Chavez and Ahmadinejad

[joft]

i haven't heard anything myself, but i'm guessing that the League of Conservative Radio Talkshow Hosts are smugly and sanctimoniously (i mean moreso than usual) touting America's moral high ground in this fashion:

"we have freedom of speech and even let them come over here into our country to criticize it and provide them with security details and let them go around lecturing to their leftwing buddies in academia, etc etc, and they don't even allow the same freedoms to the citizens of their own countries, and if our president went to their country and spoke out against them he'd be protested out of the country or assassinated, etc etc"

what do you think of these guys, and the response i'm sure Hannibaugh is making? i think it's all fairly amusing. i almost wish one or both of the dynamic duo were assassinated while visiting here, so their countries would suddenly be in an uproar against us, that'd be even more amusing

[Pooja]

FOX news just had this thing: "Is Chavez now a threat to our national security!?"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[joft]

the funniest thing is knowing that they're consciously toying with the collective minds of their target audience. i can just imagine a few million hicks gasping as the question is raised, and suddenly realizing the answer to it is exactly what FOX news wants them to think it is, just how they planned it

on a somewhat related note, is there even such a thing as "national security"? i don't think anything can threaten the security of the entire nation all at once, not even nuclear or biological weapons. it sounds to me like the purpose of that term is to get all Americans behind some cause by making them all feel threatened by something that really only might threaten a select few. but then, i'd keep going, and say that just "security" is a social construct/illusion too

[Heleuiski]

From Fox News:-

"I would like to thank Mr. Rangel for speaking up for OUR president. George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning or public attacks against him are viewed by Republicans, Democrats, and all Americans as an attack on all of us." ? Charles (Hicksville, NY)

Yeah it's an attack on all of us man!

=))

ok, ok one more:-

"My hat is off to Mr. Rangel, three cheers for a man that’s “PROUD” to be an American! I am a Republican and proud of my fellow American Charles Rangel." — Steve (Trinidad, Colorado)


They all sound so RETARDED.

[dubbeltop]

The fact that Chavez and Our man in Iran are more interesting to the media than Bush is an eyeopener.....so..thats my view.

Bush is very unpopular and the (religious) right is actually willing to assasinate their former mascotte. Anyway dictators who leave there country usually find themselves without a country as soon as the airplane leaves the country.

The question is who leaves his country first: Bush, Chavez or Ahmadinejad?

[demagogic_schizoid]

FOX news just had this thing: "Is Chavez now a threat to our national security!?"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why is that funny? I don't know if he is a threat to American security directly, but he's certainly a threat to Colombian security with his co-operation with FARC and undermining of the people's attempts there to move on from their horriffic past. He is also a threat to his own people considering how he is taking them down the road of becoming at best another Cuba or at worst another Zimbabwe. I don't know if the US should get involved or not - I know that idealistically they should, but I know that it would be in their interests not to do so. Get involved and the myth of the caudillo who can liberate his people from the yankee oppressors will live one, and he will be another martyr, and all his supporters will be able to say how his policies were great but that evil USA couldn't accept someone not toeing the line. so really, the hard-hearted rational thing to do would be to let him subject his people to the same misery that Fidel has subjected the Cubans to, and to let Venezuela become an example, like Cuba and Zimbabwe today, of where such policies lead. The charitable thing to do would be to get involved and to aid venezuela to become a Chile rather than a Cuba.

So what should we do? I don't know. Head says do nothing and let them suffer, it's in our interests. Heart says don't let sthis happen to another set of people, enough have suffered already under socialism.

I'm undecided. But I know that he is going out of his way to cause trouble with the USA purely for his own personal purposes - it helps him make friends with the desperates across the world who will give their full support to any enemy of America, and it helps him take his own people's minds off his autocratic project in his own country.

[s'box]

The charitable thing to do would be to get involved and to aid venezuela to become a Chile rather than a Cuba.


Killing a bunch of people and imposing a right wing military dictatorship is pretty far from charitable i'd say, perhaps you've different standards for these sorts of things.

and autocrat? how many elections must that man win? He got voted in, and then voted in again, and then they voted whether or ge got to stay, and hes still there.

[attila_the_hunny]

I think Chavez is trying to gain attention by saying the things he's saying. Otherwise, if he shut his trap I'd have no clue who the hell he was to begin with. He just talks a lot, and does nothing. Which is what most politicians do, anyway.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Killing a bunch of people and imposing a right wing military dictatorship is pretty far from charitable i'd say, perhaps you've different standards for these sorts of things.

and autocrat? how many elections must that man win? He got voted in, and then voted in again, and then they voted whether or ge got to stay, and hes still there.

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela.php

If you want more info look for yourself, there is plenty out there. Now, it doesn't matter how many elections Chavez wins, if he craps all over the constitution and people's human rights he is autocratic, and anyway how can elections be free and fair when there are such severe restrictions on people's freedom of expression?

And yes, I would say that when people are under threat of being taken over by communism, that it is charitable to take money out of our taxes, and to put ourselves in danger of being more hated across the world, and to spend time and effort, to help a country defeat that threat. Pinochet was an evil bastard and he was only interested in himself, sure, but if the choice is between living like a Chilean and living like a Cuban, I will take the second option. Progress and liberal democracy often only come about after a bloody struggle. IMO this doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort.

[Heleuiski]

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela.php

And yes, I would say that when people are under threat of being taken over by communism, that it is charitable to take money out of our taxes, and to put ourselves in danger of being more hated across the world, and to spend time and effort, to help a country defeat that threat.

Ahha! Finally you make the distinction between socialism and communism. Well done.

[s'box]

http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela.php

If you want more info look for yourself, there is plenty out there. Now, it doesn't matter how many elections Chavez wins, if he craps all over the constitution and people's human rights he is autocratic, and anyway how can elections be free and fair when there are such severe restrictions on people's freedom of expression?

And yes, I would say that when people are under threat of being taken over by communism, that it is charitable to take money out of our taxes, and to put ourselves in danger of being more hated across the world, and to spend time and effort, to help a country defeat that threat. Pinochet was an evil bastard and he was only interested in himself, sure, but if the choice is between living like a Chilean and living like a Cuban, I will take the second option. Progress and liberal democracy often only come about after a bloody struggle. IMO this doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort.

from that very website:

The main purpose of this letter, however, is to urge you to take steps to address serious threats to freedom of the press in Venezuela. Under your government, I would emphasize, the press has enjoyed considerable freedom. Indeed, as part of the often heated and acrimonious debate between supporters of the government and its opponents, the press has been able to express strong views without restriction. Although we fully acknowledge your government?s lack of censorship, Human Rights Watch is concerned that many journalists working for media that support the opposition have been victims of aggression and intimidation by your government?s supporters.

Chavez is in no way a tyrant or an autocrat and the propaganda that tries to make him out to be is hardly ever any good. Most of the cases of chavez being accused usually have the look of independent political violence which happens on all sides in venezuela, except that opposition claims that chavez masterminded all these events, lacking anything resembling evidence in the slightest. The idea that chavez is some criminal genius that conciously masterminds his all supporters actions is nonsense. Its just not a sensible move from any strategy from mild reformer to 'evil menacing communist takeover'.

This evil tyrant image of chavez is made up nonsense that sells shitty news. I dont see how one can trust the information coming in on this guy when you see him on cnn with the headline 'El loco chavez' and theyre nice comparitively. So much is obviously taken out of context and warped and tossed into pure rubbish its amazing anyone buys that story, usually its not even well covered up.

also Cuba is a nice place. I think i'd rather live there than most other latin american countries.