I think ranking Carter with Bush the Lesser is a rank piece of revisionist history, perpetuated by the right in this country because prattling on about Carter allows them to avoid addressing the damage done by Reagan, Bush the Elder and the current charlatan in the White House, as we march ever closer to a worldwide holy war. Modern "conservatism" is basically a mental illness, especially pronounced when present in those under the age of 75. Wasting one's breath attacking an honest man of peace like Carter is disgraceful.
dude, youre dumb as a brick. If the right(im assuming their collective will is exercised through he who goes by the human name karl rove) were trying to denigrate carter to distract from the current 'charlatan in the white house' bush why would they attempt to rank the two of them alongside each other?
the notion that anyone would attempt to utilise a contemporary irrelevance like carter for political expediency is fatuous enough in itself but to lose your own chain of reasoning within the course of a sentence is what really puts the cherry on that particular douche cake.
You are uniquely qualified to speak on "contemporary irrelevance" "douche cake"...
I think ranking Carter with Bush the Lesser is a rank piece of revisionist history, perpetuated by the right in this country because prattling on about Carter allows them to avoid addressing the damage done by Reagan, Bush the Elder and the current charlatan in the White House, as we march ever closer to a worldwide holy war. Modern "conservatism" is basically a mental illness, especially pronounced when present in those under the age of 75. Wasting one's breath attacking an honest man of peace like Carter is disgraceful.
dude, youre dumb as a brick. If the right(im assuming their collective will is exercised through he who goes by the human name karl rove) were trying to denigrate carter to distract from the current 'charlatan in the white house' bush why would they attempt to rank the two of them alongside each other?
the notion that anyone would attempt to utilise a contemporary irrelevance like carter for political expediency is fatuous enough in itself but to lose your own chain of reasoning within the course of a sentence is what really puts the cherry on that particular douche cake.
You are uniquely qualified to speak on "contemporary irrelevance" "douche cake"...
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies???all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Quite a revealing bit of self-analysis there. You've taken a bold first step. Now on to the other 11 steps....
Doublethink is the prevalent idealogy of both the D's and the R's. If you can't recognize how they both mirror tactics to appease their "base", than you a suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. There is no need for self-analysis because I'm not a devotee to either party.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies???all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Quite a revealing bit of self-analysis there. You've taken a bold first step. Now on to the other 11 steps....
Doublethink is the prevalent idealogy of both the D's and the R's. If you can't recognize how they both mirror tactics to appease their "base", than you a suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. There is no need for self-analysis because I'm not a devotee to either party.[/b]
What a bunch of fucking horseshit this whole Carter business is. We will talk to anyone when we think it is in our interests. Photo exhibit A.
Our (republican) president talking to the greatest mass murderer in history (some debate about Stalin). At the time this guy had the bomb and had just spent ten years killing anyone who had ever read a book. Making the Taliban and Khomenini look like Mr and Mrs Manners. As for Chavez, yeah he's a little nutty, but he still sells us oil and his policies are a natural reaction to our influence in that region. Deal with it.
As for Chavez, yeah he's a little nutty, but he still sells us oil and his policies are a natural reaction to our influence in that region. Deal with it.
Submit to what? Higher gas prices. Chavez is playing chess, you knuckleheads in power need to start playing like my boy Nixon started doing. Read some Fukuyama. Get our ass out of Iraq and start hunting Al Qeada for real. Develop a bi-partisan energy self-sufficiency plan similar to our cold war policy. John Wayne tactics is for trust fund babies who steal the office of the president. Chess is for some mafuckers who want to preserve the American way of life. These problems will not go away with rhetoric nor we will enforce our will on the world. Deal with it.
These problems will not go away with rhetoric nor we will enforce our will on the world. Deal with it.
and by "deal with it," of course you mean submit.
What law school do you go to? Have they not yet taught you the skills of a persuasive argument other than the Pee-Wee "I know you are but what am I?" defense?
These problems will not go away with rhetoric nor we will enforce our will on the world. Deal with it.
and by "deal with it," of course you mean submit.
What law school do you go to? Have they not yet taught you the skills of a persuasive argument other than the Pee-Wee "I know you are but what am I?" defense?
I don't think gas prices should be used in a debate to which Carter is being referred to.
Actually thats one of the few features of his presidency which is worthwhile talking about today. There are people trying to stop the 'price gouging' of oil companies by advocating the very same policies which caused so much trouble under carter(to be fair to jimbo alot of blame must rest with nixon also).
Submit to what? Higher gas prices. Chavez is playing chess, you knuckleheads in power need to start playing like my boy Nixon started doing. Read some Fukuyama. Get our ass out of Iraq and start hunting Al Qeada for real. Develop a bi-partisan energy self-sufficiency plan similar to our cold war policy. John Wayne tactics is for trust fund babies who steal the office of the president. Chess is for some mafuckers who want to preserve the American way of life. These problems will not go away with rhetoric nor we will enforce our will on the world. Deal with it.
I've always loved Carter. Chavez is cool in my book, too. what? You guys love American Imperialism? Oh I get it. You want to and/or work for the man and want a real taste of America's testicle and all the glorious semon that comes with it. You're lubing up your mouths with this drivel, waiting for America's cock to be roughly inserted. Mikey Mouse's cock will be in your ass, not that there's anything wrong with that.
strawman. one can recognize the utter failures of today's administration (as I do) and still not feel the need to cuddle up to a autocrat bastard like Chavez. you would be censored in Venezuela.
Submit to what? Higher gas prices. Chavez is playing chess, you knuckleheads in power need to start playing like my boy Nixon started doing. Read some Fukuyama. Get our ass out of Iraq and start hunting Al Qeada for real. Develop a bi-partisan energy self-sufficiency plan similar to our cold war policy. John Wayne tactics is for trust fund babies who steal the office of the president. Chess is for some mafuckers who want to preserve the American way of life. These problems will not go away with rhetoric nor we will enforce our will on the world. Deal with it.
I've always loved Carter. Chavez is cool in my book, too. what? You guys love American Imperialism? Oh I get it. You want to and/or work for the man and want a real taste of America's testicle and all the glorious semon that comes with it. You're lubing up your mouths with this drivel, waiting for America's cock to be roughly inserted. Mikey Mouse's cock will be in your ass, not that there's anything wrong with that.
strawman. one can recognize the utter failures of today's administration (as I do) and still not feel the need to cuddle up to a autocrat bastard like Chavez. you would be censored in Venezuela.
How do you know? Maybe i'd be in power. BTW, list the horrible things Chavez has done. Go ahead, make a list. i want to learn.
While Venezuela???s recent human rights record has little if nothing in common with the tainted record of Cuba or, say, Pinochet???s Chile, there are, nevertheless, legitimate concerns by nonpartisan international observers. Amnesty International points to incidents of torture as well as ???continuing reports of unlawful killings of criminal suspects by members of the police. Relatives and witnesses who reported such abuses were frequently threatened or attacked. No effective protection was granted to them despite calls by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for the authorities to do so.??? The Amnesty report also accuses Chavez of deliberately exposing human rights workers to dangerous reprisals.
Likewise, Human Rights Watch has criticized Chavez for repressive press laws, including a measure that would impose jail upon those who publicly ???disrespect??? the president.
The problem with Chavez, says liberal policy analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, is that unlike the new breed of Latin American leftist leaders--such as Presidents Ricardo Lagos of Chile, Lula of Brazil, Kirchner of Argentina and Vasquez of Uruguay, who have long histories of fighting against authoritarian military rule and for democracy--the Venezuelan leader is a creature of the military. While these other leftist presidents ???eschew any rhetoric or actions that elevate the armed forces beyond their legitimate role,??? says Shifter, Chavez extends them excessive power:
Mr. Chavez presides over an evolving political system that concentrates power and is devoid of checks and balances. He relies chiefly on the armed forces to rule Venezuela. The Fifth Republic Movement, his own party, is a subordinate actor. An unprecedented number of active and retired officers occupy key positions throughout the Chavez administration. More than one-third of the country???s regional governments are in the hands of soldiers linked to Mr. Chavez. The armed forces have increasingly taken on development roles that most of Latin America???s democratic leaders insist be carried out by civilians.
Other critics suggest that Chavez???s success is a temporary bubble inflated by high oil prices and that underneath his revolutionary rhetoric he is more of an old-fashioned populist buying constituencies with lavish handouts. Instead of spending gushes of petro-dollars for quick-hit benefit, they say, Chavez ought to be investing oil profits in long-term development projects. Otherwise, when and if oil prices fall, Chavez???s projects could collapse.
Latin American historian Kenneth Maxwell, a firm critic of American interventionism, warns that Chavez looks less like a Robin Hood and more like a strongman on the model of Argentina???s Juan Peron. Like Chavez, Peron built broad popular support by standing up to foreign economic and political interests and positioning himself as a nationalist and populist. And though the poor, the unions and eventually much of the organized left rallied to his side, Peron saddled Argentina with a heavy legacy of failed promises and authoritarian rule.
Elections for Venezuela???s National Assembly, held on Dec. 4, consolidated Chavez???s domination of the government and opened the door to his extended rule. Citing fears that voting machines could register the identities and choices of individual balloters, the country???s major opposition parties all withdrew and boycotted the elections.
International observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union, however, called the elections broadly fair while noting some irregularities in the process and a lack of confidence in election officials. The EU observers noted that Chavez used government radio and TV as an ???excessive resource??? during the election campaign, while the OAS delegation noted unfair ???political propaganda from high level public officials, including federal, state and municipal officials.???
The results of the election bode poorly for Venezuelan democracy. Candidates allied to Chavez won all 167 seats in the Assembly, shutting out any opposition voice. Instead of the usual 55-60% turnout, only 25% of voters turned out, raising questions about the real level of Chavez???s popularity. The new legislative super-majority in the National Assembly, however, is now expected to put an end to a two-term limit on the six-year presidential term, allowing Chavez to run again in 2012 and hold power until least 2018.
Though the election marked the implosion of his opposition, Chavez was hardly gracious in his victory. He railed that the mild criticism of the electoral process from the OAS and the EU was nothing less than an ???ambush,??? part of an international plan to ???destabilize??? Venezuela. ???These delegates, both from the OAS and the European Union, connived against the interests of the Venezuelan people and against Venezuelan democracy,??? Chavez said in an address broadcast on state television.
Chavez is a great leader in the Fidel Castro mold.
85% of his citizens live in poverty but you can't blame him for that as he really has no natural resources or sources of income to help solve that problem.
No problem. I wasn't familiar with truthdig before someone sent me that article. They seem to have some decent content but like every other media outlet you need to take some of it with a grain of salt.
Comments
are you questioning my patriotism?
That's your game Spanky.
Doublethink is the prevalent idealogy of both the D's and the R's. If you can't recognize how they both mirror tactics to appease their "base", than you a suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. There is no need for self-analysis because I'm not a devotee to either party.
No kidding? What was I thinking (doubly)?
Our (republican) president talking to the greatest mass murderer in history (some debate about Stalin). At the time this guy had the bomb and had just spent ten years killing anyone who had ever read a book. Making the Taliban and Khomenini look like Mr and Mrs Manners. As for Chavez, yeah he's a little nutty, but he still sells us oil and his policies are a natural reaction to our influence in that region. Deal with it.
And by "deal with it," of course you mean submit.
and by "deal with it," of course you mean submit.
What law school do you go to? Have they not yet taught you the skills of a persuasive argument other than the Pee-Wee "I know you are but what am I?" defense?
Deal with it!
and by "deal with it," of course I mean submit.
I don't think gas prices should be used in a debate to which Carter is being referred to.
Actually thats one of the few features of his presidency which is worthwhile talking about today. There are people trying to stop the 'price gouging' of oil companies by advocating the very same policies which caused so much trouble under carter(to be fair to jimbo alot of blame must rest with nixon also).
knowledge dropped.
strawman. one can recognize the utter failures of today's administration (as I do) and still not feel the need to cuddle up to a autocrat bastard like Chavez. you would be censored in Venezuela.
absofuckinglutly.
How do you know? Maybe i'd be in power. BTW, list the horrible things Chavez has done. Go ahead, make a list. i want to learn.
Likewise, Human Rights Watch has criticized Chavez for repressive press laws, including a measure that would impose jail upon those who publicly ???disrespect??? the president.
The problem with Chavez, says liberal policy analyst Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, is that unlike the new breed of Latin American leftist leaders--such as Presidents Ricardo Lagos of Chile, Lula of Brazil, Kirchner of Argentina and Vasquez of Uruguay, who have long histories of fighting against authoritarian military rule and for democracy--the Venezuelan leader is a creature of the military. While these other leftist presidents ???eschew any rhetoric or actions that elevate the armed forces beyond their legitimate role,??? says Shifter, Chavez extends them excessive power:
Mr. Chavez presides over an evolving political system that concentrates power and is devoid of checks and balances. He relies chiefly on the armed forces to rule Venezuela. The Fifth Republic Movement, his own party, is a subordinate actor. An unprecedented number of active and retired officers occupy key positions throughout the Chavez administration. More than one-third of the country???s regional governments are in the hands of soldiers linked to Mr. Chavez. The armed forces have increasingly taken on development roles that most of Latin America???s democratic leaders insist be carried out by civilians.
Other critics suggest that Chavez???s success is a temporary bubble inflated by high oil prices and that underneath his revolutionary rhetoric he is more of an old-fashioned populist buying constituencies with lavish handouts. Instead of spending gushes of petro-dollars for quick-hit benefit, they say, Chavez ought to be investing oil profits in long-term development projects. Otherwise, when and if oil prices fall, Chavez???s projects could collapse.
Latin American historian Kenneth Maxwell, a firm critic of American interventionism, warns that Chavez looks less like a Robin Hood and more like a strongman on the model of Argentina???s Juan Peron. Like Chavez, Peron built broad popular support by standing up to foreign economic and political interests and positioning himself as a nationalist and populist. And though the poor, the unions and eventually much of the organized left rallied to his side, Peron saddled Argentina with a heavy legacy of failed promises and authoritarian rule.
Elections for Venezuela???s National Assembly, held on Dec. 4, consolidated Chavez???s domination of the government and opened the door to his extended rule. Citing fears that voting machines could register the identities and choices of individual balloters, the country???s major opposition parties all withdrew and boycotted the elections.
International observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union, however, called the elections broadly fair while noting some irregularities in the process and a lack of confidence in election officials. The EU observers noted that Chavez used government radio and TV as an ???excessive resource??? during the election campaign, while the OAS delegation noted unfair ???political propaganda from high level public officials, including federal, state and municipal officials.???
The results of the election bode poorly for Venezuelan democracy. Candidates allied to Chavez won all 167 seats in the Assembly, shutting out any opposition voice. Instead of the usual 55-60% turnout, only 25% of voters turned out, raising questions about the real level of Chavez???s popularity. The new legislative super-majority in the National Assembly, however, is now expected to put an end to a two-term limit on the six-year presidential term, allowing Chavez to run again in 2012 and hold power until least 2018.
Though the election marked the implosion of his opposition, Chavez was hardly gracious in his victory. He railed that the mild criticism of the electoral process from the OAS and the EU was nothing less than an ???ambush,??? part of an international plan to ???destabilize??? Venezuela. ???These delegates, both from the OAS and the European Union, connived against the interests of the Venezuelan people and against Venezuelan democracy,??? Chavez said in an address broadcast on state television.
The Big Blowup Over Venezuela
85% of his citizens live in poverty but you can't blame him for that as he really has no natural resources or sources of income to help solve that problem.