. Is that the model for democracy you want?

Democracy only works with a populace that understands and respects democratic principles.

Nonsense. Its been working in the U.S. for over 200 years, and we sure as hell don't understand what a democracy is anymore.

Hmm.. on the other hand you might have a point - maybe its NOT working...

Its been working in the U.S. for over 200 years, and we sure as hell don't understand what a democracy is anymore.

Perhaps because we're a republic and not a democracy to begin with.

I was under the impression that a republic was a representative democracy?

Its been working in the U.S. for over 200 years, and we sure as hell don't understand what a democracy is anymore.

Perhaps because we're a republic

...which is also known as a Representative Democracy (as opposed to a Direct Democracy).

Kevin!!!!!! Democracy is mutually exclusive from how the government itself is constructed. A democratic kingdom is possible. We have a republic which historically has provided the most rights to its citizens and has also lasted the longest as a form of governance over a specific nation.

a Direct Democracy would be near insane at a national level, so constructs are made to ensure an easier to manage system... kingdoms, empires, republics, theocracies, parliamentary systems, etc are all democrotisable.

BehindMyScreen, I don't disagree with you. That's what I said. We're a republic.

And a Democracy.

I don't disagree with you. That's what I said. We're a republic.

Yes... but you ALSO said "we're [...] not a democracy to begin with", and that's incorrect.

If we killed him, it would also involve an international backlash through the United Nations for assassinating an elected leader of a foreign country. The CIA has done it before, and I think a lot of our neighbors have not forgotten about it.

Thank you for those uplifting words "Mr. Cheney".

Just for clarification, that was directed at Mr. Conservative.

That's a pretty good analogy!

I agree that Bush may be the worst President we've ever had but that doesn't negate the fact that Chavez is bad news.

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

Bush's comments in front of a international audience were widely inappropriate. It is my opinion that Bush's comments are detrimental to the image of the United States.

That's all I have to say about that...

umm... apparently you do not pay attention to our president? He has done the same thing with respect to other leaders in the world and is bad for the US's image.

BTW... a nation's leader has the RIGHT to address the UN. Nothing thy say is inappropriate.

Although I would like to ignore him, I actually do pay attention to this (so-called) president. But this comment:

He has done the same thing with respect to other leaders in the world and is bad for the US's image.

...makes no sense. Is it a question?

He has done the same thing with respect to other leaders in the world and is bad for the US's image?

And, I don't doubt that any nation's leader has a right to address the UN. I just doubt the reasons for these dictators (yes Bush and Chavez) to say certain things.

Ha! Bush is a dictator? Are you insane?
It's almost an insult to those who suffer under the rule of dictatorships for you to say that. Did you eat today? How many tanks drove by your house this morning?

munzilla,

Thank you very much for pointing this out!

BTW Evil/Liberal, why so much hate for Bush?

Bush has a Congress that 'plays dead' for him at almost every opportunity (checks and balances? Riiiiight). With that kind of power, I'd definitely say he's much closer to a dictator than a "president".

There's a difference between a president having less hindrances to achieving their agenda and a flat out dictator. After all, republicans AND democrats voted for this war.

I'll make it clear that I'm not a Bush fan, but we need to keep perspective here.

Seriously and the faults of the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and their lack of action is not Bush's fault. That falls squarely on the members of Congress, which really falls upon all of us for putting and keeping these people in power.

Vote out all incumbents. Remind them who they work for.

Hear hear!

Perspective, pershmective.

I feel like at this point, with all the absolutely bat@!$%# things he's done, I have a right to call Bush whatever foul name that comes to mind at the time.

As for your question, Allometry:

BTW Evil/Liberal, why so much hate for Bush?

Well for one, he hasn't done a lick of good for this country since he's been in office and, two, well
Bill Maher said it best:

...the most patriotic thing we can do is ridicule him to let the terrorists know, "we're not with him...."

Oh, one more thing, you guys take me (and maybe yourselves) way too seriously. So freakin what, I called him a dictator. Maybe if he stopped acting like it was his 'god given right' to treat the American people any way he 'sees fit' and helped other countries instead of inciting hatred, I wouldn't call him names. But lo and behold, that's what he does.

It is my opinion, that if he had his way he would love to repeal term limits and become a permanent fixture in office bringing him closer to his ultimate goal of building a Death Star.

(Okay, now half of that last sentence was a joke. Which half is up to your personal preference. Choose wisely.)

Nice. I never said you couldn't call him a dictator, I was just saying that if you really consider him to be on par with an actual straight up dictator, you might be overreacting a bit.

And I've heard that Bill Maher quote too. That's funny, but honestly, I don't think the terrorists give a rat's ass if we're for him or against him, which is worse, of course.

Evil/Liberal,

I do not understand how a simple declarative statement makes no sense to you. Bush HAS done the same thing as Chavez, he IS an embarrassment to this country.

The way you (or your words rather) sounded, it looked like you were contradicting me. That was my question. It's cool though, I got it now. You're a little late to the party though, I asked ya that yesterday. ; ) :P

And for clarification munzilla, I don't actually think he's a dictator, but I do think he would like to be one when he grows up. ; )

Well, that might very well be true.

I'm a Busy person... the school year has started and I am up to my neck in papers to grade and planning.

I'll give Chavez a pat on the back for having the fortitude to tell it like it is when he can explain to the world why his country is living in poverty -despite- billions and billions in oil revenue.

Couldn't have been better put.

RealClear and Wolfanoz,

Before jumping on the bash-Chavez bandwagon with gay abandon, you might want to think with the brain rather than with the heart. Do you think you can turn around a country that's been living in poverty for decades within a decade? He's been president since 1998 - 8 years isn't enough. Things are slowly turning around.

In 2004, the growth in GDP was 16.8%
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ve&v=66

For 2005, growth was estimated at 9.1%
http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

You can read more about it if you are willing to search for answers instead of accepting whatever you hear from the leaders that you worship.

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

Chávez took the presidential oath of office on February 2, 1999 with a mandate to reverse Venezuela's economic decline and strengthen the role of the state in the economy. Chávez's first few months in office were dedicated primarily to dismantling what his supporters deemed puntofijismo via new legislation and constitutional reform, while his secondary focus was on immediately allocating more government funds to new social programs.

However, as a recession triggered by historically low oil prices and soaring international interest rates rocked Venezuela, the shrunken federal treasury provided very little of the resources Chávez required for his promised massive anti-poverty measures. Consequently, in April 1999 Chávez set his eyes upon the one Venezuelan institution that was costly for the government but did little for the systematic social development that Chávez desired: the military. Chávez ordered all branches of the military to devise programs to combat poverty and to further civic and social development in Venezuela's vast slum and rural areas. This civilian-military program was launched as "Plan Bolivar 2000," whose scope included road building, housing construction, and mass vaccination. The plan faltered at the end of 2001 amid revelations of corruption by military officers, including both military officers who later rebelled against the president in April 2002 and officers linked to the president.[25]

You can also open your eyes and see how the oil companies had been exploiting Venezuela for decades and robbing the country. See below. 1% taxes??!!

Chávez also attempted a comprehensive renegotiation of 60-year-old royalty payment agreements with oil giants Philips Petroleum and ExxonMobil.[26] These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from the Venezuelan oil they were extracting.

You guys need to start thinking, for a change. Your leaders are not your gods and whatever they speak is not the gospel. They are just puppet masters adept at pulling the strings of the masses that are steeped in the cult of psuedo-nationalism and pseudo-patriotism. Go out there and educate yourself instead of swallowing the "truth" as being fed to you.

If you are going to be sitting on your buttocks waiting for the truth to come to you, I would advise you to start reading up on sciatica. You will thank me later for the thousands of dollars saved in health costs.

I didn't get the impression they were praising US leaders so much as questioning why Venezuela's leaders throughout history have done such a bad job of capitalizing on their natural resources.

how the oil companies had been exploiting Venezuela

Isn't that just as much Venezuela's fault as it is the Oil Companies? A lack of due diligence by their government allowed the Oil companies to take advantage of them I would imagine. I will readily admit I don't know what deals went down to give the Oil Companies unfettered access to the Venezuela reserves but it seems like someone in Venezuela has to be responsible for the deals being struck.

Chavez probably isn't to blame for those old deals but he is the public figurehead of Venezuela now so he gets all the praise, and blame, for the condition of Venezuela (just as Bush gets all the Blame for the US now (not much praise to hand out to him sadly).

Maybe I missed the praise for Bush in the two comments prior to yours Rhine. If so I apologize. It just seems like so many people in these threads focus on "prior" comments rather than the actual comment they are replying to. People really do need to drop the venom just a bit.

Your leaders are not your gods and whatever they speak is not the gospel. They are just puppet masters adept at pulling the strings of the masses that are steeped in the cult of psuedo-nationalism and pseudo-patriotism. Go out there and educate yourself instead of swallowing the "truth" as being fed to you.

Rhine, the only leader worship here is from you directed in the direction of Chavez. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The US made different deals with Saidi Arabia and a number of other nations in the middle east than it did with SOuth America and Africa. The IMF and World Bank have not set foot in the middle east.

Adam Hobson in 17.4

Perhaps you do not have the power of comprehending what has been written or perhaps you wish to refuse to comprehend. Else you would have not jumped to ad-hominem statements without adding any substance or evidence to the actual debate.

To recap for you in case you are too indolent to read comments 17 and 17.1. This is what Realclear said:

I'll give Chavez a pat on the back for having the fortitude to tell it like it is when he can explain to the world why his country is living in poverty -despite- billions and billions in oil revenue.

And on which Wolfanoz jumped on overeagerly.

To which I responded with subtantial substance in 17.2. (I assume you didn't read it?) It was directly addressing the issue of why Venezuela is so poor inspite of billions of dollars of revenue. Nothing to do with worship of any kind. The only worship that shows in here is the one that manifests itself in the mind of a worshipper who has lived all his life content with the "truth" given to him by his leaders that Chavez is evil and he is ruining Venezuela and he (the worshipper) will, therefore, construe any statements that portray Chavez in a positive light as a personal attack on his manhood and will instantly discard any logical reasoning and jump to attack the messenger while completing ignoring the actual content of the debate.

So, what happens is this: You, Adam Hobson, jump in here like an attack dog, and accuse me of indulging in leader worship. Do I need to make it any more painfully clear how devoid of rational logic your statement is? Do you have anything to add to the actual debate or are you just another one of the king's subjects?

Adam.. Defending the guy is not worship... especially when you have facts to back it up.

I am willing to bet all of my Newsvine earnings to date that Adam Hobson did not read a single one of the 5 links in my original comment 17.2. Talk about blind worship. It's the over-exploited "us vs them," "you are with us or against us", black-and-white mentality at work.

Rhine's latest gig has been to accuse those that disagree with him of worshiping someone he doesn't like. Not sure what he really intends to accomplish by this but it has seemed to be his 'thing' lately.

go ahead and flame away, I will ignore you, I find it easy to do so.

Daweb 'Rhine Worshiper' (NOT!)

Rhine, people would respond to you better if you didn't insult them at the same time you made your points. You are purposefully putting them on the defensive, and that's really messing up any chance of having a civil debate. You're not the only one to do it, but I've seen several examples of you doing it just in this thread.

finalcut in 17.3

I didn't get the impression they were praising US leaders so much as questioning why Venezuela's leaders throughout history have done such a bad job of capitalizing on their natural resources.

That wasn't my point. My point was that they believe all that their leaders tell them about Chavez instead of doing some research to find the reality of the matter. Chavez is demonized by the US government and the media, and the overwhelming majority of people here take everything that comes out from the orifices of these sources to be the truth in this matter.

Isn't that just as much Venezuela's fault as it is the Oil Companies? A lack of due diligence by their government allowed the Oil companies to take advantage of them I would imagine. I will readily admit I don't know what deals went down to give the Oil Companies unfettered access to the Venezuela reserves but it seems like someone in Venezuela has to be responsible for the deals being struck.

Yes, corruption is also to blame for a lot of this mess. Apparently, Chavez is trying to fight some of it. On the other hand, I have an inherent distrust of politicians - rarely is one completely corrupt-free.

Chavez probably isn't to blame for those old deals but he is the public figurehead of Venezuela now so he gets all the praise, and blame, for the condition of Venezuela (just as Bush gets all the Blame for the US now (not much praise to hand out to him sadly).

You missed the point. It's not about who to blame and how to blame. It's about how turning around a country from decades of poverty is not an easy task and it will take time. Unlike what those two up in the thread were implying, Chavez seems to be actually trying to change the situation and to reduce the poverty. But, like someone would say, "it's hard work."

Maybe I missed the praise for Bush in the two comments prior to yours Rhine. If so I apologize. It just seems like so many people in these threads focus on "prior" comments rather than the actual comment they are replying to. People really do need to drop the venom just a bit.

I don't remember typing "Bush" anywhere in my comments. So, yes, looks like I missed the praise for Bush in the two comments that you refer to. However, I did talk about how people these days seem to accept and believe whatever their leaders tell them. So, yes I agree with you when you say that "so many people in these threads focus on "prior" comments rather than the actual coment they are replying to."

Adam Kemp in 17.11

I understand your concern and it is appreciated, but I find it very difficult to suffer fools and their comments. I mean, come on, look at Adam Hobson in 17.4 and daweb in 17.9 -- do you think their comments did anything to further this debate? No, not at all. It's like their mind is made up. Do you really think that being nice to them is going to change their minds? Rhetorical. Now, compare and contrast that with finalcut's response in 17.3. (I've had it out with him in the past, much worse than this.) He's disagreeing to some extent but he's doing it with substance and actual debate and not misguided brainwashed garbage.

As for putting people on the defensive, please note that my initial comments were directed at RealClear and Wolfanoz, neither of who has responded yet. However, Adam Hobson and daweb felt the need to jump in with useless comments. I hadn't been talking to them. It's as if I attacked some ideology that they subscribe to and my comments to the others made them feel as if they had to rise to protect this perceived attack on their ideology. I don't feel guilty to responding to these two in an impolite manner. My objective is to get them out of their comfort zone. That's when you see what they really are. Have you ever had the experience of politely trying to engage in a debate with some of these folks and see that you are getting nowhere? You find yourself going round and round - I call that merry-go-round tactics. A criminal waste of time.

You're still my hero Rhine Cyrus.

It's just the way my mind works but to me ' A lack of due diligence' = She asked for it.
Venezuela was an easy lay, hardly put up any resistance, taken for 99% of its oils worth, not our fault she didn't have the means to resist. In fact the @!$%# has nothing to complain about, a lack of due diligence.

Have you ever wondered that, if American oil interests made so much money off the stupidity and lack of cohesion in third world countries. How miffed they must be now that the world is becoming less stupid and more cohesive. Hardly fair any more. Might be time for a war, that usually puts them in their place.

Both of those comments you cited were responding to you accusing people of "worshipping" their leaders. That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not enough for you to just make your point, but you have to throw in a jab at the people you're trying to talk to. I don't care what kind of previous encounters you've had with people before. In this discussion, you were the first person to start throwing punches, so you have no one to blame but yourself for the ad hominem attacks that ensued.

Stick the the issues, and don't insult people's intelligence. I hate having to read through 20 comments that are half just back-and-forth personal attacks. It detracts from Newsvine.

I thought I posted this reply already, but I guess my Internet connection timed out. Forgive me if it does appear somewhere else.

Adam Kemp: Thank you for being the voice of reason here. Perhaps I made a mistake posting my initial comment to fast and containing little value. I posted for basically the exact reason that you stated. Rhine attacked other users, I became defensive and attacked back. This does not in any way excuse my behavior. I am responsible for what I write. I am usually able to ignore users such as Rhine who seem to seek only to inflame others. I failed this time. However, I will try better in the future.

Rhine Cyrus: With your approval I would like to take back my earlier comment. Who you worship is no business of mine and between just you and who you worship.

Adam Hobson in 17.17

Rhine Cyrus: With your approval I would like to take back my earlier comment.

This would have been a sincere attempt at pacification but for the fact that just a couple of lines above it, you said:

I am usually able to ignore users such as Rhine who seem to seek only to inflame others.

If you really think that I am only seeking to inflame others, I am sad to say that you have not read what I have contributed here, in an objective manner.

Rhine
If so many people here have said you that you are inflammatory then maybe you are. Hmm, didnt you say something like that to me recently. Oh perhaps you believe you are above reproach. You certainly take the position that you are all powerful and always in the right.

If you really think that I am only seeking to inflame others, I am sad to say that you have not read what I have contributed here, in an objective manner.

Yep, looks like the fault is always with the rest of us and never with you.

FL Independent

Rhine
If so many people here have said you that you are inflammatory then maybe you are. Hmm, didnt you say something like that to me recently. Oh perhaps you believe you are above reproach. You certainly take the position that you are all powerful and always in the right.

If you really think that I am only seeking to inflame others, I am sad to say that you have not read what I have contributed here, in an objective manner.

"so many people" -- care to elaborate? Let's see --- Adam Hobson, daweb, Adam Kemp, and now you. Did I miss anyone else? Eschew exaggeration. It reminds of me "WMDs that can be deployed in 45 minutes."

On the other hand, if you look at my comments berating RealClear and Wolfanoz and Adam Hobson, you'll see 6-7 votes for each. Surely this means more people agree?

Also, always remember to look for the key operative words. Adam Hobson said that "I seem to seek only to inflame others." Which is yet another emotion-driven exaggeration. I agreed that I might have inflamed, but that was not my only objective. Key word is "only". I have tried to generate more relevant discussion in this thread than many others including you. I have spent more time doing research than just talking. What have you done?

I have provided information and links that people can look up, but they won't because they are just here to talk their talking points. I bet you didn't read any of the 6 links I've posted so far. Did you?

Yep, looks like the fault is always with the rest of us and never with you.

Oh please, enough of this victim mentality. I might have hurt you in another thread. Let's not bring past baggage into this thread like daweb did (which he probably regrets now). Like Adam Kemp pointed out, I might not be debating effectively because I am not always polite. It might be a fault and I agreed with Adam Kemp. So, please keep your exaggerations to yourself.

Keep 'em comin' fellas. Who's next? It's kinda funny that the ones that I originally berated - RealClear and Wolfanoz - never responded after that. It's folks of a similar ideology that continued the argument - Adam Hobson, daweb, and now you.

Well he got 6 votes, including mine so that would be 5 other people. Not sure who is missing. On the other thread it only took 2 or 3 people for you to proclaim your opinion of me fact.

And no I generally dont your read your comments because I have to wade through too many personal attacks and berating of other peoples opinions in order to get to your points. And you didnt "hurt" me, you showed showed yourself as the type of person who I just happen to have a particular pet peeve about.

Id much prefer it if you could engage in the conversation civilly, without berating people, and in an adult manner, especially when you do not agree with someone. Your profile says you are 77 years old. I merely ask that you act your age and in accordance with the tenets of whatever religion you follow on how to treat your fellow man. If you think those that disagree with you are so mentally unfit as to engage in conversation with you, remember one measure of a man is how he treats those beneath him.

What do you mean act my age? Just because I am old doesn't mean that I have to act all docile and agreeable. If I see BS like some of the stuff spouted above, I will not refrain from calling it for what it is.

Why do you have to have a religion to tell you how to treat your fellow man? My "religion" is atheism and it tells me to treat the fellow man with respect, to call BS when you see it, and to judge a message by its contents and not by the messenger's reputation. In this particular case, I could see (as did many others) that it was just brainwashed folks repeating meaningless talking points and cheering each other on. I guess I could have been less "impolite" as first pointed out by Adam Kemp and like I told him I'll try to be more polite in the future. Can and will not promise you the moon or WMDs.

Sorry if you think it's more important to maintain civility than to question when meaningless talking points are being dandied about as if they were the truth. I'll take the truth any day over false civility.

You betcha! I'm just waiting for the true crackdowns to kick in like V for Vendetta - so I can wear a cool anti-establishment outfit like V had. I SO think that 2007 is going to be the year where Leather Clad Vigilante is the new black!

You betcha! I'm just waiting for the true crackdowns to kick in like V for Vendetta - so I can wear a cool anti-establishment outfit like V had. I SO think that 2007 is going to be the year where Leather Clad Vigilante is the new black!

Yes, because American causalities that may be involved in said vigilante acts of violence due to an administration's policies is a just cause.

What I'm clarifying here is that American people do work for the government, whether they agree or disagree with the choices made. They have families like we all do.

The democrats have just as much blood on their hands as the republicans, really. Only Feingold took a stand on anything - the democrats and the republicans are two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't get too excited about any sort of real change.

I agree with you - so many Democrats supported the war. That's why I have a hard time supporting people like Leiberman, H. Clinton, etc. But a good number of them - like Kerry, made his initial decision to support the war based on falsified, fabricated evidence provided by Bush and his oil-starved cronies. Ever since, he has been a harsh critic.

As for me, I am a peace-loving guy. I am a Kucinich devotee.

But a good number of them - like Kerry, made his initial decision to support the war based on falsified, fabricated evidence provided by Bush and his oil-starved cronies. Ever since, he has been a harsh critic.

You do realize that many of those Democrats, the ones on the Intelligence Committee, have the exact same security access as the President and had access to the exact same information and had no need for it to be provided by President Bush. They were either too lazy to do their own research, politically afraid to voice their own opinions, or they really thought the war was justified and have only recently changed their views based on opinion polls.

I see no case where these people can be considered good representatives of the people.

Who is more foolish, the fool or the one who follows the fool.

At least Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have the courage to stand up for the decision they made previously and not blame everyone but themselves.

Mykola,

you redeemd yourself nicely here :O)

The democrats have just as much blood on their hands as the republicans, really... I wouldn't get too excited about any sort of real change.

That just about sums up our sad state of affairs nicely. So very sad.

The democrats have just as much blood on their hands as the republicans, really. Only Feingold took a stand on anything - the democrats and the republicans are two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't get too excited about any sort of real change.

So true.

I wonder if the Axis is going to get a fourth point in the near future? Maybe we can rename it to the quadrilatral of evil! Or the Rhombus of Evil! Oh, I like the sound of that one. :O)

Adam Hobson:

Ambassador John Bolton told The Associated Press that Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was "too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech."

That was an awesome line.

What do you know about free speech in Venezuela, Adam Hobson? How much do you know? Do you know anything other than what your leaders have told you?

It's pretty sickening. Do the neo-cons have anything else besides generating talking-points for the masses? And then the masses like you who keep repeating it without bothering to get off their rumps and do some of their own research in the quest for the truth?

Just another link for you: (there's more if you want to search)

http://at7.us/pipermail/news_at7.us/2005-February/000854.html

Presumably, you are not going to read this one (as with the other links) and instead launch another series of mis-directed ad-hominem attacks. But just in case, anyone else reading is motivated enough to do more reading about free speech in Venezuela instead of regurgitating the patriotic contents of their brain-washed minds.

As most of the Venzuelan newspapers are anti-Chavez I'd say there is certainly evidence of free speech.

djd,

Thanks for the new input. You bring up a good point. A link or two would be good to fortify your arguments. Just be aware that you are opening yourself to the possibility of ad-hominem attacks.

It's Hobson's choice (no pun intended) that he thinks Bolton's $@%#!! constitutes "awesome lines."

That's what happens when you are brainwashed.

Two can play at this game.

As for putting people on the defensive, please note that my initial comments were directed at RealClear and Wolfanoz, neither of who has responded yet. However, Adam Hobson and daweb felt the need to jump in with useless comments. I hadn't been talking to them. It's as if I attacked some ideology that they subscribe to and my comments to the others made them feel as if they had to rise to protect this perceived attack on their ideology.

Rhine my initial comment was in no way directed your way. Why do you feel the need to jump in with useless comments? It's ass if I attacked some ideology that you subscribe to and my general comments made you feel as if you had to rise to protect this perceived attack on your ideology.

Do you know anything other than what your leaders tell you? You provide no evidence besides what you get from others.

........

And I know this proves nothing whatsoever, but it does help to shine a light on your behavior.

........

Why do you feel the need to attack me rather than attack my message? You spent 3 paragraphs attacking me, and gave one link that weekly attempts to contradict my point. However, proof of lack of censorship in one area does not constitute lack of censorship overall.

You can reply to me all you want, I have no more interest in humoring your allusions that you in fact are open-minded and a reasonable debater.

Say what you want about me now, but others know my reputation, as many also know yours. Actions (In this case the sum of our contributions to newsvine) out way brief words claiming that you are one thing and I am another.

Adam Hobson in 20.5

Two can play at this game.

As for putting people on the defensive, please note that my initial comments were directed at RealClear and Wolfanoz, neither of who has responded yet. However, Adam Hobson and daweb felt the need to jump in with useless comments. I hadn't been talking to them. It's as if I attacked some ideology that they subscribe to and my comments to the others made them feel as if they had to rise to protect this perceived attack on their ideology.

Rhine my initial comment was in no way directed your way. Why do you feel the need to jump in with useless comments? It's ass if I attacked some ideology that you subscribe to and my general comments made you feel as if you had to rise to protect this perceived attack on your ideology.

Adam, are you really being serious when you say that "your initial comment was in no way directed your way"?? Either you are in complete denial or you just can't comprehend. I refer you back to your very first initial comment - comment 17.4 where you wrote:

Rhine, the only leader worship here is from you directed in the direction of Chavez. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

As for the rest of your lame attempt at using my own words against myself, remember, you can't just cut-and-paste and apply it mindlessly, it has to be within the right context for it to be effective. Because, you forgot that when you say "my general comments", they were, in fact, not general, but directed personally at me as evinced in your comment #17.4. I mean, really, do you see it??

What makes it really sad and funny is that your comment, which I just showed to be a complete lie, actually got 6 votes. Looks like it's not just you who is in self-denial and/or can't comprehend. Yet another example of how brainwashed folks can be - they go by the reputation of the writer and not the actual comments. Come on Newsvine (this one is not for you Hobson), are you guys really here to get smarter or to kiss a$$?

Do you know anything other than what your leaders tell you? You provide no evidence besides what you get from others.

I am an American, so that would make my leaders to be the current Republican administration. You think I get everything from them? You think I provide no evidence besides what I get from others? Thank you for proving my point that you did not read my post #17.2 or a single one of the 5 links embedded therein. Like I said, you can't just use others' words mindlessly. Context is important.

And I know this proves nothing whatsoever, but it does help to shine a light on your behavior.

Aha, the time-tested, government-sanctioned method of response when you run out of actual substance - "swift-boating the opponent". I see you learned well from your masters, Adam Hobson.

Why do you feel the need to attack me rather than attack my message? You spent 3 paragraphs attacking me, and gave one link that weekly attempts to contradict my point. However, proof of lack of censorship in one area does not constitute lack of censorship overall.

Hobson, for the umpteenth time, don't play the victim. Get rid of this victim mentality. You were the first to attack me - refer back to your comment #17.4. Please, enough of this melodramatic attempt at playing to your support group here on Newsvine.

You can reply to me all you want, I have no more interest in humoring your allusions that you in fact are open-minded and a reasonable debater.

I was just beginning to wonder when the condescencion would start. I have asked hard questions (which you can see people agree with), but like Adam Kemp said, I probably added in my contempt to that which resulted in the receivers losing track of the points and getting all defensive and worked up. I'll try to learn from that.

Say what you want about me now, but others know my reputation, as many also know yours. Actions (In this case the sum of our contributions to newsvine) out way brief words claiming that you are one thing and I am another.

The first step to having an open mind is this: Don't go by the reputation of the messenger, look at the message in itself. Even the most reputable of us can make mistakes. Also, quit playing to your gallery by telling us about how great the sum of your contributions on Newsvine is and thereby drawing the focus away from all the points that I've used to show the real you as far as this thread is concerned.

Just wondering - did you read any of the 5 links I posted in my comment 17.2 yet?

And you are right - two can play this game. But, if the two aren't at the same level on the given day, it's gets boring after a while.

Rhyne, Hi, sorry to take so long to get back to you - blame the different timezone - it was gone midnight here when I posted my comment & the vine has been down here in Europe all of today. I'm trying to give a fair account here, not a one-sided diatribe.

A reading of this article will give an idea of just how biased, and indeed dangerous, Venezuela's media has been and will explain why Venezuela passed a somewhat vague law to encourage "social responsibility of the press". However, a reading of this report will show that the legislation has not been used by the government or courts. It would appear from the report, that supporters of the Chavez government have taken action against the media, but one cannot say if that is on an ad hoc basis or organized. A regular reading of the English version of El Universal will show that there is still strong freedom of expression in the Venezuelan press.

Thanks for the warning.

djd,

Thanks for the links. I have bookmarked the El Universal link. So, you're from Europe? That explains your open-mindedness. You are certainly doing your bit to try and help Newsvine folk get smarter. Hopefully your efforts shall bear fruit.

Yes, even I had problems accessing Newsvine earlier today morning here in the USA.

Rhine,

Yes, I think there is a difference in mindset, with the recent exception of Hungary everybody here expects their politicians to lie. Most people I know are either of the 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' school of thought, or the 'don't vote you'll only encourage them' view. We're old decadence I guess! :-)

There were a few laughs, but it was not the entire assembly laughing - I don't see why it is unsettling considering the disrespect the American government has and continues to show to some governments.

The fact that you could hear it on tape and it was loud enough to drown out his voice indicates to me that there were plenty of people laughing.

It is unsettling, but I did not say it was unsurprising (except perhaps the the Americentric conservatives on here)

It's not surprising at all that there was laughter at the UN when Chavez called George Bush the Devil. And I am sure that there are people who have posted here that were laughing right along with them. I don't understand how people are dismissing the signals from Iran.

If you think they are bluffing about wiping Israel off the map, go ahead and laugh. If you think they are not serious about converting the WORLD to Islam and KILLING all who do not, go ahead and laugh. Me, I'm not laughing. And if you think it will be better with someone else, be it Democrat or Republican, in Office then I'll be the one laughing.

Rather than blame the current administration for ALL of the problems in the world and for every Country's leader's action, how about recognizing the problem at hand, coming up with some answers and not "hip, hip, hooraying" people who speak so ill of our GREAT country. This is a great country and from the sound of some of these posts, there are people here that are more than willing to lie down and hand it over. Culturally, economically, and religiously.

You talk as if speaking ill of the president is the same as being unpatriotic. Also, as has been shown time and time again, Iran did not call for wiping Israel off the map - just for the movement of it.

Speaking ill of your president is not necessarily un-patriotic. To me it is when people of America cheer when a president of another country calls our president the Devil, I call that un-patriotic and very scary. How ever you feel about the president, this is still your country and you should defend it or at the very least not cheer when heads of state call for it's destruction.

This is from Aljazeera:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

You know michbed the laughter points to a pretty obvious conclusion. The majority of people simply don't consider the president representative of them any more and enjoy any opportunity to ridicule him because in doing so they put distance between what he represents and themselves.
The burden of this govt and its vastly corrosive effects is simply to great not to have to be relieved by occasional black humor. Chavez did the room a favor by lightening the mood briefly.

Did the room a favor? Lightening the room with black humor?

Sorry, but when Chavez allies himself with someone who calls for "wiping" one of our allies "off the map" (thanks, michbed) and then calls our leader a "devil", I get nervous. And when he does it in the US (and yes, the UN is on our soil (check Google Maps - East 42nd St in New York is *physically* on our soil)) I get even more nervous...

And when he does it in the very city where we lost over 2,900 people due to a bunch of radical religious fanatics and *their* beliefs 5 years ago, your darned tootin' it gets my hackles up.

Are world leaders entitled to their opinions? Sure. But when you say something that is maliciously meant to incite a crowd, that's another story. And explaining what good a leader may have done for his country in no way justifies their malicious behavior or personal attacks.

michbed in 23.6

How ever you feel about the president, this is still your country and you should defend it or at the very least not cheer when heads of state call for it's destruction.

This is from Aljazeera:
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

Since when did "your country" become "Israel"? I don't know about you, but I am an American. Israel is not my country.

David... The UN is international soil... he did not land at JFK and hold a press conference at Madison Square Garden or at Ground Zero.

David,
I would also like to say that just because a foreign leader allies his country with another country in order to increase its political strength does not mean that it is a threat.

he did not land at JFK and hold a press conference at Madison Square Garden or at Ground Zero.

But, he did continue his US tour uptown at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem. That is where he said that Bush "is an alcoholic, a sick man".

What a buffoon.

He is an Alcoholic. Alcoholism is an illness... what is your point? ow he can not tell the truth about the president?

First no Hyperbole, not no facts and realism.... what is it with you?

I would certainly find it difficult to label someone who stopped drinking 20 years ago as an alcoholic. Wouldn't you?

To a person who had a drinking problem and dealt with it, there is a huge difference between being called an "alcoholic" versus a "recovering alcoholic".

No. Ask any member of AA, you are an alcoholic for life.

Besides that... he never went to 12 step and simple white knuckled it... I am sure he did well with that for a while, but he has seemed a little buzzed at times in public... I have no doubt the man is back on the bottle.

Yes, you are. That is correct, you are an alchoholic for life. But while you are not drinking you are a recovering alcoholic and that is a HUGE difference.

I did not imply that one ever completely overcomes alcoholism. Like daweb said, not drinking is recovering.

he never went to 12 step and simple white knuckled it

I am not sure that it matters much if you do it yourself, in AA or by another method. It still takes a lot to overcome alcoholism. And, I stick to my claim that there is a huge difference in the terminology. Chavez's statement certainly implies that GWB is drinking again.

I have no doubt the man is back on the bottle.

Do you have even one shred of proof to support that belief?

Like daweb said, not drinking is recovering.

Depends on what experts you consult. Alcoholics Anonymous does not agree that the mere cessation drinking equals entering recovery. Thus the term "dry drunk."

The point here is that Hugo is not acting diplomatic. Any peace loving person is behind the idea of using diplomacy instead of war to try to solve problems. So, Chavez is in the wrong because he's hurting the diplomatic process. Of course he has the right to say what he wants, etc., but SHOULD he? It's one of those things where you might be telling the truth (which he isn't of course) and you might have a right to insult someone (which he is), but is it a good thing to do? Absolutely not. Where is all of this garbage getting him? Nowhere, and it's not help[ing anything, and as a leader of a country you're supposed to be above schoolyard taunts and insults. Stop acting like children.

Jay,

I think you do not watch the president enough.

Otherwise, I would think he is a drunk as you do? Right. Keep thinking that.

Growing up with an alcoholic as a father, you kind of pick up on the public actions and behavior that happens when you are trying to maintain composure when inebriated... but I think you may taking your own advice.

Baseless accusations will get you nowhere

They are not baseless. My accusations are based on my observations of his behavior in public. It is especially noticeable when he is under a lot of political stress.

I was able to run that pic through a mind-reading software. (Sorry, it's proprietary.) This is what she was thinking:

"Ha ha ha, It's going to be a lot of fun watching all those neo-cons on Newsvine getting their knickers all twisted up when they read this and come up with time-tested, government-approved/provided methods to further demonize Chavez."

come up with time-tested, government-approved/provided methods to further demonize Chavez."

and Chomsky.

I just had visions of loads of Venezuelans in Plaza Francia holding Chomsy's book aloft like the red guard used to with the thoughts of Chairman Mao. Good job it's out in paperback or it'd make their arms ache. Do you think Hugo's was a signed copy?

What with the copious research and citations I suspect the paperback might be a little rough too.

I kind of doubt he had a signed copy, just because of the fact that he said this too.

Mr. Chávez was just more colorful. He brandished a copy of Noam Chomskys Hegemony or Survival: Americas Quest for Global Dominance and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later, he told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died.

from the NYTimes

If he didn't know he was even alive...

True Mykola - I just remember finishing reading Failed States on a hot night when I couldn't sleep and reading a hardback in bed really made my arm ache. However, I couldn't put it down until I'd finished it (should have read Derrida who is a great cure for insomnia).

@daweb - you mean you actually believe the New York Times. You sweet old fashioned thing.

LOL

Thanks, I needed that Laugh

You're welcome!

It's a sad day when a leader of a country decides to sink down to that level and insult another country.

He didn't insult another country. Bush is not the country.

And if he did insult the US, why shouldn't he? Our corporations have exploited his country for decades. Our military has occupied the world for decades... we have bullied the developing world for decades.

Is it any wonder why they all hate us?

Is it any wonder why they all hate us?

They don't. They hate Bush. Bush is not us.

Right.. sorry... But actually... they hate the 50% who voted for Bush as well.