Chavez and Big Oil

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Answer this: How many Americans bother showing up on election day? What’s the margin by which a candidate wins?

Irrelevant. [/quote]

On the contrary. It’s clear cut proof that Chavez has a lot more legitimacy than Bush.

But if you choose to overlook that because it’s too painful, be my guest.

No sweat! Check for yourself.

http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pdf/MOE_UE_Venezuela_2006_final_eng.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6205128.stm

You have to admit the slim shot by which Bush passed in 2000.

If you were under a rock during the last years, I suggest you do some catching up.

Hitler’s principal weapon was fear.

Remind me again who between Bush and Chavez uses the bogeyman more often?

Deflect? You started by comparing Bush to Chavez.

I admitted that Chavez turned into a very bad person. No denying that. But I have the right to point out that Bush has KILLED thousands and thousands of people. You were idiotic enough to draw compare the two characters, it’s only fair to do it thoroughly.

If he changes the constitution, it’ll be with the approval of the people. Many Americans want to impeach Bush as we speak. The majority of Venezuelans want to consolidate Chavez’s power and allow him to get re-elected. I don’t agree with it but, it’s their fucking right to do so.

Don’t bring up Bush vs. Chavez if you can’t handle discussing it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Let’s see - on one hand, a hyperbolic fiction that a leader is an authoritarian-in-the-making, with no government to check him, and on the other, a real one. Yet curiously, the Left - full of really, really smart people - actually cry into their pillows about the fiction and whistle past the real one.

[/quote]

The Left WANTS a dictatorship. That’s why they admire Chavez and all similar Satanists, while spitting on the men who keep them alive. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? Does the Left have a death wish?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How dare the banks of the ‘Goliath of the North’ lend their money and ACTUALLY want it paid back, with the interest due!

They don’t just give you money. They insist on unconditionally opening your market to others. We all know how that turned out for Argentina and all the African nations who followod that…

Every develloped country today has gone thru an isolationist period during which it had exorbitant taxes on foreign goods. Look at the US right after the revolution or the Asian “dragons” for examples.

I applaud Herr Hugo Chavez — he will now show the world that capitalists are unnecessary and that he can have a socialist utopia, just like its been shown in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe…uh…wait a minute…

The Soviet Union was a peculiar case. You can’t compare it or any of its European sattelites to the case of Venezuela.

It’s not whether Capitalists are necessary or not, but how much they are allowed to rip off the poor. A line has to be drawn at some point. The US has a stunning divide between haves and have nots because it never drew that line.[/quote]

Lixy,

I’m a LOT older than you (a lot) and what you are saying has been said by idealistic dreamers since way back when. Do you know how many young socialists made the same arguments: “If only this…” or “If only that…” How many buckets of blood have to flow before we realize that socialism is simply an evil trick, using the ideas of unselfishness to trick humanity with the same old siren song.

Here, this’ll sum it:

“Community Before Self!”
— Nazi slogan

One more: if a capitalist abuses his workers, they leave. It is only when GOVERNMENT is allowed to enforce evil through laws that anyone can be abused. A mixed economy allows some capitalists to buy influence in a government. But that’s not the fault of capitalism — it wouldn’t happen if the gov’t was forbidden from interfering in any way with the economy.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

Answer this: How many Americans bother showing up on election day? What’s the margin by which a candidate wins?

Irrelevant.

Contrast with the 63% Chavez got during last (completely transparent) elections,

You say this as if anyone here will take your word for it. Your ideology is too transparent for anyone to think you are objectively telling the truth.

…or the regular referendums he holds where public support to his side is always renewed. You should learn something from the mass mobilizations on election day in Latin-America. Oh, and did I mention the Florida recount or the Diebold machines?

So not only are you an irrational extremist, you are a conspiracy theorist?

Keep it up - pretty soon no one will even trust you to give an honest answer to “what time of say is it?”

Idiotic! One has manyfold the approval rate of the other. I don’t condone his amendment to the constitution, but it’s a choice the Venezuelan people have to make. It’s none of your business.

Hitler was elected by the people - the people that he appealed to and made promises to to win their favor. Upon getting their approval, he began dismantling the democracy he had manipulated to get into the top position.

Chavez knows his history - certainly better than you.

Of course, did Chavez bomb the hell of any country lately? Did a Venezuelan public figure call for assassinating Bush? Well, Bush did. Pat Robertson did. Where is the outrage on your side?

Again, it is pointless to discuss war with you - you mindlessy shriek “Bush attacks people!”, because you want to deflect what we really should be focusing on: the birth of fascism in Venezuela.

Keep shrieking - and whistle past what is really happening.

After the coup, Chavez became BAD for liberties in Venezuela. Chavez is REALLY BAD for the interests of the rich elite. Bush is EXTREMELY WORSE because he goes around killing people.

See above - you have lost all currency to speak intelligently on the issues.

Moreover, the “bet” was about leving when the time was up - i.e, refusing to cling to power outside of the democracy’s rules. You try and change the subject because you know the answer and you don’t want to face it.

Go back to cheering your murderous leader and let the people of Venezuela chose the path they want their country to follow. Last I checked, Venezuelan troops weren’t the ones invading countries and killing innocents.

Hmm - who did Hitler slaughter when he was first elected?

Again, look at the noisy screaming to avoid the subject.

You precious “left-wing” hero is a monster who is consolidating power under the guise of the people’s support (duping them) and is creating a police state.

Well done on being an apologist for yet another fiend that is the enemy of liberal civilization.

[/quote]

These last two paragraphs are a magnificent peroration.

[quote]lixy wrote:

On the contrary. It’s clear cut proof that Chavez has a lot more legitimacy than Bush.

But if you choose to overlook that because it’s too painful, be my guest.[/quote]

Well, two things - when you say the word “proof”, everyone laughs.

And number two - did you really just accuse me of ignoring information because it doesn’t help my point?

Seriously?

Slim? Sure. Conspiracy? No - and anyone outside of the extremes knows so.

But what is fascinating is that you - by citing the “Diebold machinations” have further isolated yourself as unserious. You are a conspiracy kook - well done.

Hmmm - and Chavez, protector of his people from the “scary imperialists of the North”, isn’t?

Hitler was a socialist, don’t forget - he rose to power on the idea that rich, money-hungry Jews were enslaving his people.

That is Chavez’ playbook page for page.

Yes, deflect. I said Chavez was turning Venezuela into a Reich. Zeppelin countered that Bush was doing that in the US.

I decided to compare the two in terms of what they had done domestically and what they will be doing in the future w/r/t stepping down when the time comes, i.e., establishing a Reich.

Then you start squealing about how “Bush is mean!”, which has nothing to do with whether he will be gone in 2008 - and Chavez, with designs on declaring himself Fuhrer, will be thwarting democracy in a way never even contemplated by the hated Bush. But “Bush sucks!!!” - way to try and deflect from the real issue: the stepping down of Bush in 08 while Chavez consolidates ever more power.

On one hand you are right - the two aren’t anywhere near similar. One is a politician, one is heir to Hitler - you are just confused as to which is which.

But you will have to blame Zep - he brought it up. I clarified where he was wrong.

Lies. “Many” Americans do not want to impeach Bush. Why must you fabricate in order to try and win points in these forums?

As for Venezuelans - good for them. When there is wholesale slaughter in the name of Chavez’ Reich, will you be one of the whiners calling for “humanitarian intervention”?

Oh, and what about the American people’s “fucking right to do so” in electing Bush? You seem full of opinions on that, but are agnostic about Venezuelans. But you are nothing if not hypocritical, no?

You have no other trick other than to hate the people your leftist overmasters instruct you to, and support the enemies of liberalism as long as they say the right things about hated “imperialists”, “corporations”, or “oppressors”.

You are the ultimate puppet - complicit in their quest for domination because of your soft mind.

That must suck.

See above - Zep made the analogy. I merely clarified his stupid statement and explained how the comparison between the two was ridiculous - just not in the way your narrow ideology permits.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m a LOT older than you (a lot) and what you are saying has been said by idealistic dreamers since way back when. [/quote]

So? Just because they got oppressed by capital-whoring governments doesn’t mean the dream has to die, now does it?

How much blood was split in Venezuela? How much is split by Americans in the US or elsewhere?

Not when they don’t have a choice. We have reached a stage where small farmers were driven out of business, saw their lands expropriated, and are thus forced to slave for pity salaries. You say “tough luck” and “survival of the fitest”. I say, it goes against the idea of civilization, humanism and anything my mum taught me.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, two things - when you say the word “proof”, everyone laughs. [/quote]

At this point I doubt you’re interested in an intelligent debate.

[quote]And number two - did you really just accuse me of ignoring information because it doesn’t help my point?

Seriously? [/quote]

Yes I did.

I never said conspiracy. I said it gave Chavez less legitimacy than Bush.

Don’t distort my words. I never spoke of “machination”. I refered to “Diebold machines” because I happen to have examined the numerous papers and proof-of-concepts that describe their vulnerabilities.

No idiot. Chavez’s message was redistribution of wealth. For all we know, he is himself scared of a military intervention on Venezuela.

Hitler exploited the abominable situation of Germany after the war. And yes, he scapegoated the Jews for it whereas the ones responsible were the ones who won said war.

[quote]Yes, deflect. I said Chavez was turning Venezuela into a Reich. Zeppelin countered that Bush was doing that in the US.

I decided to compare the two in terms of what they had done domestically and what they will be doing in the future w/r/t stepping down when the time comes, i.e., establishing a Reich.

Then you start squealing about how “Bush is mean!”, which has nothing to do with whether he will be gone in 2008 - and Chavez, with designs on declaring himself Fuhrer, will be thwarting democracy in a way never even contemplated by the hated Bush. But “Bush sucks!!!” - way to try and deflect from the real issue: the stepping down of Bush in 08 while Chavez consolidates ever more power. [/quote]

You can’t honestly compare the two and stop at that point. I had to show that there was more to the issue than you were willing to admit. Then you start getting agressive and throw ad hominems because the arguments I made weakened your point. Grow up!

Of course, perception might differ depending on which side of the gun you are.

Your “clarification” was one-sided and I merely provided context to it. Heck, you admitelly wanted to restrict the comparison to a narrow area.

Was the lie bit necessary to convey your point?
Calling me a liar just shows how dishonest and
out-of-whack you are on the issue. Le’mme cite the Wiki:

[i][b]"On December 15, 2005, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed that 32% of the 1,000 Americans polled would support an impeachment of Bush and 35% would support an impeachment of Cheney. […]

A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42% of American adults favored impeaching Bush and 49% oppose this.[41

A September 2, 2006 poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. asked whether Bush should be impeached (in addition to other questions). Out of the 1,004 adults who were asked, 69% said Bush should not be impeached or removed from office, with 30% saying he should be impeached or removed from office. One percent had no opinion.[42] This support for impeachment was similar to the 29% who favored impeachment for Clinton during the height of the Lewinsky imbroglio.[43]

An October 2006 Newsweek poll found 51% of Americans supported impeachment of President Bush with 44% opposed. 28% felt that impeachment should be a “top priority”, while 23% gave it a “lower priority”."[/b][/i]

Note that every poll is properly referenced.

You might also wanna get acquainted with the MANY people in the following communities.

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

Of course, if that fantastically scenario ever happens, I will be partly responsible for it and will assume it.

Shit! Bush is getting Americans and non-Americans killed. The former, of course, at a rate a hundredth time slower than the latter.

If Bush was killing Americans, I wouldn’t give a damn. You have the right to put whoever you want in the white house. But don’t come talking about your right to elect someone who slaughters people in OTHER countries.

Got it?

[quote]You have no other trick other than to hate the people your leftist overmasters instruct you to, and support the enemies of liberalism as long as they say the right things about hated “imperialists”, “corporations”, or “oppressors”.

You are the ultimate puppet - complicit in their quest for domination because of your soft mind.

That must suck. [/quote]

Man, you must be REALLY out of arguments to engage in such a lengthy and baseless ad hominem.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

On the contrary. It’s clear cut proof that Chavez has a lot more legitimacy than Bush.

But if you choose to overlook that because it’s too painful, be my guest.

You have no other trick other than to hate the people your leftist overmasters instruct you to, and support the enemies of liberalism as long as they say the right things about hated “imperialists”, “corporations”, or “oppressors”.

You are the ultimate puppet - complicit in their quest for domination because of your soft mind.

That must suck.

[/quote]

ROFLMAO!!

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I’m a LOT older than you (a lot) and what you are saying has been said by idealistic dreamers since way back when.

So? Just because they got oppressed by capital-whoring governments doesn’t mean the dream has to die, now does it?

How many buckets of blood have to flow before we realize that socialism is simply an evil trick, using the ideas of unselfishness to trick humanity with the same old siren song.

How much blood was split in Venezuela? How much is split by Americans in the US or elsewhere?

One more: if a capitalist abuses his workers, they leave.

Not when they don’t have a choice. We have reached a stage where small farmers were driven out of business, saw their lands expropriated, and are thus forced to slave for pity salaries. You say “tough luck” and “survival of the fitest”. I say, it goes against the idea of civilization, humanism and anything my mum taught me.[/quote]

In essence, you trust governments to administer an economy while I trust free markets. But, in another thread, didn’t you say that 90% of governments are evil? (I think 99% are). Given the history of most of us, is this a wise choice? You want people who have a monopoly on the use of military force to have a monopoly on how an economy is governed?

Uhhh…good luck with that…seriously.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In essence, you trust governments to administer an economy while I trust free markets. But, in another thread, didn’t you say that 90% of governments are evil? (I think 99% are). Given the history of most of us, is this a wise choice? You want people who have a monopoly on the use of military force to have a monopoly on how an economy is governed?
[/quote]

In a perfect world, power would lie within the community, not some bloated and corrupt government. Giving power to the greedy and inhumane corporations isn’t a good idea either. But, we’re getting further away from the topic.

Here’s something all of you guys might find interesting about “Chavez and big oil”.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=12758

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
In essence, you trust governments to administer an economy while I trust free markets. But, in another thread, didn’t you say that 90% of governments are evil? (I think 99% are). Given the history of most of us, is this a wise choice? You want people who have a monopoly on the use of military force to have a monopoly on how an economy is governed?

In a perfect world, power would lie within the community, not some bloated and corrupt government. Giving power to the greedy and inhumane corporations isn’t a good idea either. But, we’re getting further away from the topic.

Here’s something all of you guys might find interesting about “Chavez and big oil”.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=12758[/quote]

Interesting article, in praise of a bandit chieftain whose argument is the barrel of a gun. Fascinating!

I wish the oil companies would set fire to all the oil fields, and leave a note in front of the inferno, saying: “We are leaving it as we found it. Take over, its yours.” (from Atlas Shrugged)

all it takes is one bullet. i’m surprised the oil companies haven’t hired some broke venezuelen to pop him.

Lixy,

How much do you know about the FARC? Or the fact that Chavez supports the FARC with arms and supplies?  Or the fact that a preponderance of the drugs from Columbia goes through Venezuela now? Ask the neighboring nations what they think of Chavez and his attempts to corrupt the democratic process in their elections.  Also, Chavez?s form of government requires the huge influx of oil money to stay afloat, just like one of his closest allies, Iran.  Neither nation would last six months without the state owned oil profits being used to subside the wages of the populace.  Neither country is putting any money into infrastructure or any other source of income once they are out of oil. 
Also, don?t think for a second that Chavez hasn?t invaded another country for any other reason than he doesn?t have the resources to do so.  He has imprisoned/killed/fired any person in the military that has any training from the US military? which was most of the officers.  In their place he had put his cronies that use the position to become famously rich?  completely rendering his military incompetent.  At the same time, ALL his neighbors are busy arming themselves to the teeth AND accepting training from US military forces.  He would get crushed at his first overt military action, so he is reduced to funding/giving refuge to the FARC.
As for his approved rating; Saddam had similar ratings, for similar reasons, before he was removed from power. My final point on is this:  When was the last time you spend a serious amount of time in a third world country, especially one controlled by a dictator?  Or are all your comments made from the cocoon of the EU?

[quote]lixy wrote:

At this point I doubt you’re interested in an intelligent debate.[/quote]

Intelligent debate requires rationalism - that is, you have to be willing to be open to the idea that facts and logic might dictate a conclusion different from your pre-supposed one wrapped in ideological fever.

You have shown incapable of that - no matter what the information, you’ll never waver from your pre-chosen ideological outcome.

It is unfortunate for purposes of intelligent debate - but not my problem to fix.

Impossible for you to do that with a straight face.

Too late to start trying to backtrack - invocation of “Diebold” exposes the real Lixy. Can’t unring that bell.

And this only supplements your other conspiracy kook claims - FDR letting Pearl Harbor happen, etc.

Sure - that sounds objective. No doubt you went into that analysis with an open mind.

Heheheh. No one mentions “Diebold” without the stink of “conspiracy” of mean old Republican capitalists" on the breath.

A painfully transparent apoligy - you are pathetic. Chavez scares the hell out of his people with “imperialists that steal your children and oil in the night” - but you are telling me the poor lad might be scared of Western powers invading?

Again - so transparent. You give philosophical cover to nearly every enemy of liberalism as long as they say the right things about “imperialists”.

Good to see you sympathetic to Hitler - “it’s not his fault!” - your broken record mantra that explains everything.

Just think - the both of you could talk for days on the merits of The Protocols of Zion. Nice!

Awesome - Hitler is one of your favored anti-imperialists, the sad victim of the powers that bullied Germany after WWI! Keep typing, Lixy - this is pure entertainment as you show your true colors.

Ooh, then let’s compare.

All the things radical Leftists complain that Bush has done, Chavez actually does them.

Then, of course, there is the “what have you done for the world” category? Well, Chavez in on the verge of imprisoning his people in a cycle of poverty and a prison state.

Meanwhile, Bush has liberated more Muslims from their self-inflicted chains than any Muslim statesmen in hundreds of years. If Afghanistan, women get the opportunity to rise beyond being chattel, free of torture - and how? Not the work of Muslims - who are feckless eunuchs to do anything to improve the lot of their bretheren - but instead the work of a drawling Texan who used to work in the oil business.

No wonder you hate Bush so much - it is just a further extension of your shameful humiliation. Unable to do anything about the barbarian state your fellow Muslims have to survive under day to day, it takes the audacious action of a “moron” American to actually get Afghans a chance at an education, human rights, and a step toward ending apartheid.

Add Iraq - though more complicated - to that list.

Centuries of failure on your part reversed in part by a conservative Texan.

No wonder you are filled with rage - behind it all is a world of incurable shame and humiliation. Bush, in three years, has done more for your part of the world than you have in centuries.

Why would you care if anything was “one sided”? You have never ventured from your comfortable ideology - why would you ask anyone else to?

Count on Lixy to distort- how many of those polls asked the question “If Bush lied to go to war, do you want him impeached?”

That doesn’t mean what you want it to.

I doubt it - true to your ideology, you will claim “it’s not my fault! Capitalists and corporations made me do it!”.

Well, as American president at war, that is his job - make sure fewer of our guys get killed than the enemy.

When said other countries stay in compliance with international ceasefire obligations, you have nothing to worry your pretty head and you can go protest Third World countries’ right to remain poor.

No - read carefully: it is an explanation why rational debate is impossible with you. Just clarifying for your convenience.

Lixy,

Thunder has chosen to give you an education, unlike any of the lib morons who taught you all the crapola and half-baked stuff you come up with. You seriously need to thank him.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Intelligent debate requires rationalism - that is, you have to be willing to be open to the idea that facts and logic might dictate a conclusion different from your pre-supposed one wrapped in ideological fever. [/quote]

Got anything better than baseless ad-hominems?

I’m the only one who can tell.

[quote]Sure - that sounds objective. No doubt you went into that analysis with an open mind.

Heheheh. No one mentions “Diebold” without the stink of “conspiracy” of mean old Republican capitalists" on the breath. [/quote]

Did you realize the irony of your statement? On the one hand, you accuse others to be objective and on the other, you make an automatic association between a trademark and conspiracies.

You seriously need to reform your brains.

I never heard Chavez accuse anyone of stealing children. I have heard people say that if you didn’t vote Republicans, the terrorists win.

Chavez isn’t using fear. He doesn’t need to. The Venezuelans see with their own eyes the profits made by foreign companies by exploiting their natural resources.

Try again.

This was your wildest statement you made yet. You claimed, and I quote, that “Hitler was a socialist, don’t forget - he rose to power on the idea that rich, money-hungry Jews were enslaving his people”. I didn’t refute that, and added that the Jews weren’t responsible for the plight of Germany. You didn’t make that precision and neither did you provide context. How you can spin this as apologism for Hitler is really beyond me.

You don’t even try to read or analyze. You jump to extravagant conclusions to make your point. That is dishonest and shows how “objective” you are.

You think that’s funny?

Idiot!

Did Chavez gave orders to invade countries and wage war that slaughtered innocent kids?

Didn’t think so.

You mean like Iraq was “on the verge” of representing a threat to the US national security? Or is it like Iran’s civil nuclear program is “on the verge” of being transformed into a military one?

Well, if you consider that the dead bodies of Iraqi children were liberated, then yes.

The Talibans would have never had a chance to impose their barbaric rule in the first place without the CIA connection.

Now, what did Bush do lately for the Palestinians?

Don’t even think about going there.

Remind “my part of the world” to send him flowers.

I challenge the status quo and it’s MY ideology you call comfortable.

Man, you’re stupid.

That question was asked prior to 2005. Nowadays, the question is “do you want him impeached or not?”.

“Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a ?top priority,? but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority;”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

[i]“At the same time, 69 percent said Bush should not be impeached or removed from office, with 30 percent saying he should be impeached or removed from office. One percent had no opinion. A total of 1,004 adults was asked the questions about impeachment.”[i]

You fail to mention that he started the war.

And how can you possibly justify a baby blown apart by a “smart bomb”?

What was the sin of the Vietnamese people? The Somalians? The Nicaraguans?

Did they break any international ceasefire?

Your entire “explanation” was based on ad hominems. Take it out and it crumbles like a house of cards. Hence, my remark.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Got anything better than baseless ad-hominems?[/quote]

It’s not a baseless insult, Lixy - it is a factual description of why you don’t do well in an intelligent, rational debate.

Between a “trademark” and a “conspiracy”? Stop trying to pretend you didn’t invoked a conspiracy theory.

You did. We all know it. Now, you can add that to the “FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming” idea.

This makes no sense.

[quote]I never heard Chavez accuse anyone of stealing children. I have heard people say that if you didn’t vote Republicans, the terrorists win.

Chavez isn’t using fear. He doesn’t need to. The Venezuelans see with their own eyes the profits made by foreign companies by exploiting their natural resources. [/quote]

Yes, and Germans saw with their own eyes that Jews were exploiting Germany - keep running with it, Lixy!

Chavez is playing on people’s fear to consolidate power, just like Hitler - you should be the enemy of this, regardless of whether the fear is fake or real. But, interestingly, you are not. Curious.

Well, you gave Hitler a pass for being a legitimate victim of the powers that signed the Versailles Treaty. Once again, you use your rickety “oppressor-oppressee” model in the worst of ways.

And you said yourself Germans were legitimate victims of the winning powers of WWI. So, by your own rationale, Hitler was playing on real fears - so he is exactly like Chavez, even under your own theory.

You’re done.

Lixy, you don’t have an objective bone in your body. If I jump to conclusions, it’s dishonest - what is it when you do it?

Please stop peddling this - you open your mouth, you stick your foot in. And I beg you - don’t lecture anyone anywhere on being objective. You just look silly.

I do - largely because it is hitting so close to home with you.

Here we go - you have nothing but your sniveling about the casualties of war. This, despite the West’s attempts to wage the most humane war we can.

How many children will starve under Chavez’ rule? How many will go to bed fatherless because their fathers had the audacity to use their free speech to speak out against Chavez only to disappear into the night?

Why no tears for them, Lixy?

I have source after source documenting Iraq’s perceived threat - but you refuse to recognize them. Then, you start mouthing off like no one made the rational case that Saddam was a threat, like no one presented any evidence…

…how many times can you ignore those claims and then try and convince the rest of us here no claims were presented? We can all read - who are you trying to fool?

Sniff - your fallback position. The innocents killed in war. No war is ever justified to you, Lixy - and that makes you unserious.

For years, neither your left-wing politics nor your Muslim barbarian brethren could do anything about the state of affairs in that part of the world - then a conservative Texan comes in and does more to advance the ball for millions of Muslims than any leftist theory or Muslim politician.

Again, no wonder you try and change the subject to the unfortunate calamities of war - I’d be ashamed too.

Ridiculous, Lixy - you are just flailing like a child throwing a tantrum now.

You mean other than back a two-state solution?

And better yet, what has the Arab League done to help Palestinians? What have your radical brethren done, other than to put more people in harm’s way?

Hilarious - I’d go there just fine. Iraq is a hellish place, but now there is a chance for civilization. Tell me, what were left-wing outfits doing for the plight of persecuted Iraqis under Saddams’ rule? Arab nations? Anyone?

They need to show more appreciation than flowers.

No, you don’t - you reflexively do whatever left-wing dogma instructs you to do. The “status quo” is to always presume bad faith on the part of Western capitalists, Republicans, white people, corporations - you would never challenge that left-wing dogma, no matter what the facts told you.

You are irrational - a slave to an idea. A slave to your own status quo. Don’t try and convince anyone around here you challenge anything - you don’t have a single original idea. You just parrot the left-wing ideology and nothing - repeat nothing - could change your mind.

Irrational. Non-objective. And unwilling to ever consider your dogma is wrong when presented with different facts that undermine your very statements. You are exactly what you claim to despise - a mindless sheep stuck to your own status quo.

Yes, as stated earlier - the desire to impeach is not a serious idea among lots and lots of people. Thanks for making my point.

So what? Doesn’t matter - wars are meant to be won, so Presidents should do their best to make sure less Americans die than the enemy.

Your point, as usual, is irrelevant.

Awww, you are so sensitive. Look, stop trying to make a case that we don’t weep at the casualties of war. The US does what it can to minimize such casualties - but again - your mind is made up before observing the fact that the US tries to avoid civilian casualties.

Your pacifist whining is cute - but naive.

[quote]What was the sin of the Vietnamese people? The Somalians? The Nicaraguans?

Did they break any international ceasefire?[/quote]

You are losing focus - was Bush president then? Because you are trying to hold him guilty for those acts.

Regardless of their merits - and each deserves its own discussion - does what happened in any of those places have anything to do with Saddam’s ceasefire agreements?

Nothing has crumbled, but you hope it did.

I am not insulting you, Lixy - I am explaining why you can’t be taken seriously in a rational debate.

You claim to be interested in rational debate, but you really aren’t. I only raise those points - what you call ad hominems - to ask you to stop pretending as though you are interested in rational debate.

What happens, Lixy, when the facts suggest a different conclusion than your pre-determined ideological conclusion? Can you waver from the dogma?

If you can’t, me saying so is not a personal attack - it is a statement of fact that bears on the validity of your argument.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chavez isn’t using fear. He doesn’t need to. The Venezuelans see with their own eyes the profits made by foreign companies by exploiting their natural resources.

[/quote]

Why didn’t the Venezuelans develop their own resources, instead of waiting for the Great Satan’s Big Oil to come and develop it for them?

Why do they wait until the oil companies have the assets in place before pouncing? Could they be…uhhh…looters?

‘Exploiting’? What was Venezuela like before the oil companies decided to ‘exploit’ the oil? It was another backwater bandit fiefdom.

Go demand a refund on your education.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chavez isn’t using fear. He doesn’t need to. The Venezuelans see with their own eyes the profits made by foreign companies by exploiting their natural resources.

[/quote]

Are you serious? You’ve never been to South America have you? Things are different down there. Venezuela just like the rest of South America is drowning in a sea of corruption and has been for decades. Chavez didn’t ride in on his white horse and end corruption, he just used it to his advantage and where that didn’t work, he used the military and the police. N

Nobody came in a “exploited” their natural resources. They were invited in and Venezuela was paid handsomely for it.

Chavez doesn’t use fear? I can’t stop laughing. You’re a pill.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng

[quote]pat36 wrote:

Chavez doesn’t use fear? I can’t stop laughing. You’re a pill.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/ven-summary-eng[/quote]

The list of horrors from - of all wesbites - Amnesty International.

Hoisted by his petard.