|
Well, given that the Bush administration thinks it’s a good idea to continue giving hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to dictators who suspend constitutions and round up and beat peaceful, pro-democracy activists, I suspect we will soon see US aid pouring into Venezuela. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
|
duh THE STUDENT ARE TARRARIS AND MUSH BE TAKEN CARR OF. |
| |
Written By:
SLNTAX
URL:
http://
|
|
See, its not the student’s fault. It’s Bush’s fault. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
Written By: mkultra Well that bit of mental retardation didn’t take long... |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
Well that bit of mental retardation didn’t take long... Yeah. He doesn’t concern himself with little things like freedom when he thinks he has a good argument against Bush and Republicans. |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
|
It’s all a matter of priorities. Time enough to promote freedom after the world’s number one terrorist is forced to relinquish office. Who knows how many students will die before we are rid of the evil Shrub. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
Who knows how many students will die before we are rid of the evil Shrub. Who cares what other students are subjected to when we know just how evil the repression is here at home? |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
McQ: the thugocracy has been in place since the last go-round.
What ought to astonish—only it’s so predictable that it doesn’t—is that the attitude to Chavez is almost always the reverse of that person’s attitude to Bush, even though Chavez’s authoritarianism is simply Bush’s philosophy untrammeled by the forms of US tradition. Whoever admires Bush should admire Chavez, and who ever opposes Chavez should oppose Bush.
But how often is politics rational? |
| |
Written By:
kishnevi
URL:
http://
|
even though Chavez’s authoritarianism is simply Bush’s philosophy untrammeled by the forms of US tradition. I’m wondering if all of you advanced BDS cases will return to some state of normality once Bush is out of office. You are aware that he isn’t running in 2008 and he won’t be President much longer, right? Seriously, get a grip. |
| |
Written By:
David C.
URL:
http://
|
Chavez’s authoritarianism is simply Bush’s philosophy
But how often is politics rational? Q.E.D. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
McQ: the thugocracy has been in place since the last go-round.
What ought to astonish—only it’s so predictable that it doesn’t—is that the attitude to Chavez is almost always the reverse of that person’s attitude to Bush, even though Chavez’s authoritarianism is simply Bush’s philosophy untrammeled by the forms of US tradition. Whoever admires Bush should admire Chavez, and who ever opposes Chavez should oppose Bush.
But how often is politics rational? you pissant.
Hugo Chavez, to begin with, is a communist. The only communists we have in this country are leftists, so beginning with ideology, your ’argument’ holds about as much rationality as the French method of fighting wars.
Secondly, Bush’s philosophy is in no way comperable to that of Chavez’s. For starters, Bush isn’t going about nationalizing everything. he isn’t going about trying to change the constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely. He isn’t stifling the debate among oppositional leaders, and he isn’t throwing them in jail. Bush isn’t going around shutting down media outlets that criticise him and only allowing state-run media to further propaganda.
Bottom line: Bush is NOT a dictator, nor does he want to be. Bush has his own philosophy which, by the way, is largely agreed with by at least 54% of the American people who voted him into office in 2004, unlike in Venezuela where the only moron who certified the elections was Jimmy Carter, because even the Carter Foundation said ’Now wait a second...this is flagrant BS!’
I understand it’s virtually impossible for you, and those like you (David S, Erb, Oliver Wills...just to name a few), to get over this ’I hate Bush, I hate Bush, it’s all his fault, EVERYTHING is his fault, man I miss Clinton...’ mantra that you’ve all been espousing in place of a platform for neigh on eight years now, but really, if you have nothing intellectual to contribute to this conversation, can you kindly take this razorblade and go play in the corner? My brain can only take so much idiocy in a day and I just got through reading more of Oliver Wills’s posts over in Immigration. I’ve met my quota of ignorance for the day. |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
Joel C:
Do your realize that almost all of Chavez’s "reforms" are either 1)accepted US law through judicial decision or 2)powers claimed for the presidency by the current administration? The only real exception is the presidency for life. And, since the MSM here parrots the dominant political line so faithfully, why does the political establishment need a media that is overtly state run?
Part of the reason you don’t realize it is because it’s been going on for the last century, and has mostly been accomplished by judicial and legislative creep, not outright amendment to the constitution. Plus it’s often scattered among state and municipal governments, whereas in Venezuela local government is more heavily linked to the central government. Not all leftists are communists, but all leftists are anti-liberty, and the entire political establishment is leftist. You are a victim of the slowly boiling frong syndrome. Can’t you try to at least jump out of the pot? And it’s not just Bush, but pretty much the whole political establishment. And the administration claims that the president, because he is the commander in chief, can do whatever he wants no matter what legalities may say. The whole position boils down to, "The President can be a dictator anytime he wants to be, but he’ll be nice and only go after the official bad guys of the day." Do you think that Hillary or Rudy don’t share that view? "Trust me, I can be a dictator but I won’t be" is not the presidency envisaged by the Founders.
And even if all those people who voted for him shared that philosophy—which I doubt, because many people voted for him believing his false promises the he could "protect" us and his claim that he was fighting the war against the jihadis the way it should be fought (the first of which is impossible to deliver on and the second is objectively false), and not on any philsophical grounds—do we choose our political philosophies based on the number of people who share it, or on the innate correctness of those philosophies.
Chavez is simply the blatant expression of the dominant political philosophy of the day. Bush happens to be the sitting president, but it will doubtless continue with the next president, because almost all of them share in that philosophy. |
| |
Written By:
kishnevi
URL:
http://
|
Do your realize that almost all of Chavez’s "reforms" are either 1)accepted US law through judicial decision or 2)powers claimed for the presidency by the current administration? The only real exception is the presidency for life. And, since the MSM here parrots the dominant political line so faithfully, why does the political establishment need a media that is overtly state run? Have you been smoking crack?
I’ll tell you what: put your money where your mouth is. Cite and show how any of Chavez’s ’reforms’ are accepted US Federal Law or judicial decisions or even powers claimed by the executive.
and the fact that you think the MSM parrots the Bush Administration only shows that you were probably the one flying the UFO Kucinich saw.
which I doubt, because many people voted for him believing his false promises the he could "protect" us and his claim that he was fighting the war against the jihadis the way it should be fought (the first of which is impossible to deliver on and the second is objectively false)
I promise to faithfuly execute the office of the President of the United States, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of these United States.
Now, considering that’s the official oath of office, and considering since 9/11 we’ve had, count them, zero attacks...I think he’s doing a damned good job there.
Secondly, you don’t believe we’re fighting jihadis? what are we fighting, then?
You’re blubbering rhetoric has no substance, Kishnevi. This isn’t Russia. |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
Do your realize that almost all of Chavez’s "reforms" are either 1)accepted US law through judicial decision or 2)powers claimed for the presidency by the current administration? I didn’t realize that nationalizing industries is either 1) accepted US law through judicial decision or 2) powers claimed for the presidency by the current administration. Care to show us where this statement of yours is supported?
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
Am I hallucinating here?
Didn’t all the Democrats criticize Bush when they thought he was trying to kill Chavez?
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/12.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,688071,00.html
http://www.gregpalast.com/hugo-chavez-an-exclusive-interview-with-greg-palast/
Weren’t they saying things like "Don’t meddle in foreign politics" and "Shrub is assassinating foreign leaders" etc.?
Even if it were true - and it seems plausible, especially since Chavez resumed power immediately after the media started talking about it- how does that make Chavez’s blatant dictatorial actions Bush’s fault? Wasn’t it the Right who has been saying for years that this would happen?
And I hate to say this, but Venezuela has brought this upon itself. |
| |
Written By:
Effeminem
URL:
http://
|
I seem to remember a little case involving the City of New London, CT, a little while back that nullified government limits on taking over private property. Not to mention the stream of cases for the last seven decades or so that say Congress can effectively do whatever it wants in the name of regulating interstate commerce. No, little boys and girls, we’re not going to say government can take over all your property out loud, we’re just going to let it do it without saying anything at all.
As to MSM—go back and look over how the MSM covered the administration claims about WMDs, etc. They didn’t challenge it, they reported it almost at face value. It was the left that challenged it; the MSM didn’t pick up on it until it was popular to do so.
But you’re putting a limit on my statement about the MSM I do not. You’re saying I claimed the MSM toes the Bush administration line. I didn’t say that. I said it toes the line set by the political establishment, from which the particular gang of thieves in office at the time—whether Democrat or Republican—may vary somewhat. But I’ve yet to notice any part of the MSM pointing how anti liberty almost all these programs, Democratic or Republican, are.
Then go and review the limits the Bush Adminstration recognizes on the powers of the commander in chief. It’s a very easy thing to do, since they recognize no limits. They only tell us they can be trusted to exercise those powers responsibly. Hitler and Stalin made the same basic claim, too. Even if Bush is trying to adhere to that self imposed limit, can we trust future presidents to do so? The whole premise of the Constitution is not to trust government to impose limits on itself.
Bush is claiming he can act as a dictator, even if he’s not acting that way currently. If that claim is not stopped now, then it won’t be possible to stop a future president from making that claim who does want to act like a dictator. And he can make it now, so can Hillary if she becomes president. Are you comfortable with her claiming those powers?
Or are you too much the victim of Bush Admiration Syndrome to realize how much power he’s claimed for himself?
And given that the jihadis are overall stronger and have more popularity and support among Moslems now than they did in 9/2001, I’d have to say this administration is doing a rotten job fighting them. Lack of attacks on US soil is not the real barometer. Support by Muslims for jihadis is, and we’re worse off now than we ever were.
|
| |
Written By:
kishnevi
URL:
http://
|
I seem to remember a little case involving the City of New London, CT, a little while back that nullified government limits on taking over private property. Not to mention the stream of cases for the last seven decades or so that say Congress can effectively do whatever it wants in the name of regulating interstate commerce. No, little boys and girls, we’re not going to say government can take over all your property out loud, we’re just going to let it do it without saying anything at all. And while Kelo vs New London is a travesty, it remains openly that: a travesty which is being fought bipartisanly by the US Congress to such a degree where no other city in the US has dared to follow suit for fear of loosing Federal funds. And while the regulation of Interstate Commerce is clearly an over stretching of Congressional Power, it does not go so far as to remove the ownership of said property from whoever legally owns the place.As to MSM—go back and look over how the MSM covered the administration claims about WMDs, etc. They didn’t challenge it, they reported it almost at face value. It was the left that challenged it; the MSM didn’t pick up on it until it was popular to do so. Because there was nothing to challenge, you dolt. We all believed the exact same things, even the Euros. Before the invasion the question was NEVER about whether or not Saddam had WMD’s, but rather should we handle it militarily or diplomatically. Go back and look. Everyone had the same information for about five years. What were they going to challenge when their own sources were reporting the same thing and there were no dissenting points?
But you look at everything from before 9-11 to right after the Invasion and you have the audacity to seriously claim the MSM follows the Administration’s line? You’re either gloriously delusional, a fool, or willingly blinded by your non-factual philosophy.Hitler and Stalin made the same basic claim, too. No, they didn’t. One played to the fears of a faltering economy suffering from a hyper-inflation while incensing anti-semitic sentiments and mobilizing a military to invade for ’expansion purposes’, a policy which existed in Germany since the days of the Kaiser, while the other took over in a bloody coup and killed all those who disagreed with him to the tune of about 20 million souls.
There’s absolutely no comparison.The whole premise of the Constitution is not to trust government to impose limits on itself. Oh? And the system of checks and balances where one government branch imposes limmits on the other means what, exactly?Bush is claiming he can act as a dictator, even if he’s not acting that way currently. If that claim is not stopped now, then it won’t be possible to stop a future president from making that claim who does want to act like a dictator. And he can make it now, so can Hillary if she becomes president. Are you comfortable with her claiming those powers?
Or are you too much the victim of Bush Admiration Syndrome to realize how much power he’s claimed for himself? do you have a quote or citation for this, at all?
Also: 34% approval ratings, all of his legislation failing, his appointees resigning and everyone calling him a ’lame duck’.
Yup. Super Dictator Bush indeed.And given that the jihadis are overall stronger and have more popularity and support among Moslems now than they did in 9/2001, I’d have to say this administration is doing a rotten job fighting them. Lack of attacks on US soil is not the real barometer. Support by Muslims for jihadis is, and we’re worse off now than we ever were. again, do you have anything to back that up, or are we playing ’lets make things up as we go along’?
And BS: the ONLY barometer that matters is whether or not we’ve been attacked here.
Also, the evidence that the jihadist movement is suffering massively is unequivical. Afghanistan is lost to them. Palestine is slipping. Iraq is gone to them. Iran remains, and possibly Pakistan (depending on what happens). Lebanon is fighting back and Syria is trying to play both ends against a dangerous middle.
Fact is, we’re containing these events to the Middle East and they’re mostly killing their own people in the attempt. There is more antipathy for the jihadists today than there was in 9/11. Even Al Jazeera is saying it. hell, even Bin Laden is saying it.
Kishnevi, take off the tinfoil hat and come back to sane town. Kucinich is complaining of encroachment on his territory. |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
And given that the jihadis are overall stronger and have more popularity and support among Moslems now than they did in 9/2001, I’d have to say this administration is doing a rotten job fighting them. And yet, just how effective has this hugely increased ’army’ been in taking the fight to US? It’s not the world, rather the left, that hates US. |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
Do your realize that almost all of Chavez’s "reforms" are either 1)accepted US law through judicial decision or 2)powers claimed for the presidency by the current administration? Is that so? Either you don’t know what’s going on in Venezuela or your rose colored glasses need cleaned. Might help to review this. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
Not to mention the stream of cases for the last seven decades or so that say Congress can effectively do whatever it wants in the name of regulating interstate commerce. Since you refuse to cite one instance where nationalization of an industry is allowed under US law, I’m going to conclude that you are wrong on this point.
|
| |
Written By:
Steverino
URL:
http://
|
"Kishnevi, take off the tinfoil hat and come back to sane town."
No, No, No!!
Are you one of THEM???
That is exactly the wrong thing to do! The problem is probably that the ’tinfoil hat’ as you call it (properly know as an Aluminum Foil Deflection Beanie, or AFDB), is defective or improperly worn. Please, learn how to defeat the mind control rays. If not for yourself, then for the children.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
