It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Castro Warns Chavez That His Life is in Danger

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Muaddib, you have consistently ignored the point of my posts and dogmatically asserted points that you have not supported against reasonable challenges.


On the contrary...i will take your points one at a time and show you why.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bottom line, Kerry got 48-49 percent of the vote- Bush does NOT have an overwhelming majority. You claim that he does because of the turnout at a pro-bush event. That's ridiculous.


Clinton won with 43% of the popular votes in 1992....



Which is much less than what Bush won in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2004 president Bush got 52% and Kerry got 48%.



If you look at the results in previous elections you will see that presidents have been nominated with less percentage of popular votes than president Bush got. So, at the end Bush did get more votes than Kerry, by 4,500,000 votes. i don't really know why you brought up the elections...we were talking about the amount of protesters that appeared at the inauguration.... Anyways, next point....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
You continue to assert that just because the protesters made more noise that they represent the majority of Venezuelans (and you make an excellent point that demonstrators LOVE to lie about their numbers).
If Chavez is so unpopular why did he win moitored elections and monitored recall vote? Why did the people restore him after the coup?


Can you say, another Ukraine?.... There were less protesters in the Ukraine that were saying there was fraud over there than in Venezuela...


Kurasov said the number of protesters rose to at least half a million. Ukraine's population numbers about 47 million.


Excerpted from.
www.bsudailynews.com...

Yet noone is questioning that there was fraud in the Ukraine....in Venezuela 1.2-2 million protesters were saying that there was fraud in Venezuela done by Chavez and his cronies....




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do you continue to assert a doule standard whereby you attempt to brand Chavez a Stalinist without acknowledging that such criteria would make Bush a fascist?


Quite simple, because president Bush has never said that Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco are examples which the U.S. must follow, or that they were/are his inspiration and his mentors.....

Show me where president Bush states this and I will concede your point....

But, Chavez has mentioned quite a few times how proud he is of castro, that he is his mentor and an example Venezuela must follow....

See the difference Vagabond?




Originally posted by The Vagabond
On the tangent point about Jesus, I explicitly said that Jesus did not promote socialism. My point is that Jesus did not live as a capitalist and capitalism has begotten many practices that Jesus would not approve of. Didn't Jesus tell his disciples that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?


The Vagabond, neither did Jesus say that the state, or country, must own the land. The teachings of Jesus according to the bible is not an example for a form of government, it is a personal example, one which goes beyond socialism, communism, democracy or any other form of government.

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Muaddib]




posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
I need some help from you guys. I've forgotten what you call that law that states that the first person to bring up Hitler has lost the argument. It seems to get quoted so much around here.

What was it called again?


I believe you mean the Jante Law...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
I believe you mean the Jante Law...

en.wikipedia.org...


You mean the same syndrome you suffer from? I've always found projection such an interesting phenomena.


Thanks for trying to help though



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Clinton won with 43% of the popular votes in 1992....


Why do you insist on going on this ridiculous tangent. The point of this discussion is not the legitimacy of Bush's election. You have claimed that protester turnouts reflect overall national sentiment. The only reason the election has come up is because it disproves your claim.
So like I said, you have failed to answer my points, you simply go off on tangents and dogmatically hammer your talking points. You come across like a pure Bush appologist, as if you were just backing the party line.


i don't really know why you brought up the elections...we were talking about the amount of protesters that appeared at the inauguration.... Anyways, next point....

Woa, I brought this up? You're claim that protest/support rally turnouts is a reliable samping of public opinion is what brought the elections into play. You keep hammering your ridiculous dogma that because a few people turned out to protest in Venezuela that Chavez isn't the people's choice- never mind that they elected him, saved him from recall, and restored him from a coup. Then you defend your double standard in the way you view Bush and Chavez by claiming that there isn't strong opposition to him just because people who don't like him didn't come to see him get sworn in. Bottom line, you seem to think that protest rally turnouts in Venezuela are more important than election results.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Can you say, another Ukraine?.... There were less protesters in the Ukraine that were saying there was fraud over there than in Venezuela...

International monitoring of the Ukranian election pointed to widespread irregularities. Monitoring of the Chavez recall did not.
Do you know what else reminds me of Ukraine? The way the Venezuelan people saved Chavez from the coup!



Yet noone is questioning that there was fraud in the Ukraine....in Venezuela 1.2-2 million protesters were saying that there was fraud in Venezuela done by Chavez and his cronies....

Exactly, it's the protestors who say that. Protestors say the same thing about Bush. In Ukraine it was election monitors who said it.





Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do you continue to assert a doule standard whereby you attempt to brand Chavez a Stalinist without acknowledging that such criteria would make Bush a fascist?


Quite simple, because president Bush has never said that Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco are examples which the U.S. must follow, or that they were/are his inspiration and his mentors.....


No, he just started a secret police force, opened an illegal prison camp, invaded two nations, backed coups in at least 2 more, and has been overwhelmingly a corporate president. He also said that it would be a lot easier if we had a dictatorship, as long as he was the dictator.
You love a good soundbyte. You keep hammering the fact that Chavez buttered up somebody who was in a position to help his people out. I don't see Chavez sending dissidents to for indefinate detention in Cuba. Only Bush does that!



Show me where president Bush states this and I will concede your point....

The infamous dictator quote was made on December 18th 2000.



But, Chavez has mentioned quite a few times how proud he is of castro, that he is his mentor and an example Venezuela must follow....

See the difference Vagabond?

Yes I do. Chavez is saying nice things about a guy who he is getting help from. That's just good politics.
Bush isn't just talking though. Bush is actually ACTING like a totalitarian.

Between Bush, Castro, and Chavez, which one has defied the UN security council directly? Bush.
Which one has approved the use of political murder? Bush.
Which one DOES NOT have illegal prisons in Cuba? Chavez.
Which one has never tried to produce or otherwise acquire new nuclear weapons? Chavez.

Isn't that ironic to you at all? The only one of those three that doesn't have an illegal prison camp in Cuba is the one you're calling an enemy of democracy?




Originally posted by The Vagabond
The Vagabond, neither did Jesus say that the state, or country, must own the land. The teachings of Jesus according to the bible is not an example for a form of government, it is a personal example, one which goes beyond socialism, communism, democracy or any other form of government.
[edit on 14-2-2005 by Muaddib]

I propose that we let the debate center on Chavez rather than Jesus, however to those who do not accept the bible as gospel Jesus is often viewed as a political figure.

It would also help you to realize that socialism and communism are different, and that socialism does not necessarily entail government ownership of all land. Also, socialism is not a form of government and does not compare or contrast to democracy. Democracies can practice socialism. The misconceptions demonstrated by your post explain your prejudice against Chavez.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Why do you insist on going on this ridiculous tangent. The point of this discussion is not the legitimacy of Bush's election.


I hate having to play this game of who said what first....but i like setting things straight....

First, I was offering proof that your assesment that "half the population of the US voted against president Bush" was wrong, and an exageration on your part.

If anyone went off tangent is you trying to push your anti-Bush agenda. We were talking about Chavez, yet you keep pushing your agenda against president Bush.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
You have claimed that protester turnouts reflect overall national sentiment. The only reason the election has come up is because it disproves your claim.
So like I said, you have failed to answer my points, you simply go off on tangents and dogmatically hammer your talking points. You come across like a pure Bush appologist, as if you were just backing the party line.


Really?....I said that?....can you link in here where exactly did I say what you state above?.... Let me help you a bit....here is what I said..

Muaddib---In denial about what? that liberals couldn't get more than a few thousand people to protest against the president at the inauguration when over 260,000 people who were pro Bush were present even thou it was cold as hell outside?.... i know it was cold, although i am used to the climate, because i was there, yet more people that are pro Bush were there than people from the left.... -----------

Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said that half of the US voted against Bush, this is not true... i tried to give you the benefit of doubt when you said this by presenting proof that you were wrong, yet instead of saying you were wrong, what you tried to do was lie even more and accuse me that i was the one who lied...well, the quotes i am giving tell another story...



Originally posted by The Vagabond
And still no explanation of why half the country voted against Bush, even as we are lectured on how the predictably pro-bush turnout at a pro-bush event obvious demonstrates the overwhelming majority support he enjoys?


Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, we could also say that you come accross like a communist apologist "as if you were trying to back the party line".




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Woa, I brought this up? You're claim that protest/support rally turnouts is a reliable samping of public opinion is what brought the elections into play. You keep hammering your ridiculous dogma that because a few people turned out to protest in Venezuela that Chavez isn't the people's choice- never mind that they elected him, saved him from recall, and restored him from a coup. Then you defend your double standard in the way you view Bush and Chavez by claiming that there isn't strong opposition to him just because people who don't like him didn't come to see him get sworn in. Bottom line, you seem to think that protest rally turnouts in Venezuela are more important than election results.


No, if you would have bothered to read what i said you would have seen that I mentioned that more people that are pro-Bush went to the inauguration than those who are against Bush. I also presented evidence that a lot more people in Venezuela are protesting agaisnt Chavez than people who protest agaisnt Bush in the US....even though Venezuela has around 25 Million +- people and the US has almost 300 Million people. That was my point...




Originally posted by The Vagabond
International monitoring of the Ukranian election pointed to widespread irregularities. Monitoring of the Chavez recall did not.
Do you know what else reminds me of Ukraine? The way the Venezuelan people saved Chavez from the coup!


500,000 people in the Ukraine protest and claim that there is fraud, in Venezuela about 2 million people protest against Chavez. Venezuela has less population than the Ukraine, yet more people in Venezuela say there is fraud, but i guess they must be lying.



Venezuela
Population:
25,017,387 (July 2004 est.)


Excerpted from.
www.cia.gov...



Ukraine Top of Page
Population:
47,732,079 (July 2004 est.)


Excerpted from.
www.cia.gov...


Chavez moves forward to take control of all private news media because he says they are all out to get him.

Chavez urges his supporters to set up Cuban-style neighborhood groups dedicated to the sole purpose of backing "his revolution".... that's not a sign either I guess that he wants Venezuela to go down the same road of Cuba?...


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is urging his supporters to set up Cuban-style neighborhood groups dedicated to backing his self-style revolution. On Sunday in his weekly radio address, President Chavez unveiled plans for new community groups, called Bolivarian Circles, to defend his leftist rule.


Excerpted from.
www.cubanet.org...



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do you continue to assert a doule standard whereby you attempt to brand Chavez a Stalinist without acknowledging that such criteria would make Bush a fascist?


You keep trying to push your own agenda against Bush, which as i have proven you tend to exagerate and sometimes, maybe without realizing, even lie.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, he just started a secret police force, opened an illegal prison camp, invaded two nations, backed coups in at least 2 more, and has been overwhelmingly a corporate president. He also said that it would be a lot easier if we had a dictatorship, as long as he was the dictator.
You love a good soundbyte. You keep hammering the fact that Chavez buttered up somebody who was in a position to help his people out. I don't see Chavez sending dissidents to for indefinate detention in Cuba. Only Bush does that!


Secret police force huh? what secret police force would that be? and how many free countries in the world have "secret police forces"?.....


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The infamous dictator quote was made on December 18th 2000.


Really?...the infamous quote?...can you provide a link, along with the whole paragraph from that quote..... and should we address Chavez's jokes too?....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes I do. Chavez is saying nice things about a guy who he is getting help from. That's just good politics.
Bush isn't just talking though. Bush is actually ACTING like a totalitarian.

Between Bush, Castro, and Chavez, which one has defied the UN security council directly? Bush.
Which one has approved the use of political murder? Bush.
Which one DOES NOT have illegal prisons in Cuba? Chavez.
Which one has never tried to produce or otherwise acquire new nuclear weapons? Chavez.

Isn't that ironic to you at all? The only one of those three that doesn't have an illegal prison camp in Cuba is the one you're calling an enemy of democracy?


First, do you mean that same UN security council that was proven to be fraudulent, at least those governments who were trying to stop the war in Iraq because of their dirty businesses with Iraq, which killed about 2 million Iraqis?....

BTW...the US did not go alone in a war against Saddam's regime....and before president Bush was in office there was already a coalition of the willing which was set up by president Clinton back in the late 90s.

Second, since when is the Guantanamo base in Cuba illegal?....

Third, if by political murder you mean that Bush is trying to discredit Chavez...Chavez is doing the same thing to president Bush, and capitalism... if, you mean literally to kill Chavez, he would be dead as of this moment if that was true.





Originally posted by The Vagabond
I propose that we let the debate center on Chavez rather than Jesus, however to those who do not accept the bible as gospel Jesus is often viewed as a political figure.


I was showing some of the stupid things that protesters in the US were claiming. There were some that were even yelling "Bring the war home"....



Originally posted by The Vagabond
It would also help you to realize that socialism and communism are different, and that socialism does not necessarily entail government ownership of all land. Also, socialism is not a form of government and does not compare or contrast to democracy. Democracies can practice socialism. The misconceptions demonstrated by your post explain your prejudice against Chavez.


It is true that some democratic governments do have some socialist tendencies, but they are not completly socialist. But, who actually created the modern form of socialism in the US and what exactly are the goals of socialism?


Definitions of SOCIALISM
a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole.
.....................
An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism.
.....................
A term covering many belief systems that oppose the concentration of wealth and power that is a natural part of capitalism. Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Socialism has taken on many different forms throughout the world, with varying degrees of success. Some socialists favour a gradual move away from unrestricted capitalism and the maintenance of a democratic society; others favour force to overthrow capitalism and distribute wealth.


Excerpted from.
www.google.com...:SOCIALISM

Pretty much about half, maybe more, of the countries which started as "socialists" became dictatorships because this form of government gives too much power to the state claiming it is for the good of the people...

I find it ironic that so many in here are against big government, yet these came people agree with a form of government that gives more power to the State, "revolution", or as it is also called the Workers Party in other countries....

---edited for errors---


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
BTW, here is another link on what Chavez is doing to independent, privately owned tv stations.


Violent attacks on journalists are commonplace, as are government threats to close down the TV stations it accuses of broadcasting "war propaganda".
...............................
Between 27 February and 3 March there were 25 attacks on reporters, photographers, cameramen and their assistants during opposition protests against delays in the process to call a referendum on the president's rule, say independent media groups.
......................
And three privately-owned TV stations have been ordered to pay $2m in taxes for allegedly donating free advertising to the opposition strikers who tried to bring President Chavez down last year.
......................
The opposition says the regulations are tantamount to censorship. NGOs agree that clauses such as one demanding the respectful portrayal of government officials are indeed a threat to press freedom.


Excerpted from.
news.bbc.co.uk...


What would you think if something like this happened in the US?...along with the other statements and actions that Chavez is doing to make Venezuela another Cuba....

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First, I was offering proof that your assesment that "half the population of the US voted against president Bush" was wrong, and an exageration on your part.
If anyone went off tangent is you trying to push your anti-Bush agenda. We were talking about Chavez, yet you keep pushing your agenda agaisnt president Bush.


So you're saying you didn't claim that protest turnouts were indicative of the will of the people, and therefore I had no reason to counter such a claim with election results which clearly contradict the claims you make about the relevance of protest results?
What you call an "anti bush tangent" is a clear example that the formula you've applied to analyzing Chavez' legitimacy is flawed, but you have taken me for a petty Bush-basher (and hey I understand, because there are plenty of them out there, but I'm not in their camp). My main agenda here is not to hate Bush just because he's Bush. I have my differences with his policies in certain areas, however Bush wouldn't have made his way into this conversation if his situation did not provide a good example for countering your claims about the significance of protest turnouts against Chavez. I generally think things through and present my case semi-respectably, so I don't see what I've done that would lead you to immediately assume the irrelevance of my statements, unless of course it were because I happen not to be in the Bush camp on this issue.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
You have claimed that protester turnouts reflect overall national sentiment. The only reason the election has come up is because it disproves your claim.
So like I said, you have failed to answer my points, you simply go off on tangents and dogmatically hammer your talking points. You come across like a pure Bush appologist, as if you were just backing the party line.


Really?....I said that?....can you link in here where exactly did I say what you state above?.... Let me help you a bit....here is what I said..

Muaddib---In denial about what? that liberals couldn't get more than a few thousand people to protest against the president at the inauguration when over 260,000 people who were pro Bush were present even thou it was cold as hell outside?.... i know it was cold, although i am used to the climate, because i was there, yet more people that are pro Bush were there than people from the left.... -----------

Excerpted from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You're reaching big time man. Why do you claim to be throwing around these meaningless numbers about protest turnouts including

Marg a 1.2 million to 2 million people march against Chavez is a lot of people... According to pro-Chavez sources nearly two million people were marching for Chavez....
?
Feel free to explain why you brought that up, but at face value it seems that you think protests turnouts against Chavez illigitimize him despite his victory in several elections.


You said that half of the US voted against Bush, this is not true... i tried to give you the benefit of doubt when you said this by presenting proof that you were wrong, yet instead of saying you were wrong, what you tried to do was lie even more and accuse me that i was the one who lied...well, the quotes i am giving tell another story...

You're treating the election like it's the point when it's only an illustration, and you're grasping at straws, apparently because you think me saying I'm wrong about a minor tangent point is going to save the rest of your ridiculous arguement. 48-49% of people who voted chose to vote for John Kerry instead of George Bush. You can nit-pick my phrasing however you like, because no the casual way I chose to phrase it wasn't dead right, but that doesn't change the fact that it illustrates the fact that protest turnouts do not reflect election results, and therefore your obsession with the fact that over a million people (unconfirmed count) protested against Chavez is irrelevant. Go ahead, come back on topic and forget your precious tangents about defending every stitch of this administration. How can you seriously suggest that Chavez lacks the mandate of the Venezuelan people who voted for him several times over and restored him to power after the coup?
In case it has slipped your mind by this point, the thread topic is the prospect of Chavez' life being in danger. The US backed a coup against him, the conservative media is telling lies about him, and here you are, apparently an unreachable conservative, declaring against all reason that Chavez is not only a dictator, but a popularly opposed one. Considering all of that, the answer seems to be a resounding "no sh-t, sherlock; his life is in danger".



BTW, we could also say that you come accross like a communist apologist "as if you were trying to back the party line".


Suppose that I was a communist apologist, just for the sake of arguement. What makes that a bad thing, except for the culturally biased views you were taught in school? Show me where it is written in stone that communism is completely and totally unworkable and that all communists are evil? I already know what you're going to say- we've been over it before so don't bother. In terms of moral absolutes- right and wrong- from what source do you derive the authority to pass final judgement on the values of one system or another? What is the extent of your education in economics? Fact of the matter is, I'm not a communist apologist. It could be argued that I am a socialist apologist perhaps, and in fact I do believe in the value of socialized infrastructure because I have examined the capitalist society I live in with a critical eye, but you could hardly write me off just because you think that I sound like a commie.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, if you would have bothered to read what i said you would have seen that I mentioned that more people that are pro-Bush went to the inauguration than those who are against Bush. I also presented evidence that a lot more people in Venezuela are protesting agaisnt Chavez than people who protest agaisnt Bush in the US....even though Venezuela has around 25 Million +- people and the US has almost 300 Million people. That was my point...


Here you go grasping at straws again. Do you mean to say that you were just saying that in case the question ever came up on a game show, or are you claiming that the extent of protests against Chavez call his legitimacy into question? You seem to be ashamed when I call you on the case you have made.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
International monitoring of the Ukranian election pointed to widespread irregularities. Monitoring of the Chavez recall did not.


500,000 people in the Ukraine protest and claim that there is fraud, in Venezuela about 2 million people protest against Chavez. Venezuela has less population than the Ukraine, yet more people in Venezuela say there is fraud, but i guess they must be lying.


What part of international monitors don't you understand? Protestors are biased, and unreliable, and 2 million people (unconfirmed count) still only makes up a thin minority- 8% of Venezuela, right? I find it highly ironic that a conservative is screaming that we should be listening to the vocal minority over the majority as confirmed by elections. If the Ukranian protestors hadn't been backed up by election monitors they never would have gotten anywhere.




Chavez moves forward to take control of all private news media because he says they are all out to get him.

Not a promising move I grant, but do we have enough evidence on the subject matter to make an informed decision? For all we know the stations may be spreading misinformation or even encouraging subversion- we should be interested in this, but we should not automatically assume that one side or the other is right. What do you think would happen to a US television station that made false statements and openly called for violence or subversion?
For that matter what would happen in general if there had been a coup attempt in the USA. That changes things. So unless you have good information on the reasons for this move, how can you criticize it?



Chavez urges his supporters to set up Cuban-style neighborhood groups dedicated to the sole purpose of backing "his revolution".... that's not a sign either I guess that he wants Venezuela to go down the same road of Cuba?...

Cry me a friggin river because Chavez is encouraging his people to be prepared to stand up against a coup attempt, just like they did for him in 2002. All I hear from you is Cuba, Cuba, Cuba. We're talking about Venezuela. Unlike Cuba, Venezuela's quality of life is IMPROVING, they have a successful democracy which has weathered repeated subversion attempts backed by foreigners, and they have a working vision for their future. The only problem I see with these neighborhood groups is that with them in place it's going to take twice as much work for the US to turn Venezuela back into our b-tch.




Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is urging his supporters to set up Cuban-style neighborhood groups dedicated to backing his self-style revolution. On Sunday in his weekly radio address, President Chavez unveiled plans for new community groups, called Bolivarian Circles, to defend his leftist rule.


Excerpted from.
www.cubanet.org...


Our founding fathers made planned militias as a part of our nations defense against foreign aggression too. Would you like to show me the quote where Chavez said that these Bolivarian Circles should kill neighbors who fail to be "politically reliable"? If you haven't got it then you're making a mountain out of a molehill.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why do you continue to assert a doule standard whereby you attempt to brand Chavez a Stalinist without acknowledging that such criteria would make Bush a fascist?


You keep trying to push your own agenda against Bush, which as i have proven you tend to exagerate and sometimes, maybe without realizing, even lie.

For the umpteenth time Bush is not the point here. I'm not out to flame Bush just for being Bush. I consider myself slightly right of center on many issues and I don't go out of my way to drag Bush through the mud when it's not relevant. I used Bush as part of an example to prove that your attacks on Chavez are dishonest.




Secret police force huh? what secret police force would that be? and how many free countries in the world have "secret police forces"?.....

No wonder you're so anti-communist- apparently you're a fascist. Just for the record now, you don't see any problem with:
1. The development of the DoHS which is serves as an assett for bringing intelligence services designed for use against other nations into use in our own nation (arguably a violation of the spirit of posse comitatus)?
2. The creation of a military prison in which torture is used which can and does house criminals captured in the United States who have not been convicted by a court of law?
3. The passage of legislation which allows law enforcement acting under the authority of the "secret police" organization to enter a persons home without that persons knowledge or permission?



Really?...the infamous quote?...can you provide a link, along with the whole paragraph from that quote..... and should we address Chavez's jokes too?....


Here we go again with the double standard. Everything Chavez says is sincere, but not everything Bush says. Rumsfeld was just being polite to Saddam because it's not good to be mean to a homicidal maniac when you're selling him Anthrax, but Chavez wasn't just being nice to Castro for helping him out, no, Chavez meant every good thing he said about Castro to the very core of his being because politicians never pay eachother lip-service in the name of cooperation. You make my point nicely when you start defending Bush's statements, because you're right- Bush obviously wasn't coming out and admitting to the world that he wants to be the next Hitler. Nor was Chavez seriously coming out and announcing to the world that he wants to be the next Castro- he was buttering up somebody who can help him better the lot of the Venezuelan people. I bet we could find some clips of Bush talking nice about the French too, and we know that's not sincere.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes I do. Chavez is saying nice things about a guy who he is getting help from. That's just good politics.
Bush isn't just talking though. Bush is actually ACTING like a totalitarian.

Between Bush, Castro, and Chavez, which one has defied the UN security council directly? Bush.
Which one has approved the use of political murder? Bush.
Which one DOES NOT have illegal prisons in Cuba? Chavez.
Which one has never tried to produce or otherwise acquire new nuclear weapons? Chavez.
quote]

First, do you mean that same UN security council that was proven to be fraudulent, at least those governments who were trying to stop the war in Iraq because of their dirty businesses with Iraq, which killed about 2 million Iraqis?....


Pick and choose, pick and choose. The security council was anti-war because of their business interests, but America's invasion had nothing to do with its business interests. Should I spare you the tangent discussion about the Iraq war or do you somehow believe that the legitimacy of the Iraq war is a winning issue? Face it, you're sitting here blasting Chavez when he has defied neither the international community nor his nation's constitution or best interests to any extent even remotely approaching what Bush has done. And before you decide that I'm just rabidly anti-bush, I picked him as the lesser evil in our last election. I don't think I have it in me to vote Democrat really, but I don't fall in line and follow orders the way many in the far-right do.


BTW...the US did not go alone in a war against Saddam's regime....and before president Bush was in office there was already a coalition of the willing which was set up by president Clinton back in the late 90s.

Quit changing the subject. You seem to be a little insecure about this issue. Are you claiming that the UN security council was on board for the war in Iraq? The US is a signatory to the UN Charter and as such is subject to a treaty acknowledging that a nation may not attack another nation unless either that nation has militarily attacked the first nation, or the UN Security Council has sanctioned the attack. Bush did something that Chavez has not- he has ordered invasions against international law. I bring this up because it seriously calls into question the priorities/criteria by which you have decided that Chavez is dangerous.


Second, since when is the Guantanamo base in Cuba illegal?....

I didn't say the base was illegal. I said the prison was illegal, and it is. They are throwing due process out the window for criminals aphrended in the United States and confining them indefinately in a military prison. The enemy combatant issue was a stretch, but the use of Camp X-ray against criminals not hailing from nations with whom we are not at war is illegal, plain and simple.


Third, if by political murder you mean that Bush is trying to discredit Chavez

No, I mean that Bush has done away with America's policy that we do not assassinate foreign leaders.


if, you mean literally to kill Chavez, he would be dead as of this moment if that was true.

So you're saying that it's OK to conspire to kill world leaders and to make it clearly known that it is now a policy option to do so- and that's just fine and dandy right up till the moment that a corpse hits the floor?
Let's just suppose that the cops came to my house and found detailed plans on how to kill somebody who I had threatened to kill in public- do you think they'd be cool with that, just because Chavez is alive at the moment?





It is true that some democratic governments do have some socialist tendencies, but they are not completly socialist. But, who actually created the modern form of socialism in the US and what exactly are the goals of socialism?

FDR instituted limited socialist programs to pick this nation up from an economic crisis with his New Deal (a sequel to Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal). Chavez is doing essentially the same thing. He is using certain socialist policies to bring the vast majority of his nation out of extreme poverty.
Are you the kind of person who cries foul when the government breaks up a monopoly or institues pro-labor reforms? Do you just think that Big Business should walk all over the working class because it's good for enterpenuership and "the middle class"?



Pretty much about half, maybe more, of the countries which started as "socialists" became dictatorships because this form of government gives too much power to the state claiming it is for the good of the people...

That's just jolly. It is a joke isn't it? You think that politicians are corrupt because they are socialists? They're corrupt because their politicians. By your reasoning we should just resort to anarchy because too many politicians in the past of every kind have proven untrustworthy with power. Democracies have their fair share of crooks, liars, and would-be dictators you know.


I find it ironic that so many in here are against big government, yet these came people agree with a form of government that gives more power to the State, "revolution", or as it is also called the Workers Party in other countries....
[edit on 15-2-2005 by Muaddib]


And yet again you miss the point. I don't have any say in the politics of Venezuela. Me being against big government has nothing to do with anything. The people of Venezuela voted for Chavez- they voted for a socialist, they voted for big government, they got it, and they liked it enough to defend it against recall and coup. I could hate the hell out of Chavez and his big government and it wouldn't make a lick of difference because I'm not registered to vote in Venezuela!
Get it through your head- it is neither the right nor the privlidge of the USA to dictate the politics of other nations. It doesn't matter if they elect somebody who wants to fund public orgies and subsidize a daily ration of vodka to every man woman and child- if they choose that in free fair elections then they have a right to it just as long as their freedom to swing their arms doesn't infringe on the space occupied by another nation's nose.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join