(03-06-2013 09:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How is it that people who fight for the oppressed always end up rich? Arafat, Castro, Obama....

That power is intoxicating.......... and there is most often no strong tradition of a democratic form of government to refer to.......and then it winds up too late and the dictatorial apparatus is in place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(03-06-2013 09:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  How is it that people who fight for the oppressed always end up rich? Arafat, Castro, Obama....

Leftist elitism

Goodbye and good riddance. The world is a better place with this SOB dead.

(03-06-2013 12:06 PM)RobertN Wrote:  What makes you think he went to Hell?

Well, given standard leftist logic, anybody worth $2 billion+ had to have cheated, stolen, and exploited the little guy to get there, and being rich makes him necessarily evil, right?

And a "public servant" at that.

Good work if you can get it.

(03-06-2013 02:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 05:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/venezu...s-died.php

This is a sad day in history.

Robert,

I'm a liberal. Chavez was a horrible, terrible man who left a sorry legacy in Venezuela. He destroyed the Venezuelan economy. He corrupted the courts and the Venezuelan constitution. Crime is off the charts. Grocery stores don't have food. There is medical care, but VZ pays 20 times the going rate of US doctors for those Cuban doctors (using the VZ oil subsidies to Cuba as a rate). Chavez was an anti-Semite. Chavez was a homophobe. Chavez's foreign policy was to support and aid Iran and Russia.

I'm afraid that many see Chavez as a hero try to make him into something he wasn't. He wasn't a democrat (he was a military leader who murdered Venezuelans in a coup attempt to force power and he frustrated every attempt for democratic control for those that opposed him). He wasn't a champion of the poor (who are in worse shape than they were when he took power and now Venezuela's poor trail nations far poorer than VZ when he took power, such as Colombia and even Peru). There is no free press. The government uses violent thugs to sanction physical abuses and even shootings of regime opponents.

He was a terrible demagouge.

(03-08-2013 09:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Chavez was an anti-Semite. Chavez was a homophobe.

Yep. These things have also been ignored over the years in the international luv-fest for Chavez.

If a right-wing talk radio host was a 'one-percenter', anti-Semite and made homophobic comments, he would be shredded by the Left. But set up a few 'free' health clinics in slums, attack 'Big Oil' and call Dubya a devil in a UN speech, then all is forgiven by people the world over.

There are a number of moderate Democrats and center-left types to admire, even if one doesn't fully agree with their policies. But it's eye opening when people ranging from college students to Hollywood A-listers sing the praises of thugs like Che, Castro and Chavez.

Another T-shirt face for the left.

(03-09-2013 12:11 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Another T-shirt face for the left.

Nah. I doubt it. I run in a liberal milleu and I lived in Latin America, off and on, for about 10 years. Chavez has his supporters, but even among the left, he's controversial.

(03-08-2013 11:48 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(03-08-2013 09:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Chavez was an anti-Semite. Chavez was a homophobe.

Yep. These things have also been ignored over the years in the international luv-fest for Chavez.

If a right-wing talk radio host was a 'one-percenter', anti-Semite and made homophobic comments, he would be shredded by the Left. But set up a few 'free' health clinics in slums, attack 'Big Oil' and call Dubya a devil in a UN speech, then all is forgiven by people the world over.

There are a number of moderate Democrats and center-left types to admire, even if one doesn't fully agree with their policies. But it's eye opening when people ranging from college students to Hollywood A-listers sing the praises of thugs like Che, Castro and Chavez.

I'm not sure International luv-fest can be correctly applied to Chavez. His international support really has four parts

1) The purchased kind of support. Venezuela, a poor country, spends massive amounts of aid to certain countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Haiti, Nicaragua the Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc. That support only became sustainable when oil prices multiplied by 10x during Chavez's tenure. And VZ is going broke to pay for the bills of others. Not like running a deficit like the US is, but literally going broke.

2) The support of the otherwise friendless. Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Sudan are included here. It'd be interesting to see if they actually have any friends that have choices.

3) The vocal but not deep support of leaders of the Latin American left movement. Most of the major left leaders of Latin America (da Silva, Dilma, Correa, Kirchner) say nice in public but haven't modeled their economies on "Bolivarian" principles. The real reason for this is that each of the larger Latin American countries see themselves/their nation as the leader of Latin America. Much of what you see is empty pandering with no substance behind it. Chavez remains highly controversial in Latin America. Correa of Ecuador runs his economy closer to the IMF than the Venezuelans. Humala of Peru lost his first try for the Presidency of Peru when his opponent ran on the slogan "Peru is not Venezuela". Humala won later because he distanced himself from Chavez. The other Latin American political leaders (save the idiotic Evo Morales of insignificant Bolivia), even those on the left, recognize how stupid Venezuela's policies have been and that they don't have a trillion bucks of oil reserves to finance a Venezuelan economic system.

4) The vocal and deep support of a very small number of hard core leftists, who ignore just about every principle of liberalism to support Chavez. They aren't a majority even in Hollywood. Or a few ignorant college students.

(03-09-2013 12:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  They aren't a majority even in Hollywood. Or a few ignorant college students.

I agree, I wasn't intended to imply majorities. Just mentioning the wide range of scattered people you'll see from a spectrum.

(03-06-2013 02:03 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 05:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/venezu...s-died.php

This is a sad day in history.

Any day in which you continue to waste Earth's valuable oxygen by drawing breath is indeed a sad day.

Latin America, and the rise of leftist leaders there, is a difficult story for Americans to grasp. Our media, which generally does a terrible job of covering and interpreting events here at home, has done an excruciatingly awful job of just getting facts correct about events in Latin America, much less conveying any sort of interpretation. The United States, under Bush, supported a coup in Venezuela that was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That little nugget was scarcely covered in American media. So is it any shock that Chavez then became an major opponent to US interests? Our corporate interests have pillaged nations like Venezuela for decades, then we resort to outright undemocratic measures when the leaders of those nations won't play ball anymore. The media portrayal in the USA breaks down like this - Friends to US oil interests and drug policies = great leader, Mixed on US oil interests and drug policies = suspicious guy, Opposed to US oil and drug policies = dictator.

I'm not saying that Chavez or any of the current leftist leaders in Latin America are great people, but I am saying that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of these leaders through the eyes of the corporate media. It's also difficult to get an accurate portrayal of them through the lenses of their domestic media because of the competing interests in those places. So it takes a lot of effort to figure out who Chavez, Morales, Lula da Silva (now Rousseff), Kirchner (both Nestor and Christina Fernandez), Correa, or Lugo (and now Franco) really are/were. Latin America today is exponentially unfriendlier to US interests than a few decades ago, and I suspect that Latin America in another two decades will be a major force against US interests. We've sown seeds of distrust and outright hatred across that continent with our meddling in their internal politics, and it's going to bite us hard eventually.

(03-09-2013 02:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Latin America, and the rise of leftist leaders there, is a difficult story for Americans to grasp. Our media, which generally does a terrible job of covering and interpreting events here at home, has done an excruciatingly awful job of just getting facts correct about events in Latin America, much less conveying any sort of interpretation. The United States, under Bush, supported a coup in Venezuela that was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That little nugget was scarcely covered in American media. So is it any shock that Chavez then became an major opponent to US interests? Our corporate interests have pillaged nations like Venezuela for decades, then we resort to outright undemocratic measures when the leaders of those nations won't play ball anymore. The media portrayal in the USA breaks down like this - Friends to US oil interests and drug policies = great leader, Mixed on US oil interests and drug policies = suspicious guy, Opposed to US oil and drug policies = dictator.

I'm not saying that Chavez or any of the current leftist leaders in Latin America are great people, but I am saying that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of these leaders through the eyes of the corporate media. It's also difficult to get an accurate portrayal of them through the lenses of their domestic media because of the competing interests in those places. So it takes a lot of effort to figure out who Chavez, Morales, Lula da Silva (now Rousseff), Kirchner (both Nestor and Christina Fernandez), Correa, or Lugo (and now Franco) really are/were. Latin America today is exponentially unfriendlier to US interests than a few decades ago, and I suspect that Latin America in another two decades will be a major force against US interests. We've sown seeds of distrust and outright hatred across that continent with our meddling in their internal politics, and it's going to bite us hard eventually.

Didn't Obama say he could fix all that? You know, hope and change, an open hand instead of a clenched fist, blah, blah, blah.

(03-09-2013 02:56 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 02:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Latin America, and the rise of leftist leaders there, is a difficult story for Americans to grasp. Our media, which generally does a terrible job of covering and interpreting events here at home, has done an excruciatingly awful job of just getting facts correct about events in Latin America, much less conveying any sort of interpretation. The United States, under Bush, supported a coup in Venezuela that was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That little nugget was scarcely covered in American media. So is it any shock that Chavez then became an major opponent to US interests? Our corporate interests have pillaged nations like Venezuela for decades, then we resort to outright undemocratic measures when the leaders of those nations won't play ball anymore. The media portrayal in the USA breaks down like this - Friends to US oil interests and drug policies = great leader, Mixed on US oil interests and drug policies = suspicious guy, Opposed to US oil and drug policies = dictator.

I'm not saying that Chavez or any of the current leftist leaders in Latin America are great people, but I am saying that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of these leaders through the eyes of the corporate media. It's also difficult to get an accurate portrayal of them through the lenses of their domestic media because of the competing interests in those places. So it takes a lot of effort to figure out who Chavez, Morales, Lula da Silva (now Rousseff), Kirchner (both Nestor and Christina Fernandez), Correa, or Lugo (and now Franco) really are/were. Latin America today is exponentially unfriendlier to US interests than a few decades ago, and I suspect that Latin America in another two decades will be a major force against US interests. We've sown seeds of distrust and outright hatred across that continent with our meddling in their internal politics, and it's going to bite us hard eventually.

Didn't Obama say he could fix all that? You know, hope and change, an open hand instead of a clenched fist, blah, blah, blah.

I'm talking about broad US policies that have spanned the better part of a century, and you're talking about President Obama. That's yet another small example of how myopic and obsessed the right-wing is.

(03-09-2013 03:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 02:56 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-09-2013 02:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Latin America, and the rise of leftist leaders there, is a difficult story for Americans to grasp. Our media, which generally does a terrible job of covering and interpreting events here at home, has done an excruciatingly awful job of just getting facts correct about events in Latin America, much less conveying any sort of interpretation. The United States, under Bush, supported a coup in Venezuela that was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That little nugget was scarcely covered in American media. So is it any shock that Chavez then became an major opponent to US interests? Our corporate interests have pillaged nations like Venezuela for decades, then we resort to outright undemocratic measures when the leaders of those nations won't play ball anymore. The media portrayal in the USA breaks down like this - Friends to US oil interests and drug policies = great leader, Mixed on US oil interests and drug policies = suspicious guy, Opposed to US oil and drug policies = dictator.

I'm not saying that Chavez or any of the current leftist leaders in Latin America are great people, but I am saying that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of these leaders through the eyes of the corporate media. It's also difficult to get an accurate portrayal of them through the lenses of their domestic media because of the competing interests in those places. So it takes a lot of effort to figure out who Chavez, Morales, Lula da Silva (now Rousseff), Kirchner (both Nestor and Christina Fernandez), Correa, or Lugo (and now Franco) really are/were. Latin America today is exponentially unfriendlier to US interests than a few decades ago, and I suspect that Latin America in another two decades will be a major force against US interests. We've sown seeds of distrust and outright hatred across that continent with our meddling in their internal politics, and it's going to bite us hard eventually.

Didn't Obama say he could fix all that? You know, hope and change, an open hand instead of a clenched fist, blah, blah, blah.

I'm talking about broad US policies that have spanned the better part of a century, and you're talking about President Obama. That's yet another small example of how myopic and obsessed the right-wing is.

So Obama can't fix it. Thanks

Elton John sings Candle in the Wind in honor of Chavez (well actually Justin Timberlake as Sir Elton).

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/timberlakes-e...99-on-snl/

(03-09-2013 02:00 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Latin America, and the rise of leftist leaders there, is a difficult story for Americans to grasp. Our media, which generally does a terrible job of covering and interpreting events here at home, has done an excruciatingly awful job of just getting facts correct about events in Latin America, much less conveying any sort of interpretation. The United States, under Bush, supported a coup in Venezuela that was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That little nugget was scarcely covered in American media. So is it any shock that Chavez then became an major opponent to US interests? Our corporate interests have pillaged nations like Venezuela for decades, then we resort to outright undemocratic measures when the leaders of those nations won't play ball anymore. The media portrayal in the USA breaks down like this - Friends to US oil interests and drug policies = great leader, Mixed on US oil interests and drug policies = suspicious guy, Opposed to US oil and drug policies = dictator.

I'm not saying that Chavez or any of the current leftist leaders in Latin America are great people, but I am saying that it's incredibly difficult to get an accurate picture of these leaders through the eyes of the corporate media. It's also difficult to get an accurate portrayal of them through the lenses of their domestic media because of the competing interests in those places. So it takes a lot of effort to figure out who Chavez, Morales, Lula da Silva (now Rousseff), Kirchner (both Nestor and Christina Fernandez), Correa, or Lugo (and now Franco) really are/were. Latin America today is exponentially unfriendlier to US interests than a few decades ago, and I suspect that Latin America in another two decades will be a major force against US interests. We've sown seeds of distrust and outright hatred across that continent with our meddling in their internal politics, and it's going to bite us hard eventually.

i actually agree with most of this. At some point, those leading our American government are going to have to stay the "F" out of other countries business. With that being said, I think all governments mostly act in their own best interests. Unfortunately, all too often those in our government are ill informed and wind up making sh!tty decisions. Most all of us can give example after example of stupid American government decisions.....from both sides of the political spectrum.

The U.S. has been meddling in Latin America since the Spanish American War. Look up the the Banana Wars - not to be confused with the recent banana war between the Latin nations, the WTO, and the European Union...

Guns of the "Banana Wars" - Part 1
Guns of the "Banana Wars" - Part 1 (page 2)