[Sky Captain]

The amendments would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials.

Supporters attack protesters.

He says they would instead move Venezuela toward what he calls "21st century socialism."

Welcome to 21st century socialism.
Ain't it grand?
Who's his bosom buddy again? Ah, Jimmy Carter.

[tie]

And you don't think Musharraf will be dictator for life? Who's his bosom buddy again? Ah, the United States.

[Sky Captain]

I believe Rice called him out?
Come back when you have some teeth.

Ooo who else jumped on the Chavez bandwagon?
Cindybatshit Sheehan. ooo And Sean Penn.

21st century socialism?

[Cold Warrior]

Venezuela is going to be in deep poop when their oil wealth starts running out. They, like Mexico, are just a corrupt 3rd-world country with no strategic vision or plan for improving the lives of their citizens -- just maintaining the status quo of ultra-wealthy oligarchs standing on the backs of the working-class slaves to all-powerful police government bureaucrats.

As usual, the US will be left holding the aid bags when these countries completely implode.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

And you don't think Musharraf will be dictator for life? Who's his bosom buddy again? Ah, the United States.

At least Musharraf isn't a Communist.

[Sky Captain]

Then again my topic wasn't about Musharraf, or any other moral relevency bullshit the socialists can dig up.

[tie]

I think 21st century dictatorships are all comparable to each other, and all equally bad. I don't think it really matters if the dictator is a communist or a general in a terrorist-supporting country that has nuclear weapons and sells its nuclear technology to rogue nations like North Korea. Actually, in terms of US national security, the latter kind of dictator is more important, wouldn't you say?

What is "I believe Rice called him out?" supposed to mean?

[Doofy]

A leftie setting himself up as a dictator. Who would have thought? This has never ever happened before. Ever.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think 21st century dictatorships are all comparable to each other, and all equally bad. I don't think it really matters if the dictator is a communist or a general in a terrorist-supporting country that has nuclear weapons and sells its nuclear technology to rogue nations like North Korea. Actually, in terms of US national security, the latter kind of dictator is more important, wouldn't you say?

What is "I believe Rice called him out?" supposed to mean?

Nuclear proliferation among extremists is bad no matter where it is. However, if we're talking US national security, then not all dictators are created equal. The "better" ones are those that play ball and those that are antagonistic.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by tie 

What is "I believe Rice called him out?" supposed to mean?

Rice: U.S. Disappointed By Musharraf's Action

Even you can find this.

And it's 21st century socialism.

Apparently it starts out as "for the people" then ends with a dictatorship.
And my neighbor Jimmeh Cawta supports this.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Nuclear proliferation among extremists is bad no matter where it is. However, if we're talking US national security, then not all dictators are created equal. The "better" ones are those that play ball and those that are antagonistic.

Maybe in the short term. In the long run, though, I still think that Musharraf is still much more dangerous to US national security than Chavez, even if Musharraf is kind-of playing ball.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Even you can find this.

Give me a break. "For now, Bush administration officials are unanimous in saying that American financial support for Pakistan will continue regardless of whether General Musharraf reverses course." (link) Actions speak louder than words.

I'm sorry for bringing Pakistan into your thread, I guess you think it is off-topic. But to me, it actually seems much more relevant in a political forum, because the US is currently actively supporting the dictatorship in Pakistan (although you might argue that we are supporting Venezuela equally with oil purchases).

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

As usual, the US will be left holding the aid bags when these countries completely implode.

Yes. The only solution is for us to get off our oil dependency now. (Or rather, after the next president is elected.)

[Atomic Rooster]

The amendments would abolish presidential term limits, give the president control over the Central Bank and let him create new provinces governed by handpicked officials.
Supporters attack protesters.

He says they would instead move Venezuela toward what he calls "21st century socialism."



Welcome to 21st century socialism.
Ain't it grand?
Who's his bosom buddy again? Ah, Jimmy Carter.

Why do you even care? Why are you banging your head against a brick wall?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Venezuela is going to be in deep poop when their oil wealth starts running out. They, like Mexico, are just a corrupt 3rd-world country with no strategic vision or plan for improving the lives of their citizens -- just maintaining the status quo of ultra-wealthy oligarchs standing on the backs of the working-class slaves to all-powerful police government bureaucrats.

As usual, the US will be left holding the aid bags when these countries completely implode.

The U.S may not even be around. The U.S. government owes China so much money the Chinese may foreclose and tear it down.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

As usual, the US will be left holding the aid bags when these countries completely implode.

You can't afford aid bags.

[Face Ache]

The violence broke out after anti-Chavez demonstrators -- led by university students -- marched peacefully to the Supreme Court to protest constitutional changes that Venezuelans will consider in a December referendum.

Shouldn't the Venezuelans be free to choose their own form of government?

[besson3c]

I think this thread should have been entitled "the knee jerk reaction thread".

Just to throw my hat in the ring, I bet Chavez doesn't support our troops.

[Cold Warrior]

If you mean Chavez + one = Venezuelans (plural), then they'll choose.

However, if the election is free and fair, then yes, they should be able to piss away their future.

Just another reason why they're still stuck in the Third World.

People get the government they deserve.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

You can't afford aid bags.

You mean we can't afford to waste them on people who won't help themselves.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

If you mean Chavez + one = Venezuelans (plural), then they'll choose.

However, if the election is free and fair, then yes, they should be able to piss away their future.

Just another reason why they're still stuck in the Third World.

People get the government they deserve.

Hillary or Giuliani?

(both like to dress as women)

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

(both like to dress as women)

Ta-har-har-har!


Anything besides lame one-liners to add?

[Face Ache]

That was two lines.

I could offer unthinking, unfunny, unoriginal pulled-outta-my-ass opinions, but you've got that covered.

[Cold Warrior]

And clearly you have trolling down.

[Face Ache]

In my country we have a saying: Play the ball, not the man.

If you persist, I may call into question your own cross-dressing proclivities.

[TheWOAT]

I saw this coming. Chavez will probably get his way like the PRI did in Mexico, by throwing money at the lower class, and naturally they voted for the PRI for decades, as will the lower class in Venezuela will vote for Chavez until he dies. So lets see, next the elite and educated leave the country(brain drain), then political opponents start getting jailed, then Chavez will hand out those one way helicopter rides that were so popular in Argentina in the 70s and 80s. Im sure the US tries to get him killed along the way, and maybe some other moral reprehensible things... then we all die.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

In my country we have a saying: Play the ball, not the man.

If you persist, I may call into question your own cross-dressing proclivities.

Or not, as in that's not appropriate anywhere, even the Pol Lounge. Knock it off. Playing nice is still required, even when we're talking about politics. Maybe especially because we're talking about politics.

I like Chavez as a figure of ridicule. He's set up a culture of "it's America's fault that our country is like this and they want to kill me because of it." That this line of reasoning lacks reason is beside his point. He's got all the charisma of Castro without anything behind it.

Similarities to the PRI? Maybe there are parallels-and look at what the PRI did to Mexico. A hundred years later and it's just the names that have changed, not the endemic corruption. Mexico could be a great country-its people are hard working, smart and capable. But they can't get ahead in Mexico because of the "system" which has the effect of replacing Spanish colonial governance and classism with a "connectedness"-ocracy. And the same damn classism. If Chavez does manage to set himself up as "the leader of the party," and that party gets its fangs into the country the way the PRI did in Mexico, Venezuela is going to be set back 50-100 years. Which is a crying shame, because the Venezuelan people are also hard working, smart and capable. They just bought the bread and circuses ad campaign.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Or not, as in that's not appropriate anywhere, even the Pol Lounge. Knock it off. Playing nice is still required, even when we're talking about politics. Maybe especially because we're talking about politics.

Hah. I knew you'd come down on me and not the right-winger who started it. Some things never change around here.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Hah. I knew you'd come down on me and not the right-winger who started it. Some things never change around here.

Dude, I made a comment about your one-liner not being funny and called you out on trolling. The only thing you've done in this thread is piss on others and drop a couple piss-on-America sentences. Nothing on-topic.

And now, when you get mild criticism, you lash out at that individual and call into question his fairness.

WTF?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Hah. I knew you'd come down on me and not the right-winger who started it. Some things never change around here.

Like people being jerks? Your post was the one that became abusive. Keeping things civil doesn't mean that you have to agree, just that you have to act like they let you sit at the big table at dinner-with the rest of the adults.

[Face Ache]

No, I pointed out that the Venezuelans were getting a referendum on this.

You said "people get the government they deserve"

I said "Hillary or Giuliani" (pointing out things aren't much better where you are).

You had a go at me (playing the man).

I retaliated.

(Right-leaning) Mod comes down on your side.

Simple really. Read the thread.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Like people being jerks? Your post was the one that became abusive.

Abusive?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Keeping things civil doesn't mean that you have to agree, just that you have to act like they let you sit at the big table at dinner-with the rest of the adults.

Riiiight.

This table is rigged. I'm outta here.

[Cold Warrior]

So how did I "have a go at you"? Where anywhere was a personal attack? You are the one who rapidly and harshly strayed from a couple lines of banter to full-blown insults and rude posts.

Also, if you want to play the ball and not the man (your phrase) -- now is a good time to start. Start by explaining yourself.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

So how did I "have a go at you"? Where anywhere was a personal attack? You are the one who rapidly and harshly strayed from a couple lines of banter to full-blown insults and rude posts.

Also, if you want (to use your phrase) play the ball and not the man -- now is a good time to start. Start by explaining yourself.

Okay, sure.

I said "Hilary or Giuliani" (pointing out things aren't much better where you are). Then I added a joke at the end.

You said...

"Ta-har-har-har!


Anything besides lame one-liners to add?"

...totally ignoring the actual point I made. At that point you played the man, not the ball. You ignored the ball specifically to play the man.* You even edited out the line of my post that contained my bloody point (the first of the two lines) in order to call it a "one-liner".

But you know that.

There is a continual effort by US right-wingers here (and elsewhere) to attack the messenger and not the message.



*In football, you play the man to take him out of the game. Then a fight breaks out.

[Cold Warrior]

now it's a conspiracy? I've been in the pol-war lounge since it was created. Spending time here beyond a few witty one-liners would make it obvious that this place is filled with energetic (to be diplomatic) left-wingers who more than hold their own. My personal opinion is that this section is dominated by left-wing members.

[pooka]

Dood, if it makes you feel any better, I think the tolerance for our abrasive asses has decreased recently. All the years of talking smack and thinly veiled threats of mom-banging must have caught up with us.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

now it's a conspiracy?

No, it's not a "conspiracy" and I'm not "lashing out". Those are your words. I'm more a "give as good as you get" kinda guy.

pooka: Yeah some people get really thin-skinned when it suits them.

[ghporter]

Your joke was lame, in spite of the fact that Clinton and Guliani are (much to our mutual discomfort) the current front runners. And as their status in the pre-race is not anything like news, and you didn't indicate an opinion about their political stands, it turned out to be a fairly lame one-liner. That's it.

I think we're all going to wake up one day very soon and say "where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket." And it's because we've let ideologues lead the way instead of pushing them back to the fringe where they belong and finding someone who's interested in THE WHOLE COUNTRY.

Finally, I am quite upset that anyone would accuse me of assisting in some sort of effort to muzzle speech of any kind. I may not care for what you say, but I put my life on the line for a LONG time to make sure you could say it-and Uncle Sam helped by sending my family with me once into some quaint little, sleepy place called "Panama." In 1987. For two years. Read some history-it wasn't a fun family trip. So if I've gone through that FOR YOU, it's quite insulting for you to suggest that I'd waffle on the very foundation of the freedoms I gave up so much to defend.

[pooka]

He's Australian. Which by extension means he's soulless. Like a cow or an Asian.

No offense to anyone present, but it seems that the rules have tightened a bit over the last few months. Maybe us old timers have been getting crankier as we approach our inevitable demise, but something sure feels different.

And just so we're clear, I'm usually on the other side of the fence throwing piles of poop towards Face's team. But hey, this is ya'lls pub. You set the rules on how far and hard we can sling it I guess.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your joke was lame, in spite of the fact that Clinton and Guliani are (much to our mutual discomfort) the current front runners. And as their status in the pre-race is not anything like news, and you didn't indicate an opinion about their political stands, it turned out to be a fairly lame one-liner. That's it.

I think we're all going to wake up one day very soon and say "where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket." And it's because we've let ideologues lead the way instead of pushing them back to the fringe where they belong and finding someone who's interested in THE WHOLE COUNTRY.

Finally, I am quite upset that anyone would accuse me of assisting in some sort of effort to muzzle speech of any kind. I may not care for what you say, but I put my life on the line for a LONG time to make sure you could say it-and Uncle Sam helped by sending my family with me once into some quaint little, sleepy place called "Panama." In 1987. For two years. Read some history-it wasn't a fun family trip. So if I've gone through that FOR YOU, it's quite insulting for you to suggest that I'd waffle on the very foundation of the freedoms I gave up so much to defend.

You're the "Jesus Freak" aren't you? Yeah, you are, just looked it up. You are soooooo biassed. You're throwing out your own personal attacks when it should be PM'd.


On topic
Anyways pick on China. Too chickenshht? Oh yeah...they have no oil and they have THE bomb.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

You're the "Jesus Freak" aren't you? Yeah, you are, just looked it up. You are soooooo biassed. You're throwing out your own personal attacks when it should be PM'd.

Why are you so bent on degrading others for religion? Do you think you're better or more intelligent than those who believe in a god? Why are you tossing bombs in this thread? Why not simply act with some civility and composure?

You'd rather toss bombs and troll.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your joke was lame...

In your (fair and balanced?) opinion. Right-wingers think a lot of very funny left-wingers aren't funny, so I'll take that with a grain of salt, if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Finally, I am quite upset that anyone would accuse me of assisting in some sort of effort to muzzle speech of any kind.

See now, you seize on the "conspiracy" angle that Cold Warrior provided and run with it. I didn't say that. I just think your knee-jerk reaction is to side with... well... your side. I know you try to seem fair and balanced (and I think you're an okay bloke for what that's worth) but sometimes you aren't as balanced as you might think you are. It was only two weeks ago that another right-winger here decided to attack me, rather than my message, and I didn't see you spring to my defence (or "defend my freedom") then either. Like you, I let that one slide, despite it going on for post after post. But if I dare to strike back...

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I may not care for what you say, but I put my life on the line for a LONG time to make sure you could say it-and Uncle Sam helped by sending my family with me once into some quaint little, sleepy place called "Panama." In 1987. For two years. Read some history-it wasn't a fun family trip. So if I've gone through that FOR YOU, it's quite insulting for you to suggest that I'd waffle on the very foundation of the freedoms I gave up so much to defend.

Don't go getting all melodramatic on me gh. I have my own history that would make weaker men wet themselves if you'd like to trade stories, but I'm not American, so you weren't defending my freedom, or going through anything "FOR ME" (Capitals? Really?), so you can't pull that lever.

I'm big on owning my mistakes and apologising where it's due, but I think CW was the one out of line here. You could have warned us both to stop but you decided to single me out (and have a few stabs of your own while you were at it, I might add).

Whatever.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Why are you so bent on degrading others for religion? Do you think you're better or more intelligent than those who believe in a god? Why are you tossing bombs in this thread? Why not simply act with some civility and composure?

You'd rather toss bombs and troll.

Why are you so bent on degrading others for their politics?

who's the paranoid one?

[Cold Warrior]

You're playing the victimization card full-on.

Anyone who cares to run the search function will see your history of sniping, snide personal jabs.

And I doubt gh went through anything for you, Face. The obvious point is that you rushed to judge someone without knowing (or give a crap) about what they might possibly stand for or believe in.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why are you so bent on degrading others for their politics?

What you wrote isn't politics, it's hate and bomb-throwing. Otherwise, I don't see any instance where I've degraded someone for their politics -- just perhaps their behavior.

who's the paranoid one?

The USSR was the pivot on which the free world's foreign policy turned for the better part of the 20th century. We are still dealing with the geopolitical fallout, and changing inertia in its region will shape geopolitics for the next 20 years at least. It's not paranoia, just solid forward-thinking and historical appreciation.

[Face Ache]

"rushed to judge"? What on Earth are you talking about, Cold Warrior?

This is a political forum. People are going to disagree. It's when they make their disagreements personal that things get ugly.

I've made my case. I'm going to leave it at that until someone starts up on me again.

[Cold Warrior]

You did make your disagreements personal. Several times in just this thread.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

You did make your disagreements personal. Several times in just this thread.

Sure. After you started it.

If I ever make it to the States, me and you should go out for a drink sometime.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

"Nuh uh!"
"Yeah huh!"

[tie]

I don't know if this will work, but I thought this photo was rather amusing:


Caption: The area around Benazir Bhutto’s residence in Islamabad was sealed off by the police on Friday before a scheduled demonstration. From the nytimes.com front page, Olivier Matthys/European Pressphoto Agency.

It's good to know that our anti-terrorism aid money is being well spent.

[thunderous_funker]

Wow, this thread has about as much factual treatment of Chavez and Venezuela as the TV news.

Give yourselves a nice big round of applause.