Socialism or Death?

Speaking at the World Social Forum Hugo Chavez proclaimed that the destruction of the Imperialist Hegemon ruled by ‘Mr. Danger’ would be difficult— but not impossible.

He ended his speech with a call to build a global anti-imperialist alliance to defeat the U.S. and spread socialismor die trying! Now that I think of it, Hugo travels quite a lot for a third world dictator, so what is he up to?

The new President of the NRA?

President Chávez: I believe it is possible, and everyday I am more convinced of it. The year 2005 has ended, many things happened in 2005, but it is over. And just think, here in Latin America on November 4th and 5th, Mr. Danger, the very one, in person, went to Mar del Plata: he had a celebration planned, pressuring, blackmailing, and using all the dirty war tactics typical of this empire... and especially this empire, this empire that we face is the most perverse, murderous, genocidal, and immoral that this planet has known in 100 centuries. There has never been a more perverse empire than this one, and cynical, this is a cynical empire!  ~Hugo Chavez

At this point Chavez calls out to someone in the crowd, "Cindy Sheehan— for you a kiss, valiant woman and heroic mother."

The Enemy

Imagine being faced with the, "most perverse, murderous, genocidal, and immoral [empire] that this planet has known in 100 centuries." That's the worst in the last ten thousand years!

More perverse than Hitler and the Nazi's, more genocidal than Stalin or Pol Pot, more immoral than the human sacrificing Aztecs?

To Chavez and his World Social Forum Keepers the U.S is the enemy-- not just any enemy, but, "the most perverse, murderous, genocidal, and immoral [empire] that this planet has known --in ten thousand years." What I wonder is, if we are that bad, then what wouldn't he do to stop us?

The Warning

President Chávez: I warn the government of the U.S. that the next time that we detect U.S. military or civil personnel, especial U.S. military personnel trying to obtain information from our Armed Forces, we are going to throw them in jail... ~Hugo Chavez
Chavez has said that he wishes to field a million man army (perhaps even 2.3 million) and has begun buying weapons seemingly for that purpose, (or rather to defend against impending invasion).

So if the overall goal is to defeat the Imperial Hegemon, how could the forces of Goodness, Social Justice, and Equality represented by the World Social Forum possibly hope to defeat such an oppressive and monstrous foe as Mr. Danger?

The Plan

Chavez continues:
President Chávez: Now, listen, I mentioned the year 2005, so that we can see how and where we are positioned, those of us who strongly state that, yes, it is possible to change the world, and to illustrate that every day there are more reasons to be optimistic and to work with more determination for the promotion of social movements, the articulation of social movements, to retake the position of a great international anti-imperialist front to do battle throughout the world, the battle must global...

Audience: Applause  ~Hugo Chavez

"The battle must be global."

Changing the world requires unity of purpose and, "a great international anti-imperialist front." But how to form this front? Well, for starters, by making alliances with all those who would also like to see the Imperial Hegemon fall.

Alliance of anti-imperialists

The Axis


Hugo Chavez's foreign policy schedule is quite impressive. He may have made more official trips than any other world leader in history. I'd be willing to bet that if he hasn't yet visited all of the world's dictators he will have shortly. What is he up to?

President Chávez: We have to link up all our causes, unity, unity, unity, movements united respecting diversity, respecting the autonomy, no one is planning to impose anything on anyone, only coordination, unity, because if we don’t work together we will never triumph not even if we fight for 500 years, only united can we do it, uniting our moral and intellectual forces, our ideas, our diversity, out physical strength, our social movements, our political movements, our local governments.

A World Forum of Local Powers was held here, as a part of the overall Forum: mayors of half the world, governors, national governments, respecting the differences of each country and of each government.  ~Hugo Chavez

Indeed, Iran has embraced Mr. Chavez warmly. Ahmadinajad has openly declared an alliance with Venezuela against the Imperial Hegemon and Chavez has defended Iran's right to have nuclear 'energy'.

These are prerequisites for campaign against hegemony, that has turned into a global movement today." Speaking to Venezuelan Parliament Speaker, Nicholas Madoro, on the sidelines of The Third International Qods Conference, Ahmadinejad further stressed that it is the joint mission of all independent nations and governments, particularly that of Iran and Venezuela, to fight against foreign hegemony and to observe resistance in facing hegemonic tendencies.  ~Campaign Against Hegemony

Connect the dots folks...

Fine, call us what they will, but we are going to give the right the greatest defeat ever on this continent, which will be remembered for 500,000 years.

Audience: Applause  ~Hugo Chavez

What is the half-life of nuclear radiation by the way? I'm not sure that it's 500,000 years exactly but surely an Iranian Nuke taking out an American city would be remembered for some time, no?

How about North Korea? Venezuela is seeking to deepen ties with them as well.

The Fifth Columnists

Considering the forum in which Chavez is speaking, with attendees including many anti-war activists and leftists from all over the world including the United States, and considering the fact that the plan to defeat the enemy is to create a global anti-imperialist alliance, including 'social movements' throughout the world, I'd say that it wouldn't be hard to guess who the fifth columnists are supposed to be. 

President Chávez: Ok, I want to insist, I wand to insist, Abel, Ignacio, Blanca, Juana, Cindy, Aleida, Marcelo, Bernard Cassen and everyone of you, I want to insist that there are reasons that we are optimistic, there are reasons, things are happening that five years ago could not have happened, including a movement on the rise within the U.S. that every day gains strength, conscience and unity.

Audience: Applause

President Chávez: Remember Cindy, who began alone in a tent there in Texas. In front of the ranch of Mister Danger she pitched her tent, a tent of hope, of morality.

Audience: Applause  ~Hugo Chavez

Well, at least we know that Chavez picks his enemies well. Who needs powerful or even rational friends when you have powerful and rational enemies right?

The Urgency

I repeat compañeros, compañeras; I think that time is short, I think that there is not much space to maneuver in, I think that there will be nothing beyond the 21st century if we do not change the world’s course in this 21st century, I think that the phrase of Karl Marx is today more valid and dramatic than ever, there is hardly any time left: socialism or death, but real death— of the entire human species and of life on planet earth, because capitalism is destroying the planet, capitalism is destroying life on earth, capitalism is destroying the ecological equilibrium of the planet. The poles are melting, the seas are heating up, the continents are sinking, forests and jungles are being destroyed, rivers and lakes are drying up; the destructive development of the capitalist model is putting an end to life on earth. I believe it’s now or never. ~Hugo Chavez

It is here that he ended his speech and the audience chanted along with him:

[President Chávez:] Socialism or death!

Homeland…!

Audience: …or death!

President Chávez: We will prevail!

Audience: We will prevail!

President Chávez: A Bolivarian and Revolutionary hug to my sisters and brothers of Venezuela and the world.  ~Hugo Chavez

Just talk? The bluster and bravado of a third world military dictator? Perhaps. But in the past dictators have laid out their plans openly before the world and the world ignored them until it was too late. What's more, after 9/11 we can see that even non-state actors can inflict great pain on us on our own soil.

But, so that we realize, and believe me this doesn’t imply any underestimation of the empire, no, the empire is very powerful, but it is not invincible, that empire… just like the FTAA is buried in Mar del Plata… in this century we will bury the U.S. empire. Be sure of it!  ~Hugo Chavez

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 24, 2006 5:07 AM
Comments
Comment #170152

Not that we needed it but more proof that this lunatic needs to be dragged behind the barn. Anyone who has read a single history book, and thinks communism can ever work is too psychotic to live.
I can’t wait till South America starves itself to death while screeching about how its the US’s fault. I can’t wait till the US left agrees that it IS out fault, and again attempts to push it’s rotten unworkable agenda on us, all the while singing “It’s our only hope!”
I’m not too scared of Chavez and his army of lunatics just yet. Like all good commies, they will collapse and perish, so long as the US cuts off ALL aid and trade.
Dig up Alaska, baby!

Posted by: Bob Kelley at July 24, 2006 6:16 AM
Comment #170157

No one should be affraid of this idiot. What we need to do is consinder our immigration policies and block out any of these countries, in our hemisphere, from entering here and deport their illegal citizens swiftly. The only one’s we should be weary of the socialist worms in our government who want to deprive us of our personal fire arms with wich we can defend ourselves, if it comes to it, if this idiot chavez tries to arm his fith column in the U.S.

Posted by: Jesus Anguiano at July 24, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #170167

Well, give the man credit, he is an optimist. In the end, Chavez, along with the rest of the communists, is doomed to fail. He might last longer than others for the simple fact that he has oil, but I doubt it. All that wealth will just be wasted on an “army” that doesn’t have any way to get to us in the first place. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to all of those Cuban doctors he imported about how well Communism runs economies.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 24, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #170174

Eric, your link to Chavez defeating the U.S. is a lie and gross misrepresentation of the video and its presentation. Nothing in Chavez’ words indicated a war against the U.S., or defeating the U.S. His entire rag is aimed at GW Bush, and as a majority of Americans will tell you, GW Bush does not represent America. If you watched the video, which your linked context does not evidence, you know that Chavez is talking about Bush’s “purported” contract on Chavez to have him assasinated.

Quite frankly, if I believed GW Bush targeted me for assasination, I would have some choice words for GW Bush as well. Might want to check your facts before laying claims to links in your articles that aren’t supported by the link itself.

That said, the video offers, to me anyway, a disturbing insight into Chavez’ personality. I can see how the peasantry would like him, and the intelligencia would fear him. His manner of speaking and rhetoric are not dissimilar from Adolph Hitlers. But it was not Hitler’s rhetoric so much that was dangerous, but, his secrecy and actions cloaked in it. Something both Bush and Chavez have in common: action cloaked in secrecy, which is inherently dangerous to a democracy and free people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #170179

I’m trying to figure out the rational that ‘capitalism is destroying the earth’. I believe that many others feel the same way but it just doesn’t make sense to me. Do socialist societies not burn fuel, exhale C02, burn coal, drive cars, etc?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #170182


How come tom delay, the republican parties most respected lawmaker, is using campaign contributions to pay for his legal fees?

How come the republicans worship corruption and war?

Posted by: npr at July 24, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #170184

It’s funny how the republicans are already up to their ears with iraq, iran, afghanistan, n. korea.

Now the republicans want to start a war with Valenzuela?

The G-8 Summit leaders weren’t laughing and mocking at bush and the republicans and their iraqi model democracy for nothing.

Posted by: npr at July 24, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #170183

The above post is reason enough to defeat electorally any politician with this mind-set. Good grief, they never see the threat or danger. Mr. Chavez has said he will appoint himself president for the next 30 years. Kinda resembles Castro, no?

Posted by: nikkolai at July 24, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #170185

the republicans will do anything to start a war.

the republicans have no diplomatic skills.

everyone who doesn’t agree with the republicans is either a liberal or a terrorist.

the republicans are dividers not uniters.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #170186

I lived in E. Europe. In all my travels in the U.S., I never saw anything as bad as an average industrial area in E. Germany or Poland. I hear it was even worse in parts of the Soviet Union or China. Socialism was very bad for the environment. You don’t need a profit motive to destroy things.

Eric

Your title, socialism or death is a little misleading. It is more often socialism AND death.

Chavez is a fool, but since he has oil, he can be a problem. It is like the old Rosanne Barr quip that she was our worst nightmare - white trash with money. She was right. A fool with resources is a nightmare, whether small time like Rosanne Barr or medium time like Chavez.

Posted by: Jack at July 24, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #170189

republicans had resources…

republicans had a budget surplus…

now the republicans have deficit and a never-ending war in iraq…

now the republicans want to start a war with Valenzuela…

now the republicans want to start a war with iran…

the republicans love war…

the republicans are the party of hate.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #170190

Rhinehold,

I’m trying to figure out the rational that “capitalism is destroying the earth”. I believe that many others feel the same way but it just doesn’t make sense to me. Do socialist societies not burn fuel, exhale C02, burn coal, drive cars, etc?

Yes, Chavez is totally missing it.
It should have been “Humankind is destroying the earth”.

Posted by:

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 24, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #170192

Who cares what Chavez says????
The neocons are so anal repentive( thats one step beyond retentive) about this guy and the rest they perceive as ‘threats’.
Every single one of these people are elected….they, like Bush are TEMP EMPLOYEES and need to be treated as such.
Chill.

Posted by: Joe at July 24, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #170193

You referred to Chavez as a dictator. That is facually incorrect. He was elected in an internationally monitored election that included a viable opposition.

Posted by: BillS at July 24, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #170195


Eric, your link to Chavez defeating the U.S. is a lie and gross misrepresentation of the video and its presentation. Nothing in Chavez’ words indicated a war against the U.S., or defeating the U.S. His entire rag is aimed at GW Bush, and as a majority of Americans will tell you, GW Bush does not represent America.

LET’S FACE IT…

the republicans started the invasion and the subsequent occupation in iraq based on WMD’s.

the republicans will do anything to start a war with any nation for any reason …

even if it means lying and misrepresenting the facts

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #170198

Oh no! Someone’s talking shit about Bush! What do we do? Oh no! think… think… think… Oh, I know! BOMB ‘EM! We neocons can’t let that evil (democratically elected) leader blaspheme our supreme god George, whom we know is infallible! Let’s call down fire from heaven (or at least from F-16’s) as Elias did! All hail god George! All hail god George! All hail…

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 24, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #170199

David, I just have to note that there are a couple of things wrong with your reply to Eric.

First, if President Bush does not represent America then who does? Then too there is this at the end of Chavez’ speech, “in this century we will bury the U.S. empire. Be sure of it!” and do not forget the “socialism or death” rant.

All socialist tinhorn dictators believe that they are their country and they believe that is the way it works everywhere. Therefore if it is as you say, a rant against Bush, it is still a rant against the USA; they are not separate entities in Chavez’ mind.

The next problem is your comparison of President Bush to Hitler. Gimmea break! Your reference to secrecy would be laughable were it not so pathetic. We are involved in a global war against terrorism, more accurately against Islamic fascists. Do you think that we should be broadcasting our methods of thwarting them? Moreover, do you actually think that every person in America (and the world) requires that information?

Of course you do, you are a Liberal.

Posted by: JG at July 24, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #170201

Gosh, taking statements out of context and out of the political situation in which they emerge is such fun, isn’t it, Eric.

But it’s a great pastttime:

“Is our children learning?”
“Not all poor people are killers.”

Posted by: Lynne at July 24, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #170202

David,

Every neocon on this blog thinks you are a liberal.

Why?

Because you are not a republican rah rah cheerleader

Go republicans

Your Number One

(legs kicking high up in the air)

Rah Rah Rah

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #170203

Lynne,

Taking statements out of context and out of the political situation in which they emerge is…

…only a republican neocon pasttime.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #170210

tlc,
Are you going to contribute to the debate or just continue with your childish rants? How old are you? 10?

Posted by: traveller at July 24, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #170211
First, if President Bush does not represent America then who does?

Good question. Up until recently there was a disconnect between what people thought of our leaders and what they thought of our people. Today though, our leaders are seen as being much more representitive of Americans themselves. But why?

During the Nazi’s reign over Germany (before you get your panties in a bunch, this is not a comparison of GW with Hitler), the question was asked “where are all the good Germans?” Or something to that effect. The worldview of America’s leadership has suffered greatly under this administration, that is no secret. Up until recently Americans did not question the actions of our government, and those that did were labled un-American. Could it be that those in other countries have been scratching there heads and asking “where are all the good Americans?”


Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #170212
The worldview of America’s leadership has suffered greatly under this administration, that is no secret. Up until recently Americans did not question the actions of our government, and those that did were labled un-American. Could it be that those in other countries have been scratching there heads and asking “where are all the good Americans?”

Err, the US has not been a friend of the world since the last 40s I think… Not since we helped the Britan create Israel and then fought the cold war against Russia, each side interferring with proxies. We were attacked ‘on our soil’ long before George Bush was elected president of the US, I don’t think this administration is ‘the cause’.

(before you get your panties in a bunch, I never said that I was a friend of the administraion in any way, but to lay the blame of decades of ‘anti-americanism’ throughout the world at the feet of George Bush is beyond the pale, IMO).

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #170214
President Chávez: We have to link up all our causes, unity, unity, unity, movements united respecting diversity, respecting the autonomy, no one is planning to impose anything on anyone, only coordination, unity, because if we don’t work together we will never triumph not even if we fight for 500 years, only united can we do it, uniting our moral and intellectual forces, our ideas, our diversity, out physical strength, our social movements, our political movements, our local governments.

Eric,

I have often said that in order for us to win the war on terror, or long war, or whatever they are calling it now a days, we must unite our allies and divide our enemies. No matter what you think of Hugo, he seems to get that concept. The more counties he is able to unite the stronger he will be. There is strength in numbers.

Bush has been dividing our allies and uniting our enemies. We will have a tough road to go, until we have leadership in this country who are able to undertand these basic principles.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #170215

tlc, what do you hope to accomplish by these posts? If your goal is to be persuasive, they fail. Support your position with argumentation, avoid rhetoric designed to inflame, and present yourself as a reasonable person. If you say your tactics are similar to some (not all) on the right, I say “So what?” The tactics you use are ineffective no matter which side uses them.

Posted by: Trent at July 24, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #170216

Ok, I have to make some things very clear to the slow to learn conservatives.

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM!!

On top of it, neither of them is the antonym of democracy. They are the antonym of capitolism!

Also, quit buying the BS, the average liberal person is not a socialist! More of a supporter of capitolism/socialist mix.

Capitolism IS Lazze Faire economics, with a flashier name.

Lazze Faire economics led to every major depression.

You’re all sheep for the ones with the most money.

Economic history shows that to truly have a strong economy we need more of a capitolist/socailist mix of an economic system, with a more democratic electoral system.

Look at the big picture! Educate yourself! (not with propaganda)

Also, I’d really hate to have to point this out to you but, LIBERALS DO NOT RUN THE SHOW! Now, there are more liberals in education, but that is because as people become more educated they become more liberal.

That’s right, it’s no coincidence the backwater areas of our country are the conservative strongholds, while the cultural/industrial areas are the liberal strongholds.

And quite frankly, you would have to be a fool if you believe the majority of news stations are liberal biased!

Sad part is, you probably still won’t get it.

Posted by: Metacom at July 24, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #170217
Lazze Faire economics led to every major depression.LOL, you don’t believe this, do you? Mind attempting to back up that statement?

Make sure to include how the ‘world depressions’ of the 1920/30s were caused by lazze faire economics, even on those countries that weren’t using it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #170219

Oh yea, got so caught up in a rant I forgot to discuss the article.

Sure Hugo Chaves isn’t the greatest person but neither is virtually any other world leader. You only hate him more because he is a socialist.

Quite frankly, I’d say a lot of his perceptions are legitamate. After all, we are imperialist and have become far more so under Dubya.

Not to mention, how many democratically socialist leaders in Central/south america were wacked? How many elections were fudged by us?

His fears are fairly legtimate. He is being a bit eccentric. But so is Bush and the rest of the neocons with their “there’s a terrorist around every corner approach”

Just different eccentric attitude being used for political gain. Sadly, they’re both working.

Hate to say it but if you think they need to be bombed or their leader needs to be wacked because of it, than your own logic tells us we need the same.

Posted by: Metacom at July 24, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #170222

Btw, Metacom, from Wikipedia…

Most economists, such as Nobel prize-winner Milton Friedman, argue that by the time of the Great Depression, significant government economic regulation had already taken place and that it was a combination of Federal Reserve policies and interventionist policies by the Herbert Hoover administration (such as raising income taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%, a “check tax,” and the Smoot-Hawley tariff which set off a protectionist world trade war) caused the Depression, by creating an environment in which the market depended upon the government to act, and then attempting to remedy the situation by further interventions.

So basically, it is the government, and specifically Hoover and the Federal Reserve, along with a world trade war (coupled with a market crash at a time when there were no market protections as their are today) that caused the great Depression.

We unfortunately had already started the sad decline from a free market economy long before the depression, it is most likely that it wouldn’t have been as ‘great’ or as long had we not have abandoned it in the first place. And the partial reaquisition of those principles after WWII helped make the US as strong as it is today.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #170227

Metacom - Bravo!

Posted by: DOC at July 24, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #170228

Metacom,

One more thought.

In order for the US to not be ‘imperalist’ we must cut all aid to all other countries. That is how people assert the US are imperalists, by influencing other countries through economic power (not through territorial acquisition).

So, are up for supporting the elimination of all foreign aid and support?

And before you say ‘well, we could have some…’ remember, this is government we are talking about. Don’t forget The Seven Vital Principles of Government.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #170229

Do you think Hugo Chavez will (ever) marry Cindy Sheehan?!

Posted by: rahdigly at July 24, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #170234

“That’s right, it’s no coincidence the backwater areas of our country are the conservative strongholds, while the cultural/industrial areas are the liberal strongholds”

It’s also no coincidence that the “backwater areas of our country,” can take care of themselves and the “cultural/industrial areas” are dependent on govt to survive.

So, which “education” will be of more help when the liberals neo-con induced doomsday comes?
The cultural/industrial education that teaches one how to stand nicely in line and wait for your handout?
OR
The backwater education that teaches you how to survive on your own?

Socialsim or Death?
Death wins everytime!

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #170236

My advice is to get some agents infiltrating his government, and find out

a)How serious he is. (If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be the first paper tiger who roared to impress others)

and of course

b)how capable he was of actually carrying out serious intentions, should he have them.

That is how you discern real threats from imaginary ones.

I think we can look at Eric Simonson’s post and discern the sad legacy of Dick Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine. Anything is possible, and everything that’s possible must be treated as certainty. Unfortunately, the plain fact is most possibilities are bullshit, which our creative minds are more than able to weave unlikely scenarios that have the ring of plausibility to true believers.

And then where does that leave us? It leaves us trying to support practical efforts in terms of B.S., justified by B.S. that only the administration believes.

Chavez may be stupid enough to make himself a threat. If so, then we get evidence of his activities to demonstrate that to the world community, and we gain cooperation in terms of responding to Venezuela. We respond in such a way to make it clear whose fault this fight is, and that we’re not the ones who started it. We don’t make the strategic mistake of waging preventative wars we can’t justify after the fact, on the facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #170239

Sometimes, after a long day, I will lie in bed and think of the president, the hard choices he has had to make and I feel so good knowing that he was the man for this time in our history. Then I think about people of tlc and metalcom’s ilk, and how miserable they are and get another happy boost.
When did the lunatic left gain so much power from the democrat party?
Metalcom- We are trying to run a country here. I’m not real concerned with Hugo’s feelings when he makes statements that could be seen as threats to our way of life.

Posted by: andy at July 24, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #170242

Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism.

Earl Warren

Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #170244

kctim-
You can get away with not depending on government if you’re willing to give up on all the complexity that makes modern life possible, and livable. When a chemical leak can wipe out or injure thousands, when a business or bank collapse can destroy the wealth of millions and plunge our economy into recession, when one meat plant’s bad beef can infect hundreds with E. Coli, and when the side effects of one drug can cause illness and death for thousands, the safeguards of regulations insure that these incidents are the exception not the rule.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #170245

traveller, you have a large number of comments here which comply with our Rules of Participation. Your comment asking tlc’s age however does not comply. Please continue to observe our Rules for Participation, in order to continue to participate.

Thanks,

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 24, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #170246
He [Jesus] accompanied me in difficult times, in crucial moments. So Jesus Christ is no doubt a historical figure — he was someone who rebelled, an anti-imperialist guy. He confronted the Roman Empire…. Because who might think that Jesus was a capitalist? No. Judas was the capitalist, for taking the coins! Christ was a revolutionary. He confronted the religious hierarchies. He confronted the economic power of the time. He preferred death in the defense of his humanistic ideals, who fostered change…. He is our Jesus Christ.”
Hugo Chávez, untitled speech delivered at the Latino Pastoral Action Center in Bronx, New York City. Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #170247
It’s also no coincidence that the “backwater areas of our country,” can take care of themselves and the “cultural/industrial areas” are dependent on govt to survive.

kctim,

Actually, the govt is dependent on the “cultural/ industrial areas” since they make up over 2/3 of the tax base. Without the “cultural/ industrial areas” there wouldn’t be enough revenue to support the “backwater areas of our country”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #170248

andy-
Conservatism is dead, if Bush is its defining figure. What do you say to his chronic record deficits, his out of control spending, his creative reinterpretations of the constitution, which now even the American Bar Association is complaining about? What do you say to a man who uses the Federal government to interfere in state cases, and who advocates aggressive military adventurism instead of a prudent defense?

Conservatism has become defined more by what it opposes than what it represents, and as such it has mutated beyond all recognition. What we have here is just a cult of personality for your leaders, for Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #170250

Dave1, apropos’ quote. kctim’s comments turn a blind eye to millions served in the Appalachian outback by the Tenn. Valley Authority, a huge socialized project bringing them electricity and into the 20th century.

his comments turn a blind eye to the fact that our entire military is a socialist program, collecting taxes from those backwater individuals who hate taxes for the nation’s common defense.

his comments turn a blind eye, as many conservatives do, to the fact that our Congress is socialist organization which takes money from all to pay themselves for telling them what they can and can’t do.

many conservatives, if they were to open eyes to these facts, would be forced to accept that all that is socialist is not evil, and all that is evil is not socialist. Socialized programs like public education, dams, highways, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and a host of others are what took the U.S. from being up and coming nation with potential to the greatest economic entity in the world with the largest middle class democracy, in just under 60 years.

Ideology is blinding to facts and truth that stand right before one, unquestioned, unexamined, and unseen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #170252

Andy your comment below:

Then I think about people of tlc and metalcom’s ilk, and how miserable they are and get another happy boost. When did the lunatic left gain so much power from the democrat party?

does not comply with our rules for participation. Please comply or lose your privilege to comment here.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 24, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #170253

Reagan is the defining figure. He would be a better president today but that is not possible so you take the next best thing. One of my, and many others, first thoughts on 9/11 was thank god for 2000 the election results. Reagan thwarted the threat of communism, he didn’t have time to take on terrorism effectively. Clinton swept it under the rug, trying to keep it from becoming too visible to us. Bush has aggresively gone after radicals that threaten our way of life. You might not like his choices but I would rather fight it out now than 25-50 years from now when nuclear weapons are sold over the counter.
Is spending high, yes we are at war. The deficit is high but the rates were so low every sucessful business was borrowing, and anyway deficits are complex and Reagan proved don’t mean a lot (most every country owes us).

Posted by: andy at July 24, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #170256

David,

There is a difference between socialism, social liberalism and economic liberalism.

Even the staunches economic liberalist (read:libertarian) will tell you that while freedom comes from respecting privite property rights and negative rights (non-agression) there is a basic necessity for government control of some aspects of our internal resources (ie, roads and dams). We might disagree on the level of necessity but there is some at a minimum.

social liberalists (read:progressives) will tell you that everything is a basic right (education, health, transportation, etc) or in other words ‘positivie’ rights.

Socialism on the ‘other’ hand is simply something we don’t have here and never will. While socialism and progressive philosophies have some similarities (and many groups have combined efforts in the past much as groups like the green party are combining with progressives in the US today) that doesn’t mean they are the same thing, so in trying to say that we have are ‘somewhat’ socialist really just muddies the waters, don’t you think?

Socialism is evil because in order to exist it must use the force of the gun and deny the citizen their negative right to life. Progressives aren’t ‘evil’ in that regard, but they still do support the use of force of the gun to deny the citizen their negative right to private property and non-agression in order to exist.

What we have now as a political process is how much we are willing to give up our negative rights in order to obtain positive rights, all the while ignoring the sad result that while temporary benefits might exist in that arena, the long term harm it does to a society (safety net, disappearing of self-sufficiency, class warfare and divisionary tactics) is not worth the short term gain of using personal wealth gained by force to fund good-meaning charities.

These people aren’t found ‘treasure chests’ to be plundered, they are the driving force behind the economy whether we like it or not. By putting ourselves above them instead of demanding to be treated equally to them we only further the split between the haves and have-nots, not in wealth but in spirt and belonging.

And going back to your ‘60 years’, during this time up until present day the economic disparagy between the haves and have nots has increased. All the while we had a system in place that we are told will eliminate this.

My contention of course is that the fighting for positive rights (progressive) is abhorant in that in order to accomplish even one of these rights you must violate negative rights in order to do so. And each violation weakens and harmes the very notion of freedom.

We are no longer free in the US because of these programs. In every aspect of our lives we are told what we can and can’t do, all because our government has established those positive rights for us. Much like the loan shark who provides you money, which you initially need and were glad to have (and most likely strengthened your position at that time) come with a heavy long term cost that you don’t calculate until it is too late to get out of the deal. Now that most americans can and do vote simply to vote for what they can get out of the government kitty there is no question that this great and powerful country that we have built will surely spiral into entropy until it no longer resembles the ideal of a free republic, like it once did.

Many say that it is already beyond that point. I still think there is time to turn the ship around.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #170262
Socialism is evil because in order to exist it must use the force of the gun and deny the citizen their negative right to life. Progressives aren’t ‘evil’ in that regard, but they still do support the use of force of the gun to deny the citizen their negative right to private property and non-agression in order to exist.
Rhinehold, I have absolutely no idea how your definitions and analogies support this proposition.


Reagan is the defining figure. He would be a better president today but that is not possible so you take the next best thing
Andy, Ronnie was awful. The first good thing he did was that right after his giant tax cut and deficit explosion he raised taxes more than anyone before, ever, to pay for the screw up. Unlike this Bush, who’s doesn’t even know he screwed up.


Editor, Sorry for the “lie down” bait. It was too easy to ignore.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #170263

To all Democratic/liberal posters.

What would you as an individual, or as a party, see as a current very real threat to US security?

What events/circumstances would lead you or your party to consider war as necessary?

Does the consistent spread of socialism within our southern hemispere not bother you in the least?

Do you really believe Chavez was elected fairly?

Was he elected under the same circumstances as Saddam?

When is a perceived threat important enough to warrent attention?

Are we to withdraw from the world around us, hunker down and hope our enemies will leave us alone?

How does one use diplomacy with an individual or State that has declared the US an enemy already?

Why? When? Where? How? Would you or your party decide which threat is imminent, which far off, which to ignore?

Is our representative republic, famous for it’s experiment in democracy and individual freedoms, worth fighting for?

For the sake of peace at any price, would you abandon our allies in the world?

Do you understand world history? Comprehend the enormous task that faces the US from all points on the globe?

Would you agree or disagree with Patrick Henry’s understanding of freedom?

“Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”…
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!… What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Yeah, I know - I’m a hater, a warmonger.
But your insinuations aside, I’m a patriot first and formost.
Forget your/OUR American history, world history, and regret will be your lot in life.


Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #170265

“Actually, the govt is dependent on the “cultural/ industrial areas” since they make up over 2/3 of the tax base. Without the “cultural/ industrial areas” there wouldn’t be enough revenue to support the “backwater areas of our country””

JJ, no doubt the “industrial” areas make up a large part of revenue. That is not what was being said.
Metacom basically said the dumb rural hicks vote conservative and the elite urban snobs vote liberal.
I say that knowledge is in the eye of the beholder. With your example above, a good “textbook” education will help one through life. Without the big brother govt we have though, “real life” education will help those who take care of themselves and the drones will be standing in soup lines.

David
Blind eye?
The people in the Appa Mtns could and have survived without electricity. When power outages occur there, the people cope. What happens when a major power outage hits a major city? Riots, looting and panic.

Our military is a socialist program? Call it what you want, the defense of our country IS in the Constitution and unlike SS or welfare, people have no right to complain about paying taxes to support it.

“his comments turn a blind eye, as many conservatives do, to the fact that our Congress is socialist organization which takes money from all to pay themselves for telling them what they can and can’t do.”

Which is why we are going down the drain as a country. The Constitution is what used to tell us what the GOVT could and could not do, now, it is the people who are told what they can and cannot do.

“many conservatives, if they were to open eyes to these facts, would be forced to accept that all that is socialist is not evil, and all that is evil is not socialist.”

The majority of conservatives have been brainwashed and DO agree with you on this. People have given up their rights as individuals and now are servants of the govt.

“Socialized programs like public education, dams, highways, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and a host of others are what took the U.S. from being up and coming nation with potential to the greatest economic entity in the world with the largest middle class democracy, in just under 60 years.”

All are good programs David and I doubt too many people would argue with them in principle. It is the FACT that our freedom to choose has been stripped from us which pisses people off. Other than highways, which some could take as postal roads if they wanted, NONE of the others should be involuntary.

“Ideology is blinding to facts and truth that stand right before one, unquestioned, unexamined, and unseen”

Believing govt is the ONLY answer to everything for everybody is also an ideology David.
My believing in freedom and our rights at all costs is no different than you believing everybody would be poor, living in the streets and dying if not for the govt.
The only difference between our ideologies is that mine is supported by what made our country great, the Constitution.

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #170266

It is always interesting that the USA is the “evil” empire but why is it that the whole world always has its hands out for financial support from the USA??? If we are so evil then they don’t need our money.

Posted by: WRA at July 24, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #170267
Socialism is evil because in order to exist it must use the force of the gun and deny the citizen their negative right to life. Progressives aren�t �evil� in that regard, but they still do support the use of force of the gun to deny the citizen their negative right to private property and non-agression in order to exist.
Rhinehold, I have absolutely no idea how your definitions and analogies support this proposition.

Which proposition, that Progressives support positive rights, those rights that are not just tied to ‘let me do as I want as long as I don’t interefere with anyone else (negative rights)’ and by doing so inheritely they subscribe to the voilation of those negative rights?

First, some definitions:

a positive right imposes an obligation on others and the state to do certain things, while a negative right merely obliges others and the state to refrain from certain activities.

Negative rights are usually characterised as civil or political in nature and held to include such rights as the right to freedom of speech, property, habeas corpus, freedom from violent crime, freedom of worship, a fair trial, freedom from slavery and, in the United States, the right to bear arms.

Positive rights are characterised as social or economic and held to include rights such as the right to education, health care, social security or a minimum standard of living.

In order to enforce these Positive rights, however, one must violate the Negative rights of individuals, primarily by taking their property from them by force or, in extreme cases, their lives. By using the power of force that the government alone can wield to ensure these ‘rights’ are applied, we must by definition voilate these other ‘negative’ rights to do so.

This is the main difference between Social Liberalism (Progressives) and Economic Liberalism (Libertarians). We both started from the same point but the social liberals of today have become an enemy to freedom, not it’s champion, by redefining goals and needs into rights and using those rights as a tool for political power and class warfare, violating other rights of citizens to their personal freedom.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #170268

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty

Conservatism is dead, if Bush is its defining figure. What do you say to his chronic record deficits, his out of control spending, his creative reinterpretations of the constitution, which now even the American Bar Association is complaining about? What do you say to a man who uses the Federal government to interfere in state cases, and who advocates aggressive military adventurism instead of a prudent defense?

Conservatism has become defined more by what it opposes than what it represents, and as such it has mutated beyond all recognition. What we have here is just a cult of personality for your leaders, for Bush.

Bush has never defined conservatism, nor has he ever been a conservative. For someone who seems to know some things, you are in LEFT field on this one. Chronic record deficits? As a percentage of GDP, the deficits are much less than “record”
Creative reinterpretations of the constitution?
What politician ever did not interpret the constitution? What does the Supreme Court exist for? Are you serious? Aggressive adventurism in the military? I guess the Israeli preemptive strike that wiped out the armies poised to attack it was ‘adventurism’ Our army is at the call of our commander in chief. just like it was in Bosnia. (We are still there in case you did not know) In case you did not know we are at war with the radical muslim world. It won’t end soon, they started it, we will finish it.

Maybe your definition of Conservatism fits all of your preconceived notions. Thinking people have always know that Bush is not, nor has he ever been a conservative. He may have pretended to be one just as Clinton pretended to be a moderate. That changes nothing does it?


The Federal government interferes in state law constantly. Should I explain the balance of power to you? It all starts with three branches of government……………

Posted by: Libertarian3 at July 24, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #170271

kctim

Bravo. Personal responsiblilty is what moved this country from colony to freedom, from one side of the Appalachian mountains to the Pacific ocean. Frontiersman/settlers avoided government intervention because they well feared the impact such agencies would have on personal liberty.

Once a government program becomes the molder of personal choices, the driving force of individual actions and activity, that government program becomes the individual, and what was once a free man exercising individual liberty is now an indentured servant whose livelyhood is a mandated set of stipulations by which he can obtain that which he once gained on his own, through the good graces of bureaucracy and bureaucrats. No thanks!

Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #170275

managing editor,

how come commentators like traveller and andy have to resort to attacks against other poster because they disagree with their comments?

do you think it is because they are so brainwashed by the right that they cannot argue the facts.

i have been called names here on this blog and i’m not a liberal.

yet the so-called neocons who think they are carrying a mature debate about the issues seem to believe that it is me who isn’t posting arguments that are debatable.

do you think it is because they do not have the debate skills to match my comments?

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #170276

Stephen-

Even you know that your “if” is not true. Bush has never been conservative about anything.

Read Buckley’s comments at CBS.

Neocons and conservatives come together on the issue of a strong national defense; that’s the source of Bush’s conservative support. Once you move away from that issue support for his “compassionate conservatism” dwindles substantially because it is too evasive.

Without Iraq even Kerry would have won 2004 (assuming there could be no GOP primary challenger). And remember the neocons were mostly Democrats pre Reagan….


Posted by: George in SC at July 24, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #170278

managing editor,

some of the commentors here like to ask unsupported and open-ended questions that I don’t feel need to be addressed because of the ambiguous nature of their inquiry…

i don’t remember reading in the rules of participation that it is required of me to address these presumptuous, unsupported and open-ended questions…

if i don’t answer these questions from these suspicious commentators will i be in violation of the rules of participation?

some blogs allow you to post your positions and the responses are usually focused on the message and not the commentator…

i observe that biased conservative leaning commentators here on this blog have a tendency to attack the other commentators simply because they post comments that do not promote positive republican propoganda.

anyway, that is my observation about the nature of the regular conservative commentators on this blog.

if you don’t believe me the blog archive will speak for itself.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #170279

tlc

What names today? Yesterday? You claim the “right” won’t debate you, yet I asked you pointed questions for the last 2 days, where are your answers?

Making comments with no factual or evidentiary documentation is not debate, it’s a rant.

If, like you have done over the last 2-3 days, your aim is to make accusations, put out one liners and dither on this blog, then why bother?

Make your case, show us some evidence or historical basis for your claims and open it up for all to agree, disagree or ignore. Please?

Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #170280

Rhinehold, thanks for the reply. I have to take issue with many of your points.

First, your comment attempts to redefine socialist programs in order to make your argument. It’s rather like a light skinned African American defining themself as Scandanavian. Socialist programs range from exacting taxes from all to transfer the wealth to a few, to state ownership of a nation’s resources. America has a very large number of examples of both. By definition, these are socialist programs.

Now you can argue legitimately that we are not a pure socialist nation, and that the degree of our socialism in this mixed economy varies. But, you cannot on the one hand declare Social Security or Medicare a more socialized form of program than our military. People have no choice in whether their taxes go to the military or not, anymore than they have a choice as to whether FICA taxes will benefit the indigent or not.

Semantics cannot hide the fundamental definition of socialism nor programs born of its idea, that nations must rely upon extracting funding from all in order to pay a few, to provide services or goods for the benefit of the nation and all concerned. This applies to our military as much as to Medicare.

There are those who would argue money spent on the military today harms our nation and people by attracting terrorist attention to our people. There are those who would argue that poor people should have worked harder to save more to provide for their own private medical care rather than rely on government when their health needs exceed their resources. In a democracy, we can argue all day long about who should benefit from what government spending and social programs, and we do. But, this in no way, negates the fact that we are a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism and have been since the 1930’s, which saw our nations’s rise in status to what it is today.

I would argue, right along with you that the mix is way out of whack at this point and is jeopardizing our future. But the mix is only part of our future’s problem. Our politics, education, and cultural divides are all threatening our future as well.

And going back to your ‘60 years’, during this time up until present day the economic disparagy between the haves and have nots has increased. All the while we had a system in place that we are told will eliminate this.

That is historically and factually completely wrong, Rhinehold. We have fewer poor folks as a percentage of the total population than in any previous decades dating back to the great depression. The Middle Class is larger today than at any previous time in the 20th century. Thanks to the TVA, Soc. Sec., and our highway systems, and job retraining programs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and public education system and host of other programs which assisted Americans in reaching the American Dream of middle class.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #170281

tlc, your comments about other commenters violate our policy. Discuss what they write, not who they are for writing them. Critique the Message, Not the Messengers. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 24, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #170284
Once a government program becomes the molder of personal choices, the driving force of individual actions and activity, that government program becomes the individual, and what was once a free man exercising individual liberty is now an indentured servant whose livelyhood is a mandated set of stipulations by which he can obtain that which he once gained on his own, through the good graces of bureaucracy and bureaucrats. No thanks!

JR,

Finally, something we can agree on! The above is exactly why I will not vote for a conservative Republican. Until the Republicans can recongnize individual liberty and personal responsibility they are not even a viable choice for me.

Why do they think that I am not smart enough to take personal resposiblity for whom I marry? Why aren’t people personally responsible enough to decide when and how they want to die? Why do conservatives think it is ok to can control other people’s bodies? If someone wants to make money through sex they should be given that personal responsibility. Why do conservatives think they know what is best for me to look at? Why do conservatives think it is ok to tell me what I cannot do with my money? If I want to gamble it away, then that is my responsibility. How dare they restrict online gambling. Don’t they believe in personal responsibility and individual liberty at all?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #170286

JayJay
“Until the Republicans can recongnize individual liberty and personal responsibility they are not even a viable choice for me”

That also eliminates the Democrats.
You going 3rd Party on us JJ?

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #170290

Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 02:51 PM
To all Democratic/liberal posters.

What would you as an individual, or as a party, see as a current very real threat to US security?American proto-fascism, NK, islamofascism, christalibanism

What events/circumstances would lead you or your party to consider war as necessary?A clear and present danger to the territorial integrity and safety of the US and its citizens

Does the consistent spread of socialism within our southern hemispere not bother you in the least?No

Do you really believe Chavez was elected fairly?Yes

Was he elected under the same circumstances as Saddam?No

When is a perceived threat important enough to warrent attention?All threats, real or otherwise, demand attention. None have required a preemptive invasion

Are we to withdraw from the world around us, hunker down and hope our enemies will leave us alone?No, but we don’t have to go kill everyone who we don’t like or doesn’t like us either

How does one use diplomacy with an individual or State that has declared the US an enemy already?Peacefully

Why? When? Where? How? Would you or your party decide which threat is imminent, which far off, which to ignore?Rationally. Not rhetorically, or with the politics of hate, prejudice, and fear.

Is our representative republic, famous for it’s experiment in democracy and individual freedoms, worth fighting for?Yes

For the sake of peace at any price, would you abandon our allies in the world?That is a BS loaded question. How could abandoning our allies ensure an enduring worldwide peace?

Do you understand world history? Comprehend the enormous task that faces the US from all points on the globe?A lot better than most conservatives I’ve heard from here, or anywhere

Would you agree or disagree with Patrick Henry’s understanding of freedom?You mean would I agree with the colonialists reaction to British oppresion? Yes. Unfortunately, the same argument is being made by the Iraqi insurgency.

“Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”…
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!… What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Yeah, I know - I’m a hater, a warmonger.
But your insinuations aside, I’m a patriot first and formost. Prove it. You have a right to disagree with what I say yet would you be willing to die in defending my right to say it???

Forget your/OUR American history, world history, and regret will be your lot in life. Good advice. Now let’s keep learning about that history and actually learn from the mistakes


Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #170292

David,

Eric, your link to Chavez defeating the U.S. is a lie and gross misrepresentation of the video and its presentation. Nothing in Chavez’ words indicated a war against the U.S., or defeating the U.S. His entire rag is aimed at GW Bush, and as a majority of Americans will tell you, GW Bush does not represent America. If you watched the video, which your linked context does not evidence, you know that Chavez is talking about Bush’s “purported” contract on Chavez to have him assasinated.

The link to the video is only to provide more context to the post David. The words of Chevez from the post itself are from a different speech he gave to the World Social Forum. They are his words entirely.

The video is not from the World Social Forum but from one of the Daily broadcasts of the President’s TV show. Did I say daily? Telesur, the government owned media channel broadcasts Chavez’s hours long rants such as the example I provided. Government controlled media.

Did you know that our beloved democratically elected dictator (he is my favorite at the moment) attempted two coups himself in 1990 or so? Some people died in each attempt, but then you can’t bring about utopia without breaking a few eggs can we?

This is part of what is wrong with the ‘Bush ordered my assasination and is behind the coup to overthrow me’ propaganda on the part of Chavez. He himself first attempted to take over Venezuela by force- twice!

He does in fact have dedicated opposition in Venezuela and many of those people have already been arrested one by one and put on trial. Cuba is a good model for Chavez I suppose.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 24, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #170293

kctim,

I would love to be able to call myself a libertarian (which I am on social issues), unfortunatly they are way too far to the right on fiscal issues.

I think as a compassionate wealthy society we should be able to offer a certain level of living condition to all our citizens.

I also believe that all of society benefits from a well educated, healthy population. I have no problem paying higher taxes to provide such services. I simply look at as paying my dues to live in such a great country.

I think if we want tax cuts, the place to start is streamlining the federal government. How much money is wasted just because the buracracy is so complicated? How much money is lost through duplicate and wasteful programs? How much tax revenue is lost because individuals and corporations exploit an outrageously complicated tax code?

This is where you will save money, a simplified tax code, and a streamlined government. I think we can realize a substantial savings even without cutting our level of service.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #170294

This is a fun one too David. In this video Chavez calls Mr. Danger a Donkey! He also calls Condi Rice a ‘birdie’ I think.

“You are a donkey, Mr. Danger… and you are ignorant…”

As always I will be looking for more episodes of Hugo’s tv show, so if anyone comes across more, please, do tell.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 24, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #170295

jack,

Your title, socialism or death is a little misleading. It is more often socialism AND death.
You are absolutely correct. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop for Chavez at some point. At least we live in interesting times eh? Posted by: eric simonson at July 24, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #170298

lynne,

Gosh, taking statements out of context and out of the political situation in which they emerge is such fun, isn’t it, Eric.

Please elaborate.


JayJay,

The worldview of America’s leadership has suffered greatly under this administration, that is no secret. Up until recently Americans did not question the actions of our government, and those that did were labled un-American. Could it be that those in other countries have been scratching there heads and asking “where are all the good Americans?”

This depends on what they’re being fed by their state controlled media. When you actually take a look at what the anti-american opinion thinks would be a ‘good American’ it actually looks like socialism. There are many reasons for this but the rest of the world is much further to the left of the US. If what you are saying is that we should be more left in order to be more loved I certainly wouldn’t agree.

The fallacy contained in your premise is that the judgement of the world is correct. Perhaps it isn’t.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 24, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #170301

eric,

I never said that the judgement of the world was correct. I was commenting on a post that asked if President Bush doesn’t represent America then who does? We are talking about perceptions here. The perception of America’s leaders has long differed from the perception of the American people as a whole. That was my only premise.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #170302

Dave1

Lets see, you throw around the tired old fascist american, theocracy nonsense. Let people sell themselves for sex, promote pornography and allow the killing of babies to show how really interested I am in liberty? No thanks.

Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth, why should a majority population in the US ignore our own to avoid, promote or endorse things we find unacceptable. Personal choice to die as you like? Who will enforce that right? Government? Judiciary? That’s a problem. The Shiavo death was a way to open up the nations eyes, plan ahead, establish your wishes in writing and pull the plug as you desire. A judge making the decision without such documentation should choose life first, death as a last resort.

I never said abandon allies to ensure lasting world peace, I said for the sake of peace at any price. The contention from critics around the world is that by abandoning Israel, the US would gain some relief from Israels terrorist enemies. Should we? How about Taiwan? S. Korea?

Deal with stated enemies peacefully? Kinda like Neville Chamberlain?

No preemptive attacks on enemies, what if we had attacked UBL and the Taliban prior to 9/11 - It wouldn’t have happened and we would have been charged with a none essential preemtive strike. The idea is to avoid being killed, not wait to die then do something about it.

I would die for America, defend the constitution and my family, yes. If however, as a citizen you use our freedoms to undermine the US or engage in subtrifuge, I would not be defending you with my life, your actions would not leave you as one worth defense.

What about world history do you understand most?
That defense of liberty is defense for all, or that waiting for an attack is suicide? And you really believe Chavez was elected with no Dictatorial power being wielded?

I respect your opinion, it’s why I read this blog. But being labled as hateful for wanting an end to terrorism, being called a christiban because my mores are different than yours, or tagged as fascist simply for disagreeing with the left gets real old, real fast. Let’s debate and leave the namecalling to the elementary school kids, OK?

Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #170303
I would love to be able to call myself a libertarian (which I am on social issues), unfortunatly they are way too far to the right on fiscal issues.

JayJay, which party most closely resembles your views though? Many libertarians would like to see the private sector brought in to take care of these services you say we should provice, I don’t think anyone is saying we shouldn’t eduate our children. It’s how we go about it that we disagee with.

And most of us are only as strict libertarian as you suggest at the federal level. Perhaps even the state. We understand that if a local community decides to provide these services that’s their business, it’s much less ‘forced’ at that point since someone could move away from the community if they don’t agree without having to give up the great american ideals and protection of our basic rights.

Much as it seems the constitution was written to allow for.

There are a few ‘anarchists’ that have attached themselves to the party but there are also full blown socialists in the democratic party and fascists in the republican party, don’t be put off by the fringe whackjobs, they exist everywhere, in the minorty.

Really, I don’t think you’re that far from most libertarians, and much closer to us than what the DEMS and REPUBS have proven they are about, ie, increased and expanded government at the cost of personal liberty and freedom just for the ability to gain/expand their powerbase.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #170304

Eric, Chavez is a dangerous leader. Both because of the ignorance of his peasantry in world history, as well as his own value - himself - which he appears to place above all else, by his own words.

But, when you say, “This is part of what is wrong with the ‘Bush ordered my assasination and is behind the coup to overthrow me’ propaganda on the part of Chavez. He himself first attempted to take over Venezuela by force- twice!” … I have to ask would Chavez’ actions justify Bush’s assasination attempts on Chavez? Has our own history not taught us that overthrowing regimes and assasinating leaders almost never gets us the outcome we sought? If Chavez is your standard of what is right and wrong in policy, I have to question the standard.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #170308

I have a few questions to ask the loyal republicans.

Why is Iraq a mess?

Why did we invade Iraq?

Was it because of WMD’s?

Was the WMD’s a lie?

Why are soldiers sent to die based on faulty intelligence?

Why do the republicans continue to support an agenda of War?

Why do the republicans always find ways to glorify war?

When a any America shows any dissent towards the republican war agenda, why are they labelled as unpatriotic?

Isn’t dissent patriotic?

Wasn’t the dissent of the British the foundation of America?

Why does it seem that non-republicans can only support an agenda of war and anyone who disagrees with them are lunatic liberals?

When will the republicans realize that war doesn’t bring about peace it only brings about war?

There are a lot of liberal blogs on the internet, why are they so absorbed with the issues?

This blog is attached to a liberal blog and an independent blog, why is this blog so full of hate?

Doesn’t the “Why I hate liberals” post violate Rules of Participation?

So much hate on this blog…

yet, there are commentators here who seem to think I am the one with hate?

The liberal blog has a “Why I love Conservatives” post.

The liberals are the ones with the reputation of being open minded and unafraid of dissent.

I wonder why that is?

The republicans have the reputation of calling anyone who is in dissent a traitor.

Valerie Plame was outed because her husband disagreed with the WMD’s, and he was right.

There were no WMD’s.

Why doesn’t anyone on this blog talk about Iraq?

Is it because it is a failed policy?

Why was bush mocked and laughed at when he suggested that Russia should follow the iraqi model of democracy the republicans unilaterally implemented?

Why did bush and the republicans try to nation build in iraqi without multi-lateral support?

Is America safer because Iraq is a quagmire?

Is the World safer because Iraq is a quagmire?

Why is bush and the republicans so incompetent when it comes to international affairs?

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #170309
Lets see, you throw around the tired old fascist american, theocracy nonsense. Let people sell themselves for sex, promote pornography and allow the killing of babies to show how really interested I am in liberty? No thanks.

Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth, why should a majority population in the US ignore our own to avoid, promote or endorse things we find unacceptable. Personal choice to die as you like? Who will enforce that right? Government? Judiciary? That’s a problem. The Shiavo death was a way to open up the nations eyes, plan ahead, establish your wishes in writing and pull the plug as you desire. A judge making the decision without such documentation should choose life first, death as a last resort.

JR,

I believe this section should have been directed at me. Anyway, why is it nonsense? Because you say it is? Why are my moral values any of your business or the governments? If I want to bring a hooker into the privacy of my own home, why do you think you get a say in that? If I have a dibilitating disease and want to use the services of Dr. Kovorkian why does the government get to say I can’t? If I want to get married and raise a family, what business is it of yours if we are both the same sex? If I want to sit in my bedroom and look at adult magazines or videos, who are you to say I can’t? If I want to blow a weeks paycheck on internet gambling, why can’t I?

BTW, I never said anything about abortion nor the Shiavo case.

BTW also, exactly what personal responsibilities and individual liberties have liberals restricted? You have to show ID and wait 5 days to buy a gun? You have to wear a seat belt? You have to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? No, tell me some restrictions that liberals have put in place that severly limit your personal liberty and responsibilities.

Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth, why should a majority population in the US ignore our own to avoid, promote or endorse things we find unacceptable.

You don’t find people dying everyday because they cannot afford medical treatment unacceptable? You think it is acceptable to allow people to starve to death in the streets? You think it is acceptable for a family to lose their home becuase their job was shipped overseas? You think it is acceptable to leave an entire city to fend for itself following the biggest natural disaster this country has seen? Aren’t these things social mores too?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #170314

Dave1

Lets see, you throw around the tired old fascist american, theocracy nonsense.
You asked my opinion, you got it. yet, apparently my opinion is “nonsense”. BTW: Read John Deans new book “Conservatives Without Conscience”.
Let people sell themselves for sex, promote pornography and allow the killing of babies to show how really interested I am in liberty? No thanks Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth, why should a majority population in the US ignore our own to avoid, promote or endorse things we find unacceptable. Personal choice to die as you like? Who will enforce that right? Government? Judiciary? That’s a problem. The Shiavo death was a way to open up the nations eyes, plan ahead, establish your wishes in writing and pull the plug as you desire. A judge making the decision without such documentation should choose life first, death as a last resort..
Where was that discussed? Deciding to base American law on religious laws and beliefs is another thread. But, of course, you and JayJay can discuss it anywhere all you like.
I never said abandon allies to ensure lasting world peace, I said for the sake of peace at any price. The contention from critics around the world is that by abandoning Israel, the US would gain some relief from Israels terrorist enemies. Should we? How about Taiwan? S. Korea?
You said “peace at any price”, not “abandon a friendly democracy for some pie-in-the-sky hope of ending terrorism”.
Deal with stated enemies peacefully? Kinda like Neville Chamberlain?
You didn’t say a military dictatorship in a military build-up with an aggressive and uncontained expansionist foreign policy. You simply said “stated”.
No preemptive attacks on enemies, what if we had attacked UBL and the Taliban prior to 9/11 - It wouldn’t have happened and we would have been charged with a none essential preemtive strike. The idea is to avoid being killed, not wait to die then do something about it.
We had attacked OBL before, Bill just missed. The Chimp was asleep and more worried about the petri dishes. I never said I was aginst “pre-emptive strikes.” Only that I would be rational, not using politics of fear, etc….
I would die for America, defend the constitution and my family, yes. If however, as a citizen you use our freedoms to undermine the US or engage in subtrifuge, I would not be defending you with my life, your actions would not leave you as one worth defense.
Are you suggesting that my statements of dissent are treasonous?
What about world history do you understand most? That defense of liberty is defense for all, or that waiting for an attack is suicide?
Understanding via truism is pretty superficial.
And you really believe Chavez was elected with no Dictatorial power being wielded?
I don’t think Chavez or Bush were elected cleanly. But they both had substantial popular support. One still does.
I respect your opinion, it’s why I read this blog. But being labled as hateful for wanting an end to terrorism, being called a christiban because my mores are different than yours, or tagged as fascist simply for disagreeing with the left gets real old, real fast. Let’s debate and leave the namecalling to the elementary school kids, OK?
I never called you anything. Please point it out, I’ll apologize or retract as required. Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #170317

Rhinehold,

I do agree that many services provided at the federal level now, should actually be served at the State and local level. Some should even be handled by the private sector.

However, I believe that there are certain services that we should have a basic right to as Americans, including a good education and healthcare. I think such services need to be handled at the national level as a matter of uniformity. Civil rights issues should also be handled at the federal level.

Things like welfare, social security, drug regulation, corporate welfare, environmental regulation, law enforcement, safety issues, infrastructure, etc. should be handled at the State, local, and private level.

If we are stuck with Republicans in control of all branches of government, I would have hoped to at least seen some progress on reducing the size of government, reducing spending, increasing State’s rights and some other fiscal issues handled. Unfortunatly, the last 6 years of Republican control have brought us the total opposite.

That could be a big problem for them this November. What do they stand for anymore? (I mean besides waging war against anyone who looks at them funny?)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #170318

Rhinehold,

P.S. I will look more seriously at the L.P. after this election cycle. Right now I believe it is more important to change who controls Congress.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #170319

“BTW also, exactly what personal responsibilities and individual liberties have liberals restricted? You have to show ID and wait 5 days to buy a gun? You have to wear a seat belt? You have to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? No, tell me some restrictions that liberals have put in place that severly limit your personal liberty and responsibilities”

Why do none of your examples there qualify?

At least Chicago libs are doing their share.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_re_us/chicago_behavior_cops

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #170321
I have a few questions to ask the loyal republicans.

Well, I’m not a ‘loyal republican’ but I’ll try to answer your questions.

Why is Iraq a mess?

We decided soon after taking over Iraq that we didn’t want to let them fend for themselves. I’m not sure it’s the best decision and the way the post-war has been run has been abymsyl IMO. But it’s because those running the show want to leave Iraq in better stead than Saddam was running it. It takes time after what was done to the country, by Saddam, the UN Sanctions of 12 years, and the US war machine.

Why did we invade Iraq? The Case for Invading Iraq which I wrote a year and a half ago for my view. But basically it boils down to this:

We know Saddam is a bad man. He has used and planned to use chemical and (god forbid) nuclear weapons whenever he felt they were needed. He hated the US. He was still at war with the US. He supported international terrorists around the world (including al Qaeda). He routinely shot at american servicemen and airplanes. He attempted to assassinate a former US president. He had a stockpile of chemical weapons that he agreed to destroy within a 90 day period of time and then prevented inspectors from verifying that for nearly 12 years. After 9/11 many were tired of terrorist activities and wanted to see the scourge removed by going after state sponsors of terrorism, Iraq was one of the top five state supporters of terrorism. So, we had a madman, running a large middle eastern country, bent on war with the US, threatening the US, supporting international terrorism and we have NO WAY of knowing whether he had WMD for sure, even the most ardent anti-war individual at the time (Hans Blix) who was charged with knowing FOR SURE couldn’t say and stated he wouldn’t be surprised if Saddam had huge caches of WMD sitting around Iraq.

Does that help as a start? It’s a very complex issues, one that is very divisive BECAUSE a case can be made on both sides of the issue. Otherwise it wouldn’t be very divisive, would it?

Was it because of WMD’s?
sort of. Much like the impeachment of Clinton was ‘about sex’. see above.
Was the WMD’s a lie?
No.
Why are soldiers sent to die based on faulty intelligence?
No, they are dying based on the faulty notion that we should still be there rebuilding Iraq. The inital war was over years ago, it’s the peace that they are trying to win now, as stupid of a phrase as that is, it does capture the heart of the issue.
Why do the republicans continue to support an agenda of War?
Do they? Why aren’t they in Rwanda? Why was it the Dems who wanted war in Bosnia and Somolia (another loss, we see). Why do you think it’s limited to republicans?
Why do the republicans always find ways to glorify war?
Not a republican and I’m not sure what you mean. could you provide examples?
When a any America shows any dissent towards the republican war agenda, why are they labelled as unpatriotic?

because some people don’t think and that’s an easy attack that isn’t countered well. Just showing dissent against what your government is doing is a natural american right.

Isn’t dissent patriotic?

MMM, well thought out and heartfelt logical dissent is. Mindless anti-government partisanship is just blowing hot air. There is a difference. And everyone is free to do both in the US, just don’t expect to be considered a ‘patriot’ for being a partisan hack.

Wasn’t the dissent of the British the foundation of America?
Yup.
Why does it seem that non-republicans can only support an agenda of war and anyone who disagrees with them are lunatic liberals?

I’ll assume you meant republicans, not ‘not-republicans’ in that statement. Some are just non-thinking republicans, much like there are democrats that don’t engage their brain either and like to spout out idiocies on weblogs with the single intent to poke, prod, inflame and insult people they disagree with instead of engaging in honest and heartfelt debate.

When will the republicans realize that war doesn’t bring about peace it only brings about war?

When will liberals realize that statements like that are pretty sad arguements considering we are not THAT far removed from WWII…

There are a lot of liberal blogs on the internet, why are they so absorbed with the issues?
LOL, that’s funny… You’ll have to forgive me on that one, ‘absorbed with the issues’? I didn’t realize calling republicans ‘hatemongers’ and ‘evil’ was an issue…
This blog is attached to a liberal blog and an independent blog, why is this blog so full of hate?
Perhaps if you look back on the entirety of YOUR comments you might see a possible answer to that question? No?
Doesn’t the “Why I hate liberals” post violate Rules of Participation?

It was done in jest, an OBVIOUSLY humorous look at ‘those types of posts’. It’s called sarcasm. When it is backed with mindless hatred, it’s not allowed.

So much hate on this blog…

Really? I just read DailyKOS and am SO glad that I write and particapte here. I find this one of the most civilized and engaged blogs on the internet right now. Not just a gaggle of ‘me tooers’ talking about how liberals are socialists or republicans are evil, blah blah blah.

I guess you’ll have to quantify your statement to have it mean anything, how exactly is this blog ‘full of hate’? can you provide examples of how this blog is more filled with hate than other blogs?

yet, there are commentators here who seem to think I am the one with hate?

I wonder why they think that?

The liberal blog has a “Why I love Conservatives” post.
Yup, I read that one. It was another humorous post almost word for word as the other and I enjoyed that both were posted.
The liberals are the ones with the reputation of being open minded and unafraid of dissent.

Reputation from whom? Other liberals? I don’t think you’ll find many non-liberals who agree with that ‘reputation’. Especially those of us who are ‘shouted down’ and called evil, selfish, hateful bastards just because we see a different way of life than for the government to make all of our decisions for us. But I digres…

I wonder why that is?
No idea. Say, what color is the sky in your world anyway? It’s a nice shade of blue here…
The republicans have the reputation of calling anyone who is in dissent a traitor.
yup, some do.
Valerie Plame was outed because her husband disagreed with the WMD’s,

A bit simplistic. she was outed by Libby who was upset that the CIA was trying to ‘pass the buck’ and do an end-around on the president. I don’t think it was really WMDs as much as it was political games.

and he was right.
Actually, he wasn’t. But that’s ok, he has a right to be wrong.
There were no WMD’s.

Mmm, no, there WERE WMD’s. We just don’t know when and how they were destroyed OR moved to another location/country. Maybe we’ll figure it out someday, I hope. With people who are politically motivated to try to convince people there were never WMDs, it’s hard, but we press on.

Why doesn’t anyone on this blog talk about Iraq?

*SNORT* Ok, now I have coke all over my keyboard, thanks… :P I think that it’s about ALL we talk about, second being religion unfortunately…

Is it because it is a failed policy?
Which policy is that? I think you’re combining many different policies together, some are failed, others aren’t.
Why was bush mocked and laughed at when he suggested that Russia should follow the iraqi model of democracy the republicans unilaterally implemented?
There’s a lot wrong with this question, you’ll have to repeat it with some factual accuracy in order for me to be able to answer it I’m afraid.
Why did bush and the republicans try to nation build in iraqi without multi-lateral support?

Because it was needed after we destroyed their country but we didn’t want to ‘lose control’ of the rebuilding. I’m not sure it was the best decision but I understand the ‘feeling’. After the US/UK/others had done the hard work the UN wanted to come in and clean it up and take all of the credit? Again, it was not the best decision and I was against it at the time.

Is America safer because Iraq is a quagmire?

Hmmm, subjective. I say yes. Other say no.

Is the World safer because Iraq is a quagmire?Why is bush and the republicans so incompetent when it comes to international affairs?
LOL, because they’re politicians! The last several decades have been full of international blunders on major levels.

HTH

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #170322
I would have hoped to at least seen some progress on reducing the size of government, reducing spending, increasing State’s rights and some other fiscal issues handled. Unfortunatly, the last 6 years of Republican control have brought us the total opposite.

JayJay, I agree. It’s a very sad thing to know that NEITHER party are interested in smaller government or some sort of government reform. Just more of the same…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #170324

kctim,Yes, those are pretty frivolous things, which I do not agree with them being restricted. However, telling someone they have to wear a seatbelt is not the same thing as telling someone that they may not live their life truthfully, happily, and with whom they see fit.

I don’t think the problem in Chicago is so much that the council members are liberal, it is that they have held their seats on the council too long. Only 5 of the 50 members are first termers. In addition, it is important to note that the mayor of Chicago, a Democrat, Richard Michael Daley is against those new regulations.


Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #170327

What would you as an individual, or as a party, see as a current very real threat to US security? Our lack of emphasis on education. Our major emphasis on military. Our pissing off leaders all over the world, (except Israel of course). Radical conservatives who try to tell me who I can and can’t marry and who I can and can’t get it on with, and what I can and can’t do in my own bedroom witha consenting adult; as well as other BS like that. Oh yea, and the very high (over 95%) re-election rate of incumbants when over job performance of incumbants is less than 50%.

What events/circumstances would lead you or your party to consider war as necessary? If some ARMY was invading our country. If some madman that ACTUALLY was like HITLER or William II, in that they 1) are bent on world domination, 2)are acting on itand most importantly, 3) aren’t leading a third-world nation.

Does the consistent spread of socialism within our southern hemispere not bother you in the least?no, why should it? The people of a nation can decide for themselves what sort of economic system they want. If it spreads in the south, fine. If people here decide they want it, fine. Socialism for the most part has failed not due to policy but due to its lack of opportunity to succeed. Not to say that it won’t fail if given the opportunity but there has not been much opportunity to experiment. (again, socialism is not communism).

Do you really believe Chavez was elected fairly?
Depends on what you call fair. By US standards he at least was his first term. Is the buying power of corporations in our elections fair? I would say that is not fair.

Was he elected under the same circumstances as Saddam? No. But people tired of US intervention in latin america politics helped to get him elected.

When is a perceived threat important enough to warrent attention?when it is endangering my personal liberties. (see question 1)

Are we to withdraw from the world around us, hunker down and hope our enemies will leave us alone?absolutely not! But that doesn’t mean we should be holding a gun to their head either. People around the world fear our nation; that is why they don’t like us! Fear does not promote friends!

How does one use diplomacy with an individual or State that has declared the US an enemy already?By working to convince them PEACEFULLY, that we have good intentions. HOWEVER, we first have to actually have good intentions.

Why? When? Where? How? Would you or your party decide which threat is imminent, which far off, which to ignore?it’s not good to lump liberals into the same party. We all have somewhat different ideals and we’re all not the same party. I would look at who we’ve angered in the past, what they are doing, what can we do to calm the situation, (as opposed to stoking the fire). For the rest, look again to question 1.

Is our representative republic, famous for it’s experiment in democracy and individual freedoms, worth fighting for?absolutely! problem is, not everything warrants a fight.

For the sake of peace at any price, would you abandon our allies in the world?I recognize that this is a reference to Israel. So quite frankly if my ally is being overbearingly aggressive and angering people at the rate Israel is, I’d cut them off until they started playing nice.

Do you understand world history? Comprehend the enormous task that faces the US from all points on the globe?Much like the last person who answered your questions, I would have to say MUCH MORE than the average conservative, at least as far as I can see. I live and breathe history. It’s my field of study.

Would you agree or disagree with Patrick Henry’s understanding of freedom?

“Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”…
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!… What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” I have no problem throwing off a tyrant who is oppressing us. That’s why I think we need to impeach Bush. Apparently, conservatives don’t agree or they wouldn’t call everyone a terrorist who is attempting to throw off their oppressor.

Yeah, I know - I’m a hater, a warmonger.
But your insinuations aside, I’m a patriot first and formost. Ok, I’m a humanitarian first, a patriot second. While I realize many conservatives don’t think they can be one in they same, I know they can.

Forget your/OUR American history, world history, and regret will be your lot in life. I’m thinking most conservatives have already failed to follow this advise.

Posted by: Metacom at July 24, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #170328

Dave1

Where is the nonsense? Because of labeling with no evidence. Name calling is again the labeling of something/someone as fascist or christaban. If I hold to my conservative opinions, I am what you claim the current administration to be. Thus my belief that you used it for such a purpose

Rational to you, rational to me - we agree to disagree.

Apologies, Shiavo refers to JayJays take on right to die, abortion is “messing with someones body”.

If I believe an enemy is about to attack and kill me and I attack first, is that the Politics of fear, or self defense?

I said if you (meaning a universal you) were an enemy of the US I wouldn’t die for what you have abandoned by your actions.

Understanding truth is superficial, OK then explain world history to me through your eyes, what has the US done that puts them in the category of Il Duce? Hitler? Islamofascists who behead their prisoners?

Peace at any price = abandoning allies, where is your disconnect on that statement?

Debate is stimulating, it motivates an individual to stand up for their beliefs and research the opposition to verify that stand. But breaking it down into titles, names or angry rhetoric isn’t challenging, it’s boring.

Posted by: JR at July 24, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #170331
If I believe an enemy is about to attack and kill me and I attack first, is that the Politics of fear, or self defense?

If you believe it and you attack first then that is the politics of fear. If you have good solid reliable proof then that is self defense.

How would abandoning your allies bring about peace? Should we always just go nilly willy with our allies even though they may be wrong? Why couldn’t we have more than one ally? Why can’t we take on the role of peacemakers instead of world police? Which is more noble; using might to force your enemies into submission or using peacekeeping skills to make your enemies your allies?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #170335
Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth, why should a majority population in the US ignore our own to avoid, promote or endorse things we find unacceptable.

BTW, why is it ok to regulate morality but not regulate safety?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #170336
Social mores have exsisted in every country on earth

So has slavery, but we managed to get past that. So has prostitution, yet it still isn’t legal.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #170340

Rhinehold,

thank you for your civil responses, I am comfortable speaking with you and Jack…

I don’t mean to violate policy by making positive comments but i find some of your answers both informative and amusing…

I have been reading your posts and we have similar views so debating with you seems somewhat pointless. However, civility should be given special priviledges.

Anyhow, I initially believed that Iraq was a good decision (BUT THAT WAS BEFORE THE WMD’S ISSUE CAME TO PUBLIC LIGHT).

Now I have very little faith in anything the bush administration says concerning wars and the reason for going to war.

I am a veteran and proud of it.

If I were younger I would volunteer for this quagmire just as fast as anyone.

Because I am older and more politically informed I have strong opinions about a president who lies about wars.

Clinton is not my all-time favorite presidents but his lie was about his personal life of which I couldn’t care less even to this day.

Clinton retracted his lie.

and Clinton did not send any of our soldiers to die for the WMD lie.

if any neocon bush and republican apologists wants me to answer questions about Hesbollah, Iran, North Korea, immigration, stem-cell question or anything of any relevance, they must address Iraq first.

Posted by: tlc at July 24, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #170344

JayJay

Actually, if you truly believe in personal responsibility and individual liberty, you would oppose seatbelt laws and helmet laws.

If you believe you should have a right to avail yourself of Dr. Kavorkian’s services, why don’t I have a right to risk my OWN life by not wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet?

BTW, the bad guys don’t need a license and don’t have to wait 5 days to buy a gun, just honest, law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: ulysses at July 24, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #170351

JR-
1)The politicizing of intelligence and the reduction of standards of actions to mere suspicion. If our leader’s politics get in the way of discerning the true nature of our situation in the world, we will have been lured into a false sense of security about bad information.

The Cheney Doctrine additionally poses the hazard of getting us into major force commitments that reduce the resources available to face a real crisis should we or an ally be attacked. It also reduces our ability to effect solutions to our problems by brandishing available forces, which is the cheapest use of the military to ensure our security.

2)If we are attacked by an enemy, or can establish that we wer about to be attacked, that is a suitable threshold. We should also be able to go to war to support international law, and to fulfill treaty obligations. Pre-emptive war should be possible, but we should either be damn sure, or in desperate straits if we employ it. There is no such things as a pre-emptive elective war.

3)What would concern me is the degree to which our lack of restraint in dealing with economic opportunities abroad have put people off capitalism. If people have a choice between standing up for themselves with socialist regimes, and knuckling under beneath capitalist ones, They are going to preserve their pride, even if the economic sense isn’t all that great.

Adam Smith’s economics posited that wage pressures did not merely come from above, seeking to reduce wages, but also from below, seeking to raise them. Many capitalist countries do not provide relief for worker’s desire for greater pay, and so they are attracted to socialism’s promise of greater economic equality. If capitalism can provide more of that by itself, then Socialism is not so attractive.

As for the spread itself, as long as it doesn’t pick my pocket nor break my leg, I don’t care. I don’t believe it’s America’s job to tell everybody else how to run their countries, unless they come to us soliciting the advise.

4)Chavez, I believe, was fairly elected. Does that mean he’ll continue to be? That is unknown. Many dictators were freely elected, only to become tyrants by means of political manuevering, military takeover, or emergency declarations.

5)No. Saddam got “elected” by politely suggesting at gunpoint that people support his incumbency.

6)The first issue is how one comes to percieve a threat, and whether one is willing to dismiss one’s pet theory in the face of the evidence. When we seek to prove something, we can sometimes end up gluing details together in ways that don’t really fit when we look at things objectively again.

The evidence has to line up, more or less, with truly independent, meaningful corroboration coming from different angles.

7)Hell no. They wouldn’t let us alone anyways. We’re stuck interacting with the rest of the world, we might as well make the best of it.

8)First, we must consider the difference between rhetoric and action. Not everybody who makes inflammatory comments has either the will or the inclination to carry them out. We can either trap them into being as good as their word, which is generally bad for both parties, or we can circumvent through deals behind closed doors or arranged compromises that let the people in questions save face. If they’re really committed to being our enemies though, we can use diplomacy to show them the limits of their bad behavior. We have to be careful, though, to carry out the threats we make. Too much bluffing takes the hesitation out of such people’s hearts.

9)Science, History, Technology, espionage It takes certain amounts of certain chemicals to make nerve gas or Mustard gas, or whatever else. It takes certain kinds of facilities to effectively mass-produce them. Nuclear Weapons, too, have their requirements, even moreso than CB Weapons. Facilities this large are difficult not to notice. We analyze the past choices of the leaders, past meetings and encounters to size up what they might do. We plant agents and use other techniques to reveal the inner workings of the regimes, how they act when the curtains are pulled, and its all just for internal consumption.

10)Yes.

11)No. First, I don’t believe in peace at any price. Second, though, sometimes your ally is wrong and needs to be talked down, or advised to shift strategy.

12)Nobody understands world history. There’s too much of it, and too many sharply differing points of view. People can draw lessons from history, though, as long as they understand the imperfection of their theories about it.

13)We know the terrorists mean to harm us. But harm us how? It’s no use to be raring to fight and yet remain abysmally ignorant of the enemies intentions and strategies. What we have been told by Bin Laden is that he intends to bankrupt us, to separate us from our friends. Therefore, the opposite is what we should seek. We should strengthen our alliances, and make the War on Terror more sustainable. If that means giving up the tax cuts, we should be willing to do that for the nation’s security.

We should recall that the source of the collapse of the Soviet Union was its economic problems, problems that predated SDI, but were made worse by unnecessary wars and an excessive dependence on the military for its economic strength.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #170352

ulysses,

Actually, I didn’t say that I supported seatbelt and helmet laws. In fact I said I do not agree with them being restricted.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 24, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #170358

JayJay

Oops! Read past your post and not through it.

Helmet laws are a volitile subject here in Illinois. Some legislator brings it up every few years, but it never goes anywhere.

I think it’s a matter of trying to keep up with the Jones’s, as our neighbor to the west mandates helmets.

The lobby against helmet laws in Illinois is extremely strong and seems to get stronger with time.

Personally, I wouldn’t ride a motorcycle to the end of the driveway without a helmet, but I support an individual’s right to make his/her own decision about personal safety.

BTW, I do have a Living Will. As I always say, I had no choice in entering this world, but I should have a choice in how I leave it.

BTW2, The Netherlands has had an assisted suicide law on the books for several years now and it seems to be working just fine.

Posted by: ulysses at July 24, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #170368

Well… communism IS a failed experiment.

But what I want to hear from the defenders of the US policy in third world countries is this… a promise not to whine or get angry when China uses its political and economic clout to drain our economy for their growth. What’s good for the imperial goose is good for the imperial gander, right?

One thing we know from history. Nothing lasts. Our best hope is prosperity for all. Financial despair and feelings of political impotence is driving the unrest in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. We won’t be able to threaten them all for ever. Promoting fair living conditions for all is in the interest of all.

Posted by: LibRick at July 24, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #170370

David,

But, when you say, “This is part of what is wrong with the ?Bush ordered my assasination and is behind the coup to overthrow me? propaganda on the part of Chavez. He himself first attempted to take over Venezuela by force- twice!” … I have to ask would Chavez’ actions justify Bush’s assasination attempts on Chavez?

What I’m referring to are the apologists who point to the fact that Chavez is a democratically elected leader. The Democracy Now folks for instance have guests who talk about how Bush tried to overthrow and assassinate Chavez. However they offer absolutely no proof of this. They invariably compare Bush to Chavez and say that unlike Bush Chavez was elected. They never mention the fact of Chavez’s attempted coups, nor the election irregularities that Carter initially acknowledged but then ignored.

I don’t believe that Bush ordered the assassination of Chavez nor the coup. If you’ll notice Lukashenko says exactly the same thing.

Lukashenko, whose regime has become an international pariah, contends that the United States and other Western nations are trying to overthrow him. ~International Herald Tribune
Posted by: esimonson at July 24, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #170372

Eric, as I read your reply though, you cite the Democracy Now folks not having any proof of Bush’s assasination order on Chavez, but, you take opinion from others that Chavez attempted coups? Were they coups by assasination? What is your proof?

I am just trying rid of the appearance of a double standard here.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #170375

LibRick said: “Promoting fair living conditions for all is in the interest of all.”

Now that would be a neat trick. Tell me, how does one protect the lifestyle of Amazonian prehistoric tribes living amongst commercial timber in the rain forest? How does one insure fair living conditions amongst nomadic herdsman in the Middle East, Tibet, and China when oil, industry, and McDonalds and Wal-mart threaten to end their entire culture and way of life?

Fair? Who defines fair? The nomadic tribes have a definition. The Amazonian tribes have a definition. The Iranians have a definition. The Shia and Sunni’s have definitions. And the U.S., China, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, India, the Phillipines and Europe all have another definition.

Looks to me like “fair” was defined by the U.S. in its treatment of the American Indians who wanted only to preserve their culture and way of life. And that definition is spreading the globe round leaving devastation of cultures and oral histories, and agricultural and nomadic ways of living in its wake. Appears to me like global manifest destiny has finally arrived despite all the warnings for decades that this was to be by the likes of Orwell, Huxley, and Herbert.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #170374

Stephen,

Chavez may be stupid enough to make himself a threat. If so, then we get evidence of his activities to demonstrate that to the world community, and we gain cooperation in terms of responding to Venezuela. We respond in such a way to make it clear whose fault this fight is, and that we’re not the ones who started it. We don’t make the strategic mistake of waging preventative wars we can’t justify after the fact, on the facts.

This is interesting especially in light of what Kerry said yesterday about how we should have invaded Lebanon instead of Iraq. I don’t know… it’s hard to follow what should be done from a liberal perspective because folks like Kerry have no solid basis for what they say.

Hezbollah guerillas should have been targeted with other terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida and the Taliban, which operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kerry said. However, Bush, has focused military strength on Iraq.

“This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah,” he said. Kerry’s pedestrian pomposity

I think that this is a perfect example of why Kerry lost the election. Relativism is a sorry basis for any policy.

Chavez doesn’t seem like much of a threat does he? But then neither was Osama Bin Laden. He wasn’t even a head of state with oil revenues for funding. But there you have it. I recall that you argued that the Soviet Union was never a threat either.



What would concern me is the degree to which our lack of restraint in dealing with economic opportunities abroad have put people off capitalism. If people have a choice between standing up for themselves with socialist regimes, and knuckling under beneath capitalist ones, They are going to preserve their pride, even if the economic sense isn’t all that great.

Adam Smith’s economics posited that wage pressures did not merely come from above, seeking to reduce wages, but also from below, seeking to raise them. Many capitalist countries do not provide relief for worker’s desire for greater pay, and so they are attracted to socialism’s promise of greater economic equality. If capitalism can provide more of that by itself, then Socialism is not so attractive.

Can you give me an example of a capitalist dictatorship under which people have had to “knuckle under to”?

Posted by: esimonson at July 24, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #170377
Can you give me an example of a capitalist dictatorship under which people have had to “knuckle under to”?

Posted by: esimonson at July 24, 2006 10:20 PM

Bush43 But many of us haven’t, despite your wishes.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 24, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #170385

Eric-
The question with Chavez’s election is complicated by the Bush Administration’s support for those who briefly took over in the Right-Wing Coup.

As for Right Wing Capitalist dicatorships? Gee, the Colonels, The Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos, and any number of others; it’s why we supported them against the leftists and Marxists. But for that support we became associated with their atrocities and market economics with oppression of the average person. It’s one of those cases where a seemingly simple solution becomes an ugly mess because people didn’t consider the big picture, the real implications of actions, not just the ones you like.

We cannot allow ourselves to only see the possible good in our actions, because then we walk right into the negatives and make them worse. Every action has good effects and bad ones. Actions brought together right can minimize the bad and increase the good. Brought together wrong, the good can get cancelled out or even destroyed altogether. You have to be realistic, pragmatic often, in order to chose your course of action and your plans appropriately.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #170386

Just putting in a whole bunch of quotes by Chavez with no context is quoting out of context…simple, wasn’t it.

Posted by: Lynne at July 24, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #170389

So, Lynne,

what is the context and how does it change what it appears he said?

Just ‘saying’ something was taken out of context without explaining how or in what way it changes the meaning is simple, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #170461

Socialism & communism are self defeating. Distribution of wealth destroys the source of wealth, leaving nothing.

The proponents and leaders of these movements create enormous wealth and power for themselves and leave nothing for the citizens. (Oh please attack this argument. My response is so very powerful.)

Not one socialist/communist state exists today that is independent of free market influence to maintain its economy.

John

Posted by: john at July 25, 2006 6:20 AM
Comment #170489

Eric:

I think that this is a perfect example of why Kerry lost the election. Relativism is a sorry basis for any policy.

Except, of course, for policies where you need to determine the RELATIVE threat posed by different enemies and respond appropriately. Like, you know, the REAL war on terror.

Posted by: Jarin at July 25, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #170494

The Home Page Clearly Reads,

Republicans & Conservatives:
Critique the Message, Not the Messenger

republicans and conservatives can’t even follow their own rules…

republicans and conservatives are the party of hate…

republcians and conservatives are the party of war…

republicans and conservatives are the party of name-calling…

republicans and conservatives are the party of incompetence…

TO BAD THERE AREN’T ANY republicans and conservatives ABLE TO ARGUE THOSE POINTS

Posted by: tlc at July 25, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #170520
The Home Page Clearly Reads,

Republicans & Conservatives:
Critique the Message, Not the Messenger

republicans and conservatives can’t even follow their own rules…

tlc,

That is not the only rule. Right above the button to submit a comment it says “By clicking the “Post” button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.” If you click on that link, you will be taken to the page of rules.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 25, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #170531

Communism is the liberal agenda. They want to tax the rich more than the poor and cut off religion to public life. Hillary is a Marxist student. Imagine how horrible life would be if everyone earned the same amount of money no matter what. If a McDonald’s janitor started earning the same amount of mine as a life-saving surgeon that would be chaos. It breeds laziness which is the downfall of nations.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 25, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #170546

It amazes me that the right misrepresents virtually everything that doesn’t fit into their black and white world.

Can somebody please tell me the true difference between a leftist and a rightist?

Other than their obvious ideological beliefs, both live in the same black and white world, and don’t seem at all hesitant to force their belief system on anyone that thinks differently.

Americans should set up some shadow country where these political denizens can lurk and bitch to their hearts content, and not do any real harm to the American way of life.

Posted by: Rocky at July 25, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #170547

IF
Communism is the liberal agenda.
THEN
Fascism is the Conservative agenda.

“Stupid is as Stupid does”
-Forest Gump

Posted by: Dave1 at July 25, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #170550

“At this point Chavez calls out to someone in the crowd, “Cindy Sheehan— for you a kiss, valiant woman and heroic mother.” “

Isn’t it nice that even when we have an administration that doesn’t believe in any sort of earnest and authentic diplomacy, that we can still have at least one unofficial American ambassador who has managed to garner the respect, as well as the ear, of someone like Chavez?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #170618

They may have the people but do they have the military strength? It is most likely all a game he wants to play with us. We are the one’s letting him play the game. Maybe we should just stop playing the game. There is very little that man could do to hurt the United States.

Posted by: kate at July 25, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #170643

Dave1:

If Facism is the Conservative agenda, prove it. I have stated my evidence in my previous post.

Facism- a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and other media haven’t been shut down, nor have we started to persecute certain races, or religion.

This is a good debate topic.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 25, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #170651

“That’s right, it’s no coincidence the backwater
areas of our country are the conservative strongholds, while the cultural/industrial areas are the liberal strongholds.”

Tic, that is the most ignorant statement I’ve heard since your last post. First of all, I guess you’re too young to have ever heard the saying, “Those who can’t do, teach”. Education is liberal because it’s full of people who can’t make it in the business world. The “backwater” areas (which is a stereotype) are conservative because of family and religious values not lack of education. Urban areas are liberal because of the vast population of poor people who follow democrats and their pandering policies that perpetually keep the poor on the voting roles.

Posted by: Ken at July 25, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #170653

“republicans and conservatives are the party of name-calling…”

Tic is the party of hypocricy…

Posted by: ken at July 25, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #170656

stubborn conservative-
It’s way too convenient for my tastes that whenever there is a threat or enemy out there that certain folks declare that we liberals would just fling open the gates and let them take over. Regardless of what important fight awaits us, it seems, some folks have already found the enemy they will fight: Their own fellow Americans.

And not a few: to them half of America is under the dangerous influence of various historical delusions, tainted by the evil of atheism, political correctness, and whatever else dark and nasty can be found beneath overturned rocks.

Every sentence is tinged with omens of America’s destruction, should these “libs” win back control of the government. Practically no debate is safe from this warning of political apocalypse on the horizon.

It’s a sham, ultimately, and a shame.

Most liberals are not glamorous creatures. Most are not radical. Most are content to live and let live. We’re more willing to regulate and tax, but we do not invariably take those approaches. I can’t say for sure that we know best how to govern. We could prove as bad as the Republicans have.

But I’d say we’re more willing to give things a shot, to break with doctrine, to accept scientific consensus and leave decisions on religious matters to worshippers themselves. We actually want government to work, and don’t spend half our time playing political games with committee recommendations.

I think the Republicans could do themselves a big favor by giving up on this culture war bull, and simply relaxing about their fellow man. Argue if you please, but please acknowledge the fact that nothing entitles you to win an argument.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 25, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #170664

Hitler was a member of the socialist party.

Posted by: Steve S at July 25, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #170666

stub,

You prove that liberals are Communists. I will hold you to real standards of proof.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 25, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #170705

Some conservative comments indicate that they pooh-pooh the idea that civilized people should worry about PROMOTING fair living conditions for all. Please understand world history. There have been many cultures that coveted the wealth and resources sought after by the many. Successful though these cultures were in controlling those resources for a time, when enough people do without… they do something about it. Often it is not right, or pretty, or wise, but do something they do. Consider the Bolshevik Revolution, China’s People’s Revolution, the American Revolution (against the world’s leading power), the French Revolution, the Polish Revolution, the Afghans vs. the Russians, many of the ex-Soviet states, the fall of the Roman Empire. The list is as old as recorded history. Without some form of moderation, our current American mechanism for wealth building will end in some people deciding that it is time to redistribute the wealth.

America was built on such redistribution of wealth. Her greatest growth occurred after the great immigration periods and the push West which took land from native Americans and gave it to ‘pioneers’, after the Great Depression the social programs built a strong middle class for the war machine. After WWII, the GI bill sent hundreds of thousands of middle class to colleges which were basically unavailable to them. The government gave home loans and business loans to the middle class and a great period of prosperity ensued.

Don’t give me this current Ayn Rand ‘free market’ crap. It’s not free and its not a ‘free market’. Billions of farm subsidies, business subsidies, home and building subsidies, trillions poured into the wealthy’s pockets via the gargantuan military/industrial machine.

I wish we would stop taxing all people and the government truly would stop all payments of every kind. The poor would surely suffer not much more than they do now and the middle class would be better off without the wealthy digging their hands into the middle class pocket. What would the price of a home truly be worth without all the tax support?

Would the Ayn Rand followers truly be able to make all their money without the government empowerment of laws and subsidies.

That would be an interesting experiment.

Chavez just wants to have a successful country without the US corporations bleeding it.

Get over it.

Posted by: LibRick at July 26, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #170710

Straight from the horses mouth:

“The Democrats have out socialized the socialists”—Norman Thomas, late head of the Socialist Party

tic

Joseph Wilson outed his wife who was not in a position to be outed anyway. Common knowledge of her employment in the CIA. Check out Who’s Who in America circa 2000

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #170711

tic

Also WMD’s will soon be found in Baaka Valley and three cities in Syria. Sit tight, you will soon know.

Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #170726

Hugo Chavez was elected more or less fairly as far as I can tell from what I’ve read in various sources. Since his election he has been borrowing many pages from Fidel Castro’s book on how to consolidate power by dismanteling or weakening certain institutions (like the free press and opposing political parties) and building up others (like the armed forces and militia-like neighborhood block watch groups).

Like Cuba, Venezuela will eventually become a tattered, bankrupt nation as it happens in all hardcore socialist or communist countries, but because of it’s oil, it will take more time than usual and it will also prop up Cuba and the new radical goverment in Bolivia, led by Evo Morales.

Part, if not most, of the reason Mr. Chavez keeps accusing the U.S. of trying to kill him and of planning an invasion is (once again, taken from Castro’s playbook) for domestic consumption. It allows him to buy all those weapons he is currently ordering from Russia, Iran and other places and to send Venezuela’s oil money to Cuba and Bolivia and other parts in the name of “self-defense”, Nationalism and solidarity with other “victims”.

It is not that much different in method from our administrations appeal to the public for more and more treasure to fight in Iraq and more and more curbing of our civil liberties for security reasons and Condi’s reapeated allusions to “mushroom clouds”.

Please notice that I have not commented on the veracity or accuracy of the purported threats in each case. Whether we are trying to kill him or making plans to invade or whether the “War on Terrorism” requires the measures being taken by our govement, I’ll leave to a future post or another poster.

This state of constant and unending war allows goverments to make excuses why their “five year plans” are not working and why their economies are in a shambles. It also gives them an excuse to curtail freedoms, civil liberties and democracy itself. I’m sure some of you remember the three countries in Orwell’s 1984, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, two of which were at war at any given time for exactly the reasons mentioned above.

Will he be a serious threat? He is a threat right now in that he controls a rather large chunk of the worlds oil and we are oil junkies.

I happen to think that this is our own fault, and that the most effective way to help declaw not only Chavez, but the Islamofascists is to get off this addiction, but again, that’s for another post.

Chavez is seeking coalitions with any and every dictator and tyrant in the world, that is part of his mission in his current world tour. He could become a military threat that way, if he can get some coordination going with Iran, North Korea, et al. That seems far fetched, but not impossible.

Not all of Latin America is turning left and not all of the counties turning left are going off the deep end like Venezuela and Bolivia.

Now for the conservative vs. liberal opinion:

Liberals are wrong to blame Latin Americas problems on the U.S., which is not to say that the U.S. hasn’t made plenty of mistakes and even acted rather badly and counter to it’s own ideals on many occassions.

Conservatives need to acknowledge these wrongs and realize that it doesn’t mean they have to then go along with the Che Guevara crowd.

There are nutjobs on both sides, there are people on both sides that practice their politics like a fundametalist religion. Unfortunatelly, these are the people that grab the headlines.

I am currently a political orphan, I’m equally disgusted with both parties. I’m hoping for the Democrats to take the Congress or the Presidency, but not both, as I have no confidence in any of our politicians.

Posted by: Rene at July 26, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #170728

Adrienne posted regarding Cindy’s recent junket to South America:
“‘At this point Chavez calls out to someone in the crowd, “Cindy Sheehan⠦or you a kiss, valiant woman and heroic mother.’”

Adrienne contined:
“Isn’t it nice that even when we have an administration that doesn’t believe in any sort of earnest and authentic diplomacy, that we can still have at least one unofficial American ambassador who has managed to garner the respect, as well as the ear, of someone like Chavez?”


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Thanks for the belly laugh. Sleep well.

Sincerely,
Good King Ned


Posted by: goodkingned at July 26, 2006 5:44 AM
Comment #170944

tomh-
On exactly what set of facts do you base your claim? Or is it good old fashion Republican suspicions that guide you?

On the subject of facts, just read Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment of Scooter Libby. He could find nobody to back up those two lines of yours. Her identity, whether she was covert or not, was a classified secret, and her husband was not the person who gave it up.

I would like to know on what set of facts you base that claim, too.

Rene-
Are you aware of all the military interventions we’ve made in Central America? There’s a long history of them. Though modern Americans can’t be blamed for the actions of the past, we should understand and take ownership of the legacy of our nation’s actions in our part of the world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 26, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #171081
…you will soon know. Posted by: tomh at July 26, 2006 02:23 AM
Isn’t that what you said about WMD’s in Iraq? Even Bush now admits there weren’t any. Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #171154

Stephen,

I thought I made it pretty clear that I am indeed aware of these interventions, not only military, but economic and political. I thought I called for conservatives/Republicans to acknowledge them. I could go on all day criticizing U.S. policy towards Latin America, but to go from that to support for tyrants like Castro and tyrants-in-the-making like Chavez is to go beyond the pale, it is to basically declare your abandonment of democracy, liberty, human rights, common sense and reason.
To paraphrase an old, tired cliche, one wich is nevertheless a core truth not to be forgoten; democracy sucks, it is cumbersome, slow, needs constant attention and maintenance and you have to put up with a lot of nonsense and with a lot of idiots, but it sucks a whole lot less than all the other alternatives.

Posted by: Rene at July 27, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #171350

Rene,

I thought most Cubans (not ex-pats) liked Fidel? They don’t look at him as a tyrant in the same way that most Republicans don’t view Bush as a tyrant-in-the-making. It’s all perspective.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 28, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #171652

Dave1

Baseball players, ballet dancers, polititians, military, doctors, diplomats, artists, all these classifications of people defect from the island on a regular basis. Now mind you, these are the people who are the best treated in the “socialist paradise”. The more common folk can’t defect, because they are forbidden to travel, they have to launch an inter tube with ten people hanging on to it and swim accross shark infested waters to get away from Castro. Now I ask you how bad would things have to be for you to leave most if not all of your family behind, leave the country where you were born and grew up, and go swiming with the sharks? Why do Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and many other organizations which are not exactly “conservative” condem the Castro regimes represion continuosly?
But even if you didn’t know any of this, you do of course know that only one political party is legal in Cuba right? You do know that it is illegal for anyone but the goverment to print a newspaper or operate any kind of disimination of news or information, right? And finally, you do know that it is illegal to leave without permission and when you do declare you want to leave the goverment confiscates all your posessions and sends “rapid response brigades” to perform acts of repudiation on you which range between shouting insults to physically abusing you? Oh, wait, that’s right, medical treatment is free, cool, I forgot about that, I guess that makes everything o.k.
Yeah, lets let Microsoft and Yahoo and Google continue to turn in dissidents in China too, I think they probably have free medicine too.

Posted by: Rene at July 29, 2006 2:10 AM
Post a comment