Losing South America

[Yota]

We are losing South America to dictators.

Venezuela - Hugo Chavez
Bolivia - Morales
Nicaragua - Daniel Ortega (again), although he marched into office with barely a third of the vote. Nicaragua is technically still a democratic republic, but watch for this to change as Ortega rushes to join this developing cabal of dictators.

and the latest...

Ecuador - Rafael Correa is trying to rewrite the constitution to give him all executive and legislative power. There is a huge number of people supporting him. Pathetic. I was there just before the election. It will be said to see Ecuador go downhill.

Mexico - *very* narrowly missed having a kooky leftist down there.

Cuba - duh. They started it all.

The worst part is that these guys are sweeping into their dictatorial positions with the blessing of the people. I have said it so many time that I'm hoarse; when someone calls himself a "populist" the world should know he really means "dictator."

S. America seems to oscillate between freedom and dictatorship. It's sad that the people down there haven't learned their lesson. But in most cases these dictators are swept into power on the shoulders of the vast poor class. Yet somehow the poverty never goes away under these dictators. What certainly do go away are basic human rights like freedom of dissent. Too bad. These countries will have to endure yet another cycle of radical dictatorships before they again throw off the shackles of oppression and again vow never to do that again. :rolleyes:

[LONEWOLF]

Its a vicous cycle yota, eventually the coups will come again etc. etc. but the people more or less are choosing there fate, no?

[Gags]

I need to make myself more familiar with S. American history. I'd like to start to understand the "why."

[LONEWOLF]

Why what? It is to close to home for one. We have enough illegals coming in and don't need more, fleeing persecution or asking for political asylum due to dictators killing off the opposition.

[Gunner]

In another decade the people will realize they are being screwed. Corruption will set in and revolution will take hold.

[Steve]

I need to make myself more familiar with S. American history. I'd like to start to understand the "why."

Easy. Class warfare. Pitting the "haves" against the "have nots." Capitalizing on the innocence and ignorance of the poor. Promising handouts to the "have nots" while penalizing the evil "haves."

John Edwards is trying hard to use this same strategy here. :rolleyes:

[Machete]

That reminds me of this.

Newsweek
Right Ideas, Wrong Time
By Fareed Zakaria


President Bush has done the right thing in going to Latin America. He's visiting the right countries, and he has sounded the right themes, emphasizing that the United States supports democratic government, open markets and "social justice" (a phrase I have never heard Bush use before, and which must be causing ulcers in some of his right-wing fans). But Bush's new look at region will not do much good. It's too little, too late.

Until Bush's election in 2000, American foreign policy toward Latin America had been on the right track for two decades. Ronald Reagan orchestrated an extraordinary turnaround, supporting human rights, democracy and free trade in several countries. His administration played an important role in ending the dictatorships in Chile and Paraguay, among other places. He proposed new trade policies that would spur growth in the region. And perhaps most important, he began a tradition of support and cooperation for Mexican reform that became standard for later American administrations. His successors, the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, extended these basic policies. They forged the North American Free Trade Agreement, supported Mexico's reforms and democratization, and pushed for a free-trade agreement for the entire Western Hemisphere.

"Through four presidential terms the United States had developed a remarkably successful policy towards Latin America," says Harvard University Latin American scholar Jorge Dom?nguez. "That forward movement was stopped and then reversed by Bush." Bush came into office with few ideas about what he wanted to do in the region (except with Mexico, where he proposed an ambitious and intelligent immigration plan). Latin America was largely ignored, especially after September 11, though here as elsewhere the familiar story of incompetence and ideology characterized regional policy.

The two senior officials Bush appointed for the region were Roger Noriega, a former staffer for Sen. Jesse Helms, and Otto Reich, who was sufficiently extreme and weird that even the Republican Senate eventually rejected his nomination. The two proceeded to fritter away most of the good will the United States had accumulated over the previous two decades. They began intervening directly in the domestic affairs of countries, supporting and opposing various candidates for elections in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and, of course, Venezuela. With Caracas, Reich appeared to have supported a hapless coup attempt against Hugo Ch?vez. (Reich has asserted incompetence as his defense, claiming that he was unable to communicate properly that the United States did not support the coup.)

On trade, the administration slowed the momentum coming out of NAFTA, slapped tariffs on steel, which punished producers in countries like Brazil, and then forced Central American countries to sign a highly lopsided trade deal. "CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] was a return to the old-style trade deals," says Dom?nguez. "It forced small and weak countries to liberalize but made few reciprocal openings in the U.S. market to their products. Central Americans knew it was highly unfair but had to sign it. It helped convince the region that American posturings on free trade were largely hypocritical."

Over the past year, Bush's people and policies-now steered by Condoleezza Rice-have changed significantly. The senior official in charge of Latin America policy, Thomas Shannon, is a grown-up. The administration has avoided anything that might look like heavy-handed interference in countries. It has talked up American partnership and aid. Bush has made some effort to address the issues most important to governments in the
region-biofuels in Brazil, immigration in Mexico and trade everywhere.

The only problem is that now Bush is operating with almost no room to maneuver. He is deeply unpopular in Latin America. Ch?vez's campaign against his trip might seem absurd, but it plays to widespread public sentiments across the region. And in the United States, Bush faces a country and a Congress deeply suspicious of him and his policies-even when they are the right ones. On trade, he has little political clout. And yet, without reducing American tariffs on ethanol, any notion of a partnership with Brazil on biofuels is simply rhetoric. Similarly, without comprehensive immigration reform, the relationship with Mexico remains uneasy.


The tragedy here is a familiar one. When Bush had enormous room to maneuver in 2001, when loaded with political capital in 2002 and 2003, he embarked on a series of ideological exercises that severely diminished American influence and prestige. Now, battered by failure, he has moved toward more-sensible policies-not just in Latin America, but in North Korea and even the Middle East. But the president is now walking alone, with few supporters at home or abroad, and little capital that he can draw on to execute any of his new approaches. In region after region, on issue after issue, that might well be the recurring theme of George W. Bush's foreign policy in his final 22 months.



http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html

[Gags]

Easy. Class warfare. Pitting the "haves" against the "have nots." Capitalizing on the innocence and ignorance of the poor. Promising handouts to the "have nots" while penalizing the evil "haves."

John Edwards is trying hard to use this same strategy here. :rolleyes:

John Edwards = Hugo Chavez :D

[Gags]

That reminds me of this.

Newsweek
Right Ideas, Wrong Time
By Fareed Zakaria


President Bush has done the right thing in going to Latin America. He's visiting the right countries, and he has sounded the right themes, emphasizing that the United States supports democratic government, open markets and "social justice" (a phrase I have never heard Bush use before, and which must be causing ulcers in some of his right-wing fans). But Bush's new look at region will not do much good. It's too little, too late.

Until Bush's election in 2000, American foreign policy toward Latin America had been on the right track for two decades. Ronald Reagan orchestrated an extraordinary turnaround, supporting human rights, democracy and free trade in several countries. His administration played an important role in ending the dictatorships in Chile and Paraguay, among other places. He proposed new trade policies that would spur growth in the region. And perhaps most important, he began a tradition of support and cooperation for Mexican reform that became standard for later American administrations. His successors, the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, extended these basic policies. They forged the North American Free Trade Agreement, supported Mexico's reforms and democratization, and pushed for a free-trade agreement for the entire Western Hemisphere.

"Through four presidential terms the United States had developed a remarkably successful policy towards Latin America," says Harvard University Latin American scholar Jorge Dom?nguez. "That forward movement was stopped and then reversed by Bush." Bush came into office with few ideas about what he wanted to do in the region (except with Mexico, where he proposed an ambitious and intelligent immigration plan). Latin America was largely ignored, especially after September 11, though here as elsewhere the familiar story of incompetence and ideology characterized regional policy.

The two senior officials Bush appointed for the region were Roger Noriega, a former staffer for Sen. Jesse Helms, and Otto Reich, who was sufficiently extreme and weird that even the Republican Senate eventually rejected his nomination. The two proceeded to fritter away most of the good will the United States had accumulated over the previous two decades. They began intervening directly in the domestic affairs of countries, supporting and opposing various candidates for elections in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and, of course, Venezuela. With Caracas, Reich appeared to have supported a hapless coup attempt against Hugo Ch?vez. (Reich has asserted incompetence as his defense, claiming that he was unable to communicate properly that the United States did not support the coup.)

On trade, the administration slowed the momentum coming out of NAFTA, slapped tariffs on steel, which punished producers in countries like Brazil, and then forced Central American countries to sign a highly lopsided trade deal. "CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] was a return to the old-style trade deals," says Dom?nguez. "It forced small and weak countries to liberalize but made few reciprocal openings in the U.S. market to their products. Central Americans knew it was highly unfair but had to sign it. It helped convince the region that American posturings on free trade were largely hypocritical."

Over the past year, Bush's people and policies-now steered by Condoleezza Rice-have changed significantly. The senior official in charge of Latin America policy, Thomas Shannon, is a grown-up. The administration has avoided anything that might look like heavy-handed interference in countries. It has talked up American partnership and aid. Bush has made some effort to address the issues most important to governments in the
region-biofuels in Brazil, immigration in Mexico and trade everywhere.

The only problem is that now Bush is operating with almost no room to maneuver. He is deeply unpopular in Latin America. Ch?vez's campaign against his trip might seem absurd, but it plays to widespread public sentiments across the region. And in the United States, Bush faces a country and a Congress deeply suspicious of him and his policies-even when they are the right ones. On trade, he has little political clout. And yet, without reducing American tariffs on ethanol, any notion of a partnership with Brazil on biofuels is simply rhetoric. Similarly, without comprehensive immigration reform, the relationship with Mexico remains uneasy.


The tragedy here is a familiar one. When Bush had enormous room to maneuver in 2001, when loaded with political capital in 2002 and 2003, he embarked on a series of ideological exercises that severely diminished American influence and prestige. Now, battered by failure, he has moved toward more-sensible policies-not just in Latin America, but in North Korea and even the Middle East. But the president is now walking alone, with few supporters at home or abroad, and little capital that he can draw on to execute any of his new approaches. In region after region, on issue after issue, that might well be the recurring theme of George W. Bush's foreign policy in his final 22 months.



http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html

I was watching Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Daily Show last night commenting on similiar. Giving president Bush an "F" on handling foriegn affairs and contributing to the possible decline of the US being the world superpower. I tended to agree completely. We want to be looked at as a force for good but instead we have united our enemies instead of dividing them.

[sames]

Easy. Class warfare. Pitting the "haves" against the "have nots." Capitalizing on the innocence and ignorance of the poor. Promising handouts to the "have nots" while penalizing the evil "haves."

John Edwards is trying hard to use this same strategy here. :rolleyes:


Hating the US is a great vote getter, hell it works here at home

[Gags]

Hating the US is a great vote getter, hell it works here at home

I don't think Americans hate America. More about what vision people have for what type of Country we are. Being critical of a current administration that has made several blunders doesn't mean hating our Country...It means hating the people who continue to f@ck it up.

[Budman]

I don't think Americans hate America. More about what vision people have for what type of Country we are. Being critical of a current administration that has made several blunders doesn't mean hating our Country...It means hating the people who continue to f@ck it up.

Depends if you are the hater, or the hated...

[Gags]

Depends if you are the hater, or the hated...

Fixing our foreign relations issue is paramount for me in the next election. We lose our global leverage and support if we don't. I think we can possibly agree that our gov. could/should have handled things much much better.

We had global support following 9-11 and our gov. chose to squander that support and actually reverse it.

Being a great Country means acting like one by example. When Putin can call Bush a hypocrite for being critical of Putin something is wrong. When Germans want to bring Rumsfeld up on war crimes charges we are not leading by example.

[Machete]

I was watching Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Daily Show last night commenting on similiar. Giving president Bush an "F" on handling foriegn affairs and contributing to the possible decline of the US being the world superpower. I tended to agree completely. We want to be looked at as a force for good but instead we have united our enemies instead of dividing them.

I'll have to watch the rerun of that, I can't stay awake late enough to watch the first airing.

[Waifer2112]

Well, it is their countries. We aren't losing anything. We never owned them, although some think America owns the world by proxy.

[Yota]

That reminds me of this.

Newsweek
Right Ideas, Wrong Time
By Fareed Zakaria


President Bush has done the right thing in going to Latin America. He's visiting the right countries, and he has sounded the right themes, emphasizing that the United States supports democratic government, open markets and "social justice" (a phrase I have never heard Bush use before, and which must be causing ulcers in some of his right-wing fans). But Bush's new look at region will not do much good. It's too little, too late.

Until Bush's election in 2000, American foreign policy toward Latin America had been on the right track for two decades. Ronald Reagan orchestrated an extraordinary turnaround, supporting human rights, democracy and free trade in several countries. His administration played an important role in ending the dictatorships in Chile and Paraguay, among other places. He proposed new trade policies that would spur growth in the region. And perhaps most important, he began a tradition of support and cooperation for Mexican reform that became standard for later American administrations. His successors, the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton, extended these basic policies. They forged the North American Free Trade Agreement, supported Mexico's reforms and democratization, and pushed for a free-trade agreement for the entire Western Hemisphere.

"Through four presidential terms the United States had developed a remarkably successful policy towards Latin America," says Harvard University Latin American scholar Jorge Dom?nguez. "That forward movement was stopped and then reversed by Bush." Bush came into office with few ideas about what he wanted to do in the region (except with Mexico, where he proposed an ambitious and intelligent immigration plan). Latin America was largely ignored, especially after September 11, though here as elsewhere the familiar story of incompetence and ideology characterized regional policy.

The two senior officials Bush appointed for the region were Roger Noriega, a former staffer for Sen. Jesse Helms, and Otto Reich, who was sufficiently extreme and weird that even the Republican Senate eventually rejected his nomination. The two proceeded to fritter away most of the good will the United States had accumulated over the previous two decades. They began intervening directly in the domestic affairs of countries, supporting and opposing various candidates for elections in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and, of course, Venezuela. With Caracas, Reich appeared to have supported a hapless coup attempt against Hugo Ch?vez. (Reich has asserted incompetence as his defense, claiming that he was unable to communicate properly that the United States did not support the coup.)

On trade, the administration slowed the momentum coming out of NAFTA, slapped tariffs on steel, which punished producers in countries like Brazil, and then forced Central American countries to sign a highly lopsided trade deal. "CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement] was a return to the old-style trade deals," says Dom?nguez. "It forced small and weak countries to liberalize but made few reciprocal openings in the U.S. market to their products. Central Americans knew it was highly unfair but had to sign it. It helped convince the region that American posturings on free trade were largely hypocritical."

Over the past year, Bush's people and policies-now steered by Condoleezza Rice-have changed significantly. The senior official in charge of Latin America policy, Thomas Shannon, is a grown-up. The administration has avoided anything that might look like heavy-handed interference in countries. It has talked up American partnership and aid. Bush has made some effort to address the issues most important to governments in the
region-biofuels in Brazil, immigration in Mexico and trade everywhere.

The only problem is that now Bush is operating with almost no room to maneuver. He is deeply unpopular in Latin America. Ch?vez's campaign against his trip might seem absurd, but it plays to widespread public sentiments across the region. And in the United States, Bush faces a country and a Congress deeply suspicious of him and his policies-even when they are the right ones. On trade, he has little political clout. And yet, without reducing American tariffs on ethanol, any notion of a partnership with Brazil on biofuels is simply rhetoric. Similarly, without comprehensive immigration reform, the relationship with Mexico remains uneasy.


The tragedy here is a familiar one. When Bush had enormous room to maneuver in 2001, when loaded with political capital in 2002 and 2003, he embarked on a series of ideological exercises that severely diminished American influence and prestige. Now, battered by failure, he has moved toward more-sensible policies-not just in Latin America, but in North Korea and even the Middle East. But the president is now walking alone, with few supporters at home or abroad, and little capital that he can draw on to execute any of his new approaches. In region after region, on issue after issue, that might well be the recurring theme of George W. Bush's foreign policy in his final 22 months.



http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html

Hugo Chavez, the biggest asshole of them all and the starter of the slide into leftist propaganda, came to power in 1998 during the Clinton administration. I was in Venezuela at that time and everyone down there knew he was trouble. But he was elected.

As much as we like to think the world revolves around the United States, in this case it didn't. Chavez was elected for one huge reason: rampant poverty. Venezuela has a huge problem with poverty as do many other S. American countries. And when you have that big a population of poor people, it is very easy to exploit them with leftist propaganda.

Bush has actually left S. America alone. That his guy supported a coup against Chavez is a bad thing? No. Not at all. But it wasn't nearly enough. I mean think back to what Reagan (who's championed in this article) did. He put the CIA in central America and started some wars that eventually drove the leftist knuckleheads out of power. Reagan drew a lot of heat over that too, but he did it and made it work - ugly as it was. Bush 1 went into Panama and took down Manuel Noriega. Clinton got involved in Haiti kinda sorta.

But Bush 2 has kept his hands mostly off of S. America much to our current detriment. He has been far from heavy-handed IMO. I mean I think we can all agree that starting a CIA-led war or taking out a head of state are pretty damn heavy-handed actions. With that as the standard I think it's safe to say GW Bush has NOT been heavy handed enough. In fact, he's been far too conciliatory.

[Yota]

Well, it is their countries. We aren't losing anything. We never owned them, although some think America owns the world by proxy.

Pay attention, Waifer.

You don't own your friends either, yet you can lose them. :shrug:

[Waifer2112]

Pay attention, Waifer.

You don't own your friends either, yet you can lose them. :shrug:

That's true. I didn't think of it that way. I was wrong.

[TheCopperCowboy]

So, South American disagrees that U.S. corporate interests can not operate within their country because it is their resources and are capable of managing it themselves. What is the problem with that? It is a free market last time I checked and capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? :rolleyes:

[Steve]

Capitalism works great when allowed to work. When the government takes over everything that's not capitalism.

It's funny how the Bush-haters criticize him for "meddling" in other countries' affairs, and then criticize him for not meddling. Dang those pesky facts again. :shrug:

[Waifer2112]

Capitalism works great when allowed to work. When the government takes over everything that's not capitalism.

It's funny how the Bush-haters criticize him for "meddling" in other countries' affairs, and then criticize him for not meddling. Dang those pesky facts again. :shrug:

I don't have a problem with him "meddling" around in Afghanistan. Or if we were to go to Africa. It's that he meddles in the wrong places. Dang those pesky facts again, always getting in the way. :P

[Yota]

So, South American disagrees that U.S. corporate interests can not operate within their country because it is their resources and are capable of managing it themselves. What is the problem with that? It is a free market last time I checked and capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? :rolleyes:

That's not the issue. The issue is the rush to dictatorships. The rush to dump constitutions and vest all power in one person. The issue is the suppression of dissent (which is a basic human right).

That's what's so alarming. Kicking out oil companies is not really an issue either as long as they are duly compensated for the billions they have invested. In any case, this has happened before in Venezuela. In the late 1970's VZ expropiated all the foreign oil companies and decided to go it alone. Their fields fell into disrepair and production declined faster than it needed to.

And consider Mexico. Mexico has been a relatively free, democratic state and a relative ally to the USA yet they haven't allowed foreign ownership of their oil fields - by constitutional amendment - since the 1920's.

It's not about the oil, it's about the loss of basic human rights.

[Steve]

I don't have a problem with him "meddling" around in Afghanistan. Or if we were to go to Africa. It's that he meddles in the wrong places. Dang those pesky facts again, always getting in the way. :P

I wasn't commenting on anyone here, or about anyone here, with my statement. For many haters tho, you gotta admit that they will absolutely never admit that anything he does is correct.

And define "wrong places." Is that just by your opinion? I know he's never called me to ask mine, and I'm guessing he hasn't called you either. :flipoff2:

[bsaunder]

Its not really anything new - ever since Spain "discovered" the new world, S. America has been run by dictators for the most part. There is and has been a very wide disparity between the "have's" and "have not's" and along with that a very large segment that is poorly , if at all, educated.

[Yota]

Not new but nonetheless contemptible. Or at least very sad.

[Machete]

Hugo Chavez, the biggest asshole of them all and the starter of the slide into leftist propaganda, came to power in 1998 during the Clinton administration. I was in Venezuela at that time and everyone down there knew he was trouble. But he was elected.

As much as we like to think the world revolves around the United States, in this case it didn't. Chavez was elected for one huge reason: rampant poverty. Venezuela has a huge problem with poverty as do many other S. American countries. And when you have that big a population of poor people, it is very easy to exploit them with leftist propaganda.

Bush has actually left S. America alone. That his guy supported a coup against Chavez is a bad thing? No. Not at all. But it wasn't nearly enough. I mean think back to what Reagan (who's championed in this article) did. He put the CIA in central America and started some wars that eventually drove the leftist knuckleheads out of power. Reagan drew a lot of heat over that too, but he did it and made it work - ugly as it was. Bush 1 went into Panama and took down Manuel Noriega. Clinton got involved in Haiti kinda sorta.

But Bush 2 has kept his hands mostly off of S. America much to our current detriment. He has been far from heavy-handed IMO. I mean I think we can all agree that starting a CIA-led war or taking out a head of state are pretty damn heavy-handed actions. With that as the standard I think it's safe to say GW Bush has NOT been heavy handed enough. In fact, he's been far too conciliatory.


I didn't see anywhere in there where it said Bush has been too heavy handed in dealing with that region. Just that what little has been done has been incompetent.

[Yota]

I didn't see anywhere in there where it said Bush has been too heavy handed in dealing with that region. Just that what little has been done has been incompetent.

Don't forget the part about how said "little that has been done" has caused this whole trend towards leftism.

Yet the trend started under Clinton. :shrug:

[Waifer2112]

I wasn't commenting on anyone here, or about anyone here, with my statement. For many haters tho, you gotta admit that they will absolutely never admit that anything he does is correct.
Of course. Look at many conservatives unrelenting rage at Clinton...still!!! It will always be that way for the "losing" party.

And define "wrong places." Is that just by your opinion? I know he's never called me to ask mine, and I'm guessing he hasn't called you either. :flipoff2:

Wrong places...at least the way he's trying
Iraq
Iran
N. Korea (until his about face recently)

But, I gotta go for the day. I'll check my messages when I get home to see if Bush called me to tell where to go next.

[Yota]

Yeah Waifer it'd be much better if we tried the way Clinton "tried." :rolleyes:

I give Clinton credit where it's due but only where it's due. I think there are many many on the left who will never give Bush credit for anything. But it's not about credit, it's about making sure that the bozos on the left don't undo the progress that's been made.

[lilgreenjeepyj]

I just found it funny that some of the spiritual leaders down there had to "cleanse" some of the holy grounds after Bush made his visit.

[Gags]

As a global leader should we take an active role helping the people of the world toward freedom?

I would say, yes in conjunction with other nations. Helping and meddling can be seen as one in the same depending on how it's handled.

The sad part is that our president seems to have lost credibility.

[Machete]

What's neat is how Bush wants to go around spreading democracy when we don't even have direct democracy here. Electoral College, yes?
Sometimes the whole democracy thing elects people like Hugo Chavez who are not so great.
Methinks sometimes building economicaly and having a strong middle class of people first is more important than just having some elections and saying "Yea Democracy!"

[TheCopperCowboy]

Had to step out for a bit. A few things about current dictatorships. How about planning to get rid of 93 U.S. attorneys and reappointing replacements without Congressional approval? Opps, I'm sorry, that was what was about to happen here in the U.S.. I give Gonzalez about 24 hours before he resigns and the whole mess gets swept under while we hear about Anna Nicole Smith or Brittney, choose whatever flavor works. :rolleyes:

[Steve]

What's neat is how Bush wants to go around spreading democracy when we don't even have direct democracy here. Electoral College, yes?

Huh? While people use the term "democracy" for our form of government, it was not designed to be, nor has it ever been, a true democracy. And as for the electoral college (no clue what that has to do with either Bush or this thread) let's hope it isn't abolished as a lot of Dems would very much like to do.

[Gags]

We can call ourselves democratic, however.

[Machete]

Huh? While people use the term "democracy" for our form of government, it was not designed to be, nor has it ever been, a true democracy. And as for the electoral college (no clue what that has to do with either Bush or this thread) let's hope it isn't abolished as a lot of Dems would very much like to do.

That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying we should change the way we do it here. I like the electoral college. I just think spreading democracy might not always be the best idea, we don't even do it that way here.

[TheCopperCowboy]

And as for the electoral college (no clue what that has to do with either Bush or this thread) let's hope it isn't abolished as a lot of Dems would very much like to do.

So, which should it be? Overall total vote count or the majority popular vote? Because in either case, we all saw how they can be circumvented. :mad:

[SUPERGILDO43]

I wasn't commenting on anyone here, or about anyone here, with my statement. For many haters tho, you gotta admit that they will absolutely never admit that anything he does is correct.


thats very true, and I try to find the balance of Bush's good and bad decisions, but just because we approve "meddling" in one area doesnt mean all "meddling is ok...

Pay attention, Waifer.

You don't own your friends either, yet you can lose them. :shrug:
Thats a very good point but I also think its a VERY fine line especially in the way bush handles things. As far as Im concerned bush has no real middle ground in his foreign policies.


Yeah Waifer it'd be much better if we tried the way Clinton "tried." :rolleyes:

I give Clinton credit where it's due but only where it's due. I think there are many many on the left who will never give Bush credit for anything. But it's not about credit, it's about making sure that the bozos on the left don't undo the progress that's been made.
But tell me the "progress" that BUSH has made? I personally think we (our government) are starting to be be VERY COUTER-productive. and again I dont beleive Bush has the capability to reconsider actions and reform his plans. He has one way, balls to the wall Gung-ho. That may be great for some things, but not for our current foreign affairs.


As a global leader should we take an active role helping the people of the world toward freedom?

I would say, yes in conjunction with other nations. Helping and meddling can be seen as one in the same depending on how it's handled.

The sad part is that our president seems to have lost credibility.
yes we should take an active role in helping people towards freedom, but there should be a limit as to the "help" we use...

[Steve]

So, which should it be? Overall total vote count or the majority popular vote? Because in either case, we all saw how they can be circumvented. :mad:

Circumvented? Huh? Oh yeah, Bush "stole" the election from Gore. :rolleyes:

How should it be? Niether of the ways in your quote above. It should be like the Constitution says. The U.S. does not have, nor has it ever had, one presidential election. Right now, by the Constitution, it has 51 separate elections. Adding up all votes nationwide is simply something done by the press for interest. It carries NO weight whatsoever. "Winning" the national vote count is meaningless per our Constitution.

[SUPERGILDO43]

our system is actually a republic...

theres a more technical name that I forget, maybe its democratic republic or something like that...

[Steve]

our system is actually a republic...

theres a more technical name that I forget, maybe its democratic republic or something like that...

It's a Constitutional Representative Republic.

[SUPERGILDO43]

Circumvented? Huh? Oh yeah, Bush "stole" the election from Gore. :rolleyes:


well I think thats a whole different can of worms with many underlying topics that is not prudent to bring up because it doesnt change sh*t. but I think theres no perfect "system" electoral college isnt perfect, but IMO its pretty good...

[SUPERGILDO43]

It's a Constitutional Representative Republic.

dosent ring a bell but youre a smart guy so Ill take your word for it...

actually contitutional republic sounds like what I used to know...

[Gags]

Had to step out for a bit. A few things about current dictatorships. How about planning to get rid of 93 U.S. attorneys and reappointing replacements without Congressional approval? Opps, I'm sorry, that was what was about to happen here in the U.S.. I give Gonzalez about 24 hours before he resigns and the whole mess gets swept under while we hear about Anna Nicole Smith or Brittney, choose whatever flavor works. :rolleyes:

Ironic. I personally can't remember a time where our credibility as a Nation seemed so low. Some bad choices made by our current administration have had significant consequences which I think can be related to global unrest and move toward extremism.

When the "greatest" Country in the world starts getting into trouble for torture, lying in order to have a war, secret prisons, corrupt politics, the patriot act abuses and so on it gives other leaders a green light to pursue even more extreme measures in governing...It's hard for us to critisize others for what we do ourselves.

[scottycards]

It's a Constitutional Representative Republic.

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...

...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...

...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Steve]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

I'm gonna have to think about that one for a while; those words don't go together in my brain. :silly:

[SUPERGILDO43]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...

...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...

...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!


NNNII!!!!

[scottycards]

I'm gonna have to think about that one for a while; those words don't go together in my brain. :silly:

From my favorite movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"Bloody Peasant!" It's one of the funniest scenes ever.:D

[TheCopperCowboy]

Gags, I agree. Who was that famous person who coined the phase, "a house divided amongst itself cannot stand"? I'm just as tired as anybody else who doesn't consider healthy debate a good thing. Just like a business meeting when input is valued quite simply because, we, as humans, can not cover all bases and offer compromise in order to come to agreement. It is a very well designed plan, if you're into throwing sand at each other at the playground. Soon enough, the wheels will fall off, truth be told, but as strong as some of you are in your convictions, nothing will change. :rant:

[Machete]

The bloody peasants keep electing populist leaders that turn around to be dictators. Which is why I think building a country up economically first is more important than having "democracy." Especially when by our own country's standards, direct democracy isn't the best system.


I'm trying to stay on track. :p

[lilgreenjeepyj]

As a global leader should we take an active role helping the people of the world toward freedom?




Very interesting question.... Should others fight for their own freedoms, or should "Free" powers step in ? Spread "democracy" or let them live with what THEY choose?

We are already very guilty of "forcing" our culture on the world, should we also force our style of government?

[Yota]

What's neat is how Bush wants to go around spreading democracy when we don't even have direct democracy here. Electoral College, yes?
Sometimes the whole democracy thing elects people like Hugo Chavez who are not so great.
Methinks sometimes building economicaly and having a strong middle class of people first is more important than just having some elections and saying "Yea Democracy!"

Really?

The two democracies Bush has directly helped create have chosen to become democratic republics under the multiparty parliamentary system, not "direct democracies." :shrug:

It's pretty widely accepted now as it was in 1787 that direct democracy would be a complete cluster.

[Yota]

Had to step out for a bit. A few things about current dictatorships. How about planning to get rid of 93 U.S. attorneys and reappointing replacements without Congressional approval? Opps, I'm sorry, that was what was about to happen here in the U.S.. I give Gonzalez about 24 hours before he resigns and the whole mess gets swept under while we hear about Anna Nicole Smith or Brittney, choose whatever flavor works. :rolleyes:

:lmao:

Are you really comparing the firing of 8 US attorneys, which is 100% legal and done with much precedence, to a dictatorship? Only a dyed-in-the-wool Bush hater would honestly make that case.

OK so Clinton can fire all 93 US attorneys but Bush can't fire 8? That makes a helluva lot of sense.

Bottom line: those attorneys work for the President, not the Senate.

I still haven't heard what these "mistakes" were.

I am really beginning to wonder if some of you even understand what a dictatorship really is. I mean truly if you're making this comparison you must not. :shrug:

[TheCopperCowboy]

:lmao:

Are you really comparing the firing of 8 US attorneys, which is 100% legal and done with much precedence, to a dictatorship? Only a dyed-in-the-wool Bush hater would honestly make that case.

OK so Clinton can fire all 93 US attorneys but Bush can't fire 8? That makes a helluva lot of sense.

Bottom line: those attorneys work for the President, not the Senate.

I still haven't heard what these "mistakes" were.

I am really beginning to wonder if some of you even understand what a dictatorship really is. I mean truly if you're making this comparison you must not. :shrug:

I'll keep you posted in a separate thread, but you know the "hows" and the "whys". The blood is in the water. This thread was about dictatorships and that was an example of such. :flipoff2:

[Machete]

My point is that having elections often doesn't solve much. There are other things that should be done.

[Yota]

Gags, I agree. Who was that famous person who coined the phase, "a house divided amongst itself cannot stand"? I'm just as tired as anybody else who doesn't consider healthy debate a good thing. Just like a business meeting when input is valued quite simply because, we, as humans, can not cover all bases and offer compromise in order to come to agreement. It is a very well designed plan, if you're into throwing sand at each other at the playground. Soon enough, the wheels will fall off, truth be told, but as strong as some of you are in your convictions, nothing will change. :rant:

Huh?

You will never ever get consensus on any political topic unless you want a dictatorship. And then the consensus is forced through fear (see N. Korea, Saddam's Iraq, the USSR, etc). We have a system to make sure no one gets too much power and it has worked pretty well for 220 years (except for that little Civil War, but the Constitution survived that too).

You and Gags are trying to make the case that the US is morally equivalent to a dictatorship. We have problems but that does not come close to putting us on the same moral plane as that.

[bsaunder]

Not new but nonetheless contemptible. Or at least very sad.

no argument there - on that note, with a bit of a side tangent; I really wish that S. American history was taught more in our schools. Incan, Mayan, etc is somewhat taught as well as the Spanish colonizing (at least it was to me), but not much between then and now. In college I took several classes under the title of "Political Economy of S. America" - and was amazed to learn a lot of the history that wasn't taught to me earlier. (and no, this wasn't a liberal arts, biased teacher, class; it was a numbers based economy class with political background to facilitate knowledge of how to deal more easily with the countries/regions).
The dictators throughout the region have been very ruthless and in many cases would make the current "human rights" cases (Dufar, etc) pale in comparison. They wholesale slaughtered huge parts of the population either outright or by starving/depriving them of their ability to provide basic necessities. The good/bad of it is most if not all of the rulers have been fairly easily swayed by outside influence/$$ - and we and many other nations have been quite happy to use that to our advantage. For just one example, look at Pinochette in Chile - we made many lucrative deals with him and were able to sway his "ruling" with $$, due to his corruption, many US companies were able to talk him into business deals that were extremely beneficial to them as long as he was able to collect $$ on it. The fact that huge portions of the population disappeared during his rule however, never really made the public radar though until fairly recently - and even at that I doubt many people really know who he was.

(yes, I know Chile is specifically in Latin America, however the example applies to most regions south of the US with in the Americas).

[TheCopperCowboy]

Correct, and with that said, nor should we expect other countries to model their government after ours. They have elected leaders, they can sustain the populations, and if the people within their countries do not agree, they can quite simply leave. I do not find South America in dire straights as other countries may be such as, oh I don't know, Dafur for example. Because you, as an American, do not approve that a leader from another country feels that America has ignored them and doesn't fairly trade with such, how should that affect you or us? What exactly do we need from a country that is just now catching up with the times unless, perhaps, they are a threat to us? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. :cool:

[bsaunder]

The bloody peasants keep electing populist leaders that turn around to be dictators. Which is why I think building a country up economically first is more important than having "democracy." Especially when by our own country's standards, direct democracy isn't the best system.


I'm trying to stay on track. :p

So, to use my example from above - you'd support what Pinochet did? He did wonders for the Chilean economy. :stirpot:

[Yota]

Ben, well said as usual.

That is what is so insidious about dictatorships like that. They stop all dissent in short order. Once that is done the outside world has little clue about what the dictators must do to keep their people in line. But it always involves fear, coercion, prison and usually torture and murder.

The same things have happened repeatedly across the globe. The Chinese Communists were and still are violating human rights on an epic scale. Yet people are satisfied with hammering the American president about his flaws. There is no sense of scale or overall morality in most of these criticisms.

[TheCopperCowboy]

Allow me to inject some facts and toss the heartfelt passions aside. :D

http://www.creators.com/opinion/oliver-north.html?columnsName=ono

Latin Liberty
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Oil-rich Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez has pulled out all the stops to protest the man he calls "the devil." Well-organized anti-American crowds are dogging President Bush at every stop during his weeklong swing through Latin America. What Chavez and his Latin-leftist allies don't realize is that rioting radicals clashing with security forces are nothing compared to what Bush left behind. He picked a good time to get out of town.

Here in Washington the weather is cold and the politics are even colder. The administration is being beaten like a rented mule over the deplorable conditions in which wounded warriors were warehoused at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Democrat detractors and their pliant pals in the press, outraged over the "surge" in Iraq, have been pelting the president like a pinata. Condoleezza Rice's most recent effort to launch an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference has crashed, and only 32 percent approve of the job Bush is doing, according to the latest Gallup numbers. Masters of the media are crowing that I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, has been convicted and the veep has a blood clot in his leg.

Sure sounds like a good time for Bush to head south. Officially, the White House says that the purpose of the president's trip to Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Guatemala and Mexico ? his longest to the region ? is to "underscore the commitment of the United States to the Western Hemisphere and ? highlight our common agenda to advance freedom, prosperity, and social justice and deliver the benefits of democracy in the areas of health, education, and economic opportunity." Those are certainly good reasons for our head of state to visit our southern neighbors. The only question: Is it too little, too late?

Last month Bush proclaimed 2007 the "year of engagement" with Latin America. And last week, before departing for the region he told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "the fact is that tens of millions of our brothers and sisters to the south have seen little improvement in their daily lives?and this has led some to question the value of democracy." All true ? but there's more to it than that.

The president's critics ? like the Los Angeles Times ? claim that the administration's "fixation on Iraq and the Middle East has left Latin America, once the focus of Cold War conflicts, largely ignored, except for U.S. insistence on aggressive drug-interdiction and free-trade policies." Yet, to a large extent Latin America's economic stagnation and disaffection with democracy began more than a decade ago.

From 1981-1989, President Ronald Reagan waged an unrelenting, eight-year campaign of democratic transition in our Southern hemisphere.
Despite hostility in Congress and the press, he engaged every department and agency of our government in the effort, and his determination paid off. Democratic elections swept aside despots of the right and left from Central America to Tierra del Fuego, and by 1991 Cuba was the only dictatorship remaining on our side of the world. The flood of humanity seeking political freedom and economic opportunity across our southern borders slowed to a trickle. And then, so did American attention.

By 1994 ? the year Hugo Chavez got out of jail for his role in a failed coup attempt ? U.S. focus on Latin America was practically non-existent. Diminished international aid, decreased U.S. military presence, reduced attention on building democratic institutions and cuts in economic re-vitalization projects had become commonplace throughout the region. When Chavez won election in 1998, with fewer than 36 percent of the electorate bothering to cast a ballot, there were no alarms sounded in Washington's corridors of power, nor have there been many since.

Regrettably, Clinton-era policies toward the region have been altered little in the last six years, despite growing anti-American sentiment, increasing economic disruption and clear evidence that China, Russia and Iran have been moving to fill the void left by U.S. inattention. "The rise of leaders like Hugo Chavez in Caracas, Evo Morales in La Paz and the return of Daniel Ortega to Managua are the consequence of a belief in Washington that you can wash your hands of us once we hold an election. That's either arrogance, ignorance or both," an embittered Nicaraguan told me last week.

He has a point. Chavez and Morales were both elected, and both now rule by decree. Ortega's return to power was the consequence of our State Department's fatally flawed attempt to create a new political party in Nicaragua ? a trick the U.S. government has never been able to pull off in any country.

Whether Bush can reverse the anti-democracy, anti-free enterprise trend in Latin America remains to be seen, but it's worth the effort. Even his opponents in Congress should hope that he succeeds in convincing the leaders he visits that we want individual liberty and economic opportunity to succeed in their countries. If it doesn't, we won't be able to build a fence high enough or long enough to keep out those who will walk here seeking what they cannot find at home.

Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on the FOX News Channel. To find out more about Oliver North, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC



Originally Published on Friday March 09, 2007

[Yota]

Correct, and with that said, nor should we expect other countries to model their government after ours. They have elected leaders, they can sustain the populations, and if the people within their countries do not agree, they can quite simply leave. I do not find South America in dire straights as other countries may be such as, oh I don't know, Dafur for example. Because you, as an American, do not approve that a leader from another country feels that America has ignored them and doesn't fairly trade with such, how should that affect you or us? What exactly do we need from a country that is just now catching up with the times unless, perhaps, they are a threat to us? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. :cool:

What is your point? That we shouldn't go to war with Venezuela because it's not as bad as Darfur? OK. Granted. But that was never the point.

And what the hell is the UN doing in Darfur? That is precisely what the UN is for. In any case, I bet if you asked 100 average Americans which is worse: Darfur or N. Korea 98 of them would say Darfur because they heard Clooney hooting and hollering about it. But the people of N. Korea have had it far worse than Darfur for far longer. But no one knows that because do-gooders like Clooney, Amnesty and even the UN itself aren't allowed into N. Korea.

Venezuela definitely isn't as bad as, say, N. Korea today. But "We're not as bad as the DPRK" isn't exactly setting the bar very high.

The whole point of this thread is that the trend in much of S. America is away from the democratic reforms that so many people died for over the past 3 decades and toward their dictatorial past. This is leading them down the same road as N. Korea so it's a trend that we should provide a counterpoint to.

I guess you're just cool with dictators? I don't know. Do things have to become as bad as Darfur or . Korea before you'll recognize it as a problem?

[TheCopperCowboy]

No, I just have a problem with 1 "dictator", but he'll be gone in '08. :D So, as they were throwing roses at Bush's feet down there in South America, another perfect opportunity arose and was missed. Something about Iran and Syria having a meeting or summit or something along those lines. See what ignorance breeds? And everybody wonders why as the train leaves the station. :rolleyes:

[Steve]

No, I just have a problem with 1 "dictator", but he'll be gone in '08. :D

Wow. Just wow. :rolleyes:

[Yota]

No, I just have a problem with 1 "dictator", but he'll be gone in '08. :D So, as they were throwing roses at Bush's feet down there in South America, another perfect opportunity arose and was missed. Something about Iran and Syria having a meeting or summit or something along those lines. See what ignorance breeds? And everybody wonders why as the train leaves the station. :rolleyes:

OK, if you want to be childish, why not start by reading the dictionary.

Main Entry: dic?ta?tor http://209.161.33.50/images/audio.gif (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/dictator) Pronunciation: \ˈdik-ˌtā-tər, dik-ˈ\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, from dictare Date: 14th century 1 a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b: one holding complete autocratic control c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
2: one that dictates

You hate George W. Bush. I get that. But hating Bush is not a valid argument.

Let's keep this thread in the realm of rationality, OK?

[TheCopperCowboy]

Wow. Just wow. :rolleyes:

You know, I do so because I can and it is a two way street. God! I love this country! :thumbsup:

[Yota]

So, as they were throwing roses at Bush's feet down there in South America, another perfect opportunity arose and was missed. Something about Iran and Syria having a meeting or summit or something along those lines. See what ignorance breeds? And everybody wonders why as the train leaves the station. :rolleyes:

We've had countless "summits" about Iran's nuke program and they've all gone nowhere. If Iran wants to allow inspections to prove they aren't working on a bomb, they can do so at any time. No "summit" needed.

We've said everything we need to say to Iran and Syria - at least on the topic of nukes.

And now today the Perm 5 came up with a sanction package for Iran which will not work. Ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran's nuke program is a missile or 10.

[Yota]

You know, I do so because I can and it is a two way street. God! I love this country! :thumbsup:

Weak.

[TheCopperCowboy]

OK, if you want to be childish, why not start by reading the dictionary.



You hate George W. Bush. I get that. But hating Bush is not a valid argument.

Let's keep this thread in the realm of rationality, OK?

How about using a more PC word such as "dislike". Myself and almost 70% of like-minded Americans "dislike" Bush and the job he is doing either directly or indirectly. Anything that has occured on his "watch" is his responsibility without any excuses. It is a big job to be the President of the largest, free nation in the world and if a department head of his or a chosen member of his cabinet makes a mistake, it falls squarely a Bush's head weather he / you likes it or not. Quit making excuses for the least popular U.S. President in our history and start accepting some of the responsibility for it yourself. South America? Who gives a shat? Pull together the citizens of this country, quit putting up restrictions and underminding the working class of this country, and I'll go to bat for any party who happens to be elected by popular vote at the time. Until then, run your policies like an ass and I'll show you mine. It all comes down to a matter of time, I'll wait, but not for long. As the Dems gain more power and control, you'll scream louder and louder. Now it's your turn to get with the program or STFU! No disrespect, but quit pushing unpopular policies on educated America citizens. I think there are about 3 people on this board who will drink the kool-aid with you, but I'll have none of it. Now, I will sit back and enjoy the show. :mad:

[TheCopperCowboy]

Weak.

Seriously? Because I usually sit back and relax until someone throws out Hillary this, Pelosi that, Kerry, Kennedy, Obama, Reid, whatever. Then, and only then, I'll cock, unlock, and unload. Works everytime. :smokin: And I'm the hater? Pot meet kettle. :flipoff2:

[1BGDOG]

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm

Interesting that we are the largest trading partner with Venezula. Pretty conveneint to both sides I'd say.;)

[bsaunder]

How about using a more PC word such as "dislike". Myself and almost 70% of like-minded Americans "dislike" Bush and the job he is doing either directly or indirectly. Anything that has occured on his "watch" is his responsibility without any excuses. It is a big job to be the President of the largest, free nation in the world and if a department head of his or a chosen member of his cabinet makes a mistake, it falls squarely a Bush's head weather he / you likes it or not. Quit making excuses for the least popular U.S. President in our history and start accepting some of the responsibility for it yourself. South America? Who gives a shat? Pull together the citizens of this country, quit putting up restrictions and underminding the working class of this country, and I'll go to bat for any party who happens to be elected by popular vote at the time. Until then, run your policies like an ass and I'll show you mine. It all comes down to a matter of time, I'll wait, but not for long. As the Dems gain more power and control, you'll scream louder and louder. Now it's your turn to get with the program or STFU! No disrespect, but quit pushing unpopular policies on educated America citizens. I think there are about 3 people on this board who will drink the kool-aid with you, but I'll have none of it. Now, I will sit back and enjoy the show. :mad:

For recent history - may I suggest you do a little bit of historical reading on LBJ and Nixon, just to start.

Those that say our current president is the least liked and/or worst in our history very much are ignoring history. And you know how the saying goes - If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it.

-I'm not a huge fan of President G.W. Bush either, so don't go down the kool-aid drinkers rat hole on this..

(semantic aside - we don't, and never have, elected the president by popular vote)

[Steve]

How about using a more PC word such as "dislike". Myself and almost 70% of like-minded Americans "dislike" Bush and the job he is doing either directly or indirectly.

I'm not at all thrilled by the job he's doing, but I don't either dislike or hate the man. Are you surprised by that? However, I know enough history to know that:

a. He's NOT the "least popular U.S. president in our history;" and

b. He's NOT a dictator.

The extremes of both parties (of which you appear to be one, at least from your posts here) are, IMO, doing far more damage to this country than outside interests. Not everything is black and white, but to hear the Rep and Dem parties, to watch how almost every vote in Congress goes now, and to read what you and some here (yes, on both sides) write you would think it's all good v. evil. It's not. The right solutions are usually somewhere in the middle, but way too many people now, including those running both parties, would rather spew hatred and do whatever is necessary to gain and keep power. It's nothing but sad really. :(

Now maybe you're just trolling to get a rise out of people and you don't really believe what you type, which is fine. Based on a lot of your posts I'm not guessing that's not the case. :shrug:

[Yota]

How about using a more PC word such as "dislike". Myself and almost 70% of like-minded Americans "dislike" Bush and the job he is doing either directly or indirectly. Anything that has occured on his "watch" is his responsibility without any excuses. It is a big job to be the President of the largest, free nation in the world and if a department head of his or a chosen member of his cabinet makes a mistake, it falls squarely a Bush's head weather he / you likes it or not. Quit making excuses for the least popular U.S. President in our history and start accepting some of the responsibility for it yourself. South America? Who gives a shat? Pull together the citizens of this country, quit putting up restrictions and underminding the working class of this country, and I'll go to bat for any party who happens to be elected by popular vote at the time. Until then, run your policies like an ass and I'll show you mine. It all comes down to a matter of time, I'll wait, but not for long. As the Dems gain more power and control, you'll scream louder and louder. Now it's your turn to get with the program or STFU! No disrespect, but quit pushing unpopular policies on educated America citizens. I think there are about 3 people on this board who will drink the kool-aid with you, but I'll have none of it. Now, I will sit back and enjoy the show. :mad:

So you'll admit that Hugo Chavez, elected in 1998, is Clinton's responsibility? Didn't think so.

Popularity means nothing - at least not to GW Bush as far as I can tell. Clinton and Bush 1 were highly popular while doing the wrong things and Bush is highly unpopular while doing several very necessary, albeit unpopular, things (e.g., war). Well, to be strictly correct, the war was plenty popular at the outset. Nevertheless, being president is not about being popular all the time, it's about doing the hard work that has to be done.

But popularity aside, you called Bush a dictator and now you're backtracking with a bunch of bilge about other stuff. If Bush is a dictator then every American president before or after him is a dictator too. I posted the definition for you. Go back and read it and know that George W. Bush is no more a dictator than Steve is... oh wait. :flipoff2:

I frankly don't think you have much credibility to throw the "kool-aid" epithet at me when you're the one calling a duly elected president, subject to all the checks and balances from Civics 101, a dictator. You'd make more headway if you stuck with logical arguments.

I posted this thread mostly to lament what I see as the beginning of a downfall of S. America. I don't think it's Bush's fault entirely, although I wish he'd do/done some things differently. I also don't think the rise of Hugo Chavez under Clinton is Clinton's fault. I think, as I've said, that it's the result of massive poverty and one guy's successful exploitation thereof. But I do think it is a good idea for the US to act as a counterweight to Hugo Chavez insofar as he oppresses his people.

That's some mighty logical, rational Kool-Aid right there.



.

[Machete]

Really?

The two democracies Bush has directly helped create have chosen to become democratic republics under the multiparty parliamentary system, not "direct democracies." :shrug:

It's pretty widely accepted now as it was in 1787 that direct democracy would be a complete cluster.

I didn't realy mean direct democracy as in all the people vote on everything. That's a big mess. I didn't even think of that. I just mean how we don't directly elect our president. Which is good, I like our system.
I just find a little bit of humor in wanting to spread democracy around the world when we don't really even do it that way here.

My other point is that it is important to build up the economic status of the people in order for any kind of democracy to succeed. Things like the rule of law, and human rights are important too. Just having elections doesn't guarantee any of those things.

[Yota]

Chavez is such an asshole.

Troops to Accompany Government Officials When They Take Over Oil Projects (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_oil_takeover_3)

This could turn ugly. Hopefully Chavez knows better.

Note Chavez's transformation into a uniform more befitting a dictator.

[Budman]

I wounder if the Oil companies have hired contractors for "Security" yet? I wonder if they need ony more? I have 42 days of leave saved up.