Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug"

[bemildred]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil.

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."

Reuters

[bluestateguy]

1. I have no position on the Chavez remarks

No position. I am Switzerland.

[aquart]

7. Hiding stolen money?

For shame.

[niceypoo]

346. I do, he sounds exactly like Rush Limbaugh...

...or Bill O'Reiley...

[OKthatsIT]

353. Give me a break....Chavez has a right to tell it like it is

Pelosi has DISSED ANYONE who stands up without the DLC's permission.

Forget her!

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Democrats don't want to be associated with Chavez

Perhaps it has to do with the kind of company Chavez keeps:

[aquart]

5. As usual, Republican criticism dictates Democratic positions.

Instead of the other way around.

We don't mind dealing with oil-rich Saudi totalitarian anti-Semites. What's wrong with a Venezuelan one?

The only difference I see is one helps poor people and the others don't.

[anotherdrew]

19. yep, Pelosi is a damn fool for this, I've just lost some respect for her

if she thinks it was "name calling" why then engage in more name calling? Bush is more of a thug than chavez that is for damn sure.

bush IS a "devil" and deserves to be called it. He should be shown zero respect anywhere and everywhere in any situation. I'd rather spit in his face than shake hands with the evil worthless little shit for brains son of a bitch.

[VegasWolf]

22. Some!?! It has been YEARS since I've had any respect for Pelosi! nt

:)

[jacklambert]

52. Once again, Pelosi folding like a lawn chair... n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

363. Is it that, or are they unaware of the position he has been put in? Or is

it that Nancy is playing the insider political game and we are not in the know? It's time the lies go out the window and the window stays open to the US public. Seems these Oil rich leaders are being bullied and squeezed by BushCo. It's like a mouse when a cat plays with them they posture as if they could fend off the hugh adversary. What a mess! Why can't we meld and respect other cultures and religions?

[Tellurian]

58. Pelosi never knows when to SHUT UP!

and someone said, Chavez sent Oil here last winter. I believe, it was through Kennedys
affordable Oil business located in MA. He delivered oil to the poor and elderly for just
about nothing per fill up. Well, we won't have to worry about Chavez offering a helping
hand to those in need this winter...Thanks to Nancy!

[saigon68]

313. She can't shut up---- She is a tool, like Limpmann I (Conn)

Of certain corporate elements who run amerika

She need to echo the thoughts of her masters

[Snivi Yllom]

74. not just Pelosi.RANGEL:"An attack on Bush is an attack on all Americans"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX1lBOxoJeU

RANGEL: AN ATTACK ON BUSH IS AN ATTACK ON ALL AMERICANS... 'You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State'...

[Judi Lynn]

79. Trying to protect himself from the wrath of the assholes in the White Hous

Nothing too hard to grasp here.

He's an old man, and no doubt doesn't feel equal to the demands of fighting off the firestorm they will hurl at him if he doesn't go through this charade.

[Snivi Yllom]

92. orrrrrrrrrrr, Chavez really is just a thug and rangel did the right thing

How anyone can defend Chavez is beyond me.

[anotherdrew]

100. thug = racism perhaps? can't stand seeing a brown one stand up?

He's a Strong Leader who's not knuckling under to the old rich elite of his country and is instead doing what seems best to him and most of the less than rich people of his country. What's the problem?

Really, I'll I've seen anyone complain about him has been bullshit. So some little things here and there are less than optimal, he's NOT running the whole country like a dictator, there are OTHER elected officials in the country, there are no doubt hundreds of bureaucrats doing things. It's a whole country, Chavez isn't running it like a dictator, you can't blame him for every thing that goes less then perfect.

There is zero basis to call him a "thug" as far as I'm concerned. He may not be perfect, but he's getting good shit done daily. He has every reason in the world to worry about protecting his nation from US destabilization efforts, efforts which have quite clearly been underway at times in the recent past.

[Snivi Yllom]

225. excuse my terminology, I got it wrong, 'thug' was the wrong term

I should have said 'bloviating tin pot dictator thug'

[Judi Lynn]

228. You'd need to provide proof to his "dictator" qualities, which you can't.

Right-wingers will use just any old word a brain dead idiot hands them, but it's never the right one.

[Name removed]

236. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

287. What's there to defend? Chavez is right n/t

[ProudDad]

299. It's beyond you

because you have just a knee-jerk reaction to the man backed up by a complete lack of information concerning his policies or what he's really about.

[Mind Snapper]

305. How anyone can defend

Pelosi, Rangel, etc is beyond comprehension

[MGD]

246. I'll be he's just scared to death of "those assholes in the white house"

That's always the impression I get when I hear him slamming GWB on national television.:sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

109. Rush was in a lather about Rangel's comments

I couldn't quite make out what was so offensive to him. Something about Chavez not daring to make the comments until he heard Dems do it or something.

I think.

[oblivious]

118. "If there is any criticism of...Bush,it should be restricted to Americans"

Huh? What kind of logic is that. If he follows his own logic, he shouldn't be criticizing Mr Chazez. What a bonehead.

[MODemocrat]

347. Calling Bush a Devil is NOT an attack on me

Bush calls people like me unpatriotic, his media freely calls Hillary (Hitlary), they have referred to little Chelsea as a Dog, they have said John Kerry was like Osama; on and on and on, so why in the hell is so much flack being made because Bush is called a Devil? That's mild to what could have been said about him and it would have been true. Dan Rather was relieved of his job because he told the truth about Bush, and Bush still goes on and on breaking the laws, or any other dam thing he chooses to do,
without consequences.

Pelosi calling Chavez a thug, is childish, unprofessional, and arrogant. Why in the world is she trying to lick Bush's boots after all the crap he puts out about the democrats. I've just about had enough from
this sorry political fiasco.

Bill Clinton's world initiative rakes in 7 billion dollars to help people, and all Chris Wallace knows how to do isdredge up the lies about him letting Osama get away, just to help Bush out of yet another debacle.
:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[PaulaFarrell]

373. By his logic

Only Iranians can criticise their president, and of course, only Venezeualans are allowed to criticise Chavez...

[rodeodance]

352. I have not lost respect. I just disagree with her forceful comment.

[Joanne98]

83. Exactly! They must get Republican talking points!

CHAVEZ IS A NON ISSUE!

[aquart]

224. Oh, he's an issue.

He's the head of a major oil power in our own sphere of influence and we've totally alienated him. That takes real genius.

[mitchum]

127. You are absolutely correct, aquart

[MGD]

239. As usual, socialists undermine the Democratic party by cheering for

Hugo Chavez when he gives America a black eye.

[JawJaw]

315. Hang On

Chavez gave Bush a black eye, not America.

Most Americans probably share Chavez's position.

[truebrit71]

325. WTF? The black eye was self-inflicted when the giggling murderer...

...in the WH was allowed to become King....

[aquart]

345. That we did not immediately move to make a friend of him

the second he won the presidency of an oil-rich nation in the Americas is what gives us the black eye.

It is ridiculous to call him a thug when we were comfy allies with Noriega, Saddam, and, oh yes, bin Ladin. The Saudis are not my idea on non-thugs and Bush KISSES them. THAT doesn't give us a black eye? Please.

It is pathetic the number of people who do not get that George has reduced us to a third world debtor nation and THAT is what gives us a black eye.

Mr. Strutting Rooster no longer has a military that CAN invade Iran. Doesn't matter how much he wants to. At this point, I have serious doubts that he can even bomb them. He's been using trained air force support crews for ground patrol in Iraq. Even if the fool can muster the pilots, who is going to ready the planes? All it takes is one nuke? Yup. One nuke to start World War III in which we will not have a single ally and EVERYONE will be against us including every other nuclear power. George certainly can do that.

Please don't yammer about black eyes when when this nation's leadership is literally punch drunk and on the ropes.

[truebrit71]

324. Hello nail, meet hammer...

...you absolutely summed it up...

[saigon68]

14. Correction DLC Democrats want nothing to do with

Rappers, poor people, homeless who smell bad, revolutionary types like Che, disabled homeless veterans, prostitutes, drug addicts, criminal defendants, alcoholics who haven't been to a clinic like betty ford, old alzheimer's men who urinate in their pants, debtors who are losing their house due to medical bills

They like the Hollywood gloss

And like Joementum Biden D.(mbna) they absolutely adore corporate bankers, trips on junkets and other trappings of success.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Which non-DLC Democrats in Congress have come to Chavez's defense after

his UN speech?

[saigon68]

63. None , they are out with their banker friends eating lobster on expense

accounts


LOL

A question for you

Which DLC Democrats want the CIA to overthrow Chavez or support Joementum Limpmann (Conn)

[katinmn]

318. I know! I know!

All of them.

[Snivi Yllom]

91. Rangel is a DLC Democrat?

I don't think so.

[saigon68]

119. I NEVER SAID HE WAS

And why the Fuck does he have to say anything about THE CHIMPANZEE

[anotherdrew]

18. unlike the US, which would never dream of snuggling up to bad guys right?

he's trying to protect his nation and work with other oil producing nations, just cause imadinnajacket is a nut doesn't mean Ian can be ignored. Hell, it's the bush gang's stupidity that pushed him into Iran's arms. absent bush's constant bullshit there'd be no reason why V. or chavez would need or want to mess with Iran.

[Virginia Dare]

34. This, however, is perfectly acceptable...

[druidity33]

81. heh,heh...

gotcha! I was expecting someone to post the pic of B*sh kissing the Saudi prince... or were they just holding hands? Or Rummy shaking Saddam's hand...

Pelosi is full of shit...

Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela!

Oh, for those criticising the speech, please read the whole thing before you pass judgement.
Here, i'll provide a helpful link...

http://www.counterpunch.org/chavez09202006.html

:)

[Virginia Dare]

220. Both, I believe,

it was a full-on lip lock, I would post it, but it really makes me physically ill to look at. I'd sooner look at a snuff film.

[Helga Scow Stern]

78. Who is that whose hand he is grasping? n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

221. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran n/t

[aquart]

3. So, Nancy, done anything to get cheap fuel to the poor?

How is calling a head of state a "thug" any different from calling a head of state "the devil"?

It's all right for us to call names but not those inferior countries?

Does she actually disagree with Chavez' assessment? Or is she being a political hypocrite?

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. Did you expect a Dem leader to....

committ political suicide, less than two months from a mid-term election? I certainly understand what you're saying, and it seems that there's been enough name calling, and maybe Rep. Pelosi could have chosen her words more carefully. But from what I've heard here at work today, Chavez's remarks are getting a lot of airplay, and if any of our Dem leaders are perceived to be coming down on the side of Chavez, it's political suicide, and it hands the GOP a killer of a mid-term issue.

I say, if the leaders of our party can denounce Chavez, and get this episode behind us, the sooner the better. You have to admit, this issue doesn't play in our favor. We need to be talking about Iraq.

[ToeBot]

21. What episode, Chavez isn't a Democrat.

She could have just kept her mouth shut.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. So when asked point blank what she thought of

the leader of Venezuela calling the leader of these United States the "Devil", and saying that he could still smell the sulfur.....Nancy was just supposed to stand there and say "no comment"? That would have made the GOP very happy, and I suspect some Green types as well. I think you'll see in the coming weeks what effect his remarks have had, and I don't think they'll be good for Dems, b/c the MSM is gonna play this non-stop, and I suspect it'll pop up in a few GOP ads.

[arewenotdemo]

89. Is it possible she could have mentioned that Chavez's speech was

(from what I've read) relatively WELL-RECEIVED?????

That should have been her response. What the Idiot Prince has been able to do to America's image in the world during his short tenure.

[tblue]

107. The best response would have been "I can't believe he said that!"

Feign shock and awe. "I wonder why Chavez would SAY a thing like that!" They didn't have to be so categorical. Why lock arms with Bush on anything? There are ways to keep Bush on the defensive and get your point across graciously.

Pelosi & Rangel fell in line like good soldiers. More points for the Red team. I hate when that happens.

Remember, these Republicans would NEVER publicly defend ANY Democrat EVER. They would turn this to their advantage somehow. Democrats should do the same.

[ProudDad]

300. If she had a fuckin' spine or any imagination

she could have said, "that's between Mister bush and Mister Chavez."

[arewenotdemo]

86. Agreed. Instead, she chooses to CLOSE RANKS with the Cheerleader

Jesus fucking Christ.

[enigmacat]

242. I understand your POV

On the other hand, they could have just as easily have kept their big, ignorant, self-centered mouths SHUT.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. Heating oil wouldn't be so expensive if Chavez and other OPEC leaders

would increase production. But Chavez would rather keep prices high so that he can be seen as a hero when he offers it at a discount.

[Chemical Bill]

54. Chavez has offered to supply the US at $50 / barrel.

Venezulean oil costs more to produce than ME oil, but Chavez has made efforts to keep prices down here. Bush won't listen.

Chavez just wants the US to not sponsor any more coups against him. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Bill

[Taoschick]

94. Chavez

Wanted OPEC to cut production at their last meeting to keep the price of oil up. He's also said oil should have a minimum price of $50.00 per barrel.

Neither proposal would keep prices down.

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. Could you provide a link? n/t

[Taoschick]

103. Sure

It's easy enough to google:


Chavez Calls for Cut In Oil Production
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901241.html

Chavez rules out return to cheap oil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm

[Tarheel_Dem]

130. thanks for the links.....n/t

[Chemical Bill]

333. Minimum?

>He's also said oil should have a minimum price of $50.00 per barrel.

That's not the way I read this:

Chávez seeks to peg oil at $50 a barrel

· Price could see Venezuela producing for 200 years
· Country's reserves may exceed Saudi Arabia's

Mark Milner
Monday April 3, 2006
The Guardian


Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is poised to launch a bid to transform the global politics of oil by seeking a deal with consumer countries which would lock in a price of $50 a barrel.

<snip>

The price proposed by Mr Chávez is about $15 a barrel below the current global level but a credible long-term agreement at about $50 a barrel could have huge implications for Venezuela's standing in the international oil community.

<more>

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1745467,00.html

I'm having trouble with the BBC link, BTW.

Anyway, Chavez has proposed a locked in price that's at least $10/barrel less than the current price. That would help American consumers. Bush ignored him.

Bill

[Taoschick]

340. 50 is the minimum

From his June 1st address to OPEC:

I believe the current floor of the price band, if we are going to talk about a price band, should be 50 dollars per barrel. It could evolve in the future. Everything evolves. The ceiling of the price band is infinity.



http://www.pdvsa.com/index.php?tpl=interface.en/design/biblioteca/readdoc.tpl.html&newsid_obj_id=2738&newsid_temas=110

[Snivi Yllom]

276. but Chavez needs the oil$ to buy shiny new weapons from Iran and Russia

instead of taking care of the poor, providing clean drinking water, feeding the hungry

[manic expression]

288. Try again

Chavez has pursued a great amount of programs which have directly helped the poor. He has cut unemployment and ensured that worker rights are strong in spite of a terrible recession caused by his elitist opponents. Nice try.

[Snivi Yllom]

322. oh really?

-There is considerable income inequality. According to official sources, the percentage of poor and extremely poor among the Venezuelan population increased from 39.4% in 1995 to 48.1% in 2002. This increase has been due primarily to lower real wages earned by employees and increased unemployment.

-Venezuela's labor force of about 12.05 million is growing faster than total employment. In August 2003, official unemployment was 17.8%, but unofficial estimates are over 20%. The public sector employs about 15% of the work force, while less than 1% work in the capital-intensive oil industry.In 2002, the oil industry sector accounted for roughly a quarter of GDP, 73% of export earnings, and about half of central government's operating revenues. Venezuela's economy is dependent on oil, but only a fraction its jobs are oil related.

-According to official sources, the percentage of poor and extremely poor among the Venezuelan population increased from 39.4% in 1995 to 48.1% in 2002.


-Economic improvement in Venezuela in the last few years is entirely tied to oil production and the price of oil. Watch for the economy to turn downwards as the price of oil comes down.


Where has Chavez been spending all of the oil money? Guns.

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

The Venezuelan government has embarked on a massive military modernization and purchases that greatly expand their defensive and offensive capabilities, including negotiations for German submarines and transport aircraft, several agreements with Russia (outlined ahead), transport aircraft and naval vessels from Spain, radars from China, home-made and designed armored light vehicles and rocket launchers, studies for Leopard 2 main battle tanks, amongst many others.

In 2005 Venezuela signed agreements with Spain to procure 12 naval transport and reconnaissance aircraft and eight naval patrol vessels. The deals have been greeted with criticism from the United States, which opposes the government of President Hugo Chávez, who claims the deal is necessary for Venezuela's defense, and criticizes the United States for failing to supply spare parts for Venezuelan F-16 fighter jets. The United States, in turn, hoped to block the deal, but since the Spanish defense industry can replicate American technology with more expensive European parts, an export license from the United States is no longer required. The deal is worth $1.5-2 billion dollars to the Spanish defense industry, as well as an estimated 900 new jobs. This has added to recent tensions between the U.S. and Spain, stemming from Spain's withdrawal of its armed forces from Iraq in the wake of Al-Qaeda threats and attacks in Madrid.

Venezuela has also recently purchased 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles and 12 Mi-17 military helicopters from Russia.<1> The government of Venezuela has also announced its intention to obtain about 3 dozen more Russian helicopters, including Mi-17 "Hip", Mi-26 "Halo" and Mi-35 "Hind", as well as announcing the procurement of 24 Su-30 Interceptors with future possible purchases of Su-35 fighters. <1>

Such purchases have marked a line of separation from the traditional US supply lines, replacing them with other nations like Russia and China, clear counter-weights to the US in global matters. Clearly, this divergence is a sign of the current regime's anti-US policies.

[manic expression]

332. Yes really

2002 was part of that recession due to the efforts to topple Chavez, but you didn't know that, did you? :eyes:

Unemployment and poverty have been dropping considerably recently. Nice try, but facts are facts, there is improvement in spite of what was done by Chavez' opponents.

I don't care if economic improvement was tied to magic pixie dust, it's still economic improvement. All countries utilize resources, and they should be utilized to help their people, which is precisely what Chavez is doing. You try to make excuses for this because it's "tied to oil", but the FACT is that this changes NOTHING and everyone (with a shred of knowledge and reason) knows it.

Chavez has been beefing up Venezuelan defenses. Why? Because he knows how Uncle Sam operates: by force. Ask Allende, ask Guatemala, ask Nicaragua, ask Latin America what happens when countries take their future into their hands. Chavez knows the score, and he knows he needs to be ready if/when the hammer comes down. Thanks for posting such great info, but your complete lack of perspective and knowledge on the issue at hand was to be expected. It's clear that you show a remarkable inability to analyze the circumstances. Get a clue.

[ProudDad]

302. Wow are you off base

it's bush's war and oil company GREED that's keeping oil prices high...not Hugo Chavez. President Chavez is just a beneficiary of the oil-o-garchy led by the united states.

[Freddie Stubbs]

320. 5-30-2006: Chavez Calls for Cut In Oil Production

OPEC Won't Agree, Analysts Predict

By Natalie Obiko Pearson
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2006; Page D03

CARACAS, Venezuela, May 29 -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is pushing for an cut in oil production as he hosts an OPEC meeting this week, but he appears to be a lone voice as other members of the cartel will probably want to keep output unchanged to temper soaring prices.

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901241.html

[killbotfactory]

351. hmm...

"I don't see what kind of decision would have any impact on the price in the current context," he said. "The market is not asking for more crude."

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez justified a production cut on Monday, saying the market was well-supplied and that oil inventories are above historical highs.

He said OPEC should "at least maintain" output but added: "If we were to base it on the fundamentals of the market, we should propose a production cut."

Ramirez later acknowledged that oil prices are above acceptable levels but said that was occurring for "reasons that are fundamentally geopolitical," such as violence in Iraq and Iran's nuclear issue.

[confludemocrat]

326. Only the U.S. can define what is "evil"? Tit for tat and US goes WAAAAAH!

Exhibit Z for why we just don't get it and there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two parties on stuff like this. Bush is a lying murderer and a thug has done nothing but wage war as a solution to everything, get's crticized by someone who Bush tried to depose and probably kill and he is defended by a members of the opposition party. Would Repubs do the same? Fuck no!

[hadrons]

4. Pelosi sucks up to corporate America just like Dumbya

[endarkenment]

Oh that leading Bush critic.

yawn.

[olddad56]

6. And Bush isn't as bigger thug? Goodbye Nancy.

[Kahuna]

9. It's okay for bush to issue threats and call names at the UN...

Why the repukes and MSM were congratulating him for his tough talk at the UN on Tuesday. When somebody else does it, it's an afront all of a sudden. :nopity:

[RangerSmith]

48. Actually,

I think that's ultimately the point here... trying to point out the hypocrisy... it wasn't OK when bush did it... and it shouldn't be OK now.

[Judi Lynn]

59. It was never o.k. when Bush told lies at the UN to build a phoney

foundation for a murderous attack on Iraq.

That will NEVER be "OK."

What genocidal, larcenous campaigns can you lay at Chavez's feet? Did he go to the UN for backing for war crimes?

[RangerSmith]

64. Ya know, Judi...

for me they don't have to be equally as bad as whomever your comparing them to qualify as bad.

bush hasn't killed millions of Jews yet ala Hitler, but I still think he's a thug.

I know it really pains you when your socialist heros are exposed as thugs, but there ya go..

Just for starters...

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr530052004

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/02/19/venezu5323.htm

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2006/06/06.html

[Judi Lynn]

67. Yeah, I answered your "links" in another post.

Nice try. Other right-wingdings drag them around here, as well.

Why don't you locate the parts which relate directly to Hugo Chavez, and post them, rather than throwing a pile of reading on the table? It's the civilized, DU way of doing things.

DU'ers saw a scum trying to shove the Salon blogs down everyone's throat already. No, thanks. He's a full time opposition blogger, and he's no journalist.

[RangerSmith]

69. Your problem

is you want anyone who is not a socialist to be labeled a right wing nut.

I'm sorry, but it's going to have to just suck to be you cause the party isn't going there anytime soon.

[VegasWolf]

77. Judi, we've all seen RangerSmith's ''opinions", not to worry. nt

[Judi Lynn]

85. Thanks! I'm still not used to them! Guess Ranger Smith is simply too

"Democratic" and not nearly "socialist" enough for me!

[zreosumgame]

93. just the way bullies in a school-yard behave...

[MGD]

244. I agree with her and fully support her perspective.

[Mind Snapper]

309. Are you a CEO or other top exec

at a Fortune 500 company or something?

[bemildred]

8. Hezbollah adopts Chavez as hero

BEIRUT - Venezuela’s outspoken President Hugo Chavez, who lashed out at his US counterpart George W. Bush from the podium of the UN General Assembly, has scored a big hit with Lebanon’s Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

“Gracias Chavez,” proclaimed large posters hurriedly put up on Thursday by Hezbollah activists in their Shia stronghold of Beirut’s southern suburbs on the eve of a “victory” rally following the group’s war with Israel.

The portrait, showing Chavez in a red shirt and punching the air with a fist, also calls for Israel “to be taken to court for its crimes” during the 34-day war which ended in mid-August after more than 1,200 people were killed in Lebanon alone.

Caracas pulled the Venezuelan charge d’affaires out of Israel in early August to protest its operations inside Lebanon, with Chavez charging that Israel “had lost its mind”.

http://www.khaleejtimes.ae/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/September/middleeast_September479.xml§ion=middleeast&col=

[Jim Stark]

26. I think that says it all. n/t

[RDU Socialist]

269. Chavez has been calling every American leader a devil

why should I take anything he says seriously? He desparaged Clinton in 2000 as well while he was having a joy-ride with Saddam Hussein. The man has awfully nice words for dictatorships like Iraq, Iran, and Cuba, but when it comes to democracies (specifically western ones) he has nothing but bile.

It couldn't be linked to the fact he tried a military coup vis-a-vis Augusto Pinochet could it?

Morales and Lula de Silva on the other hand have been leftist leaders in South America who seem to understand that better relations with all the world including the US is better than simply being a self-righteous communist like Hugo Chavez is.

[manic expression]

289. Correction

Cuba has a great amount of representation.

Iran has representation. You can argue the semantics of the degree, but Iran does have representation.

Get a clue before talking about this stuff.

Chavez has nothing but bile for people who deserve nothing but bile. The current US administration has done nothing but disgusting and base crimes against countless peoples, and Chavez is only right in criticizing that. Criticizing Clinton was before my political time. However, Chavez is perfectly reasonable and more than justified in his statements. And by the way, Evo Morales and Chavez have, to my knowledge, been very supportive of one another. Regardless of your claims of "communist", Chavez is RIGHT, Chavez has made great and effective efforts to help the people of his country and other countries, and that's what matters.

[Mind Snapper]

310. The criticisms of Clinton were equally justified

[jahyarain]

10. did Hugo tell any "untruths"?

doesn't the "antichrist" supposedly come preaching peace while bringing war? isn't that EXACTLY what Dumbass said and did? sounded pretty satanic to me.

[Kolesar]

11. What name does Pelosi have for the man who tried to overthrow Chavez?

...in April 2002?

[saigon68]

15. Her Sugar Daddy

[ovidsen]

12. Pelosi has a point

It's inconsiderate for a guest to enter a host's home and poop all over the rug, even if some people (including me) think some of the pooping might be justified.

However, I don't really care. Chavez was preaching to his choirs in Venezuela and elsewhere. And free speech is free speech. I don't think he changed anyone's mind anyway.

Plus, the US and New York (as hosts of the UN) have a tradition of letting world leaders detested by Washington address the UN, and sometimes make fools of themselves. I'm old enough to remember Khruschev in 1960, waving his shoe and whining "We will bury you!!!"

The Repukes are making a mountain out of a molehill. And so, it seems are some Democrats. Excuse me, but I have to go walk the dog.

[Kahuna]

16. The UN is neutral territory and DOES NOT belong to the USA.

Get it everybody. The USA was not Chavez' host. The UN was.

[bluestateguy]

25. True, but I favor moving the UN to a neutral country

The UN should not be in New York. It should be in a country that is truly neutral.

And they are taking up valuable real estate and parking spaces in the city.

[Kahuna]

29. I agree with that 100%. Probably then * would think he owned

the whole world. :sarcasm:

[VegasWolf]

30. Exactly, the Imperial Master Of The World does not need to harbor these

whining, piddling little "countries"!!

[Taoschick]

273. There are no

Neutral countries.

[Otho]

368. In what sense is the U.S. not neutral? It's not really WWIII is it?

Do you mean move the U.N. to a country that is not a member of the U.N.?
Or what do you mean?
Your statement is kind of indicative of the hostile view of the U.N. that Fox News has been puonding away at for years. My advice is to change the channel.
Maybe if we stopped prosecuting undeclared and illegal wars (like all the other industrialized democracies) and violating international law, the U.N. (whose purpose is to guard all countries against foreign aggression) wouldn't seem so unAmerican!
Now that you have been straightened out, carry on, young man...as a free citizen of the world's only hyperdemocratic hyperpower, your responsibility to the world and the future of the human race is awesome! Enjoy your moment of glory!
:nuke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Did American liberals cheer Khruschev as a hero?

:shrug:

[VegasWolf]

44. Back then America was America and not the AmeriKa it is today. No

lunatics running the country slapping a bible in everyones face and starting imperialistic OIL wars.

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

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

[Judi Lynn]

47. No country should be given a blank check and never called on it

when it runs roughshod over people anywhere.

No one is obligated to look the other way while you commit war crimes just because a world council is located in your country.

You don't really get to break deadly serious rules because a small space in your country houses the UN. That would be far tackier than someone "pooping" on your rug.

[VegasWolf]

17. Bush is lucky having "opposition" like Pelosi. I'm voting 3rd party. nt

[katinmn]

28. Yeah, what opposition? Why is she standing up for a mass-murderer?

The spying, torturing, corrupt president. :puke:

Leave it to Pelosi to try and generate more support for Bush.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

71. agreed.. the opposition party is dead

we now have 2 flavors of one corporate/globalist party

:mad:

[cali]

229. Fine. But I suggest you

depart from this board, whose raison d'etre is to support dems.

[manic expression]

290. An unnecessary suggestion

you don't have to be a Democrat to be here.

[ProudDad]

303. No it isn't

I've been on this board for over 5 years.

I joined because I considered it a sanctuary for those of us who were appalled at the cave-in by Gore in 2000 and who seemed to range from the far left wing of the democratic party to the far left of the dems.

There's a rich leftist, populist, progressive, socialist tradition on this board -- thus it's name, "democratic UNDERGROUND" and not "democratic middle-ground" or "DLC stomping ground"

In my opinion it's to support progressive, some traditional, democratic values not knee-jerk support of only politicians who call themselves "democrats"...

But I don't mind if a few head in the sand, corporate capitalist stooges are on board trying to defend their dead end policies so stay, Cali, stay...

[cali]

312. Is making stuff up about other posters

a progressive value? Because I'm a progressive. I've worked for Progressive candidates here in Vermont, and been thrilled to see them achieve some success in the Legislature, and beyond. So I don't just vote in a knee jerk way for dems. Hell, I've been voting for Bernie for over a dozen years. But when someone just announces that they will not support dems, period, I do believe it goes against the spirit of DU:

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

Actively rejecting dems in such an important year is more than a little counter-productive.

As for your rather nasty insinuation that I'm a stooge for corporate, capitalist interests, not only is it not true, it seems to run counter to your oft professed ideals of peace and respect for others. Oh, well. As E.M. Forester said: "Only hypocrites can't forgive hypocricy".

[VegasWolf]

329. You are good a twisting words. I said I would not support Pelosi. Anything

else you don't understand?

[Mind Snapper]

308. If that were true

this board would simply be called FreeRepublic-Lite

Sadly, that does seem to be largely the case

[EarthNeedsHope]

20. Pelosi has always been a pathetic leader, and not much of a Bush critic

She needs to resign and let someone effective lead the Dems in 2006.

[OneBlueSky]

23. Chavez only said what Pelosi and her ilk SHOULD have been saying . . .

for the past couple of years at least . . .

the language may have been a little over-the-top -- but SOMEONE has to start speaking the truth about BushCo and their plans for world domination . . . because the Democrats sure as hell aren't . . .

[bluedog]

68. was going to say that...the D's never say

what they are thinking...........I'd bet they all agree.........but Chavez said it for them

[katinmn]

24. I guess I am a thug, too. I've been calling Bush Satan for years.

Grow up, Nancy. Why don't you jump on Bush's ass for demeaning America every day?

Bush does not deserve anyone's respect.

[Kahuna]

31. Not only you but a lot of DUers who are now pretending that they

haven't been saying the exact same things.

[saigon68]

32. Nancy could dye her hair like Angela Merkel

[arewenotdemo]

95. great pic

[MisterP]

33. next thing you know, Chavez'll be asking for "equal treatment" between

Israel and Palestine!!!

[Mind Snapper]

306. No, she's an American politician

so that won't be happening

[Bridget Burke]

35. All the Right Wing Creeps love to use the word "Thug".....

There are much more exact descriptions of Heads of State not currently doing our bidding. (Their Domestic & Foreign policies--good, bad or mixed--don't really matter to these folks.)

Why didn't she just say he was "impolite" & she was offended?

Bushie's little talk at the UN was hardly a shining example of diplomacy & statesmanship.

[Otho]

372. It's a code word for "socialist"

So NP has sent her message to our corporate interests...she will not tolerate Venezuelan autonomy. Imagine a Cuba that didn't need foreign aid. Democrats and Republicans were exactly the same on foreign policy until the incredible Bushies. Remember how Clinton and Blair just sort of went along with "the run-up to war" rhetoric? America is is hooked on cheap commodities (something for nothing?).

Democrats, unite in favor of the self-determination of people everywhere in all nations! We have nothing to fear from anyone...no one would dare wage war against us ever.

Maybe it makes sense for a poor country to nationalize major industries and resources and distribute wealth equitably to its mostly poor population, to provide health care, education, food and shelter.

Let's face the fact that the developing world probably SHOULD be socialistic, at least as a beginning for a decent existence!

[liberalmuse]

36. If you help the poor and speak the truth, you are a 'thug'.

On the other hand, you are a man of god if you:
1. Start a pre-emptive war based on lies
2. Kill about 100,000 innocent civilians in this unjust war
3. Eat cake and play guitar while thousands of poor people drown due to NO EVACUATION PLAN from your crony-padded FEMA, and then you and your decrepit cronies profit from the death destruction by no bid contract
4. Sit in a classroom looking like an idiot refusing to do a goddamned thing while thousands of your own citizens are making the decision to jump or burn. And then, as a big 'FUCK YOU' to all Americans, you refuse to be a leader in this time of great tragedy, instead jetting across the country and stop at every hidey hole along the way in order to save your own completely useless ass.

I could go on for months like this. Compared to W. Bush, Hugo Chavez is a fucking saint. I wish ONE GODDAMNED PERSON in Congress had 1/10 of this man's balls.

And fuck everyone in Congress except Feingold. They are worse than pathetic. We are stuck with this disgrace of a president because these people who are supposed to be representing 'We the People' love corporate money more than they love America.

[niallmac]

80. liberalmuse speaks for me, only better.n/t

[arewenotdemo]

98. me too!

[katinmn]

129. Me too. I'm sick of everyone pussyfooting around Junior.

So what if he rants? He's the worst president this country has ever had. He has caused tremendous pain for people around the world. He has brought disgrace to a once great country.

I resent Pelosi's criticism of Chavez.

[diamidue]

294. I agree.

People are so busy criticizing Chavez. But Chavez doesn't operate torture prisons in secret hideaways. And Chavez didn't murder over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. And Chavez didn't leave thousands to drown in New Orleans. Someone who would do those things IS satan. And if Americans can't stand hearing that truth, then tough. I'd hazard a guess that most of the world agrees with Chavez.

[Puglover]

90. You go.

Bush is a monster. I wish Chavez had used that instead of the "Devil" label. Semantics I know but "Devil" has religous overtones and I think people react to that rather then the sentiment.

[Virginia Dare]

37. Chavez has struck many nerves apparently....

this is a knee-jerk reaction on her part.

[ronnykmarshall]

38. Um .... it's THURSDAY !!

Thursday is HILLARY bashing day.

Get with the program people.

[paulk]

112. LOL

that's good...

[rodeodance]

298. i thought everyday was Hil bashing day (for many on this board at least)

[question everything]

39. Thank you, speaker-to-be Pelosi

for moving beyond pettiness - as shown on DU - and showing what a real leader you are.

This is what I was hoping yesterday, and got crucified.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2837786

[katinmn]

45. The sooner people stand up to the evil bastard in the WH, the sooner

we get rid of him.

I agree with Chavez.

BTW, Pelosi is extremely impolite for calling another government leader "a thug." How many deaths is Chavez responsible for? How many has he tortured? How many countries has he invaded? How much suffering has he caused around the world?

And I ask you, who is "the thug?"

[Judi Lynn]

49. Evil like Bush's is NEVER acceptable, under any circumstances,

and it doesn't take any one of quality long to know it. It's automatic.

Trying to find ways to accomodate, to excuse it, to protect it, IS evil.

[Puglover]

97. Wow. I just read your thread.

You pretty much deserved it.

[ronnykmarshall]

234. How nnnnnnniiiiiiiiicccccccccceee!

[Warren Stupidity]

231. Question nothing. nt.

[question everything]

283. Stupid, eh? No arguments from here (nt)

[humbled_opinion]

40. Thug ?

That should be reserved for Gangsters. Isn't it truth that Chavez helps his poor and now ours more then our own government does? How many homeless and low income families will be warmer this winter because of this "thug"? 1000's and some in your own state Nancy so get a grip.

[Bridget Burke]

51. "Thug" is the Right Wing Word for Heads of State....

Who refuse to bow down to the Almighty USA. Are their domestic/foreign policies good, bad or mixed? Irrelevant. Ain't those Butchers of Tien An Min Square who run China our Very Good Friends!

Why didn't she just say that the remark offended her? Namecalling isn't a very bright response. And Bushie's speech at the UN was hardly Eloquence For The Ages.

[RangerSmith]

55. Oh, he's been called a thug before

How do you define "thug?"

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr530052004

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/02/19/venezu5323.htm

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2006/06/06.html

He is a much nicer thug than his predecessor, no doubt, but I wouldn't accept nor applaud any of this here, so I could care less if he is right about bush... I mean, you don't have to be Karnak to call the clown out as being a clown. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Judi Lynn]

65. Nice try. You're using articles which point to events which fell under

the jurisdiction of the mayor of Caracas who was a sworn enemy of Hugo Chavez.

And what about El Caracazo, which figured so largely in one of the articles? Gee, that was terrible, wasn't it? Who would have known it happened 9 years before Hugo Chavez was elected?

Don't even try to wave your Salon blog around here. DU'ers have seen that "writer" before.

[RangerSmith]

70. Oh, I think

folks around here mostly can read and determine whats really going on down there from the articles.

Are Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi right wing nuts, too? lol

[Judi Lynn]

87. Oh, yeah? Why do your articles deal with charges from years

BEFORE Hugo Chavez was elected, or in areas which are strictly controlled by opposition mayors?

Pelosi and Rangel are politicians, first. They are doing what they feel they must to protect themselves.

Who on earth can't figure THAT out?

[RangerSmith]

105. Well, just from what I can tell by reading from the articles

In context with the following paragraphs it seems to me the incident was commented on to show where Venezuela has been in the past... what AI has recommended, what Venezuela has implemented, and where they need work.

But hey, maybe that's just me...

"These types of human rights violations committed by police and security forces have occurred in Venezuela over many years, particularly in situations of mass public demonstrations or civil disturbances. In 1989, in what is known as the "Caracazo", over 250 people were killed in the context of security forces’ response to massive street protests and civil disorder. In 1992 the security forces intervention in the Catia detention centre led to the deaths of over 60 inmates. Neither of these incidents have ever been effectively investigated to establish criminal responsibility of violations of the right to life and physical integrity. Abuses of this nature have taken place due to poor training of officials, inadequate command and control structures and the absence of effective measures to ensure accountability. Most of all, the impunity that accompanies these abuses sends a clear message to the police and security officials that such conduct will remain unpunished and can continue to be a feature of policing and security operations.

In recent years Amnesty International and national human rights organizations have also documented extra legal killings, torture and other serious human rights violations committed by police and security forces in the context of social cleansing or combating common crime in different parts of the country. These cases, often affecting poor and marginalized communities, gain little public attention and receive an equally inadequate official response; exposing the victims and their families to threats and intimidation and leaving members of the police and security forces responsible free to commit further human rights violations.

As part of its ruling on the Caracazo case, The Inter American Court on Human Rights recently called on the Venezuelan government to review its training, procedures and operational plans for the security forces to respond to serious civil disturbances in order that international standards on the minimum use of force and firearms(6) are followed to prevent events similar to those of 1989. Amnesty International is not aware of any steps officially taken by the Venezuela government to comply with this ruling.

In the civil disturbances of 27 February to 4 March 2004 Amnesty International recognises that wide scale indiscriminate or extrajudicial killings were avoided in the face of frequently violent demonstrations. However, rather than acknowledge the use of excessive force and torture in a significant number of cases and ensure full, thorough and impartial investigations, the authorities made numerous public statements offering unqualified support for the conduct of the security forces and sought to dismiss or downplay allegations of human rights violations as merely part of the opposition strategy to discredit the government. The government only reluctantly agreed the need to investigate alleged abuses in the face of numerous complaints and strong national and international pressure.

Were those the references to Caracazo you were speaking of?

Pretty much explains itself to me, but Amnesty International I'm sure would accept you criticism if you are so inclined.

[Judi Lynn]

113. Why not clarify your point? I have no idea whatsoever what you're

attempting to say.

El Caracazo happened during the regime of Carlos Andres Perez. He was later impeached for massive corruption, by the way.

[RangerSmith]

121. it wasn't "MY" point...

You wanted to know why it was mentioned so I provided context. Seems clear to me.

[The Stranger]

41. WE NEED AN APOLOGY -- PAGING THE DICK DURBIN . . .

[Broadslidin]

46. After Our CIA Failed In Its Bloody Coup Attempt In Venezuela......!

"Devil"
What else would you expect to hear
from the U.S. corporation/government
targeted Elected President of Venezuela?

Carrying on a long history of imperial invasions
and occupations since 1898,

:evilgrin: Fearless Leaders, Bush Sr. & Jr. preferring
the CIA'S blood soaked "National Endowment For Democracy",
for a quick and dirty installation of yet
another U.S. corporation manipulated
South American sham government.

[VegasWolf]

50. Nancy Pelosi is just another Bush enabler, not worth a vote. nt

[Vidar]

53. Unfortunately, we need Pelosi, though she's doing a poor

imitation of Condi Rice.

[Zhade]

56. Uh, Nancy? He's democratically-elected.

Fucking MORON!

[sabbat hunter]

57. is there any opposition parties

if there is no real opposition, then tehre isnt really democratic elections. while in power Chavez has increased the power of the presidency, done a lot of show, and stunts (like the oil for the poor in harlem) but are his own people really better off?

[Poll_Blind]

75. There are opposition parties in Venezuela. They are primarily...

...composed of corporate interests with ties to the United States and they wield a great deal of power, owning most of the media outlets. In fact, some of the coup leaders are happily living in The United States. If you have 74 minutes to spare to understand a bit of the how's and why's Hugo Chavez, the coup against him, the popular overthrow of the coup by the Venezuelan people, I recommend Chavez: Inside the Coup, which is available to watch in its entirety on GoogleVideo.

  The political struggles within Venezuela break down along class lines and an exploited underclass in Venezuela believe that they have been at the mercy of the conservative corporate interests for too long. That Chavez would have been elected at all or returned to power after the coup despite extreme pressure from the Venezuelan media is a testament to the desire for the majority of Venezuelans to take back their country from conservative corporate entities.

  This is similar to the struggle in Mexico between Calderon and Obrador and, although things seem settled for the moment, there is a great deal of distrust by the people (especially the poor) of conservative corporate interests and their influence on the government.

  To reduce the social programs which Chavez has enacted in Venezuela to "shows" or "stunts" indicates an ignorance of what those social and political changes are. I invite you to research on your own, should your curiosity provide the energy, these programs and their impact on Venezuelan culture. I give you an example of two social programs, excerpted from this story:

The Mission Madres del Barrio (Mothers of the Neighborhood) was first approved by presidential decree last March to help housewives or heads of household lift themselves out of extreme poverty and become active and productive members of their communities. To qualify, a women must either work only at home and have children, or if they do work they must earn less than the national minimum wage. Those that qualify receive between 60% - 80% of the national minimum wage which will be distributed by neighborhood committees.

--snip--

Mission Robinson II has been in operation since 2003 and is the second part of the Venezuelan education system developed under the Chávez government that serves the least well off Venezuelans. It is a two year program that takes Venezuelans to primary level education. Mission Robinson I is a literacy training program, which has dramatically reduced illiteracy in Venezuela since its introduction.

--snip--

Also in attendance was the Venezuelan Director General of Adult Education and Sports Omar Calzadilla who said, “These compatriots passed the first stage of their studies, there is no doubt of the considerable social impact that the Missions have in their objective of putting an end to social exclusion.”

Most of the graduates will move directly onto the next phase, Mission Ribas, which provides adult secondary education.

PB

[Judi Lynn]

84. Here are three more of the missions:

~snip~
Ribas Mission
This mission was born on October 16, 2003, and it provides remedial high school level classes to millions of Venezuelans who were forced to dropout from high school. It iis named after independence hero José Félix Ribas. This mission is sponsored by the Oil and Energy ministry, as well as state-owned Pdvsa.

The goal is for this mission to be a continuation of Robinson II mission.

From 2003 to January, 2006, the Bolivarian government has helped 885,410 Venezuelans enter this mission. There are currently 578,668 Venezuelans studying in this mission with the help of 32,167 teachers, 5,177 coordinators at 8,306 school facilities nationwide. There are 32,291 classrooms and 173,834 students have received scholarships.


Sucre Mission
Sucre Mission was launched in September, 2003. The Ministry of Higher Education is in charge of this project and carries it out all around the country. The Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV, Spanish acronym) opens its doors to thousands of students who began to study in classrooms that were the luxurious offices of oil oligarchs.

This program’s goal is to boost the institutional synergy and community participation in order to guarantee and provide access to higher education to all high school students.

So far, this program has registered 472,363 high school graduates, 429,215 of which have been assisted and 318,381 have finished the University Introductory Program. A total of 330,346 high school graduates have registered in the education programs. Also, the mission has granted 96,412 scholarships ($100) to the poorest students, and it is checking other 2,968 scholarships.

Likewise, 10,212 teachers work for the education programs and 1,107 university villages are distributed all around the country. These examples are a proof of the determination and strategy of the State to cancel a social debt. Also, this program guarantees access to higher education to all Venezuelans.


Barrio Adentro Mission
Since April, 2003, the national government’s main objective is to shape a health network through providing a free service to the poor sector of the population. This is why Barrio Adentro Mission I was launched.

This mission’s general objective is to provide access to health care assistance to 60 percent of the excluded population through the construction of 8,000 Popular Medical Centers, to provide a doctor to 250 families (1,200 people), to increase the life expectancy rate of the population and to contribute to the development, growth and ageing with a good standard of life.

Barrio Adentro Mission I has made an important progress in this sense by providing 162,012,583 people with medical assistance, 14,716,325 people with dental assistance and 3,811,741 people with eye assistance, by saving 31,063 lives, by giving 375,144 glasses, and by constructing 1,012 medical centers.

Barrio Adentro Mission II was launched on June 12, 2005. This mission opened 30 Integral Diagnosis Centers and 30 Integral Rehabilitation Rooms all around the country. These centers have make possible to perform 3,936,874 lab tests, 535,631 emergency surgeries, 775,690 ultrasounds, 285,415 X-Rays, 324,936 electrocardiograms, 108 operations, 55,499 endoscopies, 1,064,339 rehabilitation traements.

Also, 200 Integral Diagnosis Centers (CDI, Spanish acronym) and Integral Rehabilitation Rooms (SRI, Spanish acronym) have been opened during these last months. 103 are already finished and they are in the endowment phase. 704 are still under construction.

Likewise, Barrio Adentro III Mission is already working. This mission has to do with the strengthening of the hospital networks all around the country in order to meet the demand of Barrio Adentro II (CDI and SRI). This project is known as People’s Hospitals since it implies the modernization of hospital centers with medical and electromechanical equipment.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org.uk/ven/web/2006/missions/social_missions.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great post, Poll_Blind, and thank you.

[sabbat hunter]

237. my biggest problem with chavez

is how he buddies up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a true nutbag to say the least.

the reason why i call it a stunt, is that it seems like he does it more to tweak the US that out of a true caring of the poor.

let us not forget that he tried to pull of a coup in venezuela in 1992. that right there sets of warning bells in my head. he also is part of the reason oil prices are as high as they are right now, by championing reducing production by OPEC. that effects working people around the world. He also has way too much of the money for venezuela coming in from oil. if oil goes down again (which it could) his country will collapse monetarily.

he also got passed constitutional changes that increases the power of the presidency at the expense of the legislative branch, reducing checks and balances.

additionally despite already serving two terms (Which is the limit under the venezuelan constitution) he is running again.

[Poll_Blind]

284. I know you have extreme issues with some of the figures Chavez has....

...associated with. I have to recognize that we have very different world views in regards to what the less-concerned might see as trivial matters, but those inflections affect our interpretation of situations, people and historical events to the point that I will neither attempt to change those views merely to bring clarity to you on one point (Chavez) and in doing so, in some small way, try to recognize the right for you to more-than-legitimately hold that view, whatever my personal truth is.

PB

[Otho]

374. Is Ahmedinaetc a Jew Hater?

Not according to him. He says, like a majority of people in his country, that creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine was unfair to the Palestinians. Of course Ahmedinajad is a "hard-liner", elected at a time when Iranians felt threatened by the world's only hyperpower (us). We also elected a hard-liner (who also seems to be a "nutcase") because we were scared of guys wearing sheets living in caves. Of course both Bush and Ahmedinajab aren't really crazy, and they're not stupid. They do seem to be woefully undereducated for their positions as historical figures. In things like history for instance. They do know how to appeal to their political base (which is essentially the same). The problem is, that their distortions can be heard in each other's countries!

The real Jew-haters are mostly a familiar bunch who form within elements of the political Right. The Right has a long and documented history of racial and ethnic exclusion, in all times and all places. But even Christian Right Jew-haters have come to LOVE Israel (or rather, their idea of it). They and their neocon friends accuse critics of Israeli policies of anti-semitism. Likewise, a Jewish critic is instantly labeled a "self-hating Jew." (Incredibly, gentiles have suddenly mastered this touchy subject after centuries of indifference.)

Of course there are Leftists who are prejudiced against Jews as well. Anti-semitism has had a very very long and important place in European culture, as old as Christendom itself. Let's not forget Mel Gibson's gentle reminder! The worst anti-semites are and always will be Christian.

Jews are not ancient blood-feud enemies of Muslims, as good Christian Americans like to believe. That would be other Muslims (tribe v. tribe or Shia v. Sunni). The Jews have had 3 "Golden Ages" where they enjoyed freedom and prosperity outside of Biblical Israel: Ancient Greece, Moorish Spain under the Islamic Empire, and modern America. Every great Arab city had a vibrant and rich Jewish community into the 20th Century.

For a less hysterical Jewish/Israeli perspective than we are used to in the American media, check out Tikkun.org

Peace.

PS And if Ahmedinajab worries you that much, remember that Israel has two hundred nuclear weapons, on top of everything else, for self-defense. Iran is not a country of raving lunatics, regardless of what the TV tells you.

[Robbien]

61. First, Pelosi is no leading critic of Bush. She barely whispers complaints

More than four fifths of the country do not even know who she is.

But now that she is taking BushCo's side, she is screaming from the rafters.

Second. Democratic leadership are warhawks. Pelosi is no exception. Pelosi has not said word one in support about Central and South America trying to get out from under the oppression of NAFTA agreements.

Of course she is using Bush's favorite word "thug" when talking about any Latin American who doesn't fall in line with NAFTA.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

338. Yes. "Leading critic" my ass.

Unfortunately, Martin Frost would have been even worse.

[Overseas]

62. Bush DEMEANS ALL OF US every darn day. EOM.

[Judi Lynn]

66. Yes, he surely does. He hasn't done one decent thing since the day

he stole the pResidency.

There's not a more anti-social person on the face of the planet, except for the OTHER socially diseased right-wingers.

[Snivi Yllom]

72. AMEN. Chavez is a goon.

1. The UN is an organization for diplomacy, not hatespeech rhetoric. Chavez speech was way out of line.

2. It was bad form, and frankly embarassing.

[ShortnFiery]

76. Not any more embarrassing as watching our pathetic leader

as he stumbled over words that were directly fed to him via an ear-piece.

Was it lost on anyone how Dear Leader would flip the pages of his notebook with a smart-ass flourish? He didn't give a shit that we all know he's being fed his line, after all he's The Decider. :puke:

Nope, I'm ashamed of any Democrat that defended Dear Leader. He should be behind bars by now in a JUST world. :(

[manic expression]

292. You're quite misled

1.) The UN is an organization for every country getting a say. Bashing someone who deserves to be bashed isn't out of line.

2.) It was the opposite of bad form, it was the opposite of embarassing. Don't be so myopic as to miss what's important here: Chavez said what needed to be said.

[ShortnFiery]

73. Some of our beloved leadership need to catch a clue. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

104. That our party would be out-of-step with its constituency is a very...

...frightening proposition to many people. Look at the name-calling going on in here over reactions to Pelosi's (et al.) statements. It is an unfortunate side-effect of a two-party system that, generally among the uncritically-thinking, one party is dearly loved unconditionally and one party bitterly-despised, even when there is no merit for it.

  Most concerning of all is when we force ourselves to be uncritical of our politicians (within the framework of Liberal ideology) it does nothing to strengthen the Democratic party or to influence the party to more-realistically reflect the will of its constituents. This laxity of critical thinking (or fear of it) has done much to help destroy and disorganize the GOP and if we do not recognize the dangers of an uncritical constituency we may find ourselves in a nation where neither party represents the will of the majority of the constituents in that ideology, for either party.

  I've been to The Unspeakable Cesspool of Conservatism and watched how they flaggelate each other for differences in their own ideology. I regret to report I do not see much difference, on occasion, here.

  We are, well and truly, capable of more enlightened behavior given the inclusiveness of Liberal ideology.

PB

[glitch]

122. Good post. Although I do see attempts to march us in blind lock step

with the party, I don't see those attemps succeed very often.

[Joanne98]

82. GO TO HELL NANCY!

[jseankil]

88. How old are you, 12? /nm

nm

[wagthedogwar]

96. Some people just can't take assassination attempts lightly

I noticed that too, whenever you try to assassinate and overthrow people, they get really rude.

Why is that?

Still no excuse for bad table manners.

Are y'all ready for the shitstorm? The next month should be one hell of a ride with the desperate republicans shaking every cage they can.

Bring it on!

lol

[glitch]

114. They'll be flinging their poo all over the monkey house!

Interesting times. It would be amusing if the corporate media didn't chime in supporting their antics, giving them credibility. Fortunately for us, the corporate media no longer has much credibility to give.

[Judi Lynn]

123. Now, if they can find a way to cut off our access to the Internet, we'll

be wandering around in total darkness!

I hope human nature will prove very resourceful if they try to cut off all our access to all news information everywhere!

Just as they develope the means to keep large numbers of Americans from gathering, via their new crowd control weapons. So it will be possible we still may know a bit of what they're up to, but be completely unable to demonstrate resistance to it.

[glitch]

128. I have a lot of faith in the ingenuity of human nature.

I think fascism is unnatural, which is why it takes so much structural support to initiate and sustain. It's why they have to create their own reality.
Democracy and innovation are very natural, so I think we can count on aid from reality itself.
In other words, they have to expend a lot of energy fighting the flow, whereas we can use the flow's energy.
(However, sometimes I have to remind myself to think this and remain optimistic!)

[LibertyorDeath]

101. anyone with half a brain knows who the "thug" is

Pelosi like most American politicians is beholden to the Corporatist pigs that call the shots.
It's the way the game is played.

Chavez is saying we need to find another way or the planet is fucked.

I think he has a valid point.

Here's the fucking "THUG"

[saigon68]

106. THE FUCKING THUG IS THE CHIMPANZEE

[LibertyorDeath]

115. Hey saigon68 thanks for the belly Laugh!

That's a keeper.
Cheers!

[saigon68]

120. He's trying to think

Look at his face--- He is trying.

[LibertyorDeath]

124. try as he might

he could not succeed. :)

:toast:

[NorthernSpy]

102. interesting: these attacks on Chavez are coming from the 'Israel First'...

... partisans, which Pelosi herself most certainly is.

Anyone else notice that?

Sooo... what are they really pissed off about this time? That Venezuelan-Iranian joint drilling project, perhaps?

I guess that we can now expect our media to become one big anti-Chavez hate rally from now on. That is, even more than usual...


:eyes:

[enigmacat]

241. Good observation.

I am so beyond furious over these two opening their big traps to criticize Chavez, but God forbid, not Bush.
It is just beyond belief that they can get mouthy over Chavez, but not Bush. You know why? Because they know that they can get all mouthy over Chavez without risking political damage. They are cowards, plain and simple.
And, as another poster pointed out, what have they done to supply affordable oil to the needy for heat? NOTHING. This is yet one more reason that the DINO's make me sick. SICK.

[HomerRamone]

108. I expect the Republicans to be so appreciative of Pelosi's support

that they'll stop painting HER as the devil who shouldn't head the House:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

110. I think "demagogue" would have been more fitting

But Democrats as a group seem to have a hard time recognizing demagogues.

Bush is a dictator BTW. There is a big difference.

[NorthernSpy]

125. there are elements of Bush's reign that could be termed "dictatorial"

Bush is a dictator BTW. There is a big difference.

Well, there ARE some dictatorial aspects to the Bush regime.

Rendition, secret prisons, grabbing people here in the US and holding them incommunicado indefinitely sans charges, etc -- and doing all this in spite of the Constitution and in the face of the courts and Congress, then yes: Stalin would be proud.

But I don't think that we can accurately term Bush a dictator until the other branches of govt actually TRY to rein him in, in accordance with the Constitution, and fail. At that point, he'll be a sure-nuff dictator. Til then, he's just a disastrously bad president with an awful lot of enablers.

Tho I suspect that you were being somewhat facetious anyway.

[slackmaster]

132. OK, let's leave him at "Wannabe Dictator" for now

Thanks.

[pwb]

111. every oil country except saudibusharabia is evil

that bush saudi oil spigot i has been wide open for almost four years now. hmmmmm ???

[Hell Hath No Fury]

116. In case you felt like contacting Nancy...

DC Address: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
United States House of Representatives
2371 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0508
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]


Ms. Pelosi:

I have just read that you called the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, an "everyday thug" because of his remarks before the UN body. This statement of yours at a time when Democrats are simply sitting on the sidelines, watching the GOP "catfight" over the repugnant legislation that would absolve the Bush Administration of the crimes committed against detainees and would twist the Geneva Conventions galls me to no end.

Having voted for you every time you have run for office, I feel I have the right to ask this:

Just when the HELL are you and the other Democrats in going to start acting like real leaders?

You sure are quick to label Chavez a "thug", but when it comes time to criticize in such plain and straightforward language the REAL thug, George W. Bush, you and the majority of the Democrats tip toe around, afraid of your own shadows and of how Karl Rove may try to spin your words and actions.

GROW A DAMN SPINE.

I want leaders who are FEARLESS in the pursuit of moral truth and the protection of our country and the United States Constitution. If you can't find that moral and political strength within you to do what needs doing, then move the hell over and let someone who DOES have the job.

Chavez was wrong when he called George W. Bush the Devil (we all know Dick Cheney is the real Devil), but the fact that his comments were received enthusiastically and applauded by the UN body, tells you just how much damage the Bush Administration has done to our country.

I wish I would see as much righteous indignation from you on THAT matter.

Hell Hath No Fury
San Francisco

[NotGivingUp]

323. Great letter!

[glitch]

117. Calling other leaders "thug" is hardly statesman like, even if you think

they deserve it. Tsk. I know why she did it, she knows Rove will try to associate Chavez with Dems.
But surely there is more clever way to combat the antics of Rove.

[Poll_Blind]

126. Charlie Rangel's comments from YouTube HERE.

  The reason why I post these comments is they appear to share the exact sentiment as Pelosi. Read my transcript or watch here.

(emphasis mine)

...together they can do, politically, what they see fit to do. But you don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. And I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, uh, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state.

Are there any questions?

I've said it all.

  You sure have, Charlie. You sure have.

  DU thread on this statement here.

PB

[IndianaGreen]

131. What does this rich woman know about the people of Venezuela?

She only knows the same English-speaking elites that Bush knows.

Can't expect a political party to represent the interests of the capitalists and that of the workers! It's like supporting Satan and Gawd at the same time!

[NotGivingUp]

133. GO TO HELL, NANCY!

[ronnykmarshall]

233. How niiiiccccceeeee!

[Bacchus39]

134. Democrats Warn Chavez: Don't Bash Bush (Charlie Rangel)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html

hats off to Charlie for defending the USA after Chavez's insult.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said. (Watch Rangel rip Chavez -- 1:28 )

[wtmusic]

135. Charlie deserves a big wet sloppy Dubya-kiss for that one

and maybe even a head rub

[Bacchus39]

138. no, Charlie can insult Bush all he wants

Charlie always criticizes Bush for good reason. but he has infinitely more class than that clown Chavez.

Charlie is correct.

[atreides1]

145. And Chavez doesn't have a good reason?

As the leader of a country he has as much right at the UN to insult Bush, as Bush does.

Once again, is "Free Speech" only reserved for Americans????

Both Rangel and Pelosi may very well have helped the Republicans with their tirade against Chavez, if you don't think that the RNC and Rove are going to be using this for Republican candidates, then I have some beach front property for sale, right outside of Tucson!!!!

[Bacchus39]

149. check on free speech in Venezuela. it is a crime to insult the president

add to that the complete lack of class and decorum. but that is Chavez. a classless buffoon. un cafre pendejo.

[wtmusic]

152. He was speaking at the UN, not at the White House

At an international org why should he feel compelled to be nice to a criminal who just happens to be the president of the home country of the UN headquarters?

Class my ass. Bush is a murderer.

[Bacchus39]

154. the UN is full of criminals this week

one of them spoke yesterday. imprisoned for leading a coup in Venezuela. wanna guess who?

[wtmusic]

162. Yeah, well Sam Adams and Tom Jeff led a "coup"

but didn't do nearly as much for the poor as Chavez. I give up...who? :shrug:

[Bacchus39]

169. the entire US isn't exactly poor

Venezuela is a poor country. but you wouldn't know would you?

[wtmusic]

186. You said Charlie was "correct"

"you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president".

Chavez was not a guest of this country OR Charlie's district but of the UN.

[Bacchus39]

190. he went to Harlem too but that is besides the point since Chavez

was in fact in the US. splitting hairs isn't going to work.

[wtmusic]

194. Well sorry if it offended you and your president

I support the right of anyone to tell the truth wherever the hell they feel like it.

[Bacchus39]

205. I have no personal president and if I did it would not be

Bush. I am more a Bill Clinton, Wes Clark, or Mark Warner fan than say Fidel Castro or Hugo the Clown. realizing of course, I am in the minority here.

[rwenos]

166. You're Overstating

Nobody has suggested Chavez needed to be "nice." "Nice" is candy-ass.

Rangel is trying to neutralize RW puke pundits.

Pity you can't see the game that's being played here.

[wtmusic]

174. The "game" is called pandering to the center

how is what Charlie says going to "neutralize" Rush Limbaugh? Please explain.

[rwenos]

178. The Game is Winning Back the House. nt

[NotGivingUp]

181. yep, i'm sick of hearing about this lack of class bullshit.

[rwenos]

184. Wow! Sometimes the jokes write themselves. . . . n/t

[wtmusic]

191. Ha! You're right!... n/a (no argument)

[Bacchus39]

192. can you say "irony"?

n/t

[Flanker]

197. Wrong

Read this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2187974&mesg_id=2187974
In Colombia they might get killed for saying what they say about Chavez.

[Bacchus39]

200. Venezuela insult laws with link. am I still wrong???

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368_txt.htm

"Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison."

[Poll_Blind]

204. That is utterly FALSE. Here is the debunking of that story at ZNet.

Venezuela: Revolution Extends Free Speech:

In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.”

That this is not true has not stopped repeated claims in the US media that the “authoritarian” Chavez is attempting to “silence critics”. Such claims have become a standard feature of US media articles about Venezuela.

The law referred to by the Washington Post is the Law on the Responsibility of Radio and Television passed by the National Assembly in November. It does not allow for the silencing of dissent, but merely introduces the same type of regulation of content that exists in most countries in the world. The law regulates when sexual and violent content can be shown, prevents slander against public officials and private citizens and seeks to guarantee space in the media market for independent media. The law does provide for fines and the suspension of broadcasting for 48 hours for repeated violations, but the law is not administered by the government, but by an independent body.

--snip--

  I encourage you (and anyone else who reads this message) to read the full article.

PB

[Bacchus39]

209. it is true

Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.


the media content law dictates programming on the media. it is separate from the Insult laws. go to the Human Rights Watch link. I encourage you to read more than what you want to hear.

[Poll_Blind]

210. I will, Can you provide the link please?

I couldn't find it in the thread or at the CNN page linked to your article.

Thank you,

PB

[Schema Thing]

151. Seems to me they helped Dems immeasurably

I'm sure it stuck in their craw to take up for Bush, but we are fighting for the middle, and they helped us in that fight.

[dionysus]

155. what nationalist BULLSHIT

There we merkins go,thinking we're the best people on earth. THIS is why the Dems keep losing. absolutley no spine. If these guys had any backbone, they'd say "damn right he is" and prove it. But I guess we have to act like a sports team, right? fuck that shit.

[Bacchus39]

157. Chavez feeds on nationalism

the US has to be the least nationalistic country in the whole world. I actually enjoy seeing it on occassion.

[endarkenment]

167. "the US has to be the least nationalistic country "

with all due respect you are out of your mind.

[Bacchus39]

170. please explain

n/t

[dionysus]

172. hahahahahaha

we're the most arrogant nation in the world. For the most part Americans think we're better than everyone else. are you drunk?

[Bacchus39]

177. you think you're better than everyone else??

what hubris!! I certainly don't believe that you are better than anyone.

[dionysus]

183. you can't read.

you're twisting words douchebag. If you are so blind as to not realize the american populace for the most part is an arrogant bunch, you need to go back to grade school.

[Bacchus39]

189. you can't think

you can't even see that if some Democrats didn't stand up to Chavez it would fall right into the hands of Republicans who accuse Democrats of being hypercritical of the US.

your acrimony blinds your reason.

[dionysus]

193. I'm not advocating they go on TV and endorse the statement

you know

[Bacchus39]

196. well, I happen to agree with Rangel on this

so I'll leave it at that.

nice screen name by the way.

[dionysus]

270. sure

let's just agree to disagree :)

[greccogirl]

278. Me, too.

[TankLV]

376. It's bacchus. What did you expect?!

We are hardly surprised he's here on this thread...

[enigmacat]

245. Sorry

Let's see, least nationalistic?
All I have to say to that is, the Pledge of allegiance, particularly in schools. I know you know what the definition of ALLEGIANCE is?

[NeedleCast]

334. Pledge of Alligence

While I am strongly opposed to making anyone say the pledge of alligence, if you think it's a strong sign of nationalism I'd suggest that you are not well traveled. The Pledge of Alligence is a walk in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon compared to the nationalism of many, many countries.

[MGD]

243. I agree with you 100%.

[ShortnFiery]

354. Yeah, the leader that ordered "a hit" on you should be BELOVED. :(

:wtf: Over! This is the first time I've ever been ashamed of Rangel's statements, but he was off the mark. BTW Carlie, he's NOT many of our President.

Disgusting jingoism "MY Country" "My President" ... I'm so disgusted with these two pandering and nationalistic.

Despite what you think about Chavez, he spoke the truth. Much of the world considers AMERICA a true force for evil. The sooner we realize that we are not making any allies and change our foreign policy (or perhaps actually have one!), the better our country can work with other nations to reach peaceful solutions.

But Dear Leader does not want peace - he wants hatred of "the other" and never-ending war. :cry: :grr:

[LA lady]

136. YOUTUBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX1lBOxoJeU

[Poll_Blind]

216. Thank you very much for posting this link, btw!

Much, much appreciated. It's in the middle of the thread so I don't think alot of people will get a chance to hear it. I suspect the MSM will likely pare it down even further than the 50-odd seconds it already is, but it's very telling.

Thank you,

PB

[samsingh]

137. are these people insane?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

139. Insane?

No.

Desperate? Yes, and it's beginning to reek...

[rwenos]

143. Insane Like Charlie Rangel

Rangel made an EXTREMELY astute move today. Chavez is grabbing for Castro's crown as king of the non-aligned movement. He used the UN for a cheap theatrical trick. He went WAY over the top.

I shed no tears for Georgie. He is still the same lying scum he was yesterday.

But Charlie Rangel has done Democrats a great service. He's neutralized much of the "Dem's love people who hate America" crap we have to listen to from the Pubs.

Perhaps Chavez will need some reconstructive proctological surgery. Good.

[Bacchus39]

146. yes, dear God you got it!!! amen!!!!!

even if many here don't see it or don't want to see it and want to follow Chavez blindly, many many many Americans see Chavez's tirade as a slap in the face of the United States (which it was.)

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

179. and apparently Chimp too because you're

Staunchly
Defending
GW Bush

[rwenos]

180. Yours is a crude analysis. nt

[dionysus]

187. I guess free speech is only for us "godly americans" right?

[rwenos]

198. I Ain't Godly

But I like to think I ain't stupid either.

Charlie Rangel proved he's way smarter than about half the posters on this board today.

"There are none so blind as they who will not see."

[Bacchus39]

185. no my misguided friend

I, like Charlie, am defending the USA. I wonder what the reaction would be if Bush went to Venezuela and called Chavez satanas.

[dionysus]

188. Chavez..... insulted the CHIMP

Chavez was in harlem doing some cheap oil charity work.

So please, what are you defending the USA from?!?

[rwenos]

199. People would wonder if Carlos was nearby

with his guitar and timbales.

:-)

[dionysus]

277. are you somehow insinuating I am jaicinto?

are you fucking insane?
*shudder*

egads thats the lowest blow you could inflict on someone

[rwenos]

168. Surgery is Best Performed with a Scalpel

Not a broadax.

[Seeking Serenity]

240. I think what Rangel and Pelosi were trying to achieve

was something like this:

Picture America as a family. Families can fight among themselves, call each other names, beat each other up.

But when an outsider starts picking on a member of that family, the rest of the family comes to that member's defense.

This is Democratic Underground, not Any Leftist/Socialist in the World Underground. We support Democrats. Now, whether we want to admit it or not, our ranks alone, those further to the Left, are not going to elect Democrats to office. We need, dare I say it, those so-called Reagan Democrats, those who might be more receptive to our social policies (strong unions, universal health care, etc.). Those voters will be persuaded that the War in Iraq is a mistake and needs to end, but they will be repelled if, even tacitly by their silence, Democratic leaders are seen as not minding that an outsider comes to our shores to slam the president.

It's called winning politics.

I, too, was distressed by Chavez's juvenile rant. It was the oral version of Krushchev's "shoe-banging" episode. Not very statesman like.

[enigmacat]

248. Disturbed by your post

Implying that Rangel neutered Chavez? PATHETIC. In all ways, pathetic. If you are stating that Rangel did something positive by what he said, be it politically or otherwise, Rangel did it at the cost of verbally attacking a person who has done nothing wrong (Chavez). How many times does Chavez have to give away his country's resources to his and OUR, and other needy people; how many times does Chavez have to be the ONLY world leader to eloquently state the obvious about our country; how many times does the US have to be caught attempting a coup on Chavez, before he earns our respect and fair attention?
I thought Dems were about the people, not about cutting someone off at the knees because it might help in November.
I can not wait for November; the DINOs can forget my vote. I would rather throw it away and have a conscience, then give it to a pack of DINO jackals.

[ShortnFiery]

355. Nope, they're just millionaires and out of touch with us little people ...

they serve to please the corporations because of large campaign donations and kick-backs. We should show them our displeasure at their next Democratic Primary.

[bamacrat]

140. Wow was he on his knees for that one, or what?

[Poll_Blind]

215. It WAS egregious. He's capable of much better than that, truly. n/t

PB

[NorthernSpy]

141. and if you were doing your job, Chuckie, he wouldn't have to...

If you won't do everything in your power to reign in the Bush regime (and Nancy, Chuckie et al have done almost NOTHING on that score) then you have no right to whine when someone else steps up and demonstrates the guts you lot lack.

[Bacchus39]

144. Charlie Rangel has been one of the most adamant protesters of Bush

while the majority of other Democrats are timid in their criticism.

it is not Charlie who has been acting feebly.

[NorthernSpy]

208. ...to no effect whatsoever!

Politicians today run their mouths only to generate the soundbytes they'll use to get re-elected. That is ALL that this wonderful "opposition" and "criticism" have amounted to.

Soundbytes for campaign advertising; that's all it ever is. There NEVER has been a sincere attempt to rein Bush in. Doing that would involve political risk, you see. Much safer just to yap from the sidelines while the regime rampages on in complete liberty of action.

[TankLV]

377. Wow! you actually utttered a parcel of truth for ONCE!

"Charlie Rangel has been one of the most adamant protesters of Bush while the majority of other Democrats are timid in their criticism"

help me! I'm agreeing with you...

oh, the HORROR!...

[notadmblnd]

142. Yeah, that's our job

I really don't care who bashes him. He is evil incarnate and has earned the title of el-diablo.

[saigon68]

147. He is a War Criminal who deserves a trial at the Hague

His wife is an ugly skank murderer

[truthisfreedom]

148. and our prez is a very uncommon thug.

[William769]

150. GO CHARLIE GO!

[endarkenment]

153. Chavez did not attack the USA. nt.

[saigon68]

156. He attacked the CHIMPANZEE you know the WAR CRIMINAL

The one who employs the NUN Rapist John Negroponte

[dionysus]

160. these people aren't smart enough to tell the difference Saigon

and it's pretty sad

[rwenos]

161. Nobody's Defending Bush Here

Y'all aren't listening. Those of us who like what Charlie Rangel did are looking to that little party we have on November 7th -- you know, the ELECTION. If someone hadn't said what Rangel did, we'd have to listen to "Democrats love the people who hate America" until the election.

It ain't about my blue blue district in SoCal, or wherever you live. It's about Peoria, Akron, Spokane, Harrisburg and Katy, Texas this year.

It's a pity this astute move seems lost on people.

[endarkenment]

165. "hats off to Charlie for defending the USA after Chavez's insult."

I'm sorry but speaking the truth about Bush and his cronies is not an attack on the USA that needs to be defended. It is the truth.

[rwenos]

176. You're not listening either.

Rangel's audience is Middle America. And he got a GREAT sound bite today, neutralizing RW puke pundits. The upcoming election is not about my blue blue district, or yours. It's about all those purple districts we can TURN blue.

Charlie Rangel made the smartest move today. Pity people can't (or won't) see it.

Look at the Great Game, folks. The November 7th game.

[ShortnFiery]

356. Now let's wrap ourselves in the Flag, sing Star Spangled Banner

and then go kill all those savages... we're AmeriKKKa and no one talks about Our Dear Leader even if he is a World Class Buffoon.

Bullshit! Take the nationalistic jingoism to the koolaid drinking psychotics. :(

[enigmacat]

251. I am listening, don't care

I don't care about the political astuteness of Rangel's actions. I care about how he attacked Chavez for NO REASON. He could have kept his mouth shut, and it would not have affected him one way or the other. He could have won or lost on his OWN record and merit. So, Rangel must have done it for political gain? SOUND FAMILIAR? That is the problem! Dems are not supposed to be the personal attack crowd; that is the Rethugs' job. What is the difference in what Rangel and Pelosi did, as opposed to what the Rethugs do ALL THE TIME. Making excuses for Rangel because it might help us in November is sacrificing your ethics.

[saigon68]

311. Good -point

The CHIMPANZEE is an evil War criminal who employs NUN RAPISTS like John Negroponte to keep us all safe from guys who run around in dresses, with Diapers on their heads.

</sarcasm>

And for that I should vote for this brain dead creature to tell me how to shit?

[chill_wind]

173. Thank you. Unlike our own thug in chief who calls his own citizens

Hitler Appeasers.

Get up off your knees, Pelosi and Rangel. Your own gratuitous appeasements to our torture advocate in the WH today gag me.

[Leilani]

159. Charlie Rangel has forgotten more about political strategy

than all the DUers put together ever knew.

[rwenos]

164. Amen! nt

[NotGivingUp]

203. he would never get my vote after a comment like that

[Poll_Blind]

214. Well, after that rousing endorsement of DU, who needs enemies? n/t

PB

[enigmacat]

253. Unfortunately, his must have also forgotten his conscience, ethics...

And definition of IRONY.

[MisterP]

342. *must---not---make smart remark!*

[daleo]

171. U.S. politicians are like a dysfunctional family

Saying to the world "Don't insult my abusive husband, that's strictly for me to do, even if he does go around murdering foreigners."

[RC]

175. Chavez ROCKS!

:headbang:

[partylessinOhio]

182. Let the Repugs defend their king. I notice they are ALL strangely silent.

Just shut up, Rangel and Pelosi. You need to stop bowing to * and play your own game.

You gave him his damn war and Shock and Awe. Enough already!

[superconnected]

195. Gross. I agree with Chavev.

[NotGivingUp]

201. they can both take a leap...political strategy my ass.

[rwenos]

207. More sophisticated analysis . . . nt

[NotGivingUp]

218. i'm not here to be sophisticated...i'm more interested in being

genuine...and that is also something i want from the people who represent us.

[sadiesworld]

202. Referring to * as "my president" and calling Chavez a "thug"?

Sorry, the dems could have neutralized Chavez's arguably over-the-top comment far more effectively, e.g., "While I don't agree with many of the actions taken by this president, I don't agree with calling him a devil". They would have distanced themselves from Chavez's comment and still said WHAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

[upi402]

213. chavez speaks what i feel, the former Democratic Party doesn't anymore

[NotGivingUp]

217. perfectly stated!!!

[MGD]

247. Better move to Venezuela then.

Bye Bye :hi:

[enigmacat]

254. Childish and reactionary response, bordering on troll like.

[MGD]

263. There is a legitimate point but your hatred for George Bush blinds you to

it. The enemy of your enemy may sometimes be your friend but not in this case. Only the leftiest of the left fail to see that Hugo Chavez is no friend of America.

[upi402]

301. he's a friend to Americans, not the regime

who is blind is the one who sees not the three other fingers of that one's own hand which points the finger of blame


or something like that

maybe

i think

:shrug: :grouphug:

[MGD]

341. well said

[greccogirl]

279. Like it or not,

he IS her President. He's everybody's as long as he is in office.

[NotGivingUp]

206. they blew yet another opportunity to speak the truth about the

little dictator in the white house!

[IndianaGreen]

211. Bush is NOT my President!

And I will condemn Bush as a tyrant and a war criminal deserving of the same fate of the Nazis we tried at Nuremberg.

Sorry Charlie, but you shouldn't be talking shit just because you are being adviced to do so by the polls.

Down with Bush and his tyranny!

[MGD]

250. But is America still your country?

You are a servant of your own hatred.

[enigmacat]

255. I knew it, troll.

LOL. You tell someone to move to Venezuela upthread, then you accuse someone of being hateful. Yep. TROLL.

[MGD]

257. I'm not trolling but you're flaming.

[IndianaGreen]

268. Bush's America is NOT my country!

My country is the one that rose out of the War of Independence, a country in which a Constitution was adopted establishing a nation of laws, not of men. Bush has usurped the Constitution, and he has assumed dictatorial powers. Bush has ruled as a king, making torture routine, detaining people indefinitely without habeas corpus. Bush is more of a tyrant than King George III, and just as our forefathers rebelled against that tyrant, we must rebel against Bush.

[MGD]

335. I'm afraid Bush's America is still your America. Your hatred

sounds very familiar to me as it was the exact same brand of nihilistic hatred being directed at Clinton during his administration. I hate these fuckers too Indiana but I'm not going to become so hate filled that I start cheering for Hugo Chavez. He is not and will never be a friend of America whether George Bush is President or not.

edit spelling

[upi402]

212. BUSH IS ROYALTY, why can't planet earth just understand?

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[MasonJar]

271. I'm a democrat and I think that Chavez is wonderful. How would

any of us feel if some foreign dictator supported a coup against us?

[ProudDad]

304. In this case

Charley is one undemocratic asshole.

Who's he to say what any one is allowed to say?

[Poll_Blind]

219. What would Bush have to do for them to AGREE with Chavez?

  Good lord, think about it. Bush, in 6 years, has rolled back our country at least 40 years with his antics. Possibly a good deal more if you consider his "unitary Executive" attacks on The Constitution.

  So, serious question: How much worse would Bush have to be for Chavez's comments to be responded to as legitimate criticism and garner something a little more positive than calling Chavez a "common thug"?

  Seriously...goddamn it....what kind of penal colony would Bush have to turn America into, or how many nations would he have to invade or turn into smoking glass, before Pelosi and Rangel (et al.) recognize Hugo's hatred of the man most likely for the coup against his own Democratically-elected government as legitimate?

  This is a bad day for the reflection of Liberal thought in the leadership of the Democratic party, in my opinion. Tomorrow will likely be a better day for I should be hard-pressed to think of how it could get worse.

PB

[enigmacat]

258. Agree. Plus...

It's not just "politicians." How many people on here are defending Pelosi and Rangel based on their possible motive of a bump in the November elections? What about the ethics that Dems are supposed to have? Attack Chavez, but not Bush? Oh, the insanity, it burns.

[Poll_Blind]

267. It's sad and ignoble, at best. I excoriate Freepers for this sort of...

...thing only to find lockstep, shut-your-mouth-its-elections has come back into fashion with some.

PB

[Otho]

371. Well said.

I myself was humiliated by the totally unfamiliar sensation of a lambasting of a sitting United States President by a foreign president, in front of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The president of a country in our own hemisphere, our own neighbor and long-time partner no less! In fact I don't think that any representative of any country has ever raked any other national leader's ass over the coals before the General Assembly.

It wouldn't bother me so much if, as the Republicans are barking, it was simply the outburst of a deranged personality, or an outrageous act of hate-speech by an Enemy of Freedom.

What bothers me is that we have let our government go to the dogs to the point that someone could do this without fear of contradiction!

All we can say is that he was impolite...his later comments were even more personal...how humiliating! How low have we sunk!

We are a laughing-stock. That's not what we want for America the Beautiful. But it is a fact now, for the first time in history.

:banghead:

[wisteria]

222. We may have issues with our President and may criticize him, but

people like Chavez have no right to say anything critical of Pres. Bush. We may not like it, but he is our President.

Also, think about what would of happened if Democrats did not defend Bush against these statements- the press,Rove and the kool-aid drinkers would keep this story going for weeks. Not good for us Democrats having the American public believe we are taking sides and support Chavez over our own President.We are all suppose to try and get along even though we may have some differences. I think as far as reputations, Chavez's is pretty lousy.
Hey, come on, we are trying to win the upcoming elections, we don't need bad PR and a story that would divert attention away from Iraq and the mess over there. I think those of you who are bashing Democrats are wrong, your angry is misplaced.

[Warren Stupidity]

232. "people like Chavez have no right to say anything critical of Pres. Bush"

Why? Nobody outside of the US can criticize Bush? Or just Hugo Chavez? What a stupid position you all are staking out here.

[enigmacat]

259. I thought that all human beings were entitled to an opinion?

I don't agree with Rangel and Pelosi's need to spout off, but I would defend their right to have their own opinions; just as you have an opinion, and I have an opinion.
In your case, your opinion though you are entitled to it, could be used as a sieve, it has so many holes of logic in it.

[greccogirl]

280. Don't think Pelosi doesn't

know this. She's no fool.

[MGD]

361. I agree with everything you said.

Democrats might as well start cuddling up to Mahmoud Ahmedinejihad and Kim Jong-il if they cuddle up to Chavez. Cheering for him is foolish at best. It is a very narrow and disproportionately vocal band within the Democratic party spectrum that delights in his antics. I guess the American Communist party doesn't have a chance of winning an American election so they become Democrats and hope their radical ideology will find traction within our party. And it will to some extent but I'll not be a party to it.

[samsingh]

223. maybe she wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with the president

[enigmacat]

260. LOL

[bamacrat]

226. Dems are too sacred ot speak their mind.

To bad that thats how theyll get elected.

[stepnw1f]

227. Oh What Cowardly Pandering Bullshit

Bush tried assassinating the guy, yet you defend dickhead.... it's this attitude that got us all to where we are today, because many Dem's just don't have what it takes.

[Judi Lynn]

230. I'll bet the shrillest voices we're hearing are wingers posing as Democrat

There's nothing about a democratically elected, populist leader who doesn't court the elite that would naturally get a Democrat chewing the scenery.

[MGD]

252. I'll bet the loudest Chavez cheerleaders are disgruntled socialists

who are unhappy with the moderate views espoused by the Democratic leadership.

[manic expression]

293. I'll bet you have nothing to back that up

unless you're gonna go all HUAC on us. :eyes:

Get some perspective and then come talk to us.

[Bridget Burke]

317. Curses, Comrade. Our secret has been discovered.

Let us retire to the cellar to plot the overthrow of the running dog capitalists.

[MGD]

337. Pretty fucking stupid statement considering your avatar.

Ti znayesh eta pravda... comrade.

[manic expression]

350. No, but your statement, on the other hand, is

A solitary Che avatar does not make "most", start to learn how to read. Actually, go read this thread without your pathetic delusion and ignorance.

So now one avatar justifies sweeping statements about many people who DON'T have that avatar? That, my reactionary friend, is beyond stupid. Get a grip.

To reiterate: what you said was beyond insipid, you have exposed your views to be as ignorant as they are laughable. Get a clue.

[MGD]

358. This is gonna be fun, I can tell already. May the best whatever win.

"A solitary Che avatar does not make "most", start to learn how to read"

Who said it did? You put it in quotes so I assume you are attributing the word "most" to my own posting. That being the case, you are blatantly misquoting me in order to still have an argument in this matter as I said "the loudest cheerleaders" not the "most" anything. What's more, you have, most embarrassingly, advised me to "start to learn how to read" after you have undeniably demonstrated your own inability to read (or to comprehend what you have read perhaps). That's the intellectual equivalent of calling someone stupid and misspelling the word "stupid" in the process. Strong work buddy. Go ahead and verify your ignorance, then, after that burning sensation in your brain stops, try to assemble a more cogent argument.

"Actually, go read this thread without your pathetic delusion and ignorance."
Once again, take your own advice doltish one.

"So now one avatar justifies sweeping statements about many people who DON'T have that avatar?"
But a sweeping generalization that suggests that those who argue against Chavez are right wingers posing as Democrats is justified? Are you even trying to pay attention?

"To reiterate: what you said was beyond insipid, you have exposed your views to be as ignorant as they are laughable. Get a clue."

To reiterate: Mentally progress beyond the eighth grade before arguing with adults. My advice to you: spare yourself any further ego diminishment and don't reply to this.

[manic expression]

359. You already lost

You said "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders" were socialists. I refuted this. You then inexplicably said that I was wrong because of my avatar. Therefore, I said that my avatar did not mean any of said people are socialist, as you asserted (if you understood my post, you would've seen that my comment meant that my avatar has nothing to do with "most" of "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders", "most" was not directly quoting you). So yes, you lack comprehension, and your claims show this. I find it quite pathetic that you have been completely oblivious to all of this, and that I had to explain to you things that any idiot could've figured out. Once again: go back and read the posts and maybe you'll get it (although I doubt it).

"Once again, take your own advice doltish one."

:rofl:

"But a sweeping generalization that suggests that those who argue against Chavez are right wingers posing as Democrats is justified? Are you even trying to pay attention?"

Are you going to answer my question or not? Is the generalization justified because of my avatar? It's pretty easy to answer (but I guess "pretty easy" is asking too much of you). Oh, and show me how MY posts remotely made such a "sweeping generalization". I'll give you a hint: they didn't (while yours did). Nice try.

Come back when you've achieved the smallest morsel of perspective. Your ignorant and idiotic comments aren't helping anyone.

[MGD]

360. I'm sure that's true in the world you're living in

But that isn't the real world I'm afraid.

"You said "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders" were socialists. I refuted this."

No you didn't. You misquoted me and created an "argument" based on that. Now you're trying to obfusciate that reality.

"most" was not directly quoting you

If you weren't quoting me, why did you put "most" in quotes when you said: "A solitary Che avatar does not make "most"? There is only one interpretation of this statement and that is that you were misquoting me. Again, you're trying to obfusciate that obvious reality.

"Are you going to answer my question or not?"

You have, as of yet, not asked me a single question. I think you're smoking pot or something because you are very slow mined.

"Is the generalization justified because of my avatar?"

The only two generalizations were made before I commented on your avatar.

Oh, and show me how MY posts remotely made such a "sweeping generalization". I'll give you a hint: they didn't (while yours did). Nice try.

You really are an idiot aren't you? My original post was in response to the sweeping generalizaton made by Judi Lynn regarding the "shrillest voices being Republicans posing as Democrats". And you advise me to "go read this thread without your pathetic delusion and ignorance and to "go back and read the posts and maybe you'll get it (although I doubt it)." You're a fool. It's obvious to everyone. All of your friends are laughing at you.

[manic expression]

362. No, it's true, period

You really are delusional. You claimed that the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders are disgruntled socialists". I said you have nothing to back that up (and I'm right). You said this comment was "fucking stupid" because of my avatar. I pointed out that my avatar meant absolutely nothing. You then claimed I "misquoted" you, which is BS. I didn't make up anything, you're trying to ignore what was posted. It's not gonna work.

I put "most" in quotes because it's subjective. The "most" referred to the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders", which is what was said.

Yes I did ask you a question: "So now one avatar justifies sweeping generalizations about people who DON'T have that avatar?" (paraphrased). That's a question, in case you had trouble noticing. Answer it.

I refuted your generalization, and you tried to say that my refutation was invalid because of my avatar. That is incorrect, and I explained why. You then tried to ignore this because you lack an argument.

I'm quite aware of what you were responding to. That's precisely why I put "MY posts" instead of "posts" in general (good job ignoring it). I didn't make that generalization, nor did I defend it. I DID, however, counter YOUR generalization about the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders" (and you have yet to address my refutation). Get a clue.

"All of your friends are laughing at you."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Wow. Just, wow.

[MGD]

364. No, it isn't , exclamation point!

I put "most" in quotes because it's subjective. The "most" referred to the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders", which is what was said.

"Most" doesn't even come close to meaning the same thing as "loudest". You, therefore, misquoted me regardless of your intentions. What's more, you did, in fact, base your argument on that misquotation when you said: "A solitary Che avatar does not make "most". There really is nothing to argue about here.

"You said this comment was "fucking stupid" because of my avatar. I pointed out that my avatar meant absolutely nothing."

Now you're misquoting yourself to further your argument. What you actually said was: "I'll bet you have nothing to back that up". Your Che avatar does, in fact, back up my assertion that that the loudest voices cheering for Chavez are disgruntled socialist.While I understand that Che was actually considered a Marxist, I think my point is still relevant and your statement is still "pretty fucking stupid considering your avatar."

"I refuted your generalization, and you tried to say that my refutation was invalid because of my avatar."

Again, you never refuted my generalization. You said: "I'll bet you have nothing to back that up." That refutes absolutely nothing. What's more, at this point, I was not speaking in generalization, i was speaking about you specifically.

"That's precisely why I put "MY posts" instead of "posts" in general (good job ignoring it)."

Then your only purpose in mentioning it in the first place was to create a strawman. Pretty sneaky.

"So now one avatar justifies sweeping statements about many people who DON'T have that avatar?"

Yes I did ask you a question: "So now one avatar justifies sweeping generalizations about people who DON'T have that avatar?"

That wasn't really a question, it was more of an interrogative statement. Having finally arrived at this point, however, I will gladly answer it as a question. The word "justify" was chosen by you to complicate my argument. I never claimed that your avatar justified anything. What your avatar does is A.) greatly support my original assertion that disgruntled socialists are the loudest voices cheering for Chavez and B.) support my second assertion that your statement was, in fact, "pretty fucking stupid" which, incidentally, is not a sweeping generalization as it is pointing out the irony of your comment and only your comment "I'll bet you have nothing to back that up". Therefore, people without the Che avatar are irrelevant to the argument. To reiterate: nothing is proved or disproved (or justified) but your statement does support my argument and it is, therefore, "pretty fucking stupid" on your part to tell me that I have nothing to support my generalization when you are, in fact, supporting my generalization by being one of the loudest cheerleaders for Chavez while sporting an avatar that clearly aligns you with the tenets of socialism.

[manic expression]

365. Do I really have to spell out everything for you?

since you are incapable of comprehending a simple point:

I said "most", as in "most" of "Chavez' loudest cheerleaders". The "most" was in relation to the group you specified, which was "loudest cheerleaders". Was it really THAT hard to understand? Seriously, try to wrap your head around it next time. I wasn't directly quoting you, I was referring to what you said, got it? There really isn't anything to argue about here, but since you consistently fail to understand the simplest of concepts, I need to keep explaining it.

No, I didn't misquote anything. Your lack of ability is guilty once again, in spite of my clear explanations. You tried to say that my avatar was proof of your generalization AFTER I said you had nothing to back that up (get it? AFTER). THEN (as in AFTER you said my avatar was proof), I refuted that flawed point because one avatar means nothing. Get it?

I'll even draw it out for you:

(me) You have nothing to back that up > (you) your avatar backs it up > (me) no, it doesn't, one avatar is one avatar

My avatar backs up absolutely nothing. Why? As I said before, one lone avatar does not, in any way, have anything to do with anyone else. It has to do with me. Are you seriously saying that my avatar is an indication of the politics of OTHER PEOPLE? It isn't. "Pretty fucking stupid", indeed.

"What's more, at this point, I was not speaking in generalization, i was speaking about you specifically."

Bullshit. You were referring to the "Chavez' loudest cheerleaders", which includes far more people than me. Don't contradict what you said before.

"Then your only purpose in mentioning it in the first place was to create a strawman. Pretty sneaky."

Pretty sneaky? WTF are you talking about? It was pretty clearly stated, your refusal to read my words does not make me sneaky. The FACT is that I NEVER made those generalizations, nor did I support them. YOU tried to put those words in my mouth, and me proving you wrong is just that.

No, it was a question that you failed to answer until now. You claimed that my avatar meant that there was reason to believe Chavez' supporters were "disgruntled socialists". Now that we have that out of the way: My avatar is MY avatar and no one else's. Does it prove ANYTHING about ANYONE ELSE? No. Does it act as an indication of the political persuasions of ANYONE ELSE? No. Does it back up your generalizations? No. So no, your generalizations have not a shred of support. If you would like to say that I am a socialist, that is different than saying Chavez' (strongest) supporters are socialists (if you would like to say that I'm a socialist, we can talk about that, but this isn't about that and you know it). So since it's obvious that your generalizations have no support whatsoever, let's move on. My first point was that you had nothing to back up the assertion that "Chavez' loudest cheerleaders" are "disgruntled socialists", and you said this point was "fucking stupid". Since it's clear that you have nothing to back up that very assertion you made, my point is far from "fucking stupid", while yours is exactly that. If I was responding to the claim that "manic expression is a socialist", then perhaps it would be ironic, but I wasn't responding to that claim, was I? The FACT is that I was responding to a sweeping generalization, a generalization without any support, an idiot generalization that you made.

To reiterate: Your assertion that "Chavez' loudest cheerleaders are disgruntled socialists" has NO support. My avatar changes absolutely NOTHING, since it is my own avatar and has no bearing on said group. Since it has no bearing on the group you were talking about, your claims about that group are invalid, baseless, insipid and incorrect.

[MGD]

366. You can spell out bullshit if you want to but it's still just bullshit.

I said "most", as in "most" of "Chavez' loudest cheerleaders". The "most" was in relation to the group you specified, which was "loudest cheerleaders".

You said most in quotes in order to indicate that you were quoting me in order to imply that I was suggesting that your avatar was proof that "most" Chavez cheerleaders at DU were socialists when, in fact, I was suggesting that your avatar coupled with your obvious loud support for Chavez supports my assertion that the "loudest cheerleaders for Chavez" were disgruntled socialists. There's a huge difference between these two arguments. If someone said "the loudest voices condemning the Star Trek movie series as rubbish are Star wars fans" and then I responded (with my Yoda avatar big as life for all to see)"you can't support that", I am absolutely confident that the irony/stupidity of such a thing would be obvious to all but the dumbest of dumbest of the dumb. Enter Manic expression. Moving right along.


You tried to say that my avatar was proof of your generalization AFTER I said you had nothing to back that up (get it? AFTER).

Proof? I said "pretty fucking stupid statement considering your avatar." I never said anything was proof of anything after you you said I had "nothing to back that up." Your attempting, once again, to interject your words into my post in order to avoid the original and increasingly obvious point that it is, in fact, pretty fucking stupid for someone sporting a Che avatar and loudly cheering for Hugo Chavez to assert that I can't "back up" the statement: "the loudest cheerleaders for Chavez are disgruntled socialists." It is pretty fucking stupid because your avatar does, in fact, back up my assertion.

"I'll even draw it out for you:

(me) You have nothing to back that up > (you) your avatar backs it up > (me) no, it doesn't, one avatar is one avatar"

There's your problem right there. Your avatar does back up my assertion that the loudest cheerleaders for Hugo Chavez are disgruntled socialists because you are obviously aligned with the socialist tenets and you are obviously a loud cheerleader for Hugo Chavez. All your blustering and obfuscation does nothing to refute this simple and obvious truth: Your statement was stupid considering your avatar.

"My avatar is MY avatar and no one else's. Does it prove ANYTHING about ANYONE ELSE? No. Does it act as an indication of the political persuasions of ANYONE ELSE? No. Does it back up your generalizations? "

Again with the word "proof". Ignoring for a moment that I have never claimed that anything proved anything, I will explain to you the err of your thought process here. While your avatar, in and of itself, does not "prove" anything about anyone except you, it does, when taken in context with everything else, support my claim that the loudest cheerleaders for Chavez are disgruntled socialists as you are A.) apparently a socialist; B.)probably disgruntled; and C.) clearly a cheerleader for Hugo Chavez. Having said that, it is clear that at least some of the loudest cheerleaders for Hugo Chavez are, in fact, disgruntled socialists. Therefore, by your own blustering stupidity, my assertion is supported/backed up whether you wish to admit it or not. As I said, only the dumbest of the dumbest of the dumb would fail to recognize this reality.

"My avatar changes absolutely NOTHING, since it is my own avatar and has no bearing on said group. Since it has no bearing on the group you were talking about, your claims about that group are invalid, baseless, insipid and incorrect."

And one more time for the fool, it does have a bearing on the group in question because YOU are a member of the group in question.

What's more, one good generalization deserves another. You continuously assert that my generalization is unsupported (which is no longer true) while purposely ignoring the fact that this entire argument was based on another sweeping generalization made by another highly vocal Chavez Cheerleader. Your earlier bullshit excuse for an argument regarding that little fact further illustrates the overall weakness of your rhetoric. If you are going to champion for Judi Lynn's cause, than you can't attack my sweeping generalization without addressing hers as it was, after all, the original post in this entire argument.

edit spelling

[manic expression]

369. No, I'm explaining crap you sadly can't understand

Now you're splitting hairs and it's clear that you have no argument. Don't tell me what I was using quotes for or what I wasn't using quotes for, you made a stupid conclusion that was wrong. Going back and trying to tell me what I meant changes absolutely nothing. The point is that my avatar has no bearing on other people, regardless of how much you try to think otherwise. Do you get it? My avatar HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER POSTER ON THIS FORUM. Got it? Do I have to draw you a picture? Do I really have to expand on this simple concept that you REFUSE to understand? Can it really be possible that someone couldn't see this? THAT is "pretty fucking stupid". Hopefully you DO move along and see that your points have been stupid and worthless, but that's unlikely.

And yet again you ignore reality. MY POINT WAS THAT YOU HAD NOTHING TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT THAT "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders are disgruntled socialists". Now you're saying that your response to that VERY statement had NOTHING to do with the entire premise of my post? Either you just admitted that you completely missed the point of my post, or you are still oblivious to the fact that you did.

Since you're unable to see this very obvious thing: your statement was about AN ENTIRE GROUP OF POSTERS. I, on the other hand, am one poster. Therefore, MY AVATAR has NOTHING to do with that aforementioned ENTIRE GROUP OF POSTERS. You seriously need help.

No, it's your problem. My avatar has nothing to do with "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders", since I am one person. Moreover, I do not represent "the loudest Chavez cheerleaders" as a whole. This is all ignoring the fact that you don't even know the details of my political beliefs, but since when did facts get in the way of your insipid assertions?

The truth is that my refutation of your idiotic statement is not contradicted by my avatar (since my refutation, my statement, was about an entire group of people and not myself; get the difference?). Period. Ignore it all you like, but that's that.

See, you keep trying to dance around the issue. Without proof for your generalization, you have no reason to make such a generalization. My point is that you have no proof for your generalization, and that is a fact that you have refused to acknowledge.

"While your avatar, in and of itself, does not "prove" anything about anyone except you..."

And there you have it. My whole point was that you have no proof about anyone other than me. Your BS about the "context" means absolutely nothing. The FACT remains that you have NOTHING to back up your idiotic statement, and my reply was about exactly that (something you perpetually refuse to recognize).

Next, you're sure that I'm "disgruntled"? How cute, making even more conclusions have know nothing about. As I said before, get some perspective and then get back to me.

"Having said that, it is clear that at least some of the loudest cheerleaders for Hugo Chavez are, in fact, disgruntled socialists."

Again, bullshit. Is it clear from my avatar that "at least some" are "socialists"? No. The possibility of my political persuasion does not equal "some". Better luck next time.

"And one more time for the fool, it does have a bearing on the group in question because YOU are a member of the group in question."

One more time, since you can't comprehend it, my political persuasion (one which has yet to have been established) does not indicate anything about that very group. Using your logic, my avatar means everyone on DU admires Che and has my political views, since I'm a member of the group in question. Get a clue.

No, your assertion is NOT supported. Since my avatar is mine and mine alone, your assertions about that entire group are without basis. You COULD make assertions about MY political persuasion, but you're making assertions about a group far bigger and far more diverse than me, so you can't. So yes, it is true, despite your delusional banter. Why are you bringing up the other generalization? It doesn't have a single thing to do with our argument. This is about YOUR generalization, don't change the subject. I never made that generalization, nor did I defend it, so it has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that you tried to bring it up further shows that you don't have an argument.

[MGD]

375. That's the first honest thing you've said. You are explaining crap.

Your entire argument is circular in nature; in other words, it isn't because I say it isn't despite the fact that there is evidence to suggest that it is. So, once more, into the breach we go.

"Now you're splitting hairs and it's clear that you have no argument."

That has been you throughout this argument. I'm not splitting hairs, I'm keeping you honest (or rather trying to keep you honest).

"The FACT remains that you have NOTHING to back up your idiotic statement, and my reply was about exactly that (something you perpetually refuse to recognize)."

You consistently toss about absolute terms like NOTHING and PROOF while ignoring certain obvious truths. The fact is, there is SOMETHING to back up my original premise and that is A.) your loud and emotional response + your avatar which both tend to suggest that you are a disgruntled socialist and B.) another poster immediately chimed in and admitted to being a socialist.


"Next, you're sure that I'm "disgruntled"? How cute, making even more conclusions have know nothing about (sic)."

The gerneral demeanor of your posts within this thread strongly suggest that you are an angry person. You haven't been able to make a point without lacing it with insults and emotions throughout this entire discourse. You are clearly angry about something. For you to suggest otherwise is utter nonsense.

"The possibility of my political persuasion does not equal "some"."

It is more of a probability than a possibility and it absolutely, irrefutably, undeniably does "equal some" as "any" equals "some" by any stretch of the definition. There are basically two kinds of people who sport Che-wear, those who don't know anything about him but think it's cool anyways and those who know that he was a Marxist leader and respect him for it. I infer that you are of the latter group. That being the case, it is highly probable that you are a socialist or, even more probably, a full blown Marxist. Either way, you wouldn't sport the avatar if you weren't in alignment with the socialist philosophies to a significant degree. A denial on your part would be laughable.

"my political persuasion (one which has yet to have been established) does not indicate anything about that very group."

Wrong on all accounts. Your political persuasion, at least on a superficial level, is, based on your avatar, obviously left enough to be considered socialist and, as I have already asserted, probably left enough to be considered Marxist.


"Using your logic, my avatar means everyone on DU admires Che and has my political views, since I'm a member of the group in question."

No it doesn't. That is a fallacy. Using my logic, people on DU sporting Che Avatars are probably socialists. The entire DU group is not in question here; only that portion of the DU group who is involved in this thread and loudly cheering for Hugo Chavez.

"You COULD make assertions about MY political persuasion, but you're making assertions about a group far bigger and far more diverse than me, so you can't."

It is a very small group that I refer to and it consists only of the loudest Chavez cheerleaders confined within the body of this thread and it therfeore includes you. I know it includes you because I have taken the liberty of reading your previous posts within this thread.

"Why are you bringing up the other generalization? It doesn't have a single thing to do with our argument."

Of course it doesn't in your mind. In the real world, however, it is very much pertenent to the argument. This argument was originaly between Judi Lynn and myself until you interupted. To now say that the previous argument has no bearing on this argument is false because this entire argument ultimately stems from her generalization, not mine. It is convenient for you to ignore that point but it is valid none-the-less.

"I never made that generalization, nor did I defend it, so it has nothing to do with this discussion."

maybe, maybe not; however, you have injected yourself into an argument that stems from her generalization, not mine. It is; therefore, very much disingenuous of you to attack my generalization while ignoring/avoiding hers.

"The fact that you tried to bring it up further shows that you don't have an argument."

Actually it shows that I was pissed off that you disingenuously brushed over it the last time around with your lubricious "MY" argument. I have already succesfully defended my original statement: "Pretty fucking stupid statement considering your avatar." I simply wished to point out the duplicitous nature of your arguments.

[manic expression]

378. That you can't understand, naturally

No, you did try to split hairs. I have not. You yet again demonstrate your lack of an argument.

No, there is no proof whatsover. My avatar indicates something of my political beliefs, not the beliefs of the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders". My political beliefs are my own, and they have nothing to do with your incorrect generalization. Oh, and you mean the "curses, comrade" post? It's called sarcasm. Do you know what that is, or do I need to explain that to you?

The reason I'm impatient is because of your inability to comprehend anything. My anger is about your ignorant BS, nothing more. Of course, you love to envision connections that don't exist, which is what you've been doing this entire time.

No, "some" refers to a number of people, I am one person. So no, it does not equal "some" (and it is still a possibility and not an absolute, in spite of your delusional claims), so you're once again wrong.

I'm glad you've finally brought up my political beliefs without being completely idiotic to its significance. Could I be considered a socialist? The answer to the question has no bearing on the "loudest Chavez cheerleaders", since I am me and not representative of any larger group. I find it interesting that you keep trying to make me representative of a larger group, when in fact that is surely not the case. Facts don't really factor into your thought process, do they?

You missed that actual point here. My avatar holds not significance for the group you are talking about, since it is my avatar and no one else's. Your assertions are, therefore, without basis.

Yes, it would mean everyone on DU is socialist, by your logic. The connection between my avatar and everyone on DU is no different than the connection between my avatar and everyone in the group you mentioned. One could, using your logic, infer that everyone on DU is a socialist because of my avatar. Obviously, your logic is insipid.

No, there are many posters who support Hugo Chavez, and there are many posters who support him vocally. It is not a small group (and not necessarily confined to this thread, as you wrongly claim). They include many people of many different political backgrounds, and it is the epitome of disrespect, ignorance and worse to make inferences on their political beliefs because of my avatar. Your refusal to recognize that fact is indicative of your unrelenting delusion.

No, my response was not to Judi Lynn, my response was to you, my response was 100% about YOUR generalization and no one else's. The truth is that this discussion of ours is about YOUR incorrect statement and nothing more. Keep trying to make those nonexistent and wrong connections, but it doesn't change anything.

No, that's bullshit and you know it. I NEVER made those generalizations, nor did I EVER defend them. Until you find anything that is to the contrary, "maybe, maybe not" is clearly a wrong claim (of course, I can't trust you to figure this stuff out for yourself, I once again have to explain simple crap to you because you can't understand it). And no, my comments were about YOUR STATEMENTS. Don't change the subject (which is what you're trying to do because you have no argument).

No, the fact that you brought it up shows that your statement are wrong and insipid. It is reeks of desperation to bring up meaningless and invalid points, which is precisely what you are doing. You have already shown your comments to be as stupid as they are wrong. You have failed to defend your claims, you have even resorted to bringing up unrelated posts. You (with my help, of course) have exposed the truly ignorant and delusional nature of your own arguments.

[MGD]

380. You lose and I quit now say what you want cause I don't give a shit

Chavez is an ass and you're a disgruntled commie
I'll bet you live at home with your daddy and mommy
Oh by the way, in case you've forgotten
Your arguments were weak and your grammar was rotten
I'm tired of this, I really don't need it
That last thing you wrote, I didn't even read it.

[Warren Stupidity]

319. I most certainly am a democratic socialist

who supports such democratic socialist programs as social security, universal healthcare, universal public education, strict regulation of occupational safety, strict environmental regulation, unemployment insurance programs, progressive taxation, protection of union organizing rights, fair trade rather than 'free' trade, and on and on and on. You see I am a member, a proud member, of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Thanks for asking.

[MGD]

339. I enjoy those things as well and I consider FDR to be the greatest

President we've ever had bar none. I think some "socialists", however, get carried away and are more accurately described as Marxists whether they know it or not. What's more, this is not FDR's world. His formula for success is not necessarily the formula for success today although it is obvious that the Bush formula is wrong as well.

[Otho]

370. What you don't know

How social security was formed.
Sure, it was FDR's idea, but do you think it came out the way he, or any of its architects, really wanted?
Just a short read on America's attempt at social insurance will explain why SS is such a dog's breakfast of mixed messages and inadequate halfway measures.
The system was meant to be improved over time.
Its high point was in 1974 - and it has been in decline ever since.
The "Great Society" was underfunded due to our expenditures on Vietnam. It was the certain failure of the Great Society programs that so disheartened Johnson that he didn't run for re-election. Nixon was by far the most liberal president we have ever had (domestically). Check it out for yourself, under "negative income tax."
Now what is it that bothers political conservatives so much about the welfare state? They say it's the money, but you can see that they burn federal dollars more and faster than anybody...just in a different direction.
Could it be that, with all basic necessities guaranteed, average Americans might have the freedom to engage in...politics???
Just a crazy supposition from a crazy old man. Go watch Fox TV and they will gladly reinforce your feeling that FDR's ideas are somehow outdated in the current era, and good luck with your Personal Retirement Account!

:kick:

[enigmacat]

261. I agree

I have been spotting a few trolls, myself.

[bemildred]

235. I assume you are addressing Ms Pelosi?

I don't have any problem with Mr. Chavez.

[NobleCynic]

238. Chavez does go overboard in his hyperbole at times

After all, everybody knows it's really Cheney that is the Devil.

Joking aside though, Chavez does overkill the rhetoric at times. I don't think he's just a common thug, but erudite atriculation is not exactly his forte. Is such black and white talk from a foreign leader demeaning? Yeah. It is ignorant and petulant when Bush and his cronies use the same kind of language against anyone who disagrees with them, and the same applies to when Chavez does it.

I do admire it from a Machivellian aspect though, as it is scores easy political points back home in Venezuela. Maybe I'm just trying to say I don't like that people are moved at all by this kind of rhetoric regardless of faction.

(Edited for grammar)

[enigmacat]

262. "Chavez does go overboard in his hyperbole at times"...

Yeah, because speaking softly and intellectually is something that Bush and the Rethugs REALLY respond to.
:eyes:

[Anakin Skywalker]

249. "Thug" vs. "Devil". Let's Make It Pay-Per-View, Baby!

Let's have a Steel Cage Match!

[ckramer]

256. Pelosi is too casual on this

She should think twice in the future speaking like that.

She seems trying to jinx her majority speaker position.

Be careful, Nancy. It's unwise to involve in something like this.

What have you gained by calling a foreign leader "thug"? Pleasing the freepers?

She displayed bad manner and lack of basic decency.

[AzDar]

264. When Shrubber's ruinous policies threaten to destabilize the entire

planet,why SHOULDN'T other World Leaders speak out against him?
And where better than the U.N.?
Pelosi and Rangel are defending the indefensible....
:puke:

[enigmacat]

265. One more comment about this

I just can not believe that anyone thinks that Chavez acted badly at the UN. I just CAN NOT. Have most of you even watched Chavez' address? You can see it, in its entirety, at C-span.org.
The day before Chavez, Bush is at the UN, standing at the podium, practically giving shout outs to all his nemeses.
"Yo Iran, word. Stop with the nukular weapons building; you know the one we can't prove? If you don't Amerka is gonna go cowboy on your ass."

Seriously? After Bush stood at the podium and behaved like the true THUG he is, some people feel the need to attack Chavez for calling it like he sees it?

:wtf:

[NobleCynic]

295. The point you're missing

Is that no one here excuses Bush's behavior. But just because Bush acts like a thug doesn't mean Chavez should too.

[rhett o rick]

266. OUTRAGEOUS. Bush is NOT the devil.

Cheney is.

[IndianaGreen]

272. Calling Pelosi one of "Bush's fiercest political opponents" is a lie!

She is no more an opponent of Bush than Neville Chamberlain was an opponent of Hitler.

[VegasWolf]

274. She just plays a "fierce opponent" on TV. nt

[IndianaGreen]

281. I think all those BOTOX injections and cosmetic surgery has affected

Pelosi's thinking. Bring back Gephardt!

[citizen snips]

348. I agree

and she has proven that with her anti-chavez comments.

[leesa]

275. Brilliant Pelosi...so call him a name. If you guys in Congress had done

your job and kept Bush under control, perhaps other leaders wouldn't disrespect him so much. EVERYONE hates him, it took someone to say it out loud.

Blame yourselves for letting the asshole Bush run wild. What IS your basis for calling Chavez a thug anyway, Pelosi? Just because he's making American companies pay taxes?

[bigluckyfeet]

282. Please Pull your Head out of the chimps ass

nancy

[oasis]

285. Nancy's duty to Dems is to protect a future House Speaker seat.

She didn't get where she is by being a dunce.

[IndianaGreen]

291. My dog would make a better House leader than Pelosi

and she is acting like a dunce, worst yet, she is acting like an appeaser!

[saigon68]

314. Neville Chamberlain in a Skirt

[oasis]

330. The GOP would love to have a campaign ad w/Pelosi agreeing with Chavez.

That would be the issue until election day.

[IndianaGreen]

343. Once again you let the GOP define the Democratic reaction

and once again Democrats appear like appeasers.

We are not speaking of a bad President Bush here, but about a man that is evil and wicked, that has taken dictatorial powers and has ordered torture and launched wars of aggression. That's the tyrant Bush, a man that deserves to be tried for his crimes, just as we tried the Nazis after WWII.

I don't care what Anglos say anymore! Latin America is becoming free of American imperialism by virtue of our military being decimated in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stay the course, and millions in this continent will live that otherwise would have died under American bombs.

[katinmn]

316. No, she knows her place in the class war.

[oasis]

328. We'll see better results in November by doing it her way. Trust me.

:-)

[Tarheel_Dem]

321. well said oasis.....

I sometimes can't believe what I'm reading here lately. With the midterms, less than 2 months away, this shouldn't even be an issue, except that some DU'ers want to hear their words coming from Leader Pelosi's mouth. I'm a life-long liberal Dem, but I don't think that I could pass some of the purity tests being issued to our Dem leaders.

FWIW, I think Reps Pelosi & Rangel were just trying to quell this as an issue, but it looks as if our own party is gonna make that impossible.

[confludemocrat]

327. These rationales for Dem failures always lead to more defeat, but

people like you keep coming up with them,

there's the crowd who rationalized the Dem votes for confirmation of the two hard right supreme court nominees, the confirmation votes for Condi, the vote for credit "reform", for the Iraq war (almost always it's about keeping powder dry and saving a real fight for a a more important one in the future), OK maybe not you on all those, it's not always the same people, but the team effect of appeasement and tacit collusion among Dems with Repub goals is something to behold). So for those who talk about socialists or whatever as opponents of dems, I feel sorry for your faint hearts, and ease of glossing over yet another ignominious failure of will and leadership such as those by Pelosi and Rangel.

[oasis]

331. Rangel and Pelosi refuse to be painted as "Chavez cuddlers" by the GOP.

This would be an "issue" until election day.

[ckramer]

379. She better visit DU daily to get her talking point!

[Endangered Specie]

286. I can't say I dont entirely disagree with that comment..

[pinniped]

296. He was saying what the Ds are too afraid to say.

Why the F is everyone defending prezinut asshole?

Does the cabal got the 'goods' on every member of congrass?

[rodeodance]

297. cnn Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html?section=cnn_topstories&eref=yahoo

Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush
POSTED: 8:25 p.m. EDT, September 21, 2006


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said. (Watch Rangel rip Chavez -- 1:28 )

........"He walks like this cowboy John Wayne," said Chavez. "He doesn't have the slightest idea of politics. He got where he is because he is the son of his father. He was an alcoholic, an ex-alcoholic. He's a sick man, full of complexes, but very dangerous now because he has a lot of power.".....

.....

[shanti]

336. nancy, stop while you're ahead!!

your input wasn't necessary or desired.

[Name removed]

344. Deleted message

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

[goforit]

349. Pelosi ...the biggest GOP conformist ever!!

[cosmicdot]

357. she should be calling for a moratorium on HAVA voting ...

and use of paper ballots and hand counts this November

so, we can oust the thugs in Washington

[samsingh]

367. Chavez may not be nice, but bush sure isn't either

why take any of their sides?

[Megahurtz]

381. No, Wrong.

All of the ReThugs and their followers are Bullies and Thugs.
Never have I seen this Country in such a horrid oppressive state as it is today.
Profits before People. That is the ReThuglican style of the present.

What do they expect any other Country to say when they Bully and
impose themselves onto any Country that does not agree with them?
What the Hell do they expect?

Chavez is not a Thug, he's just tired of being pushed around.